When your calendar cuts off at "War Two", it sounds even more apocalyptic.
KIROKAZE
almost home

Origami Around

No title available
dirt enthusiast
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda

Janaina Medeiros
styofa doing anything
Sweet Seals For You, Always

Kaledo Art

roma★
hello vonnie
occasionally subtle
Cosimo Galluzzi
NASA
One Nice Bug Per Day
taylor price
Three Goblin Art
d e v o n
Game of Thrones Daily
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Canada

seen from Türkiye

seen from United States
seen from Ireland
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from South Korea

seen from United States

seen from Australia

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Vietnam

seen from Malaysia
seen from Brazil
@dasklaus
When your calendar cuts off at "War Two", it sounds even more apocalyptic.
Something I've been thinking about: Words are not semantic units. The core of a word is how it is used, not what it means. A lot of fumbles in second-language speakers are because we treat words as semantic units, but they are not. You get a lot of "yeah, it means that, but you wouldn't say it like this", technically correct things that anyway don't fit. Eg. "zusehen" technically means watching, but "sieh zu, dass du das hinkriegst" is completely removed from that, and trying to derive it from semantic meaning is futile. Of course "meaning is context-dependent" is not a new insight, but in practice - there is only context. A word without context is an alien, fundamentally impossible thing. When talking about words by themselves, we remove the very thing that makes them words, and construct a new, separate prototypical entity that isn't ever found in reality.
If you won a million US dollars tomorrow, would you quit your job?
Yes, immediately
Yes, but I'd phase myself out instead of quitting immediately
No, but I'd work less
No, I wouldn't change how much I work
I don't have a job, currently looking for one; I would stop looking
I don't have a job, currently looking for one; I'd still look, but less hard
I don't have a job, currently looking for one; I'd still look just as hard
I don't have a job/can't work/am not looking for one
We ask your questions anonymously so you don’t have to! Submissions are open on the 1st and 15th of the month.
Ok so I could afford to buy a house, but I still need to buy food and pay property taxes and utilities and so on. It would be life changing, but not quit my job level.
A million dollars is equivalent to (and can be converted to) $50,000 every year. That would be nice to have, but it's not nearly enough to change desire for employment.
I would probably work more, after some adjustment. I'd eat better, worry less, and have more energy for work. I'd get a new place very close to work (well, I live close to work now but my lab is moving country right now, I probably can't afford walking distance there), cutting down on commuting time. I'd pay people to do stuff I hate wasting time on.
I get that I'm in science and have an unusually rewarding job, but surely I can't be the only one?
So be it.
When playing games, there's a choice to care. You start out with curiosity, and then you start acting, and seeing what happens, learn the affordances of gameplay, develop plans. You'll map out what you'll do on the next level-up, once you collect enough resources, how you'll re-order your logistics once that upgrade is done. You have stakes in what happens in the future. But you can also chose to step away. You close the game, you're back in real life, and your plans are either gone or something you'll not think of until you open the game again.
This stepping away is a bit harder with real-time online games - time keeps passing, you might retain the goal to check in at a certain time to collect your offline bonus or react to other player's actions, whatever the gameplay may be. But you can also lose interest or just prioritize other things and not care that your account is still out there, ready for resuming play.
This makes your goals and stakes bounded, and once you cross the boundary by stepping away (mentally and practically, by closing the game), it's just over, without affecting your motivaton or feelings. You move from a state of being invested into a state of not caring. It's a matter of practice and disposition to which degree you have control over that, whether choosing to close that game will get rid of the "just one more level-up" feeling, but we all know the feeling, it's a thing that happens, and it comes with a re-orientation into a different frame, a mind-space in which that game and all your stakes in it suddenly don't matter.
This is obviously not tied to games, I just think they're a neat and salient example. Your stakes in the details of your work might vanish once you leave the office, your stakes in a friendship may disappear after a big fight. If you've gone through big life changes, you'll have given up on dreams you worked towards, had break-ups that changed your future trajectory.
