(Part 2) Best child counseling books according to redditors

Jump to the top 20

We found 911 Reddit comments discussing the best child counseling books. We ranked the 252 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Popular Child Psychology:

u/[deleted] · 13 pointsr/atheism

Agreed. Once upon a time, science and philosophy were much more closely related than they are today. We are polarizing individual aspects of the arts, which has done more to create robotic thinkers than open minded learners. Homeschooling is a great first step to breaking his daughter out of the conveyer belt thinking process, and introducing her to every aspect of the world of education, even religion, and allowing her to pursue those subjects that interest her most. This will feed her curiosity and allow her to become her own person in the long run. Pushing her toward Atheist thinking is as dangerous as pushing her toward religious thinking, if the goal is to allow her to choose her own path and ideas, and truly become an individual thinker. If her religious upbringing by her mom is more restrictive, and you create an open environment that is truly open to all possibilities, she will be a great leader.

But it starts with you, the parent. If all you are doing is teaching her things in direct opposition to the mom, then this is petty and not in your daughter's best interest, nor will it draw her toward your way of thinking, it will repel it. If your goal is to have her think like you do, then, again, you are not really raising a "free thinker" are you? So start with your own education, your own style and teaching philosophy. Here are some great books to give different and honest perspectives. Do what works for you.

u/0ldgrumpy1 · 12 pointsr/Trumpgret

Actually it's way worse than that. Emotional reasoning affects people of all I.Q.s, they can be completely able to make rational decisions as long as they are not emotionally invested in it. As soon as it is something emotional, their reasoning goes to shit. The more intelligent they are, the better they are at defending the emotional position to themselves. And no, this isn't a false equivalence argument , there is a ton of evidence that the right wing are way worse, plus fox etc use it deliberately and always lead with something fear or anger inducing so they can get their bullshit in while logic is effectively switched off. Good sources, https://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514

And

https://www.amazon.com.au/d/ebook/Know-What-Isnt-Fallibility-Human-Reason-Everyday/B001D1SS2M/ref=sr_1_6?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1496189722&sr=1-6&keywords=Reasoning+everyday

u/also_HIM · 12 pointsr/Parenting

>angry entitled brat

One thing science has shown us about labels is that they become self-fulfilling prophecy. We act in ways that encourage others to live up (or down) to our expectations.


>Once i started working however my dad and mom would take him to and from school and then watch him until the evenings ... Well i recently quit my job...

You had not been his primary caretaker for a long while. Your expectations are significantly different from his previous caretakers. From his perspective, this is a big transition. (Which is punctuated daily by the transition from school to home.)

>after he would calm down id talk to him about how disrespectful he is and how i will not put up with his attitude and how ugly he acts in front of me, his teacher and his friends. I'd usually also punish him and send him to his room

None of this negative stuff helps him in coping with the transition or rebuilding your relationship. It does just the opposite. If you're going to use behaviorist methods, do what the research shows actually works: focus on praising and rewarding the little things he gets right rather than focusing on punishing the things he gets wrong.

But I'm not a behaviorist myself. I'd rather focus on empathy and problem-solving to get things done. Some good books that focus on this are How to Talk so Little Kids Will Listen (the rest of the How to Talk series are also good, and I might particularly recommend Siblings Without Rivalry) and Raising Human Beings.

u/SeaTurtlesCanFly · 9 pointsr/RBNChildcare

It can help to get a therapist to consult with about parenting methods. It can help SO MUCH and a therapist can help you figure out which hard parts are normal and which parts may be manifesting due to your trauma. Find a therapist that specializes in moms and traumatized moms.

Also... once your kid is a little older, use this parenting method described in an amazing book about collaborative parenting. I came from a very punitive culture in redneck USA and, on top of that, I was raised by abusers with a lot of black and white thinking. My parenting has tended to be too controlling and did not listen enough to my children's concerns. This parenting method is AMAZING and teaches you how to work with your kid to find solutions vs. you just imposing your will on them without even understanding what their struggle is, etc. My therapist says this method is good starting at about age 4 or 5... so read it BEFORE your kid gets to that point. The collaborative method has been around a long time and there is a lot of data about it if you google it... it's not just some kooky book I picked up in a bargain bin.

u/zimtastic · 8 pointsr/IAmA

Correct.

When our ancestors developed stone tools, they became hunters not scavengers. The nutrient dense meat supported our larger brains and hunting created a "portable food niche" enabling them to leave the jungles and follow game out into the savannah and beyond.

Hunting in groups and still living in multi-male/multi-female groups defined humans as a species, encouraging monogamy, language development, and even controlling the evolution of our physiology (larger brains/smaller teeth).

Essentially MEAT IS WHAT MADE US HUMAN.

u/sugagurl81 · 8 pointsr/AttachmentParenting

Have you ever heard of the book Wonder Weeks?

The Wonder Weeks: How to Stimulate Your Baby's Mental Development and Help Him Turn His 10 Predictable, Great, Fussy Phases into Magical Leaps Forward

https://www.amazon.com/dp/9491882163/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_ccFaBb65AZTVC

It explains different phases the baby is going through. There is a “leap” around 8 months which it sounds like your baby may be going through. There is also an app that goes along with it that explains the same information but just not in as great of detail. My LO is the same age as yours right now and she’s going through the same behaviors you’re talking about. Just know this behavior is temporary and once your LO completes this “leap” they will be back to their normal, awesome little selves.

You’re doing a great job!

u/arookieparent · 7 pointsr/Parenting

> if you didn't do what you were told, you got a smack.

Hugs I think you're a brave parent for facing your fear and asking for help!

From your background, it sounds like you grew up in a very unstable household. Our childhood does affect how we parent, no matter how much we want to deny or prevent it from happening. But if you are determined, you can stop the cycle. I'd get counseling as soon as possible. Also, if you can take a look at this book: Trauma and Recovery by Judith Herman, see if you have the symptoms described. If so, you need a counselor experienced in complex-trauma, very important! You don't need to be severely injured to be traumatized. Daily fear is already traumatizing for a child.

This book also helps: [The Whole Brain Child] (http://www.amazon.com/Whole-Brain-Child-revolutionary-strategies-developing-ebook/dp/B004J4X32U) by Daniel Siegel

So I don't have a quick solution for you. (lots of good suggestions by others here already) And there will be a lot of hard work ahead of you. But it is worth it. Work on yourself and everything else will follow.

Source: my own experience

u/egamble · 7 pointsr/Parenting

We took a parenting course and the instructor suggested the book "Discipline Without Damage" https://www.amazon.com/Discipline-without-Damage-Without-Messing/dp/1928055109 . He said it is based on all the latest science and his course was very science and neurologically based.

