I study kids and help-seeking. I wrote a whole book about it. So I have *a lot* of thoughts about those tweets with the dad and his daughter and the can of beans.

A thread. 1/

On the one hand, when parents swoop in and do everything for their kids, kids learn to fear failure and hard work.

So I get what the dad was trying to do - teach his daughter to work hard for what she wants and not be afraid to fail.

But, I also take issue with his approach. 2/
What's wrong with his approach? Especially given that she was successful in the end? Well, let's consider what the daughter might take away from this interaction, particularly in terms of her confidence in herself and her trust in adults. 3/
First, how might the daughter feel about herself after taking so long to figure it out? Especially if her dad said to her what he said in the tweets (e.g., she's not a "mechanically inclined kid;" "spatial orientation, process visualization... are not things she... intuits"). 4/
My guess - she'll assume it took her so long because there's something wrong with her. When, in reality, it was because her dad refused to give her the scaffolding (info and skills) she needed to succeed with the task. Can you imagine teaching kids math or reading this way?! 5/
As a side note, this is not all that different from how I was "taught" to drive a manual transmission car. With equally confidence-crushing results. 6/
Second, how might the daughter feel about her dad after all this? She might feel pride in surviving his "tough love." But I'm guessing she won't trust him enough to ask him for help when she's really struggling. And I hope she has someone else she can trust, instead. 7/
As I find in my research, when kids don't get the support they need with learning and with tackling tough problems, they avoid asking for help. They feel bad about needing support. And they blame themselves when they can't figure it out on their own. 8/
https://t.co/dkeoGUTBEO.
So what's the takeaway? Parents shouldn't just do everything for their kids. And they shouldn't refuse to give any help. Instead, parents should help kids recognize when they don't have the info/skills they need to succeed, and they should provide that scaffolding and support. //
The approach I'm suggesting is *way* harder than doing things for kids or telling them to figure it out. But good parenting - like good teaching and good mentoring - requires real work. And yet, because it's not valued as real work, there's little incentive to do it well. //

More from Culture

You May Also Like

दधीचि ऋषि को मनाही थी कि वह अश्विनी कुमारों को किसी भी अवस्था में ब्रह्मविद्या का उपदेश नहीं दें। ये आदेश देवराज इन्द्र का था।वह नहीं चाहते थे कि उनके सिंहासन को प्रत्यक्ष या परोक्ष रुप से कोई भी खतरा हो।मगर जब अश्विनी कुमारों ने सहृदय प्रार्थना की तो महर्षि सहर्ष मान गए।


और उन्होनें ब्रह्मविद्या का ज्ञान अश्विनि कुमारों को दे दिया। गुप्तचरों के माध्यम से जब खबर इन्द्रदेव तक पहुंची तो वे क्रोध में खड़ग ले कर गए और महर्षि दधीचि का सर धड़ से अलग कर दिया।मगर अश्विनी कुमार भी कहां चुप बैठने वाले थे।उन्होने तुरंत एक अश्व का सिर महर्षि के धड़ पे...


...प्रत्यारोपित कर उन्हें जीवित रख लिया।उस दिन के पश्चात महर्षि दधीचि अश्वशिरा भी कहलाए जाने लगे।अब आगे सुनिये की किस प्रकार महर्षि दधीचि का सर काटने वाले इन्द्र कैसे अपनी रक्षा हेतु उनके आगे गिड़गिड़ाए ।

एक बार देवराज इन्द्र अपनी सभा में बैठे थे, तो उन्हे खुद पर अभिमान हो आया।


वे सोचने लगे कि हम तीनों लोकों के स्वामी हैं। ब्राह्मण हमें यज्ञ में आहुति देते हैं और हमारी उपासना करते हैं। फिर हम सामान्य ब्राह्मण बृहस्पति से क्यों डरते हैं ?उनके आने पर क्यों खड़े हो जाते हैं?वे तो हमारी जीविका से पलते हैं। देवर्षि बृहस्पति देवताओं के गुरु थे।

अभिमान के कारण ऋषि बृहस्पति के पधारने पर न तो इन्द्र ही खड़े हुए और न ही अन्य देवों को खड़े होने दिया।देवगुरु बृहस्पति इन्द्र का ये कठोर दुर्व्यवहार देख कर चुप चाप वहां से लौट गए।कुछ देर पश्चात जब देवराज का मद उतरा तो उन्हे अपनी गलती का एहसास हुआ।
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?