Interesting article. I believe it makes sense what they are saying in the big picture. Certainly, people would benefit from creating and joining local non-online communities.
What in their definition of community do you find problematic?
Mainly the focus on authorities, religion and so on. I get that they mean stability, which is probably good for children, but it is a bit too much of a projection of the “good old times” that never really existed.
I agree. The study seems a bit biased. In the article (or the previous in the series, I forgot), a study claims that religious children say that they have trusted persons more often than secular children. I (don’t) wonder how this might change if the child in question wasn’t cisgender and/or heterosexual.
It is a very insightful article nonetheless. Thanks for sharing!
I (don’t) wonder how this might change if the child in question wasn’t cisgender and/or heterosexual.
Simple: non-cishet children quickly stop being part of religious communities, and so the religious community is very accepting to all its members. Classic survivorship bias.
@RobotZap10000
As an athiest, I’m an active member of a Unitarian Universalist church. It gives me a community without the theology baggage. It’s a win/win and super welcoming to LGBTQ+ @poVoq
Yeah, I guess this is written from a more conservative standpoint.
I believe the principal ideas from the article apply to other people as well. Like progressive people could join a local sports club for example. Keeps them healthy and fit, and provides social contacts. Or then a book club, painting club, you name it.
And well, parents can create communities around their kindergarten or school classes, or maybe also some children’s sports club.
I partially agree. The article does make the point and probably didn’t want to project “good old times”, but that’s what happens when the author probably attended these communities themselves.
Now it would suffice to include other communities like the other commenter has mentioned, to make it less biased. But I wouldn’t really call it problematic.
Interesting article. I believe it makes sense what they are saying in the big picture. Certainly, people would benefit from creating and joining local non-online communities.
What in their definition of community do you find problematic?
Mainly the focus on authorities, religion and so on. I get that they mean stability, which is probably good for children, but it is a bit too much of a projection of the “good old times” that never really existed.
I agree. The study seems a bit biased. In the article (or the previous in the series, I forgot), a study claims that religious children say that they have trusted persons more often than secular children. I (don’t) wonder how this might change if the child in question wasn’t cisgender and/or heterosexual.
It is a very insightful article nonetheless. Thanks for sharing!
Simple: non-cishet children quickly stop being part of religious communities, and so the religious community is very accepting to all its members. Classic survivorship bias.
@RobotZap10000
As an athiest, I’m an active member of a Unitarian Universalist church. It gives me a community without the theology baggage. It’s a win/win and super welcoming to LGBTQ+
@poVoq
Yeah, I guess this is written from a more conservative standpoint.
I believe the principal ideas from the article apply to other people as well. Like progressive people could join a local sports club for example. Keeps them healthy and fit, and provides social contacts. Or then a book club, painting club, you name it.
And well, parents can create communities around their kindergarten or school classes, or maybe also some children’s sports club.
I partially agree. The article does make the point and probably didn’t want to project “good old times”, but that’s what happens when the author probably attended these communities themselves.
Now it would suffice to include other communities like the other commenter has mentioned, to make it less biased. But I wouldn’t really call it problematic.