How Facebook Contributes to the Demise of Endangered Species

In the summer of 2020, Jennifer Pytka spent three and a half hours a day sleuthing the internet for evidence of wildlife trafficking. She’d type กระเบนท้องน้ำ, a Thai word that loosely translates to stingray, into Google, and her search would immediately yield images of rings, each studded with an ornate white thorn about the size of a thumbnail. Pytka, a doctoral candidate at the Università di Padova in Italy, is investigating the previously undocumented trade of bowmouth guitarfish — a critically endangered ray whose spine and brows are adorned with these thorns. In Thailand, the horns are made into amulets, such as rings and bracelets, believed to have protective properties. In a 2023 study, Pytka notes how she pinpointed 977 of these items on online vending platforms, such as Facebook Marketplace, eBay, and the Alibaba-owned e-commerce site Lazada, over 21 days.

Bowmouth guitarfish amulets are just one example of the boundless number of protected wildlife products sold online, where a global Grand Bazaar of seedy vendors hawk their wildlife wares, and anyone with internet access can find products from rhino horns to exotic orchids to tiger claws with just a few clicks. With lax regulations, even weaker enforcement, and a lack of legal culpability, not only is wildlife trafficking able to fester online, but algorithms actually amplify sales, boosting the platforms’ profits.

Products sourced from protected species can be found across all manner of vending platforms, but with three billion active monthly users, Facebook is the grand pooh-bah. Pytka found 30 percent of the bowmouth guitarfish products on Facebook and 65 percent spread across other e‑commerce sites, such as Shopee and Lazada. “I’ve come to believe that Facebook is a driver of the global extinction crisis,” says Gretchen Peters, director of the Alliance to Counter Crime Online (ACCO), a nonprofit whistle-blower organization.

Prior to the emergence of the internet and online trading, vendors selling wildlife products had to connect with their customers largely through in-person networking, says David Roberts, a conservation scientist at the University of Kent in England who researches wildlife trafficking. But in the early 2000s, an increasing number of transactions in the physical world went digital, with wildlife trafficking being no exception. Today, nearly 6,000 species of plants and animals are traded illicitly, and the trafficking is worth up to $23 billion annually. It is the fourth-largest illegal market, and many animals, such as rhinos, pangolins, and some species of parrots and sharks, are at risk of extinction due to their popularity on the black market. (...)

eBay was the first to acknowledge the growing problem of online trafficking and banned all ivory sales on its platform in 2009. Another milestone was reached in 2018 with the creation of the Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online. This alliance, spearheaded by animal welfare groups TRAFFIC, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, advises technology platforms on how to identify and prevent wildlife trafficking. So far, 47 companies have joined the coalition, including Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — eBay, TikTok, and other international giants like Alibaba. The coalition’s most recent report, from 2021, found that between all the platforms, more than 11.6 million products made from prohibited wildlife have been removed or banned. A spokesperson from eBay said that over 350,000 listings for prohibited wildlife items were blocked or removed in 2022. Giavanna Grein, a wildlife specialist at WWF, encourages platforms to be more transparent with the public and concedes that the efforts undertaken by the coalition are just one small part of the picture. “We fully acknowledge this is a very complex and challenging issue, and there’s no one organization or effort that can tackle this,” she says.

Even with all the efforts, loopholes remain. Despite eBay’s ivory ban, for instance, a quick search by Roberts identified what he believes to be elephant ivory being sold under a code name. The product is still so readily available, in fact, that he centers his students’ projects on it. Similarly, a quick search on Facebook Marketplace for rhino horns for sale in southeast Asia immediately yields several posts.

Meta’s own policy prohibits “attempts to buy, sell, trade, donate, gift, or solicit endangered species or their parts,” and in a statement, a spokesperson said that content that violates their policies is removed. However, whistle-blower reports published since Facebook joined the Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online have been scathing. “Facebook policy and public comments about countering illicit content are rendered virtually meaningless by the firm’s ineffective follow-up and enforcement,” reads a 2020 report from the ACCO. To assess the severity of wildlife trafficking on Facebook, the report used search terms such as “exotic + animal + for sale” in English, Arabic, Vietnamese, and Indonesian, turning up 473 Facebook pages and 281 groups openly selling wildlife products. Over half the pages were created since Facebook joined the coalition, showing that online trafficking appears to have increased.

In part, researchers were able to find so many illicit items because the Facebook algorithm is designed to recommend similar products and thus amplify the connections between vendors and prospective clients. (While looking at bowmouth guitarfish rings on Facebook Marketplace in Thailand, for instance, I saw posts for tiger claw amulets. After clicking to view them, my marketplace page automatically filled with curios made from guitarfish, tiger claw, and elephant ivory.) The ACCO report found 29 percent of the wildlife trafficking pages through Facebook’s “Related Pages” feature. Avaaz, a nonprofit that supports global activism, carried out a similar investigation and found that Facebook’s algorithm directed the researchers to dozens of wildlife groups, more than half of which contained potentially harmful wildlife trafficking content. Since it appears that Facebook’s algorithms are able to identify wildlife products, the algorithms should be able to hide these posts rather than promote them. When I asked about the discrepancy, Meta did not respond to this or any other question.

Peters says Meta is also passively profiting from the illegal activity. The platform makes money from embedded advertisements, and the online storefront Facebook Shops takes a small transaction fee from sales — including those of trafficked animals.

“[Facebook’s] platform is so big … and it’s in so many different languages that it’s really going to take a Herculean effort and a huge investment,” says Peters. “I don’t think Facebook is prepared to make the investments to clean up their own mess.” Peters also notes that Facebook could be more proactive in collaborating with law enforcement to dismantle criminal networks. “Facebook is sitting on a huge amount of information about some of the world’s biggest wildlife trafficking networks,” she says, and in many circumstances, the platform is not proactively showing that intelligence to law enforcement, claiming they’re protecting user privacy. Yet she says the firm is renowned for harvesting user data to sell to private companies. “It’s completely contradictory to me.” eBay is attempting to tackle this problem by implementing a regulatory portal that allows law enforcement authorities easy access to suspected criminal activity. (...)

In spite of the efforts of animal welfare and social justice groups like WWF and the ACCO, illicit wildlife sales are able to thrive online because platforms are protected from civil liability by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the United States. The act generally protects the platforms from being liable for the nefarious content they host.

“The way section 230 works is [that] any content created by a user like you or me or anybody else is considered free expression,” explains Peters. But she argues that illegal sales occurring over online platforms aren’t free speech — they’re felonies, and implementing something like a duty-of-care law would require platforms to remove criminal activity.

“I think [the platforms] should be held accountable,” says Roberts, who compares online trafficking to a bar allowing drugs to be sold in the bathrooms. The establishment is liable for allowing illicit activity on its premises. “How is that any different [from] a platform allowing illegal trade to take place?”

by Marina Wang, Naked Capitalism via Undark |  Read more:
Image: via

Erik Witsoe

via:

Pathfinding With Tomas Pueyo: An Interview

Discussing men and therapy, culture and status, AI and consumer markets, and much more.

Tomas Pueyo is the former VP of growth at both Course Hero and Sigfig, author of The Star Wars Rings: The Hidden Structure Behind the Star Wars Story, a TEDx speaker, and creator of Uncharted Territories, a powerhouse publication that covers topics ranging from the Israel/Palestine conflict to OpenAI and Artificial Intelligence to much, much more. Tomas holds a masters in engineering from Ecole Centrale Paris, a masters in engineering from ICAI in Madrid, and an MBA from Stanford. (...)

***

From the movie What Love Is:

Transcript of the key pieces:

“Say there is a woman in a room with 10 men, and all 10 men are telling her how beautiful she is, and how amazing she is and they are lighting her cigarettes and buying her drinks and just treating her like gold.

Then, all of a sudden, in walks the 11th man, he takes one look at her and says "hey how ya doin'", turns his back on her and starts talking to his boys. THAT'S the guy she wants to be with, the 11th man. Not any of the 10 men who were treating her well all night, but the one guy that couldn't care less. Why?

