Children are as vicious, biased, racist and sadistic as their parents taught them to be, or allow them to become.
Actually, that is quite a dangerous and misleading assumption.
Children will mirror whatever they have around them, be it their parents or any other source with strong enough presenceâŠ
And even then, they only mirror behaviours âpart-timeâ, and only within a certain age range.
Beyond that, they are discovering the world. And that evokes far too many behaviours which we would see as biased or sadistic.
A baby that pulls the catâs tail⊠doesnât need a parent teaching it to do that. it will just happen. And then, the parents must teach the kid that that is not a good thing to do (or the cat will).
A young kid doesnât need racist parents to be suddenly afraid or disgusted by someone with a different skin colour. all it needs is to never have seen that skin colour before.
So⊠I would rephrase your statement amendment as:
older Children are as vicious, biased, racist and sadistic as their parents failed to teach them otherwise.
1 Like
Children are products of their environment.
If a flower doesnât bloom, you fix the garden not the flower!
2 Likes
Research has consistently shown that not to be true.
Babies are born innocent. Blank slates. As soon as they interact with their parents - which is immediately - they start becoming true humans: prejudiced and rotten to the core. Because they pick up their parentsâ view of the world, which is usually messed up one way or the other.
If the parents arenât too prejudiced, theyâll pick up a decent form of humanity by the time they reach adulthood. If the parents are really good, theyâll manage to instill in their child enough decency to overcome the prejudices they pick up from other humans later in life - which is what happened with my own parentsâ education, thankfully. But usually, they end up prejudiced adults who will pass on their legacy to their own offsprings.
There isnât much good in humans.
1 Like
Completely agree!
Hence why I say that statements such as âChildren are pureâ or âChildren are only bad because their parents are badâ are dangerous:
If you assume a child is âpure by natureâ, then there is nothing you need to do.
Take your garden analogy.
if I state âflowers bloom beautifully by nature. if they donât itâs the gardenerâs faultââŠ
Then the best course of action is to do nothing.
Whilst if I state that âflowers are just seeds, they need a caring gardener and a good enough garden to bloom beautifullyâ, then the best course of action is to nurture it.
Can you quote sources?
These âresearchesâ will always be tainted, by the simple fact that when a child is old enough to provide viable psychological insight, they will already have been shaped enough by the environment so that we donât have access to empirical data about a âpure childâ.
But one can extrapolate basic human responses to situations.
Blank slates? What about their instincts?
Why would a blank slate automatically grab something in itâs hand? Why would it suck on anything by instinct? Why would they put things in their mouths specifically, which is the biggest cluster of sensorial input they have?
All of those, and many others, are part of our inherent nature.
A good experiment can be done on top of the shopping cart theory.
Now picture this:
- A kid goes with mom for the first time in a supermarket.
- It knows how to carry itâs pack of candy and walk to the car.
- Mom points at the car, kid can go there on itâs own.
- Unless mom shows it how to use a cart to carry itâs pack of candy to the car, it will be none the wiser.
- Once mom shows the kid how to use the cart, and where is the car, then the kid can use a cart to go to the car.
Now the kid got to the car on itâs own, using a cart.
Kid has every skill nescessary to return the cart.
Kid is smart enough to see all the carts back at the entranceâŠ
Yet, kid will leave the cart there, by the car, when itâs done using it. Just because now the cart is no longer usefull, therefore it slips our thoughts.
Unless Mom tells kid that itâs a good thing to bring the cart back when you finish using it, then the cart will stay there.
Now⊠if kids were inherently pure and good, and the parents/environment are the only source of bad behaviours⊠then mom would not need to tell kid to bring the cart back. 
I am not saying that kids are âevilâ by nature.
Itâs more like⊠most of the behaviours we deem as sadistic, biased, etc⊠they are rooted in âunshapenâ base human instincts. Kids are a pool of basic unshapen human instinctsâŠ
So the parents and environment are needed to shape it into what we can socially accept as good behaviour⊠or in whatâs bad behaviour. But if left unattended, a Child is far from a âpure and innocent little angelâ.
EDIT: I need to stop coming here before my morning coffee⊠I get too far down the philosophical hole!! 
1 Like
Drop a toddler in a multicolored group of other toddlers and they immediately start interacting with one another. Drop a child old enough to have been âtaughtâ by their parents that color matters and they wonât. It doesnât even take explicit teaching: the child picking up subtle clues from their parentsâ behavior when in presence of people or different color, dressed differently or behaving differently is enough.
I read that in social experiments books when I passed my teaching license in Belgium. Teaching school teaches you those things so you, as a teacher, donât involuntarily end up treating certain children in your class differently because of your own prejudices, even if you think you donât have any.
I really canât be assed to look up references, because Iâm not trying to convince you. Look it up. Sorry, too lazy 
As for kids doing the right thing - returning the cart: yes, theyâre obeying their animal instinct, which is that the object serves no purpose anymore and can be left where it is. It takes a parent to teach them âdo unto othersâ, which is a specifically human skill: the power of empathy and doing something for someone else in the future so that they can expect the same to be done for them.
But the child wasnât doing anything wrong, as in the fundamental âgoodâ and âbadâ concepts: thatâs a different thing.
Babies arenât born good or bad. They learn to be good by themselves by direct experience (if I do this, that happens), they learn to be bad by themselves too (if I steal this, Iâll get that quicker / easier) and then they learn no to be bad by themselves when the penality outweighs the rewards (if I steal this, the owner will punch me in the face).
What they donât learn by themselves comes from their parents, and then from other human beings when they go out and meet others: they teach them to be bad directly (donât talk to niggers, theyâre inferior to you), indirectly (letâs switch sidewalk because guys dressed as rappers are sitting on the porch) and they can teach them superior goodness also sometimes (do this because youâd want the same thing done to you - no reward or penality, no obvious one anyway). But thatâs more rare.
True.
But this is another thing completely.
Toddlers are Kids within the âexplore everythingâ phase. they still canât make extrapolations, and to display biased behaviour you need to be able to extrapolate upon features.
They will pick up on âsomethingâ. Because that is a fundamental process on making up our group identity.
We identify with one group, and then we go through a phase where we must shun every other group⊠be that as part of being accepted into a larger group, or as part of crystalizing our own identity through a defensive mechanism.
And that something is most often than not whatever causes them fear. âstrength in numbers against the source of fearâ
Agree.
True⊠Except that in the world we live in, it is far more common for the rewards for bad behaviour to outweight the consequences.
Exactly my point.
Given that whatever they learn by themselves will most likely come in the form of immediate reward or instinct validation⊠then Children are far more likely to learn bad things if left by themselves. Just because our society rewards much more bad behaviours than good ones.
Just because you are biased thinking that most parents will be a source of bad influences wonât make it so that kids are a source of good influences. 
All Iâm saying is this: children develop a more or less nasty personality as they grow up, either by themselves, through their parentâs teaching, or through other parentsâ teaching that other kids are taught with and pass on to their friends.
If parents universally taught things good enough for their offsprings to grow into better humans than themselves, humanity as a whole would improve. And it doesnât. Ergo, parents are the source of badness in this world, whether they realize it or not, whether they try to be good or not, whether they realize their poor parenting comes from their own parentsâ poor parenting.
Iâm talking from a global, societal point of view. There are good individual families of course, but theyâre not enough to outweigh the bad ones.
That would be a correct conclusion, if this:
were to be the the only variable in play.
But one can reach the same outcome with a myriad of other inputs:
-
Kids are born âevilâ, and need their parents to teach them to be âgoodâ. So If the parents did not fail to teach their kids to be better, humanity as a whole would improve
-
If the environment universally taught things good enough for their offsprings to grow into better humans than themselves, humanity as a whole would improve.
-
if the environment did not universally taught things bad things to kids to grow into better humans than themselves, humanity as a whole would improve.
and so on, and so onâŠ
Hence I cannot take the conclusion you reached as an indicator of the nature of children, despite your conclusion leading argument seeming correct.
You go into a valid conclusion, but then overgeneralize it to the point where it distorts your original findingsâŠ
Sort of like what Freud did.
Babies donât differenciate. Kids do!
What I meant by agreeing on âKids are twatsâ was:
They enjoy not having to give a flying fucklington about plenty of things.
Such as providing for their family, or other responsibilities.
This makes them âless comformativeâ.
When they interact with adults is pretty much the product of parenting.
But dude, if you leave kids alone discipline becomes like a fart⊠they hold it, hold it until they can, but eventually it brakes loose.
Actually itâs interesting to observe them playing,
especially if they donât notice you watching.
