I am reminded of a skit done by a UK comedian - about health and safety for kids specifically - he starts by acknowledging that some kids need them as they are default reckless and cannot recognise danger, and all notices are calibrated to them. But he was a nervous child, and needed to be told the opposite - it will probably be alright,…
I am reminded of a skit done by a UK comedian - about health and safety for kids specifically - he starts by acknowledging that some kids need them as they are default reckless and cannot recognise danger, and all notices are calibrated to them. But he was a nervous child, and needed to be told the opposite - it will probably be alright, the world will not end.
This seems similar - some kids need to be told to "buck up" and grow thicker skin. Some need to be told it is not their fault and it will be ok. Some respond to being told no, some respond to having it explained why they cannot do something.
The trick is working out which is which.
Current culture went from "buck up" to "nothing is your fault" for everyone without any calibration for which of the above types they were. this was done as many people, often marginalised, were suffering under the "buck up" regime.
Some people did better in this new regime and some did worse. This is a book about those doing worse, which fails to acknowledge those doing better.
Now it may be that overall society is better or worse for this change, but unless we get better at tailoring solutions to individual types we will cause problems as well as solve them
That's a good way of putting it. And I worry that you've identified a meta-problem. We're great at optimizing, and optimizing at scale. So when we find something that appears to work we go all in on it. (A phenomenon I touched on here: https://www.wearenotsaved.com/p/eschatologist-3-turning-the-knobs-of-society)
We decided that therapy was good and suddenly it's ubiquitous, and as you say it hardly matters whether the child in question is reckless or timid. When things were less scaled up, and less ubiquitous parents had greater latitude and greater responsibility to do this sort of thing. And they could probably tailor the warnings and the like with more finesse.
The problem is, that when you get a kid that really does need dedicated professional help and special techniques (EMDR, CBT) a parent is not as good. So you get a situation where for the average child things probably got worse, and for the children who were really bad off things got better.
I am reminded of a skit done by a UK comedian - about health and safety for kids specifically - he starts by acknowledging that some kids need them as they are default reckless and cannot recognise danger, and all notices are calibrated to them. But he was a nervous child, and needed to be told the opposite - it will probably be alright, the world will not end.
This seems similar - some kids need to be told to "buck up" and grow thicker skin. Some need to be told it is not their fault and it will be ok. Some respond to being told no, some respond to having it explained why they cannot do something.
The trick is working out which is which.
Current culture went from "buck up" to "nothing is your fault" for everyone without any calibration for which of the above types they were. this was done as many people, often marginalised, were suffering under the "buck up" regime.
Some people did better in this new regime and some did worse. This is a book about those doing worse, which fails to acknowledge those doing better.
Now it may be that overall society is better or worse for this change, but unless we get better at tailoring solutions to individual types we will cause problems as well as solve them
That's a good way of putting it. And I worry that you've identified a meta-problem. We're great at optimizing, and optimizing at scale. So when we find something that appears to work we go all in on it. (A phenomenon I touched on here: https://www.wearenotsaved.com/p/eschatologist-3-turning-the-knobs-of-society)
We decided that therapy was good and suddenly it's ubiquitous, and as you say it hardly matters whether the child in question is reckless or timid. When things were less scaled up, and less ubiquitous parents had greater latitude and greater responsibility to do this sort of thing. And they could probably tailor the warnings and the like with more finesse.
The problem is, that when you get a kid that really does need dedicated professional help and special techniques (EMDR, CBT) a parent is not as good. So you get a situation where for the average child things probably got worse, and for the children who were really bad off things got better.
The UK comedian in question is David Mitchell, being characteristically brilliant.