Because, for some reason, women don't want nice, they don't want real, they don't want to be treated well. I mean, not at first, and sometimes not ever—and I think that's crazy. And I refuse to play that game ....

I don’t want to have to play that game, get a girl by pretending that I don’t like her. I want to be with a woman who is real. Who digs it when I’m nice to her. Who doesn’t see that as weakness or take me for granted when I tell her that I think she is more amazing than anything else in the entire world, but unfortunately most women aren't like that, they say they are, deep down inside they want to be, but ... they're not."

Let me add something:

Then, all of a sudden, in walks the 12th man. He has a nice suit, impeccably worn. He stands straight, stops at the entrance of the bar and looks around with a smile. His friends pour in on both sides, merrily bantering. A couple of them stop and ask him: “What do you think about this place, should we stay and get a drink?”

But he doesn’t respond. His eyes laid on the woman. He is now looking at her, and starts walking towards her. “Sorry I’m late, I hope you didn’t get tired from waiting for me all your life. I like your earrings. They’re daring, but also feminine. They made me curious and I wanted to know you better. Hi, I’m Sam.”

Is she going to choose the 11th man or the 12th?

Why? 

[ed. From: Charisma = Sex = Humor = Leadership (Tomas Pueyo: Uncharted Territories).]

***

Sotonye: On why men don’t need or want talk therapy

On a recent re-watch of the Sopranos I couldn’t help but think about how the show is partly anchored around the tension between typical gendered-behaviors around mental health, which see women seek out care on average more often than men and with more treatment period retention, and Tony’s break from these expectations as a mob boss who goes to talk therapy. It’s striking and unusual for a man to put his mental world on a clinical platter, but I wondered—why? You have the best series on sex differences online so when I had this thought I immediately wanted to ask you: what are the evolutionary explanations for sex-based differences in internal problem resolution? What do men need if it isn’t talking?

Tomas: (...)

A dominant man can't be weak.

This is the source of all the literature around honor and strength and not showing weaknesses and so on.

This is why men don't default to seeking help for mental health—I need help, therefore I am weak, and hence not dominant.

It's why Tony going to therapy is so surprising. It's not just a mobster. He's the head mobster. The most dominant, the one who is not supposed to show weakness.

Of course, many people might react to this as "But this is stupid! Going to therapy shows a man is mature! It's like going to the doctor!"

This is where most analysis on sex and therapy stops. How do you square that circle?

A decade ago, in grad school, I was in a leadership class where we were told to be vulnerable. A student asked: "If we're vulnerable, aren't we going to be seen as weak?"

The professor replied: "There is a fine line between vulnerability and weakness. The key is to be vulnerable on things that don't challenge your leadership."

Which for a man means: on things that don't challenge your dominance.

Imagine a CEO crying on TV. Which ones of the following statements are acceptable, and which ones aren't?

My child just died.

I have cancer.

The new law is killing our company and we will fight it to death.

My strategy failed and I couldn't manage the executive team.

The first 3 are acceptable ways to show vulnerability, because they don't challenge the CEO's leadership skills. The last one does, and so it wouldn't be acceptable.

I haven't seen more than 3 or 4 episodes of the Sopranos, but I assume this edge between vulnerability and weakness would be an interesting one to explore for a mafia boss, so I wouldn't be surprised if you told me they played with that boundary through the seasons. Maybe Tony explores the differences, learns to be vulnerable without appearing weak, and when the two are conflated, he reasserts his dominance with brutality?

Sotonye: On the true evolutionary underpinnings of creative production

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone predict the course of a story from first principles until now. You’re exactly right, that’s exactly what happens in the Sopranos. Tony slowly learns to accept the difference between admitting a problem or the need for help and being weak, but when the lines eventually blur he puts on an almost psychopathic, vicious display. This is super interesting and gets me to my next question about status and how it makes us do what we do. (...)

