Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I really don’t know what you mean by teaching mastery of ones self control to children.

They are kids not monks. You can teach them all the self control you like, I don’t think there is a serious argument that let’s say for some particularly sadistic reason I wanted to bully them and do real harm. How difficult do you think it would be exactly?

Kids or adults for that matter aren’t failures for feeling hurt. The idea that you can’t hurt someone without physical pain is really not a serious idea.

It’s entirely possible to get overcome that and genuinely not let it impact you, I’m not saying that, I’m saying for a lot of people it’s not a normal reaction. The goal of life isn’t to not feel emotions in response to words. I genuinely am not even sure you would even really want that if you had a choice.




Self-control: Governing one's behavior and reaction.

Mastering one's emotions: Feeling the emotion, understanding it, and developing skills for overcoming negative feelings. Also, the ability to choose not to act based on strong emotion.

In a crisis, or in critical or chronic situations, possession of these two related skills usually yields superior outcomes.

It isn't "wrong" to feel the feelings. It is wrong to let the feelings dominate you to the point of paralysis or drive you to harmful behavior. Children can't help going through phases as their brains develop where they're overcome with emotions. You help them by teaching them it is OK to feel sad or angry. Then you help them by teaching them how to cope through action, or focus on something else like goals.

Having negative emotions is normal. Coping with negative emotions, mastering them, is a valuable skill.

Words do not inflict physical injury. You teach that. Words can inflict emotional pain. You also teach that this is so. Words can inflict mental injury, and you teach that, too. But you start with the far simpler formulation of "sticks and stones" until metaphor and nuance are available tools.

It's like teaching children about strangers. There are exceptions to every rule, but if you value their safety when they're small, you teach them the rule "Do not talk to strangers." Young children don't have the social context to parse exceptions until they're older... when the teaching has to add resolution and detail.


I see what he's saying, though I have different philosophy of what the world needs.

If I'm attempting to repeat back his sensibility: It's an aspiration for people to be self-responsible. Look after self, then others. We're individuals first, and must look after ourselves, and then the collectivist-minded activities come after looking after the self.

This self=>others axis is the basis of Maslow's hierarchy. But it's the inverse of many cultures' (including the blackfoot tribes from which Maslow borrowed the model, which put community at the bottom of the pyramid of needs, oddly enough)

I respect his view (it's rather effective in some contexts, esp environments of scarcity), but I'd rather embrace the collectivist and interdependent aspects of humanity as the foundational principle.

My general impression is that both of these worldviews could save us in different contexts. Maybe the collectivist would save us from climate change, and individualist would save us in some armed conflict. I feel we need to keep both, and keep them balanced, and respecting one another. It's like keeping a seed vault -- different wisdoms for later, and part of a diversity of thought we should probably preserve for unknowable future challenges.

> I don’t think there is a serious argument that let’s say for some particularly sadistic reason I wanted to bully them and do real harm

I think you'd be surprised. I had some tough great uncles who taught rough lessons and were damn proud of it.


That's where lessons like "treat others as you would have them treat you" come in.


> The goal of life isn’t to not feel emotions in response to words.

It’s not the goal of monks either, so perhaps mastery of oneself shouldn’t be taken as simply being stoic?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: