Getting in debt for the next 30 years of life as a proof of adulthood. This checks out as a modern initiation ceremornial, a good alternative to getting tatooed religious symbols on your body.
I think trying to avoid that (like paying a rent for the rest of your days, or buying very cheap and sacrificing social sttatus) is actually seen as against the social norms, and a definitive "not one of us" move from the older generation's perspective.
I'm sorry, it sounded slightly flippant but I don't think a loan is inherently bad. I also went through the mortgage process, and the back and forth with the bank and seller felt a lot like trying to get validated as a proper member of society.
Apart from the purely financial aspect of it, it's fascinating how the process goes will vary on your profession, your familial situation, overall background, years working in a stable company, the type of contract, how the seller sees you, if the banker trusts you. And if you pass the test, you get stamped as a home "owner" (though at the moment you only own the bank a lot of money, and you'll be out in the streets if you can't pay at some point), you pass through the ritual of sorting your health, life/death insurance and you get a warm look from your parents because you're now "one of them".
I think good or bad, this is the definition of a rite of passage.
>What precisely is it about having a child and having a mortgage that qualifies someone as "grown-up"?
It's shorthand for assuming adult responsibilities. It's difficult to survive on your emotionally fulfilling but minimum wage job if you have a brood in diapers at home. Obviously you still have responsibilities, probably including property taxes, insurance, and utilities, if you own your house outright as opposed to having a mortgage.
BTW, it's a bit tricky to buy your home outright if you live, in, say Palo Alto, where I recall a bunch of YC-funded startups are based:
I understand that IF you have a spouse or kids, it's your responsibility to take care of them and provide the best possible environment for them to flourish.
But it does not follow that it's one's responsibility to marry and have kids. There have been plenty of people who contributed a lot to society without ever marrying or raising kids.
You're right that managing a family is shorthand for being responsible. My point is: why use a shorthand when you can simply ask "So what are you doing with all the extra time you get because of not having a family?".
Ask, don't presume.
(I am not even getting into the whole philosophical debate of whether "work == virtue". The subtext in comments like the above is: "Oh, you're living a comfortable life with no responsibilities? You should work hard and suffer like the rest of us!" )
I would say that, no, parents should not be expected to internalize all of the thousands of different things we're finding out about the best ways to raise kids. It's far too much to know, and the knowledge is currently too tentative. But, it's also pointless to bring that up every time a new study comes out, because these things are good to know. That's probably why the GP is catching downvotes.
I've seen how parents can get amazingly OCD with these studies. They'll form cliques and look down on parents who don't perform what the current best practice is. Because of that, I think it always bears repeating.
Probably because most of this is common sense that you do anyway. Generally speaking, you don't tell you child that he's and evil human being because he didn't pick up his toys.
But you want a kid to self-identify as a "good" person, and do what good people do. For most folks, this stuff either happens pretty naturally, or the parents adapt as their kid learns how to game them.
That's the problem with gamifying something. Eventually you'll get people who are only there for karma. The other day I found an incorrect answer that was chosen, but directly below it was the correct answer. The kicker? The OP commented on the correct answer saying that his was correct but the guy other guy had less karma than him and "needed it". WTF.
These days, you really have to take Stack Overflow answers with a grain of salt.
That's my point. Sorry I was actually making two distinct points that probably got intertwined. One - that Quora will not succeed like SO has. Two - Someone will buy Quora. Reason? Because, Silicon Valley.
It's full of trivia the way only British can write, but I skimmed it, and I guess a rough TLDR is...
Today the establishment (a term invented in the 1950s) can read the mass psychology's wants (via technological means) and fulfil them (directly, in order to remedy popular discontent) instead of engaging in old-school frame-up tactics.
Note that the article doesn't disclaim continued use of these tactics though, so it's not really drawing any particularly informative or useful conclusions.
Unfortunately I forgot to grab it off my work laptop when I got laid off. I would've liked to have stuck it up on github...
It wasn't really all that tricky though, it took me a few hours to write. git-log has options for only displaying the status line of diff-stat for each commit, and then displaying the parents of each commit, and the author. You look to see that there's only one parent (so it's not a merge), parse out the X added, Y deleted numbers, and stick them in a dictionary keyed by name.
A lot of the script was just getting statistics like average/min/max/stddev line counts, and printing them nicely.