[cardcrimson]

Lex, thanks again for the info. Interesting quick read here:

https://www.thecoddling.com/chapter-1-antifragility

Love these quotes in particular:


"When heaven is about to confer a great responsibility on any man, it will exercise his mind with suffering, subject his sinews and bones to hard work, expose his body to hunger, put him to poverty, place obstacles in the paths of his deeds, so as to stimulate his mind, harden his nature, and improve wherever he is incompetent.
Meng Tzu (Mencius) fourth century BCE"


"Taleb opens the book with a poetic image that should speak to all parents. He notes that wind extinguishes a candle but energizes a fire. He advises us not to be like candles and not to turn our children into candles: “You want to be the fire and wish for the wind.”"

The foolishness of overprotection is apparent as soon as you understand the concept of antifragility. Given that risks and stressors are natural, unavoidable parts of life, parents and teachers should be helping kids develop their innate abilities to grow and learn from such experiences. There’s an old saying: “Prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child.” But these days, we seem to be doing precisely the opposite: we’re trying to clear away anything that might upset children, not realizing that in doing so, we’re repeating the peanut-allergy mistake. If we protect children from various classes of potentially upsetting experiences, we make it far more likely that those children will be unable to cope with such events when they leave our protective umbrella."

I agree that the pendulum has swung too far in the protective direction, though there is a point were some protective umbrellas are necessary, and I think a great example is laid out in the thread on Cal and McKeever. It's difficult to know where to draw the line on threats and protection, but as Potter Stewart mentioned in a different situation, "I know it when I see it". Unfortunately today, some see threats everywhere and others, like McKeever perhaps, not at all.

[cardcrimson]

Lex, thanks again for the info. Interesting quick read here:

https://www.thecoddling.com/chapter-1-antifragility

Love these quotes in particular:


"When heaven is about to confer a great responsibility on any man, it will exercise his mind with suffering, subject his sinews and bones to hard work, expose his body to hunger, put him to poverty, place obstacles in the paths of his deeds, so as to stimulate his mind, harden his nature, and improve wherever he is incompetent.
Meng Tzu (Mencius) fourth century BCE"


"Taleb opens the book with a poetic image that should speak to all parents. He notes that wind extinguishes a candle but energizes a fire. He advises us not to be like candles and not to turn our children into candles: “You want to be the fire and wish for the wind.”"

The foolishness of overprotection is apparent as soon as you understand the concept of antifragility. Given that risks and stressors are natural, unavoidable parts of life, parents and teachers should be helping kids develop their innate abilities to grow and learn from such experiences. There’s an old saying: “Prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child.” But these days, we seem to be doing precisely the opposite: we’re trying to clear away anything that might upset children, not realizing that in doing so, we’re repeating the peanut-allergy mistake. If we protect children from various classes of potentially upsetting experiences, we make it far more likely that those children will be unable to cope with such events when they leave our protective umbrella."

I agree that the pendulum has swung too far in the protective direction, though there is a point were some protective umbrellas are necessary, and I think a great example is laid out in the thread on Cal and McKeever. It's difficult to know where to draw the line on threats and protection, but as Potter Stewart mentioned in a different situation, "I know it when I see it". Unfortunately today, some see threats everywhere and others, like McKeever perhaps, not at all.