A simple question for you, what exact measurable and quantifiable differences would you expect to see in, for instance, the children of psychologists of the sort this article appeals to, and those of e.g. Joe [demographically equivalent] Normal's children? And this naturally somewhat leads into, and what factors, as a society, should we prioritize?
To me it seems quite trivial to create unfalsifiable arguments, for near anything, using extremely nebulous terms like "reducing public health risks." It's not like anybody's ever going to say, "No way man - I really think we should work to increase public health risks!" But what separates science from pseudoscience is falsifiability. So it's only once you break things down into actual, specific, and measurable goals that the conversation can even begin.
---
As but one example, the most fundamental component for a society to perpetuate itself is fertility. And so, in my mind, a child's upbringing should absolutely be focused on ensuring this person will be able to both raise and support their own healthy family in the future. Yet of course even this simple goal is going to prove controversial because there's some conflict between it and certain cultural norms. And you'd need to reconcile this in some way that people, independent of worldview, can be generally happy with. I'm not sure this is possible.
define trauma. sometimes kids need to learn hard lessons. where is that line?
define repression? given that this is HN I'd imagine the definition will be different than from someone who was from, say, Malaysia or Saudi.
what does neuroticism mean? at some level we can agree what "crazy is" but where do you draw the line? ditto for insecurity.
most of this is NOT easily measurable, outside of suicides, which are discrete events. definition of things like sexual assault, child abuse, or repression vary by state, and even more so by country.
> definition of things like sexual assault, child abuse, or repression vary by state
Definition of homicide also varies by state, so what? Homicide is not real?
So basically you do not believe we can objectively measure psychological issues, so any parenting, no matter how bad, even outright abusive parenting, can't produce psychological issues.
Why do we have parents at all then, let's have all kids cared for by a commercial company, will be more efficient, right?
To me it seems quite trivial to create unfalsifiable arguments, for near anything, using extremely nebulous terms like "reducing public health risks." It's not like anybody's ever going to say, "No way man - I really think we should work to increase public health risks!" But what separates science from pseudoscience is falsifiability. So it's only once you break things down into actual, specific, and measurable goals that the conversation can even begin.
---
As but one example, the most fundamental component for a society to perpetuate itself is fertility. And so, in my mind, a child's upbringing should absolutely be focused on ensuring this person will be able to both raise and support their own healthy family in the future. Yet of course even this simple goal is going to prove controversial because there's some conflict between it and certain cultural norms. And you'd need to reconcile this in some way that people, independent of worldview, can be generally happy with. I'm not sure this is possible.