The group dynamics is fascinating.
No South Park, no emoji this time.
1 Like
Yup!!
That might be the best analogy I ever heard about it!! 
And terrifyingly accurate!
You hit a bullseye right there!
The distinction about âinteracting amongst themselvesâ and âinteracting with adultsâ is a very good point to make!
Wait, 'cause it gets better:
Have you ever knew someone who went to catholic school?
When church is involved in education⊠thatâs like wearing a plug.
I am tempted to insert the relevant memes from SP, but I moderate myself.
I had honest conversations with young adults who were held tight by religion while they were students⊠They reported to became what youâd call ârebelsâ. Some of the regulars could tell you more.
1 Like
Indeed, quite a few.
More specifically a butt plug after you had a dozen yesterdayâs fish tacos with extra guacamole left on the sun.
You just gotta waitâŠ
1 Like
Disclaimer: My previous post was deleted because it was believed I was trying to sell something. I do not sell anything and I wonât even share my own personal sources. I am a genuine person who means exactly what I say. If I break my word on this, ban me for the douche I would be. Also note that I am not posting this even to teach, but to increase my knowledge in learning from others. I will never try to sell anyone anything on this forum. I like science. Nootropics is science!
With that said, let me try this again and explain my intentions more clearly.
In the past Iâve had experience with nootropics of various types and have seen a benefit in myself and others. Itâs been a long time since Iâve used any.
In December of 2019, a bug went around that we all believe was Covid. I had been really in shape before catching it, but after all of this time, I still havenât been able to get back to where I was. I still feel tired and weaker than I should be.
Not long ago, a guy I hadnât seen in months told me about SARMS. (Please note: This is not a brand name of any specific product. It stands for Selective androgen receptor modulator). The difference in him was drastic enough to get my attention. I spent a few days researching and see that itâs been used to eliminate weakness on many levels. Supposedly, it works like a steroid, but without the negative side of steroids. There are some negative stories, but I think itâs mostly those who have abused it.
As this nootropic is new to me, I was wondering if others have used it or know others who have, hoping to get a bigger picture, being as I only know one actual person who has used it. I ordered some and would like to learn more before putting it into my own body.
I am also interested in other nootropics that some of you might have used and what you felt worked.
(obligatory notice that this would be more suited for biohack.me, rather than this forum. Might also be more suited for the anti-derailment thread, as itâs not very on-topic for implants)
Iâve taken some, due to a friend that got into them a few months back. He bought me a few varieties.
Most of what Iâve had were all geared towards focus, as well as increasing the effects of caffeine. As a college student, this is of course an exciting idea.
Iâve tried a combination of 5-HTP, L-Acetyl Tyrosine, Phenylalanine, Bacopa monnieri, and Lionâs Mane mushroom extract.
I mean, itâs not like theyâre sugar pills or anything. Iâve definitely noticed a difference when theyâre all combined with caffeine and other amino acids (usually with a Bang or Reign energy drink). I go into almost a trance state, and can work fairly effectively. Iâve got issues with focusing, and it does indeed help. However, the side effects have made me not want to take them very long term. Within a few hours to a day, I start getting splitting headaches, until I take more. Tolerance also builds incredibly quickly, and I stop feeling any difference after only a few days. I hate any kind of dependency, and this is a deal breaker.
The Bacopa monnieri and Lionâs Mane worked well as an appetite suppressant, and I used it to help me with hunger pains during heavy intermittent fasting.
I donât know much about the workout side of things, but nootropics in general remind me of the saying about alternative medicine. âIf alternative medicine worked, it would be just be called medicineâ.
I feel like if most nootropics actually worked as well as marketed without being dangerous at all, they would have been marketed like crazy by every pharmaceutical company out there. The fact that they havenât been, tells me a lot about how well most of them function.
3 Likes
There is only one thing to know about nootropics - or indeed any health related products: if they were effective, theyâd be FDA-approved.
Think of them as cosmetic products for the brain.
2 Likes
The topic went from âProjectsâ to âLoungeâ.
Also, expect a melancholic robot to appear soonâŠ
Amphetamine is considered to be a nootropic, to be quite effective, and is not really FDA aproved for healthy humans (for obvious reasons) [except as Ritalin for ADHD and similar]
Sorry, I should have said âcontrolledâ, not approved. What I meant was, if you can buy it legally without prescription, it probably has little to no effect.