Even though we only have three so far, I can already see some of the benefits of having numerous children. There’s the obvious benefit to them of social interaction and having built-in friends. To us, there’s the benefit of really being forced to master parenting skills across diverse children. But just the other day, I discovered another one: wonder.
We were out to dinner somewhere and Spencer was playing around on the curb, and I suddenly found myself captivated by watching him move and study his universe. Just seeing his motions and grasping how advanced they had already become at age 5 was amazing to me. But part of the reason I was impressed with him was because I still have Ethan and Sage to compare him to.
See, I tend to quickly forget what each child was like at previous stages, but when I see how Sage and Ethan move around at their ages compared to Spencer, it’s as if I’m seeing his own history right in front of me. So in addition to being their own sources of wonder, the comparison between them as individuals and over time is amplified by having all of them together in one family.
Thought of the Day 03.05.10
Every argument advanced for a position appeals to some standard of evaluation. But when someone enlists a standard because it supports him but won’t endure its subsequent criticism, you know he’s just making an argument of convenience and shouldn’t be taken seriously. This is why people who refer to the Bible only when it helps them are properly described as religious hypocrites.
Just the other day I realized that self-described political “liberals” have been effectively guilty of this problem with one particular line of argument. In the debate over abortion, I have often heard that “Roe v Wade is settled law after 37 years.” Likewise, in the recent criticism of the Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance, the allegation was that it, “overturned 100 years of legal precedent.”
Although I had never quite noticed before, I suddenly realized that these were conservative appeals, not liberal ones. It is conservatives who defer to traditions, and that’s why we might never have noticed the shameless irony of people trying to tell us on the one hand that legal abortion is a long-settled issue while on the other hand they tell us that a completely new definition of marriage is in order. It’s interesting, I think, that anyone calling himself a “progressive” would actually appeal to tradition this way. But then again, as in so many examples, people will say whatever they think will work.
Just the other day I realized that self-described political “liberals” have been effectively guilty of this problem with one particular line of argument. In the debate over abortion, I have often heard that “Roe v Wade is settled law after 37 years.” Likewise, in the recent criticism of the Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance, the allegation was that it, “overturned 100 years of legal precedent.”
Although I had never quite noticed before, I suddenly realized that these were conservative appeals, not liberal ones. It is conservatives who defer to traditions, and that’s why we might never have noticed the shameless irony of people trying to tell us on the one hand that legal abortion is a long-settled issue while on the other hand they tell us that a completely new definition of marriage is in order. It’s interesting, I think, that anyone calling himself a “progressive” would actually appeal to tradition this way. But then again, as in so many examples, people will say whatever they think will work.
Thought of the Day 03.04.10
My oldest son, Spencer, has been riding a bicycle since he was three years old. However, he’s always had training wheels. Well, a few months ago, I decided he was old enough to try riding without them. It was a disaster. He simply had no sense of balance whatsoever, so we put them back on. Then just this week, he was begging to try again, so I agreed.
Whenever he would start to fall over, I’d yell at him, “Balance! You’ve got to balance!” But even as I said this, I realized that it’s not as if he’s forgetting to do so or disobeying me. He doesn’t know how. And if he doesn’t know how to balance, then sternly commanding him to do the impossible doesn’t help. Only now have I grasped that the fault here was mine. Not because there are four steps to balance I should have taught him. There aren’t. It’s an indivisible physical skill, learned by doing. The fault is I never realized why they’re called “training” wheels.
It’s because you’re supposed to raise them gradually over time so the child learns to balance with diminishing assistance. And leaving them all the way down, I had essentially ingrained in him bike riding with no need to balance whatsoever, a highly counterproductive habit to real riding. So I had trained him to be inept and then was frustrated at him for not doing what I hadn’t equipped him to be able to do.
Oh, the dangers of avoiding dangers!
Whenever he would start to fall over, I’d yell at him, “Balance! You’ve got to balance!” But even as I said this, I realized that it’s not as if he’s forgetting to do so or disobeying me. He doesn’t know how. And if he doesn’t know how to balance, then sternly commanding him to do the impossible doesn’t help. Only now have I grasped that the fault here was mine. Not because there are four steps to balance I should have taught him. There aren’t. It’s an indivisible physical skill, learned by doing. The fault is I never realized why they’re called “training” wheels.