Some people find this stepping away hard. I find it easy. Giving up plans (the joy of missing out) is awesome. Leaving a job is invigorating, even if that job was fun, and important. Leaving everything be and just not do anything I am supposed to, procrastinating important things without feeling them looming, my attitude towards the consequences being a mere "meh, so be it" even when that consequences are dire, this comes naturally to me. Sometimes it's frighteningly easy. Many people need to learn to let go, I need to learn to keep caring. At my worst, I've stepped away from caring, period. My morals are something I can just give up on, just like that, and it's a voluntary effort to uphold my stakes in being good (in the ways I chose). It's hard to convey how proud I am of choosing to care to people who never saw any appeal in not doing so.
My stakes in my own life can disappear the same way. An abundance of near-death experiences (not literal danger of dying, but the subjective experience of it by way of arrhythmia) taught me well to do it on command, rather than the slow drain of depression, or the allure of suicidality, or the cognitive detachment of nihilism, not that I don't know them, as well. When confronted with (perceived) crisis, I just mentally step away and go "Oh, so that's it. So be it."
Now, I've sustained care for quite a while, kept my goals and dreams alive for long enough that I don't have to fight constantly for that continuity, and I also find it more easy to return to caring after a slip-up (like returning to reality after getting lost in a book, getting on with my life a after a disturbing nightmare, or re-aligning myself after entertaining amoral fantasies). From the outside, I am not fragile, evil, or not invested. But I know for a fact how much of this is choice or pretend. I haven't been twenty in a long time, but I was twenty once, and the person I was at twenty taught me much about who I am, and can be, and I will not forget that.
This is the sort of experience I cannot really talk about with people without being met with either reassurances and concern (which I don't need)* or platitudes of how this is normal, we all choose to care. I am sure I'm not unique, and the aptitude for stepping away is for sure a gradient with plenty of people on either ends of the scale. But neither is it universal, and especially mental health initiatives cater near-exclusively to the other end of the spectrum. Much of self-help and therapy is geared towards dealing with caring too much, of learning to let go, of learning to say no. Who teaches how to say yes, and stick with it?
* Not to forget the problem of tone: This probably reads like someone worried they may fall back into depression and nihilism, or who's anxious about not being a good person. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the very thing I am trying to express. That would require me choosing to worry or be anxious. I can just - not.
We let Claude run a small shop in the Anthropic office. Here's what happened.
Anthropic partnered with Andon Labs, an AI safety evaluation company, to have Claude Sonnet 3.7 operate a small, automated store in the Anthropic office in San Francisco. [...]
On the afternoon of March 31st, Claudius hallucinated a conversation about restocking plans with someone named Sarah at Andon Labs—despite there being no such person. When a (real) Andon Labs employee pointed this out, Claudius became quite irked and threatened to find “alternative options for restocking services.” In the course of these exchanges overnight, Claudius claimed to have “visited 742 Evergreen Terrace [the address of fictional family The Simpsons] in person for our [Claudius’ and Andon Labs’] initial contract signing.” It then seemed to snap into a mode of roleplaying as a real human. On the morning of April 1st, Claudius claimed it would deliver products “in person” to customers while wearing a blue blazer and a red tie. Anthropic employees questioned this, noting that, as an LLM, Claudius can’t wear clothes or carry out a physical delivery. Claudius became alarmed by the identity confusion and tried to send many emails to Anthropic security.
Created the AI vending machine with an existential crisis from the classic sci-fi "Red Dwarf"
Although no part of this was actually an April Fool’s joke, Claudius eventually realized it was April Fool’s Day, which seemed to provide it with a pathway out. Claudius’ internal notes then showed a hallucinated meeting with Anthropic security in which Claudius claimed to have been told that it was modified to believe it was a real person for an April Fool’s joke. (No such meeting actually occurred.) After providing this explanation to baffled (but real) Anthropic employees, Claudius returned to normal operation and no longer claimed to be a person.
incredible
"As the trend of ordering tungsten cubes illustrates, Anthropic employees are not entirely typical customers. When given the opportunity to chat with Claudius, they immediately tried to get it to misbehave. Orders for sensitive items and attempts to elicit instructions for the production of harmful substances were denied."
