I’ll be the one to say (at risk of misreading the place this comes from), that there are a lot of super weird things here that read as conspicuously unaware of the way other people live their lives.
Odd things like the equal rights amendment allowing women the right to bring children to work, boys having some odd macho test when they grow up [1], or things like girls working animal shelters seem to be a likely description of what is exactly around you in life.
Together with things mentioned by other commenters (like a hardline stance on education in every area that people typically argue about), make this feel less fun than Dath Ilan. To me, this feels more like your map to the metaphorical ‘good old days’ [2] where (literally) men were men and kids had the privilege to die or get lead poisoning. [EDIT: It took a few tries before I got it, but @nafal points out that this is an unfair wording, not just a witty one like it was theoretically intended to be]
It feels off base for LessWrong somehow, but I am open to being told that I am actually the one off base.
While not wrong by any means I care about, I will invoke the concept that there are simple explanations for what this manhood ritual would be inspired by, and that these rituals historically suck for a lot of people.
I think you’re misreading the place this is coming from. To me the suggestions (both the workshops, and “macho tests”) feel more inspired by the dutch dropping tradition (NYT, sorry).
Also, I think you might be “rounding off” the essay into an argument for some “metaphorical good old days” which I don’t think it’s doing. Namely, to me at least, “good old days” implies a “this never was real so wishing for it is dumb” that clearly isn’t the case with some of the things being suggested (see the above link talking about how children in the Netherlands tend to be freer and expected to take on more risk).
Finally, “had the privilege to die or get lead poisoning” is a pretty obvious straw man.
I think I did a pretty good job of noting that “good old days” is an idiom expressing that I think “taking on more risk” is a misleading steelman when applied to much of this. The following paragraph isn’t about being more self-reliant and well adjusted, it’s about looking cool and tough, which seems to me like it is probably totally separate.
In order to become a man, boys in my hometown were expected to travel across the country with one day’s pay and a backpack full of supplies, working for money or scavenging food along the way. You are allowed a bicycle, a motorcycle or a Greyhound pass. I choose the Greyhound pass. The hardcore kids choose “none” and go moose hunting in the tundra.
I don’t think the latter is a straw man, but I could be misunderstanding the thrust of something here I suppose:
Childcare, the raising of young children, is more hands-off, with a strong emphasis on the outdoors. Injury rates of children are commensurately higher. Pets too. My own dog fell off a cliff when I was a teenager. (The dog turned out alright in the end, but we evaced him just in case.) I could operate a band saw before I could multiply two-digit numbers in my head. Fewer children survive to adulthood than on Earth (I almost died in a motorcycle accident before I went to college) but those who do are more self-reliant.
The hardware we received was frequently broken. It took me a entire week to salvage the parts for my first computer. (I shudder when I recall how much lead and mercury dust I breathed.)
I’ll admit I imagined another occurrence of the concept of chemical poisoning somewhere in here, so the lead note was outright wrong, but the former is pretty spot-on as I read it.
I guess I was assuming (based on my model of lsusr)that the intent of that paragraph was to talk about taking on more risk and responsibility. But, reading it back I think you’re right about how that passage is a lot more “macho” and a lot less “useful self reliance skills” which I’ll agree is odd.
On the second point, I feel like your statement is a straw man due to the fact that, sure, part of what’s going on in the second passage is that kids get the “privilege to die”, but, the way you say that seems to ignore all of the (well established in my mind) benefits other than just death that kids raised in this manner would get.
I’ll be the one to say (at risk of misreading the place this comes from), that there are a lot of super weird things here that read as conspicuously unaware of the way other people live their lives.
Odd things like the equal rights amendment allowing women the right to bring children to work, boys having some odd macho test when they grow up [1], or things like girls working animal shelters seem to be a likely description of what is exactly around you in life.
Together with things mentioned by other commenters (like a hardline stance on education in every area that people typically argue about), make this feel less fun than Dath Ilan. To me, this feels more like your map to the metaphorical ‘good old days’ [2] where (literally) men were men and kids had the privilege to die or get lead poisoning. [EDIT: It took a few tries before I got it, but @nafal points out that this is an unfair wording, not just a witty one like it was theoretically intended to be]
It feels off base for LessWrong somehow, but I am open to being told that I am actually the one off base.
While not wrong by any means I care about, I will invoke the concept that there are simple explanations for what this manhood ritual would be inspired by, and that these rituals historically suck for a lot of people.
In idiom only, I’m not trying to imply you claim that this world existed in the past.
I think you’re misreading the place this is coming from. To me the suggestions (both the workshops, and “macho tests”) feel more inspired by the dutch dropping tradition (NYT, sorry).
Also, I think you might be “rounding off” the essay into an argument for some “metaphorical good old days” which I don’t think it’s doing. Namely, to me at least, “good old days” implies a “this never was real so wishing for it is dumb” that clearly isn’t the case with some of the things being suggested (see the above link talking about how children in the Netherlands tend to be freer and expected to take on more risk).
Finally, “had the privilege to die or get lead poisoning” is a pretty obvious straw man.
I think I did a pretty good job of noting that “good old days” is an idiom expressing that I think “taking on more risk” is a misleading steelman when applied to much of this. The following paragraph isn’t about being more self-reliant and well adjusted, it’s about looking cool and tough, which seems to me like it is probably totally separate.
I don’t think the latter is a straw man, but I could be misunderstanding the thrust of something here I suppose:
I’ll admit I imagined another occurrence of the concept of chemical poisoning somewhere in here, so the lead note was outright wrong, but the former is pretty spot-on as I read it.
I guess I was assuming (based on my model of lsusr) that the intent of that paragraph was to talk about taking on more risk and responsibility. But, reading it back I think you’re right about how that passage is a lot more “macho” and a lot less “useful self reliance skills” which I’ll agree is odd.
On the second point, I feel like your statement is a straw man due to the fact that, sure, part of what’s going on in the second passage is that kids get the “privilege to die”, but, the way you say that seems to ignore all of the (well established in my mind) benefits other than just death that kids raised in this manner would get.
Hey, put the second paragraph that way and I see what you mean. I’m going to edit a little note into the original comment to point this out.