We haven't gotten to that stage yet, but it's on our reading list.

u/gildedbat · 7 pointsr/birthparents

You are right- you are most definitely not alone. Mother's Day is always such a rough time of year. All this celebration of motherhood and here we are, not even able to acknowledge to most people that we are mothers. It sucks. Big time.

This year is even rougher for me because my husband's cousin just had a baby two days ago and my facebook is filled with pictures of the new baby and the happy family. Of course, I am thrilled for them but it hurts, too. I cannot have children (hysterectomy) and so it is even harder on me. I had a really awful pregnancy because my family treated it like a sin instead of the joy of a new life and, because I was so young, strangers looked at me and were judgmental and sometimes rude. I never got to raise my baby girl and now I cannot have another child and experience all the joys of pregnancy and motherhood that everyone else in the damn world gets to have. Normally, I just push it all down and go on with my life but this time of year the emotions tend to bubble up to the surface.

In regard to your situation, I think you should send them a book on adoption from an adopted child's perspective. Perhaps Twenty Things Adopted Kids Wish their Adopted Parents Knew. Include a letter stating that, just because your son does not want to talk about adoption with them, it does not mean that he is not curious about his birthfamily. Suggest that your letters probably mean a lot to him but he may be afraid of letting them know that because often adopted children feel they are betraying the APs if they show interest in their biological family. Also let them know that, if your son is adamant that he does not wish to recieve letters and gifts from you, that is fine but you want the decision to be HIS, not theirs. He is old enough to make that decision now. And, even if he does not want things from you right now, I would still send them and have the APs hold them until he is ready because I am sure it will man a lot to him as he gets older.

Also, feel free to PM me if you ever want/need to talk. Hugs! <3

u/sf_mama · 7 pointsr/Parenting

If you want to have a creative thinker who can be a leader in STEM turn off the TV, put away screens, stop any lessons and provide your toddler with lots of books, art and most importantly opportunities for free play, especially outside. Children learn through play. I really recommend The Philosophical Baby by UC Berkeley developmental psychologist Alison Gopnik.

The language thing is great if you can keep it up. I have chosen to focus on one language a have been using speech therapy type techniques since infancy, so my 2.5 YO talks more like a 3 or 4 YO. Kids learn a lot through social interactions using language so if you get an early head start on language you can benefit from the snowball effect as your kid is always going tone ahead of their peers.

u/TheYearOfThe_Rat · 6 pointsr/AskMen

Just read "Killing monsters: why children need fantasy, superheroes and make-believe violence". I was thankful that I wasn't born and I have not grown up in the US after that. Fortunately enough the rest of the non-Anglophone world is not yet polluted by the doctrines exposed in that book and boys are not labeled disruptive, violent or crazy for normal childhood behavior characteristic of both sexes before 8 years old or so.

u/grrumblebee · 5 pointsr/changemyview

Your focus on detention is arbitrary. It's like saying it's unfair that hostages don't have access to pizza. Maybe, but the whole state of being-a-hostage is unfair. Instead of obsessing about their lack of pepperoni and mushrooms, why not, instead, focus on the actual problem?

  • We force children to go to school.
  • We force children to study specific subjects at school.
  • We force children to do homework after school.
  • We stigmatize them if they fail at school.
  • We use school grades as one metric of mental health.
  • In most schools, we force children to be subject to archaic. pedagogical methods--once that have been proven to be ineffective.
  • And, yes, we force children who have (in my view) naturally bucked against this system, to stay in school longer than kids who accept it.
  • In most schools, children learn very little, especially given the amount of time the spend there.
  • In many cases (e.g. when forced to read Shakespeare), they often develop a lifelong hatred of the subject.
  • Many children spend years in school being bullied, mocked, and ostracized.
  • Throughout this time, they're repeatedly told all this is "good for them," and, in the end, like serial abusers, they inflict in on their own kids, telling them it's good for them.

    All of this stuff has been studied for decades. We know that most schools are run horribly, according to unsound educational principals. But that never changes.

    When psychologists or neuroscientists discover something about learning or education, it takes years or decades to affect classroom practices, if it ever does.

    Schools aren't generally affected by Science. Instead, they are buffeted by politics and held fast by tradition.

    See

  • Wounded By School

  • Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes

  • The Homework Myth: Why Our Kids Get Too Much of a Bad Thing

  • video: The 3 Most Basic Needs of Children & Why Schools Fail

  • Summerhill School: A New View of Childhood

  • [A Mathematician's Lament (PDF)] (https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf); longer book version: A Mathematician's Lament: How School Cheats Us Out of Our Most Fascinating and Imaginative Art Form

  • Ken Robinson's TED talk: Do Schools kill creativity?

  • How Children Fail

  • Unschooling

  • Why do we get frustrated when learning something? (written by me)

    I am skeptical that I will CYV, even though I believe that this is the best argument against it--not your view that detention is wrong, but that it's not even worth talking about. Sure, detention is a bad thing--but not the worst thing--about a horrible, corrupt, abusive system.

    I'm skeptical, because the system is so deeply entrenched in our culture. And the most people can do is argue about small tweaks: whether we should use this textbook or that, the length of Summer break, the size of classrooms, etc.

    The debate about Creationism vs Evolution in schools is a good example. If the Evolution folks (or the Creationist folks) win, they will pat themselves on the back and walk away happy, never glancing back and noticing that the same shoddy educational methods are being used now as before--with just one correction.

    Yes, Dominoes is bad pizza. It won't suddenly become good pizza if you put it in a less-ugly box. I agree that the box is ugly, but why focus on it? It's not the core problem.
u/genida · 5 pointsr/reddit.com

Whether or not you're going all the way to homeschooling or finding alternatives such as Montessori or Waldorf, here's my two cents as well. Read up on it. I'll probably come off as bit of an ass, but it's your kid, what more relevance do you need to find and buy lots and lots of manuals(so to speak). Kids're pretty complicated, or so I've heard.

I'm not an expert, but I have a few titles I'll promptly lay on whatever friend of mine starts to procreate first. In my opinion these aren't 'crazy' books, and I sincerely hope you'll take them seriously.

How Children Learn

How Children Fail

Punished By Rewards

The Homework Myth

John Taylor Gatto has written some stuff as well, but Google can find that for you. Read and read more. I couldn't begin to describe my time in the famous twelve years without plenty of cussing.

Take an interest, is my advice.

u/zuggyziggah · 5 pointsr/BabyBumps

Depends on which book it is. A good, general development guide like Touchpoints or The Well Baby Book is super useful for all parents. There's not so much a parenting philosophy inside as much as what to expect when and when you might want to alert the doctor to a suspected delay or whether an illness is worth calling about or if it's something you can manage at home. A parenting guide like Babywise or even (in my opinion) anything by Dr. Sears - those books have an agenda and if you (or your baby) don't work within that agenda, you're in for a world of disappointment.