Tomas:

Ha! You should watch my TEDx! Stories, when well done, are engineered, so they can be reverse engineered. A mob boss going to therapy sounds like the result of a brainstorm: "How can we make a story about vulnerability? OK let's take the least vulnerable guy and force him to expose his vulnerability. What's the least vulnerable guy? The guy that has to appear the toughest? A head of the military? An MMA boxer? A head mobster! And how can he explore his vulnerability? This is usually in his internal voice. How can we make it explicit? Let's have him talk to a therapist!".

Note that with the same structure you could have an MMA champion have to develop his vulnerability to regain an emotional connection with his estranged daughter, and that would probably make a good story too.

by Sotonye, Neo Narrative |  Read more:

Image: uncredited

[ed. I've conflated two articles of seeming relevance, one from Mr. Puyeo's blog Uncharted Territories (paywalled).]

High-Functioning Depression

Mental health counselor Jeffrey Meltzer sees clients nearly every day who suffer from “high-functioning” depression, so he decided to post a video about it on TikTok. He struck a nerve. The video now has more than 8 million views and more than 5,000 comments.

“This describes me to a tee,” one wrote.

“Does it go away at some point?” another replied.

“Can someone tell me how to fix it?” wrote a third.

Meltzer, who meets with clients in-person and virtually in Bradenton, Fla., said it’s not always obvious if someone has depression. “There’s a myth” that somebody with depression can barely get out of bed in the morning, he said. “They can function, they can go to work, they can do all these things. But deep inside, they’re feeling really down, they’re feeling quite empty or lonely.”

The response to Meltzer’s video is “a huge signal about unmet mental health need,” said Jon Rottenberg, a psychology professor at the University of South Florida who has studied the course and prognosis of depression.

The term high-functioning depression “is really resonating with the fact that depression can be quite hidden,” Rottenberg said. “People can harbor it for a long time before they get help.”

High-functioning depression is not a diagnosis or a recognized clinical disorder, and it doesn’t appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the authoritative guide to mental health disorders.

Exactly where the term started isn’t clear, but “high-functioning depression” is a popular topic on TikTok and YouTube that attracts millions of viewers. It gained traction on social media in 2022 after Cheslie Kryst, a former Miss USA, died by suicide. In statements to the media, Kryst’s mother said her daughter was dealing with high-functioning depression, “which she hid from everyone.”

Some health professionals say the term can be misleading and may stem from a lack of understanding about different mental health disorders. But other therapists and mental health experts say the term has helped people realize that depression isn’t always obvious.

It can help people think of depression in ways that “may be different” from the stereotypical symptoms people associate with the disorder, said Vaile Wright, a psychologist and senior director of health-care innovation for the American Psychological Association.

“There is no one-size-fits-all depression,” Wright said. “In children and adolescents, it looks much more like irritability. Same with men; it looks a lot more like anger and substance abuse.”

In the viral TikTok video, Meltzer offers seven signs that he said may signal high-functioning depression. Other mental health experts say Meltzer’s video does identify many of the feelings that could be symptoms for depression.

“The doctors that I work with and others, even myself sometimes, can feel those things,” said Srijan Sen, a professor and the executive director of the University of Michigan’s Eisenberg Family Depression Center. “Highlighting that and making people know they’re not alone in feeling that is valuable.”

The seven signs of high-functioning depression highlighted in Meltzer’s video are:

1. Isolating from friends and family.
2. No longer finding joy in the activities you loved.
3. Persistently criticizing yourself.
4. Frustration with small irritations or setbacks.
5. Turning to mindless habits for hours on end.
6. Always feeling low on energy.
7. Managing day-to-day tasks but feeling empty inside.

Depression is “a collection of symptoms” with some degree of sadness or melancholy, said the APA’s Wright. Sleeping too much or too little, an inability to concentrate, eating too much or too little, and “a sense of hopelessness” can all be signs of depression.

by Teddy Amenabar, Seattle Times via The Washington Post |  Read more:

Image: iStock

[ed. Anhedonia.]

Kent Nishimura

[ed. Awesome. Kids these days... Many more on his YT channel. Here's another one.]

via:

Why Are Pants So Big (Again)?

