REI Transfer - competition?

Peter Cole

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

> You might get a better understanding from:
>
> http://psychologytoday.com/articles...112-000010.html
>
> read all 8 parts and I think you'll recognize the behavior.
>
> Just because this syndrome is so prevalent, doesn't make it a good
> mode of social conduct.

It's fashionable to bash "helicopter parenting", and there's lots of
truth to the criticism, but I think it's more the symptom than the
disease. I think the content of one of the last paragraphs hits closer
to the root cause:

"The childhood we've introduced to our children is very different from
that in past eras, Epstein stresses. Children no longer work at young
ages. They stay in school for longer periods of time and spend more time
exclusively in the company of peers. Children are far less integrated
into adult society than they used to be at every step of the way. We've
introduced laws that give children many rights and protections—although
we have allowed media and marketers to have free access."

We've turned our children over to their peers and Madison Ave. to raise,
the "hovering" is just compensation. Our society has gone through a
major transition in the past 30 years with women in the workforce. The
issue of who was going to actually raise the children got glossed over.
It's the elephant in the room.

jim beam

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <xYOdnWHhHanKcNDVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:rcousine-1E9654.19281609062008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>>> However, the revelation that Jobst is now apparently advocating Randian
>>> Parenting is . . . awesome! In several senses of the word.
>> Jobst has a lot of value to add. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a lot of
>> low value as well. Don't we all?
>
> Tom, I think Jobst is one of the most valuable contributors to this
> group. Here's what I wrote, rather fawningly, on that subject in 2003:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec....hread/thread/23
> 3bc39e12f65d9/4655815a551cda04?lnk=gst&q=jobst+cousineau+rather#4655815a5
> 51cda04>
>
> I stand by every word, and hope that he will continue to post here as
> long as he is able.

you must be talking about his non-technical posts, because a shocking
number of his "tech" posts are based on either fundamental
misunderstandings or inability to make the simplest of observations.
the list is long and arduous, but misattribution of rim cracking to
anodizing is an example with significant impact on the industry.



>
> However, every time he posts something as silly as he did up-thread, I
> will make fun of it. The random BMW-purchasing accusations (would it be
> okay if it was used? Would it be bad again if it was an E24 M6? Are
> Porsches okay?) were just plain cute. The chance to use the Ayn Rand
> School for Tots reference from The Simpsons meant there was no way I
> wasn't going to respond.
>
> I won't catalog my own (numerous) shames in this and other newsgroups.
> It can be a fun game in which everyone can play along,
>

Peter Cole

Ed Pirrero wrote:

> I can't remember my college commuter - I think it might have been s
> Sears three-speed. I do remember using some latex house paint on it
> to make it look very beaterish.

I can, because I still have it, my wife has hers, too. Not that they're
anything like the original state (kind of like Grandpa's hatchet), but
they're both 35+ years old (wife's got a '72 UMass sticker), and the
kids have ridden both as beaters -- kind of cool when your college kid
rides your college bike. As a matter of fact, the last time hers got
used was last night when we went rowing, trailering my 10.5' skiff to
the river on a bike trailer I built this weekend.

Peter Cole

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <xYOdnWHhHanKcNDVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:rcousine-1E9654.19281609062008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>>> However, the revelation that Jobst is now apparently advocating Randian
>>> Parenting is . . . awesome! In several senses of the word.
>> Jobst has a lot of value to add. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a lot of
>> low value as well. Don't we all?
>
> Tom, I think Jobst is one of the most valuable contributors to this
> group. Here's what I wrote, rather fawningly, on that subject in 2003:
>
>
> However, every time he posts something as silly as he did up-thread, I
> will make fun of it.

I don't know, I think he has a point. If a kid hasn't shown any interest
in bikes by 18, I doubt they'll convert. Of course it may be possible
that the kid goes from a bike-hostile 'burb (not uncommon) to a
bike-centric campus (not common) and has an awakening. I've tried to get
my local advocacy group to get involved in campus bike programs as the
student population here in Boston is huge (and the city is flat), but
there's little interest and student cycling remains rare.