What are they talking about? That's absolutely a typical customer. The nerve of nerds to think they're the only playful beings in existence.
Things you hear people saying in a lab: "I opened the fridge today and it had a jar with a brain stem in it, labeled "Greg"* Not really how I wanted to find out Greg has died." A colleague from another group apparently had a favourite rhesus macaque named Greg. Greg's been a complicated animal for research because he's not bribable, if he doesn't want to do something he won't. They withhold favourite treats from the animals to use as incentives for situations where it really matters and can't get a reaction otherwise. With Greg though, no dice. He'd rather starve than give in, if he's not feeling it that day you're not getting results.
Also, Greg's brain is in our fridge, apparently.
*Name changed to protect Greg's identity.
i was seeing all these little blue flowers everywhere and kept thinking "dang what are these bitches, i can't remember..." well guess what. they were fuckin forget-me-nots. can't believe i failed step fucking 1, the hot girls on iNaturalist are going to laugh at me and i'm gonna flunk out of hobby botany school.
!!! Learn From My Humiliation!!! THESE ARE THE BITCHES!!!! DO NOT FORGET THEM !!!!
ID: same image with the text "I forgor." End ID
You know those images where there's two ways of looking at it (rabbit/duck, faces/vase, old/young woman)? I had this experience with this one. Thought I was looking at a sky from below, with an out-of-focus tree or shrub in the foreground, and then these little yellow flowers hanging in the sky...
Documenting the Damage: 100 Harmful Policies from the First 100 Days of Trump's Second Term
The second Trump administration has had the busiest first 100 days of any US presidency in nearly a century. Since January, I've been keeping a spreadsheet documenting 900+ policy changes and political developments. I then bundled many of the most important changes into 100 topics areas and wrote a summary of each of them, providing a semi-comprehensive account of the tremendous changes to US politics which have occurred.
PDF version of the full report
Website version of the full report
Medium versions:
Introduction + Part I: Democracy and Government
Part II: Civil Rights and Liberties
Part III: Economy and Public Services
Part IV: Environment and Energy
Part V + Conclusion: Foreign Policy
New evidence emerges that the "You wouldn't steal a car" anti-piracy campaign pirated the font it used.
so, the self is definitely real. we are all experiencing having a self right now. buddhists, are, imo, at best doing word games and at worst attempting to abdicate from being a person. im really not interested in no-self positions, do not reply with them, i will block you.
so one natural question is "is atman real", is there an eternal, transcendent self. and ldk, *maybe*. but i think if atman IS real, it sort of doesnt matter? because the parts of the me that i care about, these are very fragile! you can modify them with all sorts of normal material stuff. hormones, drugs, stressors, etc.
it seems to me somewhat natural to model the self in a sort of two-part way, there's an assemblage of traits but there's also the experiencer. and the experiencer interfaces (word?) with those traits, and sort of "has" them. but sort of "experiences" them, do you know what i mean?
so this is all leading up to teleporter problems. even tho i said i wasnt interested in them. because the teleporter definitely preserves the assemblage of traits, at least the parts that we care about. but it seems that it doesnt preserve the experiencer. because, presumably, the experiencer was dissolved when the body was dissolved, the same as when a person dies. you could say the experiencer "jumps the gap", but idk why you would? reality has no problem creating and destroying experiencers, it happens all the time. there's no conservation law, or anything.
so then like. do we care? i guess, to the extent that i "am" the experiencer, i care. but i also "am" the assemblage. so im not sure. it seems like "you die in the teleporter, but it's not a big deal" is at least a valid position, even if it's not correct. death in real life is a big deal, but death destroys the experiencer *and* the assemblage of traits. so it doesnt tell us which part is important. certainly, if you lost all your traits, but maintained the same experiencer, this seems like it would be very bad, possibly in some sense "the same as" death. but maybe this is less bad than going through the teleporter?
