Saturday, May 31, 2025

Saturday Links- Substack

Lyman Stone: Quality daycare does not scale.  He gets some pushback, but I think he's onto something.

Also Lyman: Why twin studies are garbage.

 Helen Roy, new to me - Fear of Pregnancy: toxic positivity is the enemy of grace.

A good introduction to the mimetic theory of Rene Girard, by Zak Slayback 

Many people read Kitten's College English Majors Can't Read. I liked her followup for different reasons.

Let Men Beat Each Other Up Again  Boys have always hated school! And they always sucked at it too, compared to girls, at least til they were older. Other than the nerdy cerebral types, boys have never liked sitting in a seat and listening to some boring teacher make them sound out words and read books. The only difference now is that adults for some reason expect boys to enjoy school, even though they now have infinite-entertainment devices as an alternative, and forgot that in the past people just used to beat their asses into compliance. Kryptogal (Kate, if you like)

4 comments:

David Foster said...

Quality Daycare link..."workers who have rare traits related to love for children and intuitive grasp of how to guide them"....yet the traits can't be all *that* rare, most women and quite a few men do a pretty good job with their own children. Maybe the trait that is rare is the ability to do this with kids you didn't previously know, and to do it with a considerable # of kids at the same time.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Yes. Somewhat related, there are jobs that are not hard to do but are hard to do well, like parenting or teaching.

Douglas2 said...

I'm beginning to feel like self-appointed pronoun-police in my comments here, but I think that Kitten of the substack articles links is more correctly "him" than "her".
I recall reading a kitten post on x to that effect at least. Of course I've also seen suspicions that kitten is an alt sock-puppet x account for J.D. Vance, so who knows. . .

George Weinberg said...

I don't really get why kitten seems upset at the inability of the readers to make sense of Dickens' bizarre metaphors. He's taking a page and a half to say "it was really really muddy", and there really isn't much more to it than that. How muddy was it? It was so muddy...you wouldn't be surprised to see a dinosaur shambling down the street! At the risk or revealing myself as a member of the illiterati, allow me to suggest that the reason most readers can't get any real meaning out of that is there isn't any.