Tinkering with bikes was once a rite of passage, and bikes were a
necessity since parents didn't shuttle kids around so much. That's the
irony in today's childhood, in earlier times we had stay-at-home
parents, but our time was much less structured, and, as such, much less
supervised. We would typically go out all day, and could (and did) range
far and wide. Biking to school was common. Today, by contrast, biking to
school (our elementary) is forbidden for safety reasons -- something I
have to reluctantly agree with, since the harried parents drive like
maniacs around the school (I live on the street).

I tried to raise my kids with some risk. I taught them cycling on
Boston's busiest streets during rush hour (after years of working up to
it). I towed my daughter (from 5 to 9) on a trailer bike fast enough for
her to frequently catch air on rocky single track, fire roads and ski
slopes. When they were old enough (13-14), I let them ride their bikes
into the city on their own. I got the occasional disapproval of their
peer's parents. A lot of it was nerve wracking, it's not an easy thing
to do. Once, when I was sailing alone with my 5 year old son, 2 miles
offshore in a stiff breeze and good chop, practicing man overboard
drills, he asked to jump in and ride the lifeline. I took a huge gulp
and let him do it. Today he is a sailing instructor, he got his formal
training by biking to the sailing center. My daughter can ride single
track in her sleep.

Ben C

On 2008-06-10, Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> In article <xYOdnWHhHanKcNDVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:rcousine-1E9654.19281609062008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>>>> However, the revelation that Jobst is now apparently advocating Randian
>>>> Parenting is . . . awesome! In several senses of the word.
>>> Jobst has a lot of value to add. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a lot of
>>> low value as well. Don't we all?
>>
>> Tom, I think Jobst is one of the most valuable contributors to this
>> group. Here's what I wrote, rather fawningly, on that subject in 2003:
>>
>>
>> However, every time he posts something as silly as he did up-thread, I
>> will make fun of it.
>
> I don't know, I think he has a point. If a kid hasn't shown any interest
> in bikes by 18, I doubt they'll convert.

I agree that the love of bicycles and vehicles usually starts younger,
but the boy could harmlessly become a POB simply using the bicycle as a
way to go about his business.

Speaking of young people these days, Prof Susan Greenfield reckons they
are turning into mindless un-self-aware automata in a phenomenon she
calls the Nobody Scenario:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/...icle3805196.ece

It's basically caused by spending too much time in front of computers.

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

Ben C? wrote:

>>>>> However, the revelation that Jobst is now apparently advocating
>>>>> Randian Parenting is... awesome! In several senses of the word.

>>>> Jobst has a lot of value to add. That doesn't mean he doesn't
>>>> have a lot of low value as well. Don't we all?

>>> Tom, I think Jobst is one of the most valuable contributors to
>>> this group. Here's what I wrote, rather fawningly, on that subject
>>> in 2003:

>>> However, every time he posts something as silly as he did
>>> up-thread, I will make fun of it.

>> I don't know, I think he has a point. If a kid hasn't shown any
>> interest in bikes by 18, I doubt they'll convert.

> I agree that the love of bicycles and vehicles usually starts
> younger, but the boy could harmlessly become a POB simply using the
> bicycle as a way to go about his business.

> Speaking of young people these days, Prof Susan Greenfield reckons
> they are turning into mindless un-self-aware automaton in a
> phenomenon she calls the Nobody Scenario:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/...icle3805196.ece

> It's basically caused by spending too much time in front of
> computers.

Using computers requires thought and making decisions. It is endless
TV watching that kills initiative and creativity because it offers
completed solutions and scenarios that are most often unrelated to the
observer's life. Most contain poor role models because they are too
polished and so clever that they are hard to emulate without being
obvious.

Jobst Brandt

A Muzi

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Using computers requires thought and making decisions.

You'd think so. Peek over the shoulder of a teenager on myspace or
facebook some time. Or the endless tide of content-free telephone text
messages...
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Paul M. Hobson

> On 2008-06-10, Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> wrote:
>> I don't know, I think he has a point. If a kid hasn't shown any interest
>> in bikes by 18, I doubt they'll convert.

Ben C wrote:
> I agree that the love of bicycles and vehicles usually starts younger,
> but the boy could harmlessly become a POB simply using the bicycle as a
> way to go about his business.

Growing up in a relatively sleepy suburb of Atlanta, I used my K-mart
red Huffy MTB to get just about everywhere, even on the coldest and
hottest of days. But then I moved up to middle school which was too
far/dangerous to ride (55 mph 4 lane hwy). I also got home just late
enough to have just enough time to finish my homework before dark.

Cars were king in high school, but I bought an old BMX for 100 bucks and
started hitting jumps in the woods to relax after class and work.

Halfway through college, I got bit by the bike bug again and curse
myself every time I think about how much gas I used in high school to
get to a school 2 miles away and a job 3 miles away. If the OP's son
has expressed interest in a bike w/o prodding from the father (my
impression) I think this'll work so long as it doesn't get stolen right
away.


--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>> Using computers requires thought and making decisions.

> You'd think so. Peek over the shoulder of a teenager on myspace or
> facebook some time. Or the endless tide of content-free telephone
> text messages...

You left out justification for that assessment, and citing a selected
phrase doesn't seem adequate to me to support your reply. Omitted was:

>> Using computers requires thought and making decisions. It is
>> endless TV watching that kills initiative and creativity because it
>> offers completed solutions and scenarios that are most often
>> unrelated to the observer's life. Most contain poor role models
>> because they are too polished and so clever that they are hard to
>> emulate without being obvious.
--
Jobst Brandt

Ted Mittelstaedt

"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eCw3k.5599$LN.664@trndny03...
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>
> We've turned our children over to their peers and Madison Ave. to raise,
> the "hovering" is just compensation. Our society has gone through a
> major transition in the past 30 years with women in the workforce. The
> issue of who was going to actually raise the children got glossed over.
> It's the elephant in the room.

Not anymore. The mothers these days who are having kids themselves
were latchkey children, with their own mothers working. They understand.

You need to learn some history. The Industial Revolution triggered a
huge backlash, some of which formed labor unions, but one of the
ideas that came out of it was this idea that children are incapabable of
looking after themselves. Ironically, in the 1950's you had wifey staying
home doing her mothering duties doing everything imaginable for the
children, whereas a century earlier children of the same age would
be looking after themselves and sometimes working in a factory.

The mothers today realize that while it's important to allow a child to
have a childhood, at the same time, children are capabable of bearing
responsibility, and in fact it's needed for their development. A child can
watch themselves at home, after school, by themselves. Their mothers
know this because those mothers themselves watched themselves
after school, by themselves.

Ted

Peter Cole

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:eCw3k.5599$LN.664@trndny03...
>> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>
>>
>> We've turned our children over to their peers and Madison Ave. to raise,
>> the "hovering" is just compensation. Our society has gone through a
>> major transition in the past 30 years with women in the workforce. The
>> issue of who was going to actually raise the children got glossed over.
>> It's the elephant in the room.
>
> Not anymore. The mothers these days who are having kids themselves
> were latchkey children, with their own mothers working. They understand.
>
> You need to learn some history. The Industial Revolution triggered a
> huge backlash, some of which formed labor unions, but one of the
> ideas that came out of it was this idea that children are incapabable of
> looking after themselves.

I'm only going back a few decades, not centuries.

The change I'm talking about is shown here:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2000/feb/wk3/art03.htm


> The mothers today realize that while it's important to allow a child to
> have a childhood, at the same time, children are capabable of bearing
> responsibility, and in fact it's needed for their development.

While I can't speak for "mothers today" myself, the trend (and the
context of this thread) seems to be that children are becoming less
responsible.

> A child can
> watch themselves at home, after school, by themselves. Their mothers
> know this because those mothers themselves watched themselves
> after school, by themselves.

Depends on the age, obviously. The past couple of decades have seen a
huge rise in daycare, it's become the norm to start this after a brief
maternity leave. Even older children today are typically engaged in
after-school programs so that supervision covers the adult working day.
Summers and even school vacations are becoming filled with structured
activities like camp.

Latchkey kids are nothing new, but many things have changed to have
shifted things away from that mode -- lack of extended family & at-home
neighbors, smaller families (fewer older sibs) and rising affluence, to
name a few.

Sure, kids can learn independence by being left alone, but it's kind of
like learning to swim by being tossed into the deep end of the pool.
Human development is a slow process, the brain is not mature for 20
years or so. Children need both their IQ and "EQ" developed, to reach
intellectual and emotional maturity. By relegating most of their
interaction during developmental years to peers and TV, we are stunting
maturity. Children simply need to spend more time in the company of
adults -- as large a selection of adults as possible.