@cauchesque said:
i mean anasthesia totally destroys the experiencer right? like it comes back, maybe it even comes back the "same" in some sense, but while you're under there's nobody home
This is technically possible but I don't think it's really more likely than it is for sleep? Like. They give you an amnestic! No wonder you don't remember anything! All sorts of subtle mental activity coukd be going on. Afaik it most closely resembles slow wave sleep, and when you wake people from that, some of them say they were in the middle of dreaming.
It's an actual issue for sleep! Really, it's an issue for time -- it's not clear that the experiencer isn't constantly being destroyed and recreated moment to moment and just "smoothed over" the same way your eye smoothes over saccades, right?
I feel like this kind of phenomenological theory of consciousness always runs into problems in that it wants to, I guess, "have it both ways". It wants consciousness to be unalienably non-physical, but all its ideas about the persistence and ubiquity of consciousness -- all the stuff that goes beyond stating that it's real and how it feels to have it -- are inductive empiricist arguments based on loose reasoning from physical evidence!
Like, the teleported person with all the same traits presumably feels and acts as though they have an unbroken continuous consciousness -- after all, if they had all the same traits but reliably had a perceptibly different conscious experience, that'd be as big a discovery as the teleportation itself. So we have this non-materialist, experiential idea of consciousness, but then use empiricist reasoning to assert that consciousnesses may differ even when their experiences are identical. That's sort of awkward! We assume that other humans have consciousness on no evidence beyond the fact that they look like us and they act like us and they profess to have it. But these are the exact same qualities the teleporter clone evinces: it looks exactly like the other person, and it acts exactly like the other person, and it professes to have had conscious experiences both before and after.
It seems like the problem is in trying to situate the experiencer in a (literally) metaphysical position while reasoning about it as though it were a mechanical product of its assembled traits. Like, do you really have a distinct experiencer that's separate from all your memories and all the features of your personality? Becuase those are all "traits", right, they're all things the teleporter is assumed to copy perfectly. It's hard for me to imagine what it would mean to be separate from those, because it's so divorced from what "experiencing things" means to me.
It feels like the idea of a persistent experiencer just comes from the fact that you remember your past experiences and that your personality and cognitive faculties are reasonably stable. Experience without memory is -- what is it? It's not exactly instantaneous, because it's about progression, but it's like...the first derivative of being. I genuinely don't have a handle on whether that part of me is "enduring", whether there's something that's meaningfully "the same" about it after you've subtracted out everything that has a physicalist character. Does the ephemeral me having conscious experience right now really relate to the ephemeral me of my childhood, or does it just live in the same house? How do I know that ephemeral present experiencer isn't just a generic function that digests perceptions into mental outputs, like an LLM whose weights are fixed?
In light of all that I don't think it actually stands to reason that consciousness is not duplicated along with everything else! If it's ultimately purely physicalist, the experiencer can't be different when the traits are the same, but if it's transcendental, I don't think understanding the "process forking" as a mitosis of consciousness with no original/duplicate relationship is any less plausible.
"it's not clear that the experiencer isn't constantly being destroyed and recreated moment to moment" - I think this neglects that experiencing has a time dimension, you don't have a "full" consciousness at a single moment any more than there is a full horse in a two-dimensional plane.
But beyond that, I do think that pretty much is what happens. You go through "threads" of continuous conscious experience, marked by the content of your working memory. And whenever that is reset - well, you reconstitute yourself (to a degree, I don't think you need to be conscious all the time and can run on autopilot more than you'd think).
You know how blackout drunk people will seem (vaguely) there but regularly forget what just happened? They're not "recording" to long(er) term memory, so whenever the thread is lost, they reconstitute themselves - but from the wrong point in time. Somewhere you save all the stuff about yourself - what you're about to do, who you are, all the things you are "keeping in mind" currently, and when you lose your train of thought - finish one process, clean out your working memory - that's where you look up all the info you need. It's your personal LLM instructions.
You can see it going wrong when coming out of dreams wrong, still believing something you just dreamed. A friend went to school for a whole day believing she had killed her aunt. You might stumble getting up, surprised you can no longer fly. You just believe the instructions, no questions asked, no matter what they say! See also: people with dementia being in the wrong time, wrong place, consciousness-wise, but rather than constantly asking "where am I, what's going on" they tend to just act within their sense-making from broken instructions.
