How to Educate Children

Melania is very doting and protective of Baron. That’s a good sign of a superior mother. He will probably do very well in life, and there’s no telling what place in American society he can have. The Trump family is symbolic of an Aristocratic shift in American culture. While America has no kings and queens, the lacking of aristocratic families and noble values is becoming more and more apparent.

People crave higher culture, naturally. A lot of people have disdain for Trump and his family, for these reasons. American society still rejects the idea of Aristocracy, in favor of Meritocracy.

Achievement by deed, rather than family lineage. However, both are important and necessary of course.

The recent arguments are Nepotism. To what is it justified that Trump is a “self-made man” when he gains a one-million dollar loan from his father to start his business ventures in life.

I don’t see anything wrong with wanting to give your children an advantage in life. After all, what are most people working and fighting for, if not such “privileges” of inheritance?

Ah, I just get tired of all the women bashing on these sites.

Pretty souls are what I enjoy, man…woman…doesn’t matter…just have a good essence, one worth being around.

You will create spoiled children who do not know the real value of things because they never had to work for it.
And Melania is overbearing which will harm Barron even more. Like I said before, when you lose touch with the real and tangible you lose a part of your essence, your soul, and you become more fake, more psychotic; you lose touch with life itself.

Your mother spoiled you relentlessly and you still resent her for it? Giving you the world on a platter wasn’t enough for you?

Lol, I’m “just kidding” don’t take it personally.

You are stuck in your head and unable to see what other people are thinking and/or feeling.
Isn’t this one of the symptoms of narcissism?

As Urwrong said, this is a very unattractive trait in a woman.
Aren’t women supposed to be attentive?
Is it not sad when a man realizes that he’s more attentive than women are?

I am not whining.
All I am doing is observing and concluding.

For example, I am not saying what narcissistic parents should be doing.
I am also not saying what they should have done in the past.
I am of the opinion that anyone should do anything they want.
But if what they do intefers with what I want to do, then I will have to act accordingly.
I will have to evade or I will have to counter the negative effects of their actions.
What I am doing here is I am simply observing the kind of effect narcissitic parents have on their children.
This is useful if you want to understand why you are the way you are.
I am also trying to predict the consequences of being raised in a narcissitic family.
This is useful for obvious reasons. You want to undersand how others will treat you.

Nowhere did I suggest that children of narcissistic parents should ask for their help.
Nor did I say that they should help their parents overcome their narcissism.
These are impossible tasks.

All that is expected from them to do is to come to terms with the fact that they never had a family.
Which is a horrifying thought considering what that means in terms of social consequences.

They are also expected to get rid of the responsibility which is not their own. They must understand that it’s not all of their fault.

Your statement “it is the person who is responsible for his life” would obstruct this process.

Because it’s not true. It’s not how reality works. We are not the cause of everything that happens in our life.

But it’s the easiest way to interpet reality. When you simply assume that everything that happens in your life is caused by your own actions you no longer have ot think about causal relations in a serious way.

Isn’t that what New Age philosophy is about?
Everything is caused by our thoughts.

Someone raped you?
It’s your fault. You caused it with your own thoughts.
Your thoughts were too negative.
Don’t attribute responsibility to others.

It’s easier to think that you caused your misfortunes on your own than to think that you had no control over the situation.

Instead of making a serious effort to learn how to prevent such events from happening in the future you simply delude yourself into thinking that you can prevent them by thinking positively.

You appear to think that every single time someone thinks about his misfortunes he’s complaining. There is no other possibility. It’s a very simple “thinks about his misfortunes → complains” algorithm. No room for any other possibility.

What does this say about you?
What does the fact that you cannot imagine that people can think about their or other people’s misfortunes without complaining say about you?
It says that your understanding of psychology is shallow.
And this says that your own psyche is shallow.
And why is it shallow? What made it shallow?
Is it some kind of trauma?
Childhood trauma?
Mommy issues?

I have no choice but to conclude that you cannot think about your misfortunes without succumbing to uncontrollable anger. This is why you have to suppress it. This is why your understanding of psychology is shallow.
Finally, this is why you’re annoying.

It is unrealistic to expect adults who were raised by narcissistic parents to achieve much in life (especially on their own.)
It is even more unrealistic to expect children who were bullied by their parents to solve their problems on their own.
Pandabear is placing way too much emphasis on independence.
Not even the strongest of families can survive these times if they are independent i.e. if they do not form strong bonds with other strong families.
How many aristocratic families have survived? I think pretty much none.
What then can we expect of unwanted children especially those that have been bullied by their parents?
Not much.

There is no such thing as achieving on your own…you need assistance and cooperation throughout it all. People who come from fucked up families struggle with pride in asking for help not just from their families but from everyone else as well.

I think I just waded into a kiddie pool.

By george, what do you mean with the kiddie pool comment? You have a very hardlined approach Pandabear, why do you think I use such a name as Pandabear? To soften your hard exterior up a bit.