Another approach, the one I took, is to read all the top guides in a given category, like sleep, and pick and choose. I liked knowing what all the theories were, because some things worked for my kid and some didn't, and some things worked sometimes but not others. Having a larger arsenal made me feel like a more competent parent.

u/irresolute_essayist · 5 pointsr/circlebroke2

There's also Justin Barret, who is a cognitive psychologist and a Christian theist, who grapples with Theory of the Mind in his books "Why Would Anyone Believe in God?" and "Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief"

Several years back he had a discussion with another Cognitive Psychologist as part of the Veritas forum on "Faith, Psychology, and the origin of belief" which you may find interesting (and this one, unlike the books, is free!).

It's some coincidence (or providence depending on your beliefs) that I was just listening to that Veritas recording today. I got it months ago off of iTunes and just so happened to read your circlebroke post right after.
It's highly relevant.

u/Rygarb · 5 pointsr/Equality

Due to feminism's War Against Boys, they have been suffering in school.

This plan sounds like it could help.

u/AberrantCheese · 4 pointsr/fosterit

You guys sound like me and my wife; she wanted to get into it years before I did because I was the worry-wart. She waited on me to come around to the idea before signing us up for the classes. We also wanted to go the foster-to-adopt route (well actually we just wanted to adopt, but you foster-to-adopt anyway in that process.)

My advise to you two is to go ahead and make plans to go through the fostering classes. Doing so doesn't commit you to fostering, you can still decide it isn't for you. The classes are indeed geared towards 'worst case scenario' which likely won't be your experience if you do actually foster, but they might bolster your resolve for committing to fostering after learning how bad these kids have it.

Since you are leaning more towards the foster-to-adopt side, my bet is you'll be exposed more towards older kids and sibling groups since generally they are more available for adoption than the little kids, but it's a conversation you'll need to have with your case worker since it varies by region.

Currently we have a 13 year old girl in our care, who is available for adoption, and it looks probable that we will adopt her. Another thing we weren't told in training is that we aren't necessarily rushed for time. I was thinking we'd have to decide to adopt her within a month or two, but in reality it appears we can take all the time we need.

Some books you guys may want to read:
Three little words

Twenty Things Adopted Kids wish their Adoptive parents knew

u/ajducu_ · 4 pointsr/DebateReligion

Pretty much anything you read in Cognitive Science of Religion will cover this. Nascent theism is as basic to CSR as Darwinism is to evolution.

Overview of the field

Book

You can also just google "Cognitive Science of Religion" and "infants" and read as much.

u/skippwhy · 4 pointsr/collapse

>Seriously, If you have to believe in something to make it true for you then it's called subjective.

Morality is not something you believe in. It's deeply ingrained in our nature. People experience morality in many ways and to varying degrees, but the subjective feeling of something being morally right or wrong is a distinct set of intuitions.

Just Babies by Paul Bloom

The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt

>Is what elites do moral to people?

No, but why should I abandon my compassion?

>Is what people do moral to animals?

No, but why should I abandon my compassion?

>Is it possible for hypothetical aliens to justify human genocide within the boundaries of their own morality?

Yes, but why should I abandon my compassion?

>Do the alternatives include a sustainable civilization free from stupidities of egalitarianism and freedom? Sign me up.

Yes, though that society would undoubtedly include a set of moral intuitions as well, even if they aren't those of egalitarianism and freedom. I'm guessing collectivism and contribution.

>One more thing. Apathy is not sociopathy, Doc.

I mean, it kind of is. Specifically, apathy towards suffering.

I'm not calling you one. Based on what you've written, you don't sound like a sociopath. It sounds more like you've buried your moral intuitions and are denying yourself them to cope with how fucked up everything is. Rather than do that, I would stress compassion over empathy.

You don't have to put others above yourself, but that doesn't mean we should be happy-go-lucky about it. Millions upon millions of people will die as humanity collapses, but we should recognize that for what it is—a tragedy—and we should make efforts to mitigate the suffering if at all possible.

u/BrutalHonestyBuffalo · 3 pointsr/BabyBump

Honestly - it all goes out the window the moment you actually get into it.

But two books I found useful to some degree:

Wonder weeks - really useful for understanding the mental leaps your child will experience. It's more helpful at the time - but it's a nice thing to browse.

Solve your child's sleep problems - This is the ferber (cry it out) method for sleep training. I am not saying I entirely followed this book - but I did find the sleep patterns and cycles to be useful to understand WHY my kid was having issues on occasion. I did not follow the ferber method to a T though - however, I did do a modified CIO method with my dude and it was pretty successful (though it's sort of more about training you than the kid, IMO).

I also recommend anything by the Mayo Clinic (and avoid all of the "What to Expect..." line).
It's scientifically based and doesn't treat you like an idiot. They have a pregnancy book and a first year book, both of which I liked quite a bit.

Other than that - start browsing /r/beyondthebump and /r/toddlers - they are both great places to go when you are feeling insane and just need to hear that "this is normal".

P.S. You may want to try posting to /r/babybumpS - it has a larger following. :)

u/boolean_array · 3 pointsr/Documentaries

Thank you for the reading recommendation. It's going on my list.

I've developed similar leanings over the years and I partly attribute that to having read this book.

u/oroboros74 · 3 pointsr/linguistics

Terrence Deacon's The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain is definitely a must. Great read, too!

EDIT: Notice that it's not about the development of language in evolution, but how language and evolution co-evolved. If you're into human vs animal communication, neuro-stuffs, even semiotics, this book will be for you. Oh, and yeah, he criticizes Pinker, Chomsky, et al. So if you already know about generativism, this will be a good gateway towards modern cognitive science and cognitive linguistics.

u/-rba- · 3 pointsr/daddit

I recently read about this in "Brain Rules for Baby" by John Medina.

If you don't want to read the whole book, this site has a good summary.

Here's an article about the orphanage study.

u/eurydicesdreams · 3 pointsr/neuroscience

I can't answer the question definitively, but an interesting phenomenon that I've observed as a teacher is how teaching infants sign language allows them to exhibit their cognition and thought process. I teach in a Montessori infant classroom and I've taught babies (under 18 months) signs that I then see them use in different but totally appropriate ways. For example: we use the sign "outside" to mean literally out-of-doors in the fresh air. But we have kids who then use the same sign to mean "out of the classroom", "out of this area", "come to this side of the fence," etc. They are showing that they understand this concept of "i am here and I want to be elsewhere". They don't have the verbal/physical words, but the neural pathways are certainly there, and every time someone uses that sign or says "outside" that pathway is being reinforced. Obviously, I don't know for sure, but I would imagine that since these children are signing in response to heard words, if you could see a brain scan you'd see areas lighting up for thinking of the sound of words, and also motor skills for thinking about the movement of signing.
Now I want to see if anyone's done this kind of study, and if not, why not?! Off I scuttle to do some research....