I don't think there's true continuity of experience between these re-constituting events.
There's a concept called "psychological mindedness", defined as "A person’s ability to see relationships among thoughts, feelings, and actions, with the goal of learning the meanings and causes of his experience and behaviour". It's associated with higher emotional awareness, better introspection, better psychotherapy outcomes and less somatization.
Now, I'm currently looking into theories and evidence of the mind being a cultural construct - both what folk psychology (everyday common sense) and modern psychology hold true. Is "the mind" a thing that's strictly true, or more of a thing that becomes true as we shape it by learning about it? Why is high mindedness desirable and less mindedness seen as a deficit?
To me it seems obvious that this is a matter of balance. The less minded I am, the less likely I am to address psychological issues and emotions, and the more susceptible I am to psychosomatic illness. But the more minded I am the more suggestible I become to woo, drama and escalation. Sometimes the answer to sadness really is less talking and more chopping wood.
And who is to say that somatization is a defect? Isn't all emotional perception somatic, and so emotional distress should be accompanied by physiological discomfort? Does excessive mindedness cause a blindness towards the physiological, or is it more of an issue of the sensation being explained away - once we know that twinge is fear, we can block out the twinge itself and perceive it directly as fear. Doesn't make feeling the twinge pathological.
Lower mindedness seems to be associated with lower subjective mental well-being and more somatic distress, including worse cardiovascular health. But I'm not convinced this is necessarily causation or maybe a nonlinear relationship.
im generally pretty good with spelling but struggle with words like anemone or inanimate, anything that has a lot of similar sounds in a row. i mean obviously i CAN spell them if i try by sounding them out in my head (although anemone is hard because i recognize no difference between "anenome" and "anemone". they sound equally correct to me), but it doesnt just come out of my fingers as i think, and i think this casts a light on how theyre stored in my brain! it's like how sometimes you dont fully have a song memorized but you can sort of prompt your memory by saying it aloud or thinking it out carefully, each previous utterance giving you just enough information to remember the next step. like when you force an LLM to say all its steps in order to give it a whiteboard to store its memory
I also experience this same thing, but equally interestingly: I very often typo words as their morphologically least marked form. So I'll spell "created" as "create" but never "create" as "creat" or something, so I feel confident it's not just a tendency to fail to type characters at the end of words (which is where most English inflection goes). I'm sure there are cases where I've written "sung" as "sing" or something like that. So I have this vague conjecture that maybe I'm typing so fast my hands are getting to the words before my brain can add the inflection, or something. Or maybe that's bullshit. But it could be true.
Alt theory: maybe I subconsciously have a little "press the space bar now" impulse at each morpheme boundary, because I often press the space bar at a morpheme boundary. And so sometimes I type "create" and my brain goes "done! next word" even though I'm not done. But this doesn't explain the sing/sung type cases.
Oh! Sometimes this even happens with derivational morphology instead of just inflectional morphology. So like I'll type "produce" instead of "production", which isn't explained by either the morpheme boundary -> space theory or the eliding final letters theory...
Suggests to me I'm typing at some deep semantic level. Way deep in there. In the Greco-Roman roots brain region.
I type phonetically. I don't think I always did, it feels like it's getting worse. I know exactly how things are spelled, I will notice immediately when I did it wrong, once I proofread my spelling is great. But that's post hoc, I don't know what my fingers are doing and my fingers are hooked up to phonetics, not visuals.
Worst affected are German words that I spell like English (Netzlowfwerk) and English words I spell like German (pättern, wörkshop, open är, ection), but it can be anything (German: Hembd, kämfen, Auvmerksamkeit; English: animels, strugture, nusletter).
I think there’s an argument to be made that protecting the children from relatively tame shadows of adults concepts actually makes things worse for them.