It’s because you’re supposed to raise them gradually over time so the child learns to balance with diminishing assistance. And leaving them all the way down, I had essentially ingrained in him bike riding with no need to balance whatsoever, a highly counterproductive habit to real riding. So I had trained him to be inept and then was frustrated at him for not doing what I hadn’t equipped him to be able to do.
Oh, the dangers of avoiding dangers!
Thought of the Day 03.03.10
My recent visit to the optometrist naturally got me thinking about vision and glasses.
For most of human history, people have had vision defects. Perhaps short lifespans or the lack of experts to quantify the severity of their impairment served to keep them from knowing just how bad the problem was. But then again, even if they knew they had bad eyesight, what could be done? The lack of any solution sometimes makes it easier to avoid even becoming aware of a handicap, and certainly makes it easier to accept it if you are aware.
Well, eventually, someone discovered how to make glass into lenses and assemble them into a frame. (Ben Franklin made bifocals from existing glasses about 500 years after Salvino D’Armate made the first modern glasses.) But only the rich had access and they were still fairly primitive. Then, in this past century, the quality and individuality of them leapt forward even as they became so common that virtually everyone with eye problems now has glasses. I can actually purchase a basic pair for one dollar.
From non-existent, to rough and rare, to high quality and cheap, to virtually free. This is the natural progression of any technology, an illustration of how our quality of life can be significantly higher despite our personal wealth seeming quite ordinary.
For most of human history, people have had vision defects. Perhaps short lifespans or the lack of experts to quantify the severity of their impairment served to keep them from knowing just how bad the problem was. But then again, even if they knew they had bad eyesight, what could be done? The lack of any solution sometimes makes it easier to avoid even becoming aware of a handicap, and certainly makes it easier to accept it if you are aware.
Well, eventually, someone discovered how to make glass into lenses and assemble them into a frame. (Ben Franklin made bifocals from existing glasses about 500 years after Salvino D’Armate made the first modern glasses.) But only the rich had access and they were still fairly primitive. Then, in this past century, the quality and individuality of them leapt forward even as they became so common that virtually everyone with eye problems now has glasses. I can actually purchase a basic pair for one dollar.
From non-existent, to rough and rare, to high quality and cheap, to virtually free. This is the natural progression of any technology, an illustration of how our quality of life can be significantly higher despite our personal wealth seeming quite ordinary.
Thought of the Day 03.02.10
Yesterday, I saw a bumper sticker which said, “If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you’re reading it in English, thank a soldier.”
Now, being the snarky-snark philosopher that I am, I was immediately bothered by the use of “If.” Since there is no chance that a person who “is” reading this “can’t” read it, there is no if-ness here at all. Likewise, since the message is obviously in English, there’s a zero percent chance that someone is actually reading it in, say, Hebrew. Thus, the word in both cases should be “Since” rather than “If.” But that’s not the real issue.
The real issue is that, whereas the meaning of the first half is obvious, the second half is more ambiguous. I’m about ninety percent certain that the intended message was, “as opposed to Russian or some other invading country’s language.” But living in Arizona with a heavy Hispanic population, all language statements are tainted with the taste of the English-Spanish debate. So, there’s maybe a 10% chance that this person is talking about protection against Spanish-speakers, not communists.
I think this isn’t the intended message, but it raises the issue of knowing your context. Statements always get made in particular places, and part of making them wisely means understanding how message ambiguity can allow a biased reader to misunderstand you. In this case, “Since you’re not reading it in Russian or Chinese, thank a soldier,” would have worked much more effectively.
Now, being the snarky-snark philosopher that I am, I was immediately bothered by the use of “If.” Since there is no chance that a person who “is” reading this “can’t” read it, there is no if-ness here at all. Likewise, since the message is obviously in English, there’s a zero percent chance that someone is actually reading it in, say, Hebrew. Thus, the word in both cases should be “Since” rather than “If.” But that’s not the real issue.
The real issue is that, whereas the meaning of the first half is obvious, the second half is more ambiguous. I’m about ninety percent certain that the intended message was, “as opposed to Russian or some other invading country’s language.” But living in Arizona with a heavy Hispanic population, all language statements are tainted with the taste of the English-Spanish debate. So, there’s maybe a 10% chance that this person is talking about protection against Spanish-speakers, not communists.
I think this isn’t the intended message, but it raises the issue of knowing your context. Statements always get made in particular places, and part of making them wisely means understanding how message ambiguity can allow a biased reader to misunderstand you. In this case, “Since you’re not reading it in Russian or Chinese, thank a soldier,” would have worked much more effectively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
