> have high expectations of them and are gravely, mortally disappointed if they let us down
That sounds like a recipe for long-term psychological complexes. I know plenty of high-achievers that don't constantly feel like they have to prove themselves. And I wish I didn't have to work so hard to challenge that feeling in myself.
I don't know any high achievers who don't feel they have to prove themselves, so maybe I'm in the wrong cirles. It absolutely is a recipe for all kinds of long term complexes. But when you do work hard and you are satisfied with yourself, that satisfaction comes from something greater than yourself. Having no goal is worse than having an artificial one... and achieving something to make your dead parents happy is better than achieving nothing at all.
The measure of whether it was done in the proper proportion, I think, is whether you find later in life that it was, on balance, a service to you.
I'm not saying that any value judgement is a bad thing. (Although such a statement would be amusingly ironic). I'm saying that you're viewing your upbringing strictly through the lens it handed you.
As far as I can make out, your argument goes like this:
Strict parenting is good because it produces high achievers. I think achievement is good because I was conditioned to think it was good. I was conditioned to think it was good as a result of strict parenting.
Effectively: strict parenting is good because I was strictly parented.
I think achievement is good because it is objectively a good thing for humans to achieve things. The trouble here is that you're claiming that's just my subjective formatting. Do you have a definition of "good" by which achievement is NOT good?
Achievement can be good. But an upbringing which heavily idolises achievement can well be problematic, and probably isn't worth it. And your arguments to the contrary feel epistemically circular. You're using your belief that achievement is good to evaluate whether your upbringing was good, but that belief was itself installed by the upbringing, so it can't logically function as independent confirmation
But to answer your question, yes, there are serious moral frameworks in which achievement (of the sort you mean) is neutral or even undesirable. From a Buddhist or Stoic standpoint, being attached to material achievement is as a source of suffering. For hedonists, achievement is only good insofar as it produces happiness. In care ethics, relationships matter much more than accomplishment. All of which is to say that it's not a self-evident truth that achievement is inherently good.
> A cursed problem, in his definition, is an unsolvable design problem rooted in a conflict between two promises that can’t coexist. You made both promises, on purpose, and they contradict each other, and no amount of clever tuning gets you out. You can only cut through it and give something up.
> His example is a free-for-all fighting game. You promised players a test of combat skill, and you promised them a game worth winning. But the way you win a free-for-all is politics — alliances, betrayal, ganging up on the best player — so the two promises eat each other. You can’t fix it with a patch. You can only decide which promise to sacrifice.
Is anyone else confused about this? I'm not sure exactly how these promises contradict. Is the idea that politics makes a game less "worth winning"?
If you win via politics ("hey, gang up with me on X") then it's not a "test of combat skill" alone anymore. it has to move away from combat skill to also being a test of politics.
Many souls games define the opposite of this the traditional model is that an invader can attack aided by the enemies which is more dynamic but less of a pure test of skill. To get around this players made fight clubs where they let people invade them in a neutral area with no enemies, the players agree to do an honorable duel which goes against the nature of the mechanic but emphasizes skill of the individual.
Mathematics also strives for correctness before aesthetics, but is often considered an art. Programming is little different imo.
When you have scoured your deepest understanding for hours - or days - in order to rewrite a function so that it is easier to read, shorter, more correct, and a thoughtful expression of your own insights and understanding; then you will see how programming can be art.
It’s also just worse for the baby in pretty much every metric. And yes it does make it bad. That means they have to get more liquids than they normally would and get gas. Why would you put bad in quotes? Do you know understand how a food can be good or bad?
I put bad in quotes because you're claiming something is absolutely bad, but all your points are about how it is relatively worse than breast milk (which is a pretty high bar).
Studies on the long-term health impacts of breast vs formula milk are difficult to take anything away from. They're often observational rather than interventional, and it's hard to separate the type of milk from the feeding method. For example, a baby may benefit from the "skin to skin" aspect of breast feeding, but you could replicate this with a niche formula feeding method.
I don't think we really know how much worse formula is for babies than breast milk. It's probably that there's an increased risk in early infections. But in developed countries with good maternity guidance, the actual absolute risks of infections and SIDS are very low with either breast or formula.
I suspect the US allows/ignores some nuclear programs if they think it's in their geopolitical interest. India is a counter-balance to China and Russia. Pakistan is a counter-balance to India. Keeping everyone armed to the teeth and on their toes is better for the US than forming blocs.
U.S. opposed India nuclear program for many years.
"Twenty-six years after the nuclear tests at Pokhran in May 1998 led to an embargo on several Indian atomic energy companies, the US is set to lift the sanctions, opening the route for closer cooperation in the civil-nuclear sector."
One one hand, "implicit memory" [0] begins at birth and being around one's father building impressive things is a huge bonding experience. Research seems to say that even at 1yo these things imprint on our brains.
On the other hand, it shouldn't get to a point where a 1yo is crawling into freshly laid concrete. There are safer ways to do it.
The 1yo stage is surprisingly convenient for that sort of stuff. At ages 2-4 they're much more mobile and experimental and harder to watch. Then from 4 or 5 upwards they're at school a lot and starting to lose interest in what their parents want to do.
Also, the first 18 months establish a good deal of a person's attachment security, connection to parents, and emotional intelligence. The brain continues to be flexible for some time, but gradually becomes harder to rewire.
> Then from 4 or 5 upwards they're at school a lot and starting to lose interest in what their parents want to do
I had to disagree with this. Thought this might be a European experience, in the US there probably isn't a lot of time to interact with the kids during the typical work week.
I would say that interest in what we do has stayed steady if not increased after about 3 years old because now they understand more things.
At this rate I expect the "losing interest part" to start during the tween (8-12) or teenage years.
So long as it is safe, a kid even at 1 years old should be tagging along with the adults doing things. Like building, working out in the yard, helping friends with projects, whatever.
It is very settled science that brain connections happen rapidly in these years. Bubble wrapping your children is not the way to go in my opinion.
Everyone is going to have a different take on this, but for me the choice is immediately obvious. Kids should fit into your life (within reason), not have you change to revolve around theirs.
That said - I highly doubt a 1 year old did much more than watch and have short visits while being cared for by someone not doing the construction work. It’s a great bonding experience even with limited direct involvement.
A half-mobile 1 year old can be quite hard to control. There is more than enough time for them to bond during a construction project in the following as-many-years-as-they-want-to-tag-along-until-adolescence-hits-hard".
That sounds like a recipe for long-term psychological complexes. I know plenty of high-achievers that don't constantly feel like they have to prove themselves. And I wish I didn't have to work so hard to challenge that feeling in myself.
reply