Edit: a really terrific resource for understanding infant cognition is Alison Gopnik. She's a cogsci researcher out of UC Berkeley and she's written the following:

[The Scientist in the Crib](The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells Us About the Mind https://www.amazon.com/dp/0688177883/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_bboSybE1V7Q9G)

[The Philosophical Baby](The Philosophical Baby: What Children's Minds Tell Us About Truth, Love, and the Meaning of Life https://www.amazon.com/dp/0312429843/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_QboSybDSGGJZQ)

I can't speak for [her new book](The Gardener and the Carpenter: What the New Science of Child Development Tells Us About the Relationship Between Parents and Children https://www.amazon.com/dp/0374229708/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_udoSybM1SFBSC) but I can tell you that the first two completely changed the way I view babies. They really are amazing little people with astounding cognitive abilities from birth!

u/zataks · 3 pointsr/daddit

You might consider reading Brain Rules for Baby written by neurologist John Medina. It's good stuff.

u/hodorhodor12 · 3 pointsr/personalfinance

First off, the fact that you are asking this question here shows me that your kid is going to be fine. It shows great awareness. That is awesome.
I can related a little because i grew up lower-middle class to uneducated parents but have gotten lucky breaks here and there which have helped me moved up in the world. As with your situation, I had to work a bit harder as I wasn't taught things that are normally taught in educated households. Don't think for once that a lot of money is necessary to raise a great kid. Your kid doesn't need extravagant gifts for xmas to know he/she is loved. Your time and attention matters so much more than material things - they will remember you doing arts and crafts and throwing a ball around more than you getting them the latest video game system.

The existence of the internet has greatly democratized things. There is so much information that is free to access that wasn't available for my parents.

My suggestions.

  1. Read parenting books. Seriously, by just reading these books, you'll be a better parent than the more affluent, yet clueless parents that I know. There's so many topics to cover: nutrition, discipline, etc. Some of it might be very obvious, but it at least puts in all in the forefront of your mind. Some books:
    https://www.amazon.com/Caring-Your-Baby-Young-Child-ebook/dp/B00R5KWXU8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492457183&sr=8-1&keywords=american+pediatrics+baby

    https://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Kids-Will-Listen-ebook/dp/B005GG0MXI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492457006&sr=8-1&keywords=parenting+book

    https://www.amazon.com/Whole-Brain-Child-Revolutionary-Strategies-Developing-ebook/dp/B004J4X32U/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1492457006&sr=8-3&keywords=parenting+book

    Also read books on personal finance, saving for college, taxes and so on. There are too many to name but I'm sure you'll find them all at the library. It'll be overwhelming but you need to do it all at once.
    One thing you've probably already realized is that raising a kid is ultimately a self improvement endeavor. You have to work on yourself and make yourself a better person in order for your kids to be better, directly and indirectly.

  2. Talk to your kids all the time and be patient in answer questions. Talk to them in the manner you'd like to see them talk to your grand children when they become adults. By talking all the time to them, they will have a much better language skills.

  3. Take them to the library as much as you can. It's something that my mom did all the time and it helped developed my curiosity.

  4. Find them mentors. I grew up not really knowing any adults who were in skilled professions so my outlook starting college was limited - I didn't know what was out there. I didn't know what jobs paid well and so on. I know it's going to be more of a challenge because of the folks you are surrounded by, but you can do things like have them participate in team sports, after school activities, work friends, etc.
u/000000000000000000oo · 3 pointsr/ScienceParents

The Scientist in the Crib. It's not about parenting exactly, but it will give you an informed perspective on child development.

u/minisnoo · 3 pointsr/Mommit

I really liked Brain Rules for Baby. Every subject in the book is paired with what we know or don't know from current research. It covers pregnancy though the first few years!

u/kodheaven · 3 pointsr/IntellectualDarkWeb

In this episode of the Making Sense podcast, Sam Harris introduces John Brockman’s new anthology, “Possible Minds: 25 Ways of Looking at AI,” in conversation with three of its authors: George Dyson, Alison Gopnik, and Stuart Russell.

George Dyson is a historian of technology. He is also the author of Darwin Among the Machines and Turing’s Cathedral.

Alison Gopnik is a developmental psychologist at UC Berkeley and a leader in the field of children’s learning and development. Her books include The Philosophical Baby.

Stuart Russell is a Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at UC Berkeley. He is the author of (with Peter Norvig) of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, the most widely used textbook on AI.

u/twice_twotimes · 2 pointsr/linguistics

If you don't ride the UG train, The Symbolic Species by Terrence Deacon is a good read. Some of his biological speculation is a little questionable, but all the semiotic stuff is solid and sensible.

u/chengjih · 2 pointsr/daddit

Ah, here's the quote I'm looking for:

> Families survive the Terrible Twos because toddlers aren't strong enough to kill with their hands and aren't capable of using lethal weapons. A 2-year-old with the physical capacities of an adult would be terrifying.

I believe it's this book.

u/uncletravellingmatt · 2 pointsr/atheism
u/WackyWarrior · 2 pointsr/funny

There is nothing wrong with play fighting. In fact it is helpful for the development of children. Anybody interested in learning more should read Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence.
http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Monsters-Children-Make-Believe-Violence/dp/0465036961

u/jojotv · 2 pointsr/atheism

I think it was probably this one.

u/TakverToo · 2 pointsr/Teachers

This might not quite be your speed, but How Children Fail and How Children Learn by John Holt both have had a profound influence on my career choices and approach as a teacher.

Also, while technically a parenting book, How to Talk so Kids Will Listen, and Listen so Kids Will Talk is the backbone of my classroom management approach.

u/Prototype958 · 2 pointsr/gaming

I wrote this exact paper probably half a dozen times throughout my school years. There's plenty of ACTUAL research out there. Please do the topic justice and don't base it off of reddit comments..

Also, go read this as part of your research:
http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Monsters-Children-Make-Believe-Violence/dp/0465036961/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1458586774&sr=8-1&keywords=killing+monsters

EDIT:: 1 more thing; I don't know what level of education you plan on submitting this for, but unless this is an opinion piece, no self respecting professor will accept a paper with references that include social media, wikipedia, or message boards. I wouldn't recommend using anything you get here if you're hoping for a passing grade.

u/1point618 · 2 pointsr/SpecArt

Well, it's not my phrase. That's what the study of the origins of language is referred to as in Linguistic literature. It's actually somewhat confusing, because "the evolution of language" refers to how language originated both as a social structure and as a biological feature of humans, while "language evolution" refers to the processes by which established languages change over time (ie, Old English becoming Middle English becoming Modern English).

