Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jmuncaster's commentslogin

Our three kids are in hybrid homeschool / traditional classroom school. What critics of homeschooling don’t seem to get is that homeschoolers find their own cohorts. And those cohorts have kids of different ages. And that means my kids interact with adults, older kids, younger kids, and kids their own age all the time. They learn nuances to social interaction that aren’t available to their counterparts who are locked in with their peers and tend to think their age group is the only one that matters. Sorry, that’s not the real world. In the real world you actually have a myriad of ages to interact with. Is everyone at your work the same age and place in their career development? Of course not.

What about other sources of diversity? Guess what, they are in sports and other community groups too. In fact, by avoiding the time suckers in traditional school, you’d be surprised to see just how quickly the kids can zip through their curriculum and join more extracurricular activities with meaningful social interactions. You mean school isn’t the only place to learn social interaction? Yup.

It’s time we put to death the idea that homeschooling is detrimental to social development. It’s utter nonsense. My wife has taught music at every grade level and in every school type imaginable and anecdotally the homeschooled kids are by far the most confident, socially capable of the bunch.


Bernoulli’s Fallacy by Aubrey Clayton is a good treatment of this subject and where frequentist statistics fails.


Oh please. Yes let’s take a good story and use it as an opportunity to get on our soap box and grandstand.


I’m sorry my thoughts on the article so distressed you.

Inequality in education and traffic death have been on my mind lately and this article touched on them in an unexpected way, so I posted to share my thoughts. I understand that’s more or less the purpose of online forums.


1password no contest


As one of the people whom some on this thread seem to be fine with caricaturing and haphazardly speculating about, I can attest this is the one reply that gets it. I appreciate your intelligent and considered take. Cheers.


Or you could buy insurance on the balance above 250k.


That's almost certainly a scam; I don't believe any counterparty short of the US government can actually insure against eg SVB.


Assuming the insurance company is solvent


Sounds like a straw man. The comment did not say “no restrictions whatsoever” - my read is that it said that even the most sensible sounding restrictions on incitement to violence have their difficulties. It’s messy and nuanced.

I agree with your sentiment to deal more with actual, not theoretical problems. However, I think there have been enough actual historical examples of abuses of power in free speech regulations that are self-reinforcing. This should create a high bar when considering any particular restriction. It’s not paranoia, it’s lessons learned.

So some restrictions? Sure, and the courts have indeed allowed some. But they are and ought to be well-reasoned exceptions with clear distinctions so we don’t end up with something akin to a thought-police.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: