Aside from fixed costs and aspects like coordination efficiency, companies have to raise pay more than linearly to get people into high hours jobs. Those disproportionate gains should be given back at cut hours, but too many employees would claim this is unfair.

I wrote about this a while back: https://www.growwiser.com/2011/11/27/less-work-for-less-pay-...

We had animal-like answers based on conceptions of the human telos. We had bee-like answers based on conceptions of societal progress. Pomo, globalization, and prosperity made them feel unworkable. Meaningness is trying to develop a conception that can work.

There is a whole mindset that has invigorated growth investing and has been invigorated by it: success is more luck and social proof than correctness or work + winner will take all = illusion management is key work + valuations don’t matter, but getting in does.

It underpins major perspectives on investment, monetary and gov policy, and individual agency. It is infuriating, but it has worked spectacularly for a long time and has just enough truth in it to keep people building castles in the air.

Totally. We were making massive amounts of progress on our own and virtual school curriculum mostly gets in the way. We've largely stopped going to the video sessions and are just doing some of the school work on top of our own. Thankfully the teacher has been accommodating / letting it go so far and the school work itself has been minor.

From behind Rawls' veil of ignorance, how many children would choose not to be born if given that choice? It is at least as reasonable to say that they've been given a most precious of gifts as it is to say that they were forced in to it. And if they'd really rather not exist no one can take away from them the choice to end their life. That few would say this is really an option should balance the perspective that being born is a forced burden.

The perspective of life as an infinite gift gives parents some justification for authoritarianism which some will abuse. The perspective of being forced into it gives children some justification for entitlement which some will abuse.

I think it is harder to get children to not abuse a free pass and I think that parents have a better claim overall. But parents using it is a terrible practice that will backfire. Parents need to earn respect and compliance without relying on the trump card of 'i made you'. It is up to the children to decide what obligations they have towards their parents later on. And this should mostly be a function of raising considerate and capable people with maximal possible buy-in.

I agree that the bulk of children's debt is to society and their own children. But this requires a sense of fairness to notice the debt and the capability to repay it. Parents have a crucial role to play in developing these.

While I heartily agree in not forcing the child into a method, it very much matters when they learn to read. Reading is a tool more than a skill. Having the tool earlier is hugely valuable (provided they don't hate it as a consequence.)

A reading child can begin to write and type earlier. They can be exposed to complex computer use instead of simplified apps. They can use more advanced materials to learn other skills earlier. They can gain a ton of knowledge from the extra years of reading. And even if they cannot understand much at 4 (which of course depends on the kid), they can at 7 or 8 - being fluent readers by then gives them the advantage of consuming many extra books and richer ones.

There are also psychological components. Until school starts the parents have significant influence over 'cool' skills, important values, 'fun' things to do, etc. Schools rarely breed love of learning and peers often push away from it. Learning at 7 creates risks of it being perceived as less cool or being consumed by other activities and not catching. The time before school is hugely valuable imo. And reading earlier gives the parent another tool to teach by providing books.

It is true that the earlier you start the more time teaching takes. But this time isn't only teaching reading. It is excellent bonding time if you don't turn it into an authoritarian war zone. It teaches focus, overcoming obstacles, etc. On the whole, I think it at least holds its own with other activities parents spend time on with their toddlers. The bulk of the challenge is getting the kid on board. Buy-in and motivation matter far more than any specific method since without them the risk of the effort hurting the relationship or their love of learning is too high.

I used a method of my own making. It probably wasn't the most efficient, but it was always tuned to the kid. My oldest was fully decoding in late twos and reads a ton now in late sevens. He naturally memorized words and we added phonetics later. My youngest is decoding short words with basic sounds in the early threes. He is not a fan of memorizing, but took to phonics naturally.

I recently read Searching for Bobby Fisher and Joshua Waitzkin's childhood seemed intense, but not broken. Would you consider him an exception or is that level of intensity itself dysfunctional in your view?

I do agree that integrity and sportsmanship - along with the game's beauty - should be placed higher than defeating opponents and that it often isn't. At some point this may just be the nature of competing at the highest levels, but early scholastic chess shouldn't be that point.

Perhaps part of it is cultural. I grew up playing in Russia as a kid (I showed promise, but didn't go nearly as far as you). Chess was deeply woven into the culture and into my family. I have warm memories of an inspiring game that only encouraged development of integrity and perseverance. I've been hoping my child gets into it. He did, but watching chess in the U.S. leaves me cold. Obsession with ratings, winning, trophies, pragmatism, and plain cheating at ages when these kids should be imagining themselves as honorable warriors is disheartening. I try to guide him through it - and point out the exceptions - but it always feels like swimming against the tide.

I'm not all that familiar with Waitzkin's story. Pretty sure I met him back him in the day, but we certainly didn't talk about this stuff back then. And I haven't read that book. If you can give me some specific events, I could offer an opinion. That said, I'm not certain how much of a say he had (or profits he shared) in the book/movie based on him. Purely a gut reaction but I suspect there was at least some garden variety exploitation going on.

"At some point this may just be the nature of competing at the highest levels, but early scholastic chess shouldn't be that point."

Unfortunately, a little-discussed aspect of top level chess is that the only real way to be a contender for the world championships, especially these days, is to start young. Chess mastery is like fluency in a language - you can learn it at any age, but to attain the absolute top levels of performance you need to be a native speaker. This is probably why the cult of prodigies continues despite its downsides. In chess, music, dance, etc. people just love seeing superhuman performance.

"Perhaps part of it is cultural. I grew up playing in Russia"

I think you're right about this. Chess culture in the US is absolutely, positively terrible compared to other countries. I know that it's much better/healthier in Europe. I'm aware that it's a major cultural thing in Russia so I have to believe that it's better over there. Almost like a mental martial art, as opposed to whatever it is in the US.

Don’t forget that Searching for Bobby Fisher was written by Waitzkin’s father and almost certainly is bending the reality to the story he wants to tell/image he wants to project.

'The art of learning' is written by Josh himself and didn't leave me with an abusive childhood impression.

Josh seems very balanced, it's a great book as well, highly recommended.

I am curious how they funded the tournament play. It tends to cost about $10/rated game.

Most tournament directors are nice people and will find an exception or sponsor for someone who is really poor to afford the fees.

Anyone who is good gets noticed quickly in the chess world. There are rich people in chess who will sponsor kids. All great kids in the US will get a free chess coach to get them better (I'm not sure how great you need to be to get this). Many other countries have similar chess sponsors.

If you read the article you will see that his school chess club waived their normal fees and even found him a coach (before he would qualify on the national level)

You can find Top 100 lists at http://www.uschess.org/component/option,com_top_players/Item... and his play history at http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?16649696 .

It is almost precisely a year since his first tournament game so there is no exaggeration. Going to 1473 in one year is extremely impressive especially since early tournaments show loses so it isn't like he excelled but simply wasn't rated.

For reference, Magnus Carlson played since 5 (though not too enthusiastically) and was ~900 at age 9. But he was a 1900 a year later.

I remember reading that Carlsen memorized all of the world capitals aged 2, so it's not the case that there was no warning he might be exceptional player :)