Also, there are many researchers who would argue that language is a special case of meaning—that is, without language there is no meaning, and structure preceded semantics. Particularly, Deacon, Bickerton, and Torey all express this idea in different ways. I'm partial to this point of view myself.

u/trenchantcritique · 2 pointsr/Anthropology

Last semester, I took an awesome intro to biological anthropology class and we read excerpts from the professor's book (so I have not yet read the entire book, though I plan to do so soon!) Maybe this is something you'll be interested in; hope this helps!
http://www.amazon.com/The-Symbolic-Species-Co-evolution-Language/dp/0393317544/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343888665&sr=8-1&keywords=the+symbolic+species

u/librarianzrock · 2 pointsr/beyondthebump

4 Month Sleep Regression! From here on out, all bets are off, sleep-wise. Babies develop new skills and new physical abilities that mean they need extra contact and reassurance (often through sleeping on you, nursing, being worn in a wrap...any close contact really) during the night hours.

Most of child development is one step forward, two steps back. The books Wonder Weeks and Touchpoints are really helpful for this sort of thing because it helped explain what was going on, week to week, and why baby might be sleeping poorly one week and fine the next.

u/TheDude41 · 2 pointsr/MensRights

White women are the most entitled overall demographic of human beings who currently walk the face of the planet. Despite the fact that white females generally are raised in middle class or affluent neighborhoods, attend the same middle to upper class schools, and are more likely to attend decent universities with extensive financial support from their white daddies and white mommies (at least to the same degree as their male siblings), a large fraction of females bitch and moan as if they deserve the same level of special treatment as black kids whose entire last five generations of ancestors, both male and female, were raised in a ghetto. This is of course utter crap. Last I checked, chromosomal assignment being random, females are just as likely to be born to parents of one sex or another as are boys. And unfortunately, boys have to contend recently with a whole host of structural disadvantages such as removal of same-sex role models from their families and schools and the nasty revving up of misandric attitudes in their places of life and education.

This is not being progressive or liberated: https://galesmind.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/female-ec-the-damsel-in-distress.jpg , it's being a spoiled brat. It's just the same old tired sexist slovenly behavior that has been playing out culturally for hundreds of years. Unfortunately, judging from the continued whining despite being elevated to the pinnacle of social privilege, many women have changed little.

In answer to your question, here are some resources:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786110333?keywords=who%20stole%20feminism&qid=1448945019&ref_=sr_1_2&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.com/The-War-Against-Boys-Misguided-ebook/dp/B00ADRXOTO/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1

If your mother whines on about "patriarchy", remind her that damseling and chivalry are sexist horseshit.

The most common form a matriarchy takes:

http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/037/099/i02/african-lion-pride.jpg?1361809335

Damseling behavior dictates that women will frequently elect a male leader, who generally implements policies to the benefit of females (chivalry). Because the figurehead is male, the policies implemented have the false impression of being altruistic in motivation, when they are really pass-through policies reflecting the selfish interests of the female populace. This arrangement dictates that females must portray themselves as weak. Obviously, the figurehead being male and not female is a means to depicting weakness, when in reality, the figurehead is endorsing policies to the benefit of females.

How else do you explain that even after 100 years of women having the right to vote, not a single female in an industrialized country has been drafted to die in war?

This is not patriarchy. This is matriarchy.

Meanwhile, the males bound about like clueless idiots, being deluded into thinking they benefit because a male is at the apex position of "power" (ego), even though he implements chivalrous dickbag policies.

Women have always enlisted men to do their dirty work, including the dirty work of screwing over other men.

Repeat, ad nauseum.

u/wttttcbb · 2 pointsr/WTT_graduates

I haven't been feeling great the past few days with cramps, difficulty falling asleep, back aches, etc, but I just cleaned the kitchen and started something in the slow cooker for tonight. Yay me.

I also felt like skipping Zumba both days and didn't. Today my instructor made me lead one song while she stood in the back, and I didn't crack under the pressure of her observing me! Normally I get nervous and mess up.

Now that we're officially trying again, we've continued reading Brain Rules for Baby in bed before going to sleep. I like it a lot.

u/americanInsurgent · 2 pointsr/science

If anyone is interested in more on this topic, I recommend Killing Monsters: Why Children need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence. It takes a good look at child psychology as well as analyzing studies and their findings in regards to negative attribution bias that most use to show the "harmful effects" violent games can have.

edit: Original wording sounded like it supported the claim that violent games make kids violent, it in fact supports the opposite view being that violent games aren't harmful and are arguably healthy for children.

u/StrangeLooper · 2 pointsr/PSYC2371

The Kindle version is only $14, and it can be read on any device!

http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Know-What-Isnt-ebook/dp/B001D1SS2M

u/wannabezen · 2 pointsr/Parenting

3 YO brains aren't like little adult brains - they are so different that leading developmental psychologist Alison Gopnik describes them as almost being another species. Or at least like the butterflies to our caterpillars.

Little kids have way more neural connections than adults - over time they get pruned based on the kid's experiences. This means that they see limitless options where we just see a toothbrush. They also have very underdeveloped frontal lobes so are not able to control themselves very well.

In addition to these structural differences, children need play and exploration to prepare their brains for academic learning, creativity, and focus when they are older. If a parent were to totally scare a kid into always doing everything the parent wants all the time that wouldn't be healthy for cognitive development.

There's lots of great advice here about how to deal with this. If you want to read more about why klittle kids are the way they are I really recommend Dr. Gopnik's book The Philosophical Baby. It doesn't
give strategies for handling little kids but it does give you a wonderful appreciation for why they act the way they do and how important it is for development. http://www.amazon.com/The-Philosophical-Baby-Childrens-Meaning/dp/0312429843

u/stew_face · 2 pointsr/ECEProfessionals

Vanessa Lapointe- Discipline Without Damage

This book changed how I work with toddlers entirely. She has some great YouTube videos too.

u/CapnSupermarket · 1 pointr/Unexpected

No-Drama Discipline, Raising Human Beings and How to talk so kids will listen are three feet away on my bookshelf right now. These were absolutely vital to me as a new parent.

u/005 · 1 pointr/funny

Neil Postman spent a lifetime studying this stuff. He does an especially good job of laying out arguments for reading/abstraction in The Disappearance of Childhood.

> People generally describe things through metaphor and allegory to keep the message interesting and less dry.

Metaphors are used to make a message clearer, not to make it "less dry." I'd suggest reading this lesson on metaphors.

Sorry to be so stubborn about this. I spend a good amount of time working with the importance of reading in learning how to comprehend and communicate ideas.

> People describe abstract ideas in concrete, literal terms all the time

I challenge you to do this right now, without using metaphor, similes or symbolism.

u/tinkthank · 1 pointr/worldnews

I snooped around on this topic on reddit and I found this,

http://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/e3ziz/8090_of_women_have_been_harassed_in_public/c156278

I did not know that the age of consent for marriage in many US states until the 1900s was 10, while in Delaware, it was 7.