1. Un/Wanted

Is the child “wanted” or unwanted? Is the child an accident? Does the parent(s) detest, resent, and hate his/her own child?

2. Genes

Intelligence is the greatest Human inheritance, surpassing all wealth, and pervading throughout all aspects of life. Intelligence is the best indication of “superior breeding choices” or in other words, familial lineage. Thus the second point and question is, how intelligent (genetically gifted) is the child? Very much? Average? Or not at all, retarded or mentally ill?

3. Environment

Where does the child live? Inner-city ghetto? Suburbs? Rural countryside? The environment of a child directly impacts his/her upbringing. It also flows into the final point.

4. Socialization

Is the child being socialized well, or, being bullied and outcast? As recently mentioned, bullying, abuse, and neglect can occur directly as the result of point #1, being an ‘unwanted’ child. Unwanted/bullied/abused/neglected children will suffer and develop many illnesses and diseases which will manifest throughout their “adult and mature” years. I quote that remark, because, neglect/misery actually stunts growth in every way. Thus there are people who look physically aged or an adult, but, retain the minds of teenagers, adolescents, children, or worse.

Next steps:

From these premises and points, a general idea of “education” can occur. Obvious there is a range and degree of children by aptitude, breed, environment, background, and personality. Some children come from a loving home, others do not. Some children’s parents can afford a luxurious and high priced private school, most others can not. Some children are broken, abused, bashed, raped, and life is a living hell, other children have life much easier.

So taking all factors and context into account (as any philosopher should be doing presumably anyway), the “general” education of children will be much different than tutoring them. Tutoring is a high class and privileged method of education. Instead of 1 teacher per classroom of 30 students. A tutor offers direct education, 1 to 1. Some richer and upper class homes even provide several tutors for their child, so 7 teachers to 1 student.

Tutoring DEALS could be made even by the lower class parents who had less readily available finances in a barter type system and with younger tutors. Say a poor single-mother could make some kind of swap/trade with a junior high student or high school student for her children to receive a more premium one-on-one instruction.

Prestige and Class:

Essentially a ‘superior’ quality education is evidenced, directly and obviously, by the teacher-to-student ratio. The more teachers a student has, almost always, the better education/nurturing that child receives. Thus 10 teachers to 1 student will produce the highest quality and nurtured individual. Such an individual would move about life most efficiently and with great dignity compared to all other students with a lesser ratio. The 1-to-1 is still rare. In the u.s. the average child has a 1:30 ratio. So about 1 teacher per 30 students. This would constitute an ‘inferior’ quality education.

There are exceptions, like a student who is self-motivated and driven to learn, in spite of his or her circumstances and opportunities, or in spite of qualified and focused teachers. These exceptions only enhance the general points. Because hypothetically, if an exceptionally gifted student were focused upon, 1:1 or 10:1, then that would produce the highest type and quality of “human being”.

Low class, public-state education, is more a free-for-all. Like a family of children fighting, competing, and vying between themselves for the attention and affection of a parent. The same occurs in every classroom throughout general education. The students fight and compete for the favoritism of specific teachers. Because teachers control the grades. And “being stupid” is often compensated by other factors. The school football quarterback, alpha jock, is going to get special favoritism and leniency from teachers, so that he can “focus on the game” rather than studying as much as other students. Problematic and disruptive, resentful and/or stupider students, will be punished accordingly and disfavored by the teachers.

These ‘disfavored’ students eventually grow resentful against “the system” and turn against it, a degree of anti-social behavior. Those who “cannot make the cut” in adolescent years, carry such attitudes for the rest of life. However, as expected, average students and most people are “pro-system” and support the status quo, by the specific ways in which they graduated their general public schooling.

Some poor families, and especially rural-country-conservative families, use elders, grandparents, uncles and aunts, family friends as fill-ins for baby-sitting, care, and other educational means. This would constitute types of “private” schooling and education. Some families do not need to hire a tutor at all when the familial, tribal, or clan patriarch (grandfather/godfather) serves such a role, and passes on critical information to progeny.

I have my fat for that purpose, Wendy.

You guys are taken in by the child victim cult. You are not giving them even a chance (I do resent you just writing off orphans away). Even 200 years ago, children’s lives were a lot worse off. Did all of them grow up as messed up adults? Should I start posting historical photos of children working in factories and sweatshops, and then you can tell me how none of them grew up to be succcessful? These things are still happening in other parts of the world and you already treat them (as adults) as some kind of subhumans or permanently messed up people just because their living conditions or upbringing did not live up to your 1 st world standards. These same people probably know more about the realities of life than any ‘cultured’ educated person who came from a well-to do family.

Just so know, understandings of expressions like ‘child abuse’ and ‘child neglect’ vary greatly across the world. Nowadays, you make a seven year old work in the field and and you could be charged with ‘child abuse’. You leave your kid home alone for a day or so and you may be charged with child neglect and have the kid taken away from you. (However, it seems okay to let your kid play video games all day every day). Today’s kids are growing up with entitlement complexes. Have you seen a kid throwing a tantrum just because he didn’t get the last edition of a video game he wanted? There are kids in the world who still don’t have clean drinking water and they don’t complain this much.