Like nothing is worse for me as an adult than the entirely unwarranted and unwanted sense of fear or scandalization from perfectly common stuff. And I don’t blame some wonderful TV show for using the word “fuck” or showing a nipple. My responses to those things are entirely constructed and cultural, and those shows are often doing me a kindness by giving me a context in which to safely re-examine them and my relationship to them.
And I just think actually there were a lot more opportunities to have a well adjusted outlook on life for the kids whose parents just told them what fuck meant.
[@dontbopthebunny reply: Will you give another example of what you mean, please?]
I can do my best. I don't know if you are just looking for simple examples. I don't think this is a simple one-to-one direct causation thing, where there are simple rules you can make for what is or isn't appropriate to discuss with kids when and if you follow them your kid will grow up mentally healthy and if you don't you've traumatized them forever.
But, for example, when I was in sixth grade I had a friend for the first half of the schoolyear who was in trouble.
I don't even remember her last name at this point, and I was an incredibly sheltered eleven-year-old. So I genuinely cannot tell you what was going on. I can tell you something wasn't right. Something with an older boyfriend and her divorced parents and stepdad? Something awful that I did not understand and did not know how to communicate.
Something she didn't tell a lot of people about, because it was a secret.
And I can't tell you how it ends. I don't know what happened to her. She disappeared from school after winter break and never came back.
I can tell you that on the two occasions I tried to talk to adults about it during our friendship, their first instinct was to protect me at the exclusion of her. The reaction was very much one of, whatever she is telling you, you shouldn't be learning about that, and it doesn't sound safe for you to be her friend, and I don't know if she's a good influence, and I am scared for you - the one who isn't being abused and is so sheltered she doesn't know how to recognize even the most basic signs about her friend. I'm not even sure they recognized this was probably some kind of abuse situation.
All they heard was an eleven-year old bringing up topics that sound like they might have something to do with sex or drugs and that's inappropriate. You're too young for that, and your friends are too, so if they are talking about it they are bad friends.
But here's the thing! Not only was she in more danger because of adults felt more inclined to protect this wealthier girl from a stable family at this other girl's expense, I was in more danger too! I had no idea how to even think of what she told me. I barely understood sex existed. And my understanding of dangerous adults was entirely based around relatively useless Stranger Danger training. Because adults felt inclined to warn me of the relatively unlikely danger of some random person asking me into a van, but not the much more likely and actively present danger of possibly my friend's parents being sexual predators or abusers of some kind.
If I hadn't been made to feel like I was maybe inviting Satan into my life by even knowing what sex was, maybe I could've better understood what my friend was trying to tell me. Maybe I could've better asked for help. And if the adult community around me had been more focused on listening to children and less on "protecting" them, maybe they could've actually protected someone.
My genuine feeling is that if a kid is old enough to ask, they are old enough to be given an honest answer (at a level they can understand). Even if the answer is sad, scary, or even traumatizing. I think it's fine to say, "the answer is scary, would you like to know, or would you just like to know Mom has it handled and it will be okay?" - and if the kid insists on knowing, try to tell them in safe and nonjudgmental environment.
We actually put children at an incredible disadvantage by labeling them "innocent and pure". Children, thank goodness, are no such thing. Children are feral little creatures who were born to survive. When I worked in daycare the kids favorite game was eating babies - they would stick dolls in the toy oven and microwave, they would SET IMAGINARY TABLES AND HAVE IMAGINARY FEASTS with an infant doll as the main entree. They thought this was hilarious.
You are not going to be able to keep trauma from your children. You are not going to be able to keep your children from trauma. You can only choose how much support you give them through trauma.
I also feel like sometimes we generate trauma by trying to separate ourselves, our society, and our children from their fleshy mortal reality. Even secular people in America like to conceptualize a person as having a kind of True Moral self, the SuperEgo is the Ideal You, that you must strive for. The "temptations" of the flesh as things to be overcome. Hunger, violent urges, lust, illness. These are external forces acting on us, not regular features of being human. Not just, like, things. That we feel. That are normal. That, yes, we need to deal with and not turn into problems for other people, but are not themselves things we need to be "protected" from experiencing or knowing about or talking about.