It also reminded me of a book by Neil Postman, titled The Disappearance of Childhood. In it, he described childhood as being a categorization that correlates with the creation of the public school system. Prior to mandatory education, women and men in certain cases married a lot earlier. Its an interesting read. The book itself is about 177 pages so its fairly short.

u/djsowndifieb · 1 pointr/GetMotivated

Fair enough, I barely remember anything from my that early in my childhood. But if you're interested in learning more about how he might have affected your childhood mind I still recommend his book.

He was a child psychologist before the show, and everything on it was heavily thought out. For instance he would take off his coat when he came in to try to make the viewer feel more like he had just stopped in for a nice visit. A lot of his lessons and morals of the show focused on helping children to be able to communicate and express their feelings in a safe way with other people.

http://www.amazon.com/Dear-Rogers-Does-Ever-Neighborhood/dp/0140235159/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1394063120&sr=8-1

u/limukala · 1 pointr/Economics

>The country is one of the richest in the world, so apparently it is working.

Debatable, since that standing hasn't really changed at all since the high taxes went into effect.

>If in scenario 2, everyone has higher child mortality, obesity, suicides, alcoholics, homeless, crime etc. I would rather have scenario 1

There really isn't evidence of that either. Plenty of countries manage high inequality and low social strife. The important thing is that nobody is desperate and everyone has opportunity. Everyone doesn't need to have equal amounts of luxury.

>Yes, in the the US it is higher, but what will the wage be after we cut out average spending on education and health care?...In Denmark we get paid to study.

Firstly, it's insanely easy to get paid to study here too (I got about $2000/month plus all tuition from the government). We just expect you to give something in return. GI Bill is way more generous than any European program too. I am open to expanding the GI Bill to other forms of federal service for those unable to serve in the military for medical or ethical reasons, but I honestly think making people give something in return for the money will make them value the education more and take it more seriously. You could even say Denmark does the exact same thing as the US, they just don't give you a choice about whether you join the military.

As far as the dollar figure, those are pretax wages, so the difference is much starker when you look at disposable income, where Denmark is below the OECD average. As far as US healthcare and education spending, even if you add the ~9% of the GDP going to private healthcare and education expenses to total tax revenue it's still a much smaller percentage of GDP. This is ignoring things like the way the US heavily subsidizes the social democracies of Western Europe in at least two ways. US military power through NATO allows western Europe to spend less on defense than they otherwise would, and the USA's massively inflated drug prices stimulate and fund medical research for the entire world. If you don't believe that here is Scott Alexander's summary of the evidence:

>1. Golec & Vernon (2006) say that as a result of European drug price regulation, “EU consumers enjoyed much lower pharmaceutical price inflation, however, at a cost of 46 fewer new medicines introduced by EU firms.”

>2. Eger and Mahlich (2014) find that among pharmaceutical companies, “a higher presence in Europe is associated with lower R&D investments. The results can be interpreted as further evidence of the deteriorating effect of regulation on firm’s incentives to invest in R&D.”

>3. Kutyavina (2010) finds that “brand-name pharmaceutical firms characterized by large R&D expenditures decreased their R&D efforts post 1993 threat [to regulate drug prices] relative to firms that did not engage in as much innovative R&D”.

>4. Acemoglu and Linn (2004) find that “We find a large effect of potential market size on the entry of nongeneric drugs and new molecular entities”, which I think is supposed to generalize to mean that the more money they expect to make the more research they do. I will count this as half a study since the connection is not explicit.

>5. Danzon & Epstein (2008) analyze price regulations and new drugs invented in 15 countries and 12 drug classes, and find that “If price regulation reduces drug prices, it contributes to launch delay in the home country.

>6. Troyer & Krasnikov (2002) find that “the empirical relationship between pharmaceutical industry revenues and pharmaceutical industry innovation is estimated, allowing for an exploration of the impact of the Medicaid rebate program [which regulated drug prices somewhat]. Using the empirical results, the opportunity cost of the Medicaid rebate program is found to be as high as four new drug approvals annually. Given the increased interest in a Medicare drug benefit, regulators should be aware of the hidden cost of price regulation for pharmaceuticals.”

>7. Vernon (2005) finds that “I simulate how a new policy regulating pharmaceutical prices in the US will affect R&D investment. I find that such a policy will lead to a decline in industry R&D by between 23.4% and 32.7%. This prediction, however, is accompanied by several caveats.”

>8. Golec, Hegde, and Vernon (2009) find that “Results show that the HSA [a bill to regulate drug spending in the US] had significant negative effects on stock prices and firm-level R&D spending. Conservatively, the HSA reduced R&D spending by about $1 billion even though it never became law.”

>9. Santerre and Vernon (2006) use drug demand data to simulate various regulatory regimes, and find that a certain price regulation policy they test, continued over twenty years, would have cost gains of $472 billion (!) but also “have led to 198 new drugs being brought to the US market” (!!). They note that “Therefore, the average social opportunity cost per drug developed during this period was approximately $2.4 billion. Research on the value of pharmaceuticals suggests that the social benefits of a new drug are far greater than this estimate. Hence, drug price controls could do more harm than good.”

Actually, the prescription drug debate is a perfect proxy for this debate as a whole. While price controls sound like an amazing idea, and make things better for poor people in the short term, they also have a negative impact on research and discovery. In the short term poor people can afford more medicine, but in the long term fewer new drugs are discovered, meaning that in the future rich and poor alike are dying sooner or dealing with more illness than they otherwise would. Those expensive prescription drugs eventually become generics that everyone can afford, but price controls mean that you prevent future rich and poor people both from benefiting in order to keep present rich people from having something that present poor people can't.

As a Rand study said:

>Regulatory approaches that reduce pharmaceutical revenues may generate modest consumer savings in the best cases, but risk much larger costs as decreased innovation leads to reductions in life expectancy.

It smacks of crabs in a bucket, and seems a poor way to run a society.

>Which country has the highest opportunity of doing what they want to do? The country where everyone can get any education they want or the country where everyone has access to education if they have at least XX$ to pay for school?

Anyone who wants to go to school here can. Anyone who wants to get paid for school here can, but most don't want to give the service asked. I'm fine with leaving that a personal choice, whereas in Denmark you are forced to serve in the military, but then get free education.

>The money used to subsidise schools and higher education comes back to the people, because schools make people work more efficiently, you get better services, you see less crime etc.

The US has higher numbers of college graduates than Denmark, so maybe the causation doesn't work so cleanly.

