A Young Alex Lifeson and His Parents Clash Over His Future

[Elliot Temple]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7zLCw5xy_w

some good comments in here. like he criticizes parents for focusing on if kid turns out how parent thinks is good, not how kid himself/herself wants to turn out.

-- Elliot Temple
http://elliottemple.com/

[Jason]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7zLCw5xy_w
>
> some good comments in here. like he criticizes parents for focusing on if kid turns out how parent thinks is good, not how kid himself/herself wants to turn out.

The *kind* of conversation in this video is so common that it's cliche.

Parental disapproval of a music career is itself stereotypical, but I
had eerily similar discussions with my parents about "piddling around
with computers". That seems completely laughable now, almost like
criticizing your teen for wanting to be an accountant, but at the time
I was a teenager computers were considered toys by many people
including my parents.

This relates to the thread about building sanctuaries for the best of
the human species. Here's a great example of someone who built his own
sanctuary. He didn't need his parents or anyone else to build it for
him or approve of what he was doing. What his parents said they wanted
for his life didn't stop him from doing what he himself wanted to do.
Which is ultimately the right outcome.

These type of conversations serve mainly to solidify the thinking and
resolve of people who know what kind of life they want. The parental
attitude in this video only deters people who are "sorta-sure", don't
have good reasons for what they want to do, haven't thought things
through enough, are picking a life they think will look cool to their
friends, etc.

The kind of criticism from the parents in this video is definitely not
the most ideal form of criticism that a parent could give their teen.
It's far too assumptive of the past being like the future, and
parent's values being kid's values, and what was needed for a good
life when the parent was young being the same thing as a good life
now.

But it's better than the parent giving no criticism at all, or parent
acting like it doesn't matter / there's no difference between the kid
having an objectively good life and an objectively bad life.

--Jason

[Elliot Temple]

On Mar 18, 2014, at 6:35 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7zLCw5xy_w
>>
>> some good comments in here. like he criticizes parents for focusing on if kid turns out how parent thinks is good, not how kid himself/herself wants to turn out.
>
> The *kind* of conversation in this video is so common that it's cliche.
>
> Parental disapproval of a music career is itself stereotypical, but I
> had eerily similar discussions with my parents about "piddling around
> with computers". That seems completely laughable now, almost like
> criticizing your teen for wanting to be an accountant, but at the time
> I was a teenager computers were considered toys by many people
> including my parents.
>
> This relates to the thread about building sanctuaries for the best of
> the human species. Here's a great example of someone who built his own
> sanctuary. He didn't need his parents or anyone else to build it for
> him or approve of what he was doing. What his parents said they wanted
> for his life didn't stop him from doing what he himself wanted to do.
> Which is ultimately the right outcome.
>
> These type of conversations serve mainly to solidify the thinking and
> resolve of people who know what kind of life they want. The parental
> attitude in this video only deters people who are "sorta-sure",

so it takes like Roark or Galt to be safe from parents :/

but also, when parents push about this kind of stuff, and one has to have a strong opinion to resist that pushing, then the result is it's harder for kid to change his mind later.

also some people who are sorta-sure pretend to be sure.

> don't
> have good reasons for what they want to do, haven't thought things
> through enough, are picking a life they think will look cool to their
> friends, etc.
>
> The kind of criticism from the parents in this video is definitely not
> the most ideal form of criticism that a parent could give their teen.
> It's far too assumptive of the past being like the future, and
> parent's values being kid's values, and what was needed for a good
> life when the parent was young being the same thing as a good life
> now.
>
> But it's better than the parent giving no criticism at all, or parent
> acting like it doesn't matter / there's no difference between the kid
> having an objectively good life and an objectively bad life.

how does parent trying to push a conventional life on kid help kid more than parental inaction would? you're saying it has positive, not negative, value (on a scale where inaction is zero). but where's the value in nasty pressure?

also, i'm not sure how meaningful it is to compare which refuted ideas are better than which other refuted ideas. refuted is refuted.

[Jason]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 6:35 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7zLCw5xy_w
>>>
>>> some good comments in here. like he criticizes parents for focusing on if kid turns out how parent thinks is good, not how kid himself/herself wants to turn out.
>>
>> The *kind* of conversation in this video is so common that it's cliche.
>>
>> Parental disapproval of a music career is itself stereotypical, but I
>> had eerily similar discussions with my parents about "piddling around
>> with computers". That seems completely laughable now, almost like
>> criticizing your teen for wanting to be an accountant, but at the time
>> I was a teenager computers were considered toys by many people
>> including my parents.
>>
>> This relates to the thread about building sanctuaries for the best of
>> the human species. Here's a great example of someone who built his own
>> sanctuary. He didn't need his parents or anyone else to build it for
>> him or approve of what he was doing. What his parents said they wanted
>> for his life didn't stop him from doing what he himself wanted to do.
>> Which is ultimately the right outcome.
>>
>> These type of conversations serve mainly to solidify the thinking and
>> resolve of people who know what kind of life they want. The parental
>> attitude in this video only deters people who are "sorta-sure",
>
> so it takes like Roark or Galt to be safe from parents :/

Rand said, "Nobody builds sanctuaries for the best of the human species."

I think Roark and Galt represent the best of the human species. Rand's
right, nobody builds sanctuaries for people like them. But it doesn't
matter - they either don't need sanctuaries, or they build whatever
sanctuaries they need for themselves.

> but also, when parents push about this kind of stuff, and one has to have a strong opinion to resist that pushing, then the result is it's harder for kid to change his mind later.

Why is it harder for kid to change his mind later?

> also some people who are sorta-sure pretend to be sure.

Yes, and I think parental pressure affects them more.

>> don't
>> have good reasons for what they want to do, haven't thought things
>> through enough, are picking a life they think will look cool to their
>> friends, etc.
>>
>> The kind of criticism from the parents in this video is definitely not
>> the most ideal form of criticism that a parent could give their teen.
>> It's far too assumptive of the past being like the future, and
>> parent's values being kid's values, and what was needed for a good
>> life when the parent was young being the same thing as a good life
>> now.
>>
>> But it's better than the parent giving no criticism at all, or parent
>> acting like it doesn't matter / there's no difference between the kid
>> having an objectively good life and an objectively bad life.
>
> how does parent trying to push a conventional life on kid help kid more than parental inaction would? you're saying it has positive, not negative, value (on a scale where inaction is zero). but where's the value in nasty pressure?

Yes, I think it has positive value compared to inaction, even though
it's not the best known way to interact with your kid.

A conventionally good life is better than most of the possible
unconventional lives. An unconventional life chosen at random, or even
with some but not enough thought, is likely to be worse than a
conventional life.

So a parent pushing a conventional life on a kid who isn't sure what
kind of life he wants, is more likely to result in the kid having a
better life than just choosing something randomly or with little
thought. But the best kids, those who have thought about what kind of
life they want and are sure like Alex Lifeson, won't be deterred by
the moderate amounts of pressure depicted in the video.

> also, i'm not sure how meaningful it is to compare which refuted ideas are better than which other refuted ideas. refuted is refuted.

I don't know enough yet to agree or disagree. My intuition is that it
is meaningful to compare refuted ideas, but I don't have a coherent
argument for it yet.

I'd like to pursue the discussion of biological evolution, survival of
the fit vs. survival of the fittest, because I think it relates to
this question.

--Jason