I hear ya Pandabear. People with more complain more because they have things to complain about. The people with nothing have nothing to complain about.

Where’s the quality in this type of education? No, the poor and rural still have options that are better than family or neighborly rejects. Come on, most family and friends will not be highly intelligent, highly gifted individuals with specific in-depth understanding of higher math, science, foreign languages, specialized artisans, philosophy, music, sports. Family is mostly good for teaching manners, values, and basic how-to stuff. If you’re lucky the men won’t scratch their balls profusely or spit indoors and the women won’t adjust their boobage often or pick their noses.

Same as anything else. Just as some public schools are exceptional and you want to send your kid there, so too are there some nobler families who actually raise children better than others. Exceptionalism is hard to find.

What I’m talking about has more to do with modern society. The traditional family unit retained and respected elders. And from elders, could pass on knowledge and wisdom to their children and grandchildren. Although modern people seem to hate the idea or reality of tradition and “gender normative” families.

I’m not talking about average people, white trash, and poor people who are daftly stupid. Average people and families, probably should not take an active role in general education. That’s what public schools are for, for them. Average humans hand their children over to institutions, to raise, because the institutions tend to raise them than the parent could.

After all, how many parents know calculus and can teach that to their children? That’s right…

You’re a moron who’s denying the fact that parents can create problems and that these problems have to be resolved by thinking about them.
This means by identifying and eliminating their causes.

And yes, children without parents are less likely to succeed in life.
Especially if they were abused by their so-called parents.
This is why we have families.
Why do you think we have families? Because it’s fun to have them?
How much of reality are you going to deny in order to make yourself feel better about yourself?

But success is a relative thing.
If you’re an animal, which judging by everything you say I am sure you are, then your standards would be pretty low.
And simply being alive would be good enough for you.
Normally, since that’s all you had anyways.

I’m glad that Pandora brought the matter of moral responsibility to this topic, as that is essential to any real ‘education’ of a child. How do children become responsible? Do all become so? Aren’t many adults irresponsible? Shouldn’t many adults not have children in the first place, but do anyway? What is moral responsibility anyway? Are we beholden to others? Why? How?

Magnus makes a lot of good points. It’s irrational and outright stupid to pretend that children can “do it on their own”. Not really. Many some exceptional, rare children, can “do it on their own” without instruction. Maybe that would entail a self-learning child. But I disagree, even with the most exceptional and individualistic child, guidance and nurturing is still required.

Children associate problem-solving with pain-pleasure responses. Thus problems are split into three categories: to solve a problem to prevent pain, to solve a problem to invite pleasure, or both at the same time. Pain is more obvious. If a child burns his or her hand then instinct and reflex, hardwired into the nervous system, yank the hand back and the child cries. Thus there are many instinctive “self-learning” mechanisms within humans, and all lifeforms. Pleasure is more complex. Offering a candy to a group of children in kindergarten is motivating so that the children compete and struggle to attain that candy. But what if a child doesn’t want candy? Pleasures come in many shapes and sizes.

“Being right”, Righteousness, is a form of pleasure. This comes from “arguing for the sake of arguing”. This is another example, of a more complex pleasure/luxury.

Thus everybody is driven by particular motivations. I would say the “grand reward”, philosophically speaking, is wisdom. The reward and pleasure of doing hard work, reasoning out the world, identifying causes, and the causes within yourself that many people lie about or bury down deep, and applying all of it, can be rewarding when realized and brought about. For example, a great architect draws up plans for a beautiful house. He accomplishes the outline. But that’s not good enough. He builds the house next. It is a lot of hard work, from the designing process all the way to putting up the walls and roof. In the end, his “reward”, his “privilege”, is living in a sheltered, comfortable location. And also the Pride of doing it himself.

So Pandora is wrong with simplifying everything down to “do it on your own”. It’s not as simple as that. Morality implies society. People interact, and are forced to “deal” with each other daily. Many people have likes and dislikes that cross. But people get along, publicly, whereas they would not privately.

Building a skyscraper, a huge bridge, an aircraft carrier, all achievements like this require a tremendous amount of Morality, of subservient workers and laborers to carry out the orders of those who impose them, and those that drew up the plans for them.

I’d say that moral education is advanced, and crosses over into real “Culture”. That’s what culture is, at heart, morality. It is the ways in which people interact, master-slave relationships are formed, also referred as “the dominance hierarchy”, and then society “progresses” according, most of all, to the desires of those who are most dominating and domineering. There’s a difference between leaders and followers. Children express such differences too. Societies are mostly comprised of followers, the more ‘feminine’ disposition. A more masculine society would be more infighting, chaotic, violent, and socially unstable, anti-social.