cynar @ cynar @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

1,089

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's basically the goal I'm aiming for. It's also worth remembering to always give an (age appropriate) explanation with the "no". If you're using a hard no, then there is something they don't yet understand. Explaining it lets them integrate that knowledge into their future risk management.

The only downside is their confidence is high enough to terrify me! The job of containing and shaping that confidence, without damaging it gives me plenty of grey hairs.

That's why I clarified. There's 2 ways to read the phrase, one a lot harsher than the other.

It seems to be working well. It also results in me being surprised a lot of the time. I'm ready to deal with a scuffed knee, or a bruised ego. Instead they either get back up and try again, or just pull it off. At that point I need to mentally correct for their new capabilities.

The key thing is, I'm not looking after a small pet, I'm training a future adult. They need to both instinctively understand how the world works, while packing as much awesomeness and magic into the formative years as possible. Letting them learn and practice is a big part of that.

Natural consequences doesn't mean "law of the jungle" here. It just means linking cause and effect in a proportionate manner.

I tend to use a lot of "natural consequence parenting". Basically, the response should flow from the cause. If you throw water over your friend, you can't then complain if they throw water over you. You learn that, while it's fun when expected, it can be deeply unpleasant when unexpected.

It's a lot more effective than random generic punishments. The trick is shielding them from excessive results, while allowing proportional ones to play out. E.g. swinging on a chair will get a warning, but often not stopped. When they fall, there's an "I told you so" before/with the cuddle. If there is a risk of a more serious injury however, e.g. the corner of a table where their head may hit, then I step in and stop things.

As a parent, if my kid did that, I'd likely side with the neighbour. I would put it (very loosely) in the category of "natural consequence" punishments.

It fits the crime, it discourages the crime, it forces empathy with the cat, and it does no real harm.

It also hides the conditioning aspect. We hide things when we consider them negative. If they are asking, they have potentially noticed a lot more. If you hide it, you believe it was a bad thing you were doing, and they will react VERY strongly to you doing it.

By being upfront it will derail their train of thought on the matter. I personally used this a few times in my youth. It pulls the teeth of an argument quickly.

Here it is basically acknowledging what you have been doing, while defusing the various "ah ha!" reveals and got-yas they had mentally planned. At that point they have to actually think, rather than just react according to the script they built in their head. Once they are thinking, it's a lot easier to communicate properly.

Negative reinforcement should be HIGHLY limited. It can cause unforeseen knock on effects. Any negative reinforcement should be highly targeted, without triggering a fight or flight response. It should also be accompanied by clear instructions for how to correct it. This applies to both humans and pets.

It's quite likely that most of the negative traits in the OP were caused by an attempt at negative reinforcement.

People forget that humans are just animals (that can sometimes reason and talk). I still stand that dog training guides make better parenting books than many parenting books. At least up till around 3 years old.

The extension of this to adults is more challenging. Intent matters. This could be used abusively VERY easily. That is not happening here, however. With great power, comes great responsibility.

It's also worth noting that, if you use this, plan out how you will explain it later. A panicked, "oh shit, (s)he caught on!" will look bad, no matter what. A calm, thoughtful, positive explanation, delivered with confidence will likely get a lot more acceptance.

A: "Ok, what's with the M&Ms?"

B: "You've noticed then. :)"

A: "..."

B: "I noticed chocolate made you happy. I also noticed you were trying to overcome some negative habits. I decided to help. Whenever you put effort in, I rewarded it with a bit of chocolate. It makes you happy, and helps you lock a good habit in better."

A: "... You've been conditioning me?!?"

B: "Yes, don't you like the improvement?"

A "... yes, but I'm not sure I should..."

B: "M&M?"

I've noticed you can basically replace "woke" with empathy (in various forms).

I've broken a few people out of the "anti-woke" cycle by pointing this out. It tends to work best on people who would be woke themselves, if it was presented in a different light.

I've also come across these. There's a lot we don't know, all of these could be entirely wrong.

A 15' chicken with teeth would be terrifying.

Modern society is making both mild autism and ADHD more obvious. It both brings out traits associated with them, and makes it more acceptable to have them and not mask completely.

As for cancer, that's mostly an age and treatment thing. People with cancer live longer, due to treatment, so you hear far more about it. Also, if you live longer, you get cancer. Therefore an older population has more cancer cases.

My personal concern is neurological and plastics. People with degenerative neurological conditions tend to have more micro plastics in their brains. We've no idea of the long term implications of this. It could possibly be the modern equivalent of leaded petrol.

The allied forces explicitly decided not to try assassinating Hitler. They were worried someone more competent would take his place.

https://youtu.be/462KBuAhncU

A good parent often will know more about their child than the child themselves. Unfortunately, many bad parents think they know more.

It's also ages dependent. Till the late teens, children often don't have a good handle on their internal state. They can often get there by 10-12, then teenage hormones do a number on it again.

Finally, it's down to the parents to teach the child how to understand what they feel. This also requires open and honest communications. You can't help and train them to cope appropriately, without knowing what's happening. You can't know what's happening without communication.

There's definitely a difference between rural and urban requirements.

• Analogue goes further, and can tolerate more interference.
• Open channels allow others to jump on quickly. E.g. a hunter/hiker listening in, can jump in with critical information on a search and rescue.
• Lower density means less people to mess with channels, and generally better radio etiquette.
• Open radios are cheaper, and already have the required infrastructure.

Basically, it's not worth the cost/effort to upgrade. It also provides some extra benefits.

The UK won't allow them at all. Recently, someone imported one elsewhere in Europe. When they brought it to the UK, it got seized as dangerous. Even though it wasn't even UK registered. I believe several other countries view it in the same light.

I'd actually be surprised if they even fit on a lot of European roads.

True, but they weren't really used much as flying cars till later. I might be wrong on exactly when they moved from military to "rich transport to the race track", however.

We've had flying cars since the 70s, they are called helicopters.

The issue with a flying car for general use, is one of maintenance and safety. If an older car breaks down, it causes a tailback. If a flying car breaks down, it could demolish a school. The higher standards required means higher costs. That means rich people only. The rich use helicopters in exactly that manner.

This is one of the biggest frustrations with nuclear power. The first power plants had issues (mostly due to them being bomb factory designs). We learnt from that, and designed better ones. They never got built. They were swamped in red tape and delays until they died.

Decades later, China comes in and just asks nicely. The designs work fine. China now leads the way, built on research we left to rot.

It's also worth noting that there is a big difference between a fusion power plant and a fission one. China is doing active research on it, as is the west. There's quite a friendly rivalry going on. We have also basically cracked fusion now. We just need to scale it up. The only big problem left is the tokamakite issue. The neutron radiation put off by the reaction transmutes the walls. Using radioactive materials as a buffer is an idea I've not heard of. I'm curious about the end products. A big selling point of fusion is the lack of long term waste. Putting a fission reaction in there too might lose that benefit.

While they are massively more common than in other fields, they are still a tiny minority.

It's also worth noting that the toupee effect may be involved. A lot of trans people can pass, in a work environment, as their preferred gender. I know a few trans people that I would never have clocked as trans, except the info came out in discussions.