>All those people who want that believe that the unemployed search for jobs they want 4 times less than what they actually do, that they spend their money worse than they do, that they like being unemployed more than they do, that they care about society less than they actually do. This bias is a huge mess politically. Longterm-unemployed people are miserable. It destroys them not to be part of society.

You are giving lots of numbers, but how much time have you actually spent with the underclasses. I've lived in 12 different states all over this country, at every possible socio-economic level (well, everything upper middle class and below). I've spent a lot of time with the lower and under classes. I was homeless in Hawaii, lived in a trailer park in the rural midwest, my wife's family is desperately poor black folks from South Carolina, I've worked quite a bit with both rural and urban poverty. I have yet to get to know anyone who isn't complicit in their poverty. Yes, you can argue that the culture they were raised in and the role-models they had doomed them to a life of poverty and you can't really blame them for following in the footsteps of their elders. That doesn't change the fact that in every case they are making decisions that directly prevent them from rising out of poverty, and just handing them a middle class life won't change those basic behaviors or incentivize improvement. I'm all for maintaining a basic level of subsistence, and improving and equalizing the education system to try to break the cycle of poverty, but you'll never meet a group of people less sympathetic to your arguments than people who were born into poverty and worked their way out of it.

On population levels you can see the forces at work that keep people in shitty situations, and we can take population level actions to try to mitigate that. It's already super easy for poor people to go to school free here though (it's middle class kids with the big loans). The change needs to happen at elementary levels, and once again money doesn't even seem to be the deciding factor. There actually isn't all that much correlation between money spent and education outcomes here. Instead schools tend to suck when the percentage of poor kids is too high, regardless of spending. This is probably because of the toxic peer groups created, since outcomes are determined by peer groups more than parenting or education.

u/jediknight · 1 pointr/atheism

Actually the whole "HUMANITY IS FUKIN RETARDED" is quite wrong. Belief in supernatural is also caused by the fact that we are very intelligent, intelligent enough to come up with all kinds of excuses. I put How We Know What Isn'T So on my reading list to study this further.

TLDR; Religiosity is caused by high irrationality not low intelligence.

u/olamova · 1 pointr/Mommit

Maybe see a pediatrician, like others have suggested. It's also possible that there's nothing wrong and your baby is just having a developmental leap. The Wonder Weeks (The Wonder Weeks: How to Stimulate Your Baby's Mental Development and Help Him Turn His 10 Predictable, Great, Fussy Phases into Magical Leaps Forward(5th Edition) https://www.amazon.com/dp/9491882163/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_ErWoDb6MX31CR) is a good book to check out.

u/are_you_trolling · 1 pointr/atheism

The book was called "Dear Mr. Rogers, Does It Ever Rain in Your Neighborhood?: Letters to Mr. Rogers".

Most of the book was questions from kids about the show or life ("why do you toss your shoe when you take it off?"). In all the responses, he was funny, warm and caring. Then he was amazing in Chapter 8 ("Today my dog died"). Great guy...

u/StuffyMcFluffyFace · 1 pointr/beyondthebump

I know Daniel Siegel talks about processing traumatic experiences in the Whole-Brain Child, within the first couple chapters. I think he explains the process with slightly older kids (preschool/kindergarten age), but maybe it can still help?

u/isiramteal · 1 pointr/Libertarian

> What is?

Owning your own property is voluntary, government is involuntary.

> What is ok? Morals are a social construct. They vary from society to society and person to person.

And are social constructs not inherent to the human condition?

> Yes but they vary!!

Absolutely, but there are morals inherent that exist prior to externalities taking effect. Religion, for example, is caused by external events in life.

> And I say you're wrong. So I guess we're at an impasse. It's my anatomy vs your anatomy.

Understanding that theft is wrong vs not.

> Yes. So figure it out! I'm not going to keep arguing with you until you figure out what you actually believe in!

I do know what I believe in. I just don't know the specifics. Recognizing the sun is yellow is observable. Not providing the exact specifics for why doesn't dismiss the observation.

> I'm observing in nature that almost every advanced country has socialized healthcare. That's an observation. Therefore it must be human nature. And you can't prove me wrong because this is literally your own logic.

\>nature

\>advanced country

It would be my logic if it actually led to a logical conclusion.

> Do you just think that all the socialists, communists, fascists, liberals, and theocrats are a genetic mutation or something? Because they vastly outnumber you. Maybe you're the one whose anatomy is fucked up and that made you libertarian. It all comes back to "who are you to force your will on others?"

Mostly a lazy insult than an argument, but I would refer back to my 3rd point on this response. I would add that they believe they're fulfilling these moral truths but in manners that are objectively immoral. Making them understand that is a battle in it's own.

> Because humans inherently caring about one another doesn't get you very far.

Caring is a thought. Morals are thoughts.

> Ok, great, we care about each other, so socialized healthcare is a right. I get it. Now where in our caring and social nature does it say that we should have property rights and the right to bear arms, etc.

Property rights and the right to bear arms come from the understanding of what I own is mine (such as your body and material items) and the right to defend your life, liberty and property.

> It's not. It stems from the concept that you are at the whim of whoever has a monopoly of violence over you. If everyone has equal firepower, then no one can overpower any other person, and so every person is individually a sovereign king. It just so happens that power is not evenly divided, and there's people with a lot of power and little power, and so people naturally organize where the powerful control the less powerful.

This doesn't deny the claim that humans don't have natural rights, it just reinforces that people violate those natural rights.

> You haven't told me shit.

Yes. I have. Multiple times. Look through this thread again.

>You've just asserted that it's inherent in our anatomy without saying how, or why, or giving me an example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU

> Well I'm saying fucking prove it. I don't believe you. Maybe this argument works with your minarchist friends who already agree with you, but as a skeptic, your reasoning is bunk.

Sorry, the insults don't do anything for your argument other than suggest you don't have one.

> Fine. Then cite one. Find me an article by a biologist who says what you're saying. Let me discuss it with someone who knows what they're talking about.

https://www.amazon.com/Just-Babies-Origins-Good-Evil/dp/0307886840

> Reminds me of when Christians say "how can you deny God? Just look at the birds, the trees!" Yeah, ok. Sure.

A denial of science doesn't make an observation false.

u/Chocobean · 1 pointr/daddit

I found Brazelton to be very helpful. He's not for or against cosleeping, not for or against sleep training, not for or against attachment, breastfeedung, gluten free, organic, baby wearing, elimination communication, or whatever. (Those are the major dogmatic divisions currently) He's a pediatrician, and he's an advocate for taking the time to understand the youngest infants and to take good care of them. And to take care of the parents too. Just the facts on ages and stages, you as a family decide how to get there. I'm in this flexible school: know the enemy baby, victorious in every battle.

The Happiest Baby On The Block book is very popular as well. A lot of people swear by it, I thought it made a lot of sense too but I didnt find it fitting for my baby. So staying flexible is good.