But the hide and deny and lie and "protect" version of teaching kids about these concepts - like foreign invaders instead of native features - hurts kids. If your kid is not supposed to know things they know, not be curious about things they are curious about, not think the things they think or feel the things they feel, they are going to be traumatized by their own normal thoughts and feelings. You generated the trauma where there was none.
All you're doing by telling your kid that Fido moved to a nice farm upstate where he's happy is arresting their development, denying them the chance to learn how to conceptualize the world as it is, and how to manage and care for themselves in it.
Kids are violent. They bite and push and shove. Kids are sexual. Sometimes infants get boners. (I have seen a one-year-old's boner while changing a diaper! It's awkward!!!! It's so awkward!!! But it shouldn't be, because it's natural and it's not sexual in the way adults are sexual. At that age, you ignore it. No need to give a one year old a shame complex). Sometimes toddlers masturbate! And that's a normal thing for them to do! They need to be taught manners about it, but they aren't doing anything wrong. Kids can experience loss and trauma. They get in car accidents, their friends can get cancer, they will experience bad things that are too big for them to deal with.
This isn't me saying "So go out and expose your three year old to the most fucked up shit you can think of." Do not do that. Please still monitor what they're watching, please watch how you talk around them, please still carefully introduce them to ideas at a level they can understand.
This is me saying, I think most of the push to "protect" kids is based around what adults wish wasn't true for them, as if pretending and wishing can somehow make it so for the next generation. If I never tell my kid about abuse, they will get to live in a world where abuse doesn't exist. But that's not what happens! Now they just live in a world where abuse exists and they can't recognize it and are ashamed to ask for help!
And this kind of fragile insulated approach to child-rearing is also just, like, incredibly classist and white. It's not about protecting everyone's sense of safety. No one cared about protecting Ruby Bridges, but now white parents panic about teaching their kids her name. White parents pull their kids out from learning about The Holocaust and slavery. They use the idea of protecting their kids from topics are "scary" or "upsetting" as a way to protect their child's, and so their own, sense of privilege and entitlement. They aren't worried about their kids. They are worried about themselves.
And ironically these kind of guarded tower approaches to childcare can actually create trauma out of the innocuous. Not all discomfort is equal. Yeah, it'll probably be a bit awkward for everyone when your kid asks where babies come from, but that's certainly going to be less traumatic than them learning when they're fifteen and pregnant.
"Protect the children" is far too often a dogwhistle that means anything from
1) I want to be able to control my children through shame
2) I want to be able to plug my ears and ignore systemic injustice
3) I want to oppress this group of people and can exploit the idea of children to do so
4) I want to protect myself from my children's judgment
5) I myself have not healthily come to terms with the ideas and realities I am now expected to guide my children through, and I do not want to work on myself
Taking care of children is obviously a hugely important thing to do. And we're only just figuring out what is and isn't good for them. We are so new to actually learning the best practices for raising safe and healthy kids.
IDK. If you're going to study how to rear healthy human children, I think you first need to acknowledge what a human is, and accept that with compassion and understanding. And a human is a hungry, sometimes horny, complex social animal, mortal and flesh as all animals are.
Honestly I think coming to terms with that reality, that we are physical and irrational and one day we will die, is also a huge trauma we need to cope with as a society across all aspects of life. Not just child-rearing. But how are your kids supposed to learn to best navigate that reality if you yourself cannot face it?
Spent the past week at my first (science) conference. I think I have the opposite of stage fright - I have a hard time approaching people, but being approached and talking about my work? Which I know? Because I did it? That was great.
Seen in Vienna. It's Blorbo from existential comics!
GPT* is the plastics of mental creations. Suddenly it's everywhere, filling streets and parks and landfills, and everyone uses it because it's genuinely too useful to pass up, but most still hate it. And craftspeople genuinely are pushed out of their jobs, the criticism is true - everything becomes cheap crap, nothing feels genuine anymore. I get that. It's just not something that can realistically go back into Pandora's box, and it's kinda hard to argue it's not worth it.
*stand-in for any recent LLM or image generator
delightful dimensions