But what we actually have is a world with lots and lots of cruelty lurking just under the surface, which cannot help but show up in the form of pro-strictness arguments in parenting debates.
Conversely, people also want to signal that they are kind and caring (and, in certain social circles, corporal punishment of children is considered a serious taboo), and being able to say you don’t use harsh discipline suggests that you’re an effective parent. Also, just as some people enjoy being cruel, some people enjoy being kind, generous, and indulgent, particularly towards their own offspring. It’s also a phenomenally well established fact that people think other people should (or do) share their values and act like them, even if their actual values or situations are quite different. So, by the exact same reasoning, disingenuous arguments against cruelty should also abound, and arguments against cruelty should be discounted to some degree as well.
Such a bias could exist, and it would indeed cut the other way. As a practical matter, I’ll worry about it when too much grooviness starts doing 1⁄1,000,000th the damage in the world that is caused by too much cruelty
This has already happened. Look at what happened to crime rates during the 60′s and 70′s when prison sentences became shorter and less common. Admittedly, there may have been other factors, but given how obvious the incentives are here, this was probably a significant one. Too much “grooviness” can cause active harm.
It’s admittedly much harder to see in child-rearing, because “parents beat kid → kid turns out bad” harmonizes with our availability heuristic much better than “Parents fail to beat kid when actually deserved → kid turns into narcissistic, sociopathic jackass with an overdeloped sense of entitlement.” Both happen, and both fail to happen even though it seems like they should. The first just fits much better in our storybook.
Alternatively, of course, there’s “It doesn’t much matter whether or not parents beat kid, but why parents beat kid,” which is what I’d bet is closest to the truth by a wide margin.
Just because it’s easier to think of doesn’t mean you get to say it’s more than a million times worse without a shred of supporting evidence or argument. I’m not saying you’re wrong; I haven’t researched this. I’m just saying you’re rather unapologetically making things up.
Conversely, people also want to signal that they are kind and caring (and, in certain social circles, corporal punishment of children is considered a serious taboo), and being able to say you don’t use harsh discipline suggests that you’re an effective parent. Also, just as some people enjoy being cruel, some people enjoy being kind, generous, and indulgent, particularly towards their own offspring. It’s also a phenomenally well established fact that people think other people should (or do) share their values and act like them, even if their actual values or situations are quite different. So, by the exact same reasoning, disingenuous arguments against cruelty should also abound, and arguments against cruelty should be discounted to some degree as well.
Such a bias could exist, and it would indeed cut the other way. As a practical matter, I’ll worry about it when too much grooviness starts doing 1⁄1,000,000th the damage in the world that is caused by too much cruelty
This has already happened. Look at what happened to crime rates during the 60′s and 70′s when prison sentences became shorter and less common. Admittedly, there may have been other factors, but given how obvious the incentives are here, this was probably a significant one. Too much “grooviness” can cause active harm.
It’s admittedly much harder to see in child-rearing, because “parents beat kid → kid turns out bad” harmonizes with our availability heuristic much better than “Parents fail to beat kid when actually deserved → kid turns into narcissistic, sociopathic jackass with an overdeloped sense of entitlement.” Both happen, and both fail to happen even though it seems like they should. The first just fits much better in our storybook.
Alternatively, of course, there’s “It doesn’t much matter whether or not parents beat kid, but why parents beat kid,” which is what I’d bet is closest to the truth by a wide margin.
Just because it’s easier to think of doesn’t mean you get to say it’s more than a million times worse without a shred of supporting evidence or argument. I’m not saying you’re wrong; I haven’t researched this. I’m just saying you’re rather unapologetically making things up.