As a family you should talk about sleep now. If/when things get super bad, how will you handle it? Cosleep? Scheduleing? To what age? After sleep, everything is easy.

When kid is older you can discuss free range options, what to do with stranger danger, strategies for lost child, discipline and acceptable motivations/bribes. Good luck!

I'm a passing by Chinese mom. We got a lot of support for sleep scheduling, and a lot of flak for not making custom congee meals for babe, but ymmv.

u/atty26 · 1 pointr/NewParents

came here to recommend this. Not only about babies, but a little bit about what to expect between parents (affecting relationship) as well, and how to deal with them. Definitely useful.

Link here

u/fishwithfeet · 1 pointr/atheistparents

While not specifically for pregnancy, I found these books incredibly helpful. They're written by neuroscience researchers at the University of Washington and my daughter and I ended up being selected as participants in some of their student's studies! The second book heavily influenced my parenting style (or reinforced what I was doing instinctively) and either I got lucky with a good kid or they're quite effective.

What's Going on In There: How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First 5 Years of Life

and

The Scientist in the Crib

u/EconomicSinkhole · 1 pointr/Parenting

Check out Ross Greene's Raising Human Beings. You might have to adjust your perception of what you currently think of as "discipline". I don't have a teenager yet and I don't know your situation but I don't think that a punishment arms race is going to solve anything. Maybe it's time for a new approach, like "Plan B" as described in the book?

u/bookchaser · 1 pointr/Parenting

Touchpoints: Birth to Three by T. Berry Brazelton. If your hospital showed you educational videos during your recovery, you might have seen this guy.

u/CunningAllusionment · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

Your question is very broad. Most parents don't think about the bulk of how they raise their kids in an especially rigorous way. They do things their parents did that they think were probably good ideas, and (usually) try to avoid doing things they think were probably bad ones. The problem is that most people don't try to use anything beyond anecdotes, preference, "folk wisdom", and convenience to inform their parenting practice.

Other people try to be more deliberate about it and approach parenting sort of like how teachers approach teaching. I fall more into this camp. It's important to me to have a theoretical foundation to inform my parenting choices, and as much as I can, I try to back up that theory with some kind of research-based evidence. Despite this, boolean_sleedgehammer is still right that no one knows exactly what they're doing.

I recommend developmental psychology books like this one.

u/Operator77 · 1 pointr/IAmA

>I'm not really associated with the feminist movement.

Really? Then why defend it?

I read the wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a great resource, I love it.

Third wave feminism?! These waves need to stop. The article did mention Christina Hoff Sommers, though.

I have her book The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men. Fantastic book, it really should just how harmful feminism really is.


Two more I would highly recommend:

Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture



Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men


I am all for equal rights. People who feel likewise should call temselves equalists.
I would embrace that in a heartbeat.
They should not continue to describe themselves as feminists, which is such a loaded term so full of negative connotations.

I posted this in Eqality - what do you think?

u/literal · 1 pointr/AskReddit

If education interests you, you can't go wrong with How Children Fail, How Children Learn, or any of John Holt's later works. Truly inspiring.

The Lives of Children by George Dennison is also amazing.

u/arielann81 · 1 pointr/Adoption

I'm a birthmother who placed a boy at birth 11 years ago. Adoption evolves depending on the people involved and from support groups I can tell you that no adoption is the same. There are books I wish I would have read before hand. One recommended recently for adoptive parents in my birth parent circles was Twenty Things Adopted Kids Wish Thier Adoptive Parents Knew. Available here: http://www.amazon.com/Twenty-Adopted-Adoptive-Parents-ebook/dp/B000SEFDJG/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368277710&sr=1-6&keywords=adoption

I have a semi open adoption where we communicate via email and I get an update with at least one picture once a year. Contact ranges from none to frequent visits so that is another thing to consider. What are you comfortable with? Are you ok with the idea that the child may still want to know the birthfamily? Even if they don't have contact during childhood they may seek them out as an adult. Are you ok with the idea of them having more family? More people to love them? Another mother/father figure? Hard questions for sure.

Just to dispel some myths: Most birthparents don't expect the kids they placed to see them as a parent later. Also, most birthmom's specifically wouldn't dream of changing their decision. We see it as giving the child a family ... not as giving the family a child. For us it is often about what reminds us of something we liked in our childhood. Similar traditions or activities. I really liked that the my AP's profile was scrapbooked and I could tell they were craft and art talented. This is because my mom was like that. I liked knowing they planed to adopt more kids and my son would be a big brother because I have a big brother. I've heard other birthmom's say the same. Hope this helps.

u/tadrinth · 0 pointsr/education

This is one of the theses of The Nurture Assumption.

u/mavnorman · 0 pointsr/TrueReddit

> I am not going to bother with a blog written by a journalist, and I fidn it kinda funny that you think it is convincing in some way.

Paul Bloom is a psychologist at Yale university and one of his research topics is moral development.

So, yeah, there's something funny but it's not what you think.

u/_OFFICER_DANGLE_ · 0 pointsr/DebateReligion

Lots of studies are covered is in this book by Justin Barrett who is probably the leading researcher, now at Fuller Theological Seminary and previously at Oxford University. He's a Christian, but most scholars in the field are atheist. He gives an overview of the field in this video. You can also just google "the naturalness of religion." Pascal Boyer is an atheist, but holds pretty much the same view. I'm not sure if there are scientists in CSR who don't think religion is somehow "natural" to our cognitive processes.

Who are the philosophers of mind you're invoking to make the premise of your argument?

u/oxomoxo · -1 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

I really appreciate all the work your doing here. From what you said I realized I may be falling off topic a bit and not properly explaining myself. I am going to take a break to reset.

These are the links I was referring to. I added all the links to the OP. But I didn't want to leave you in the dark.

Does cognitive science show belief in god to be irrational? The epistemic consequences of the cognitive science of religion
Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief
Children Tend to Believe in God

I have you not going to find any of those useful though.

u/kempleb · -2 pointsr/philosophy

Yes and maybe no. All logic starts with principles that are unprovable; but this does not mean they are "outside" reason. It only means that they are principles in no need of proof, or "per se notum quoad nos", as the Scholastics would say: known to us through itself (and in need of nothing else). The first such per se notum is "being"--and not to defer, but understanding just what means turns out to be pretty complicated, so I wrote a (really overpriced but right now a whole $15 off!) book about it.

That said, I'd say there are some pretty good a posteriori reasons to prioritize human existence, not only ones which are sentimental. After all, no other known lifeform has yet to evolve capacities for language (determined by a specific grasp of symbolicity--Terry Deacon having an accessible if disputable argument about this, as well as what I think is an inaccurate interpretation of Peirce, on the whole--as opposed to speech).