At some point in the past few years, as if we didn’t have enough to worry about, everyone’s pants started to look wrong. For an improbably long time, the “right” pants — meaning those that conveyed some socially agreed-upon, base-line level of stylishness — had been, in a word, small. Snug through the thighs, throttled at the knees, close-cut at the calves, on intimate terms with the ankles. Running a minuscule gamut from skinny to the slightly-more-accommodating slim. There were exceptions, particularly when it came to women’s pants. But on balance, fitted was the way good pants were supposed to fit.

My pants had been slim for some 15 years, since so-called skinny jeans first hit the market in earnest, around 2005. Narrow silhouettes quickly spread, until they felt less like a trend and more like a structural fact of existence: A decade after their ascendance, slim-fit pants remained common currency across generations, demographics and body types. BTS, at the time the biggest pop group in the world, wore them. Underground Chicago drill rappers wore them, too. Hollywood leading men and neighborhood baristas, wedding planners and basketball players, morning-show hosts and accountants, youth pastors and construction workers, your nephew and your aunt. You might have wondered if we’d reached the End of Pants.

And then, in a rupture whose center I place within the broader pandemic-era upheavals of 2020, the “right” pants began to lurch away from the leg at scale. Jeans, a kind of Patient Zero for pants trends, showed symptoms of acute-onset elephantiasis. Stylish friends of mine and strangers whose outfits I ogled online abandoned their slim-fit denim for straight-leg vintage Levi’s 501s — something like the Greenwich Mean Time of modern pants — and then swiftly abandoned those for ever-ampler models. Paul O’Neill, the global design director for Levi’s, told me that in recent years he noticed a rise in kids hitting “thrift stores to buy jeans with a Size 46 or 48 waist and belting them, to get that oversize look.” He’d made some of the company’s baggiest-ever pants in response, and even baggier ones were in the works.

Month by month, pants got puffier, growing higher rises and sprouting more and more pleats. Hemlines that once severely tapered now expanded, hovering like U.F.O.s above shoes or pooling atop them like swirls of soft-serve ice cream. On Instagram, fashion mood-board accounts, which aggregate “aspirational” imagery, did an increasingly brisk trade in photographs from the late ’80s and early ’90s of people wearing billowing trousers by Ralph Lauren, Giorgio Armani and Yohji Yamamoto.

All manner of pants polarities rapidly inverted themselves. Perhaps the most epochal illustration concerned, of all people, Barack Obama. In 2009, he threw the first pitch at the All-Star Game wearing shapeless, wide-leg Levi’s — ur-uncool “dad jeans,” at the time. They inspired widespread ridicule, because the way pants fit is a kind of lingua franca: Even people who claim not to care at all about clothes feel qualified to judge. A decade later, though, those kinds of dad jeans were looking better than ever, and here were photos of Obama pushing 60 in far-too-tight, far-too-cropped chinos during a visit to Kuala Lumpur. Looking at these pictures side by side, we had incontrovertible proof: Skinny pants were the real dad pants now. You might still be wearing them, but they were no longer “right".

In some ways, this shift felt entirely predictable, as if a rubber band stretched tight had snapped back to laxity. And yet it was disconcerting too, as if the rubber band had immediately become a balloon. It could be hard to trust your own eyes. I’d been feeling the rumblings of a Return to Big Pants since about 2017, when I remember worrying about the fact that I was 36 and still wearing essentially the same pants I’d worn at 26. There’s constancy, I thought, and then there’s becoming a relic of yourself — the balding guy still trying to make his high school haircut work. I made the conscious decision to resist fossilization and buy roomier pants, and over the next couple of years, I thought that’s what I did. My wife and my friends tell me they thought I did, too, having seen some of the new pants in question and deemed them conspicuously, if not laughably, large. And yet photographs confirm that, in absolute terms, my pants remained fitted for a while. I couldn’t see it clearly at first, but I was locked in an arms race against my own mounting pants dysmorphia. Trousers that struck me as audaciously large yesterday looked correct today. By tomorrow I would wonder if they weren’t actually a bit close-clinging. (...)

In strictly physical terms, no article of clothing does more to articulate and augment the line of our bodies — to beautify us or deform us — than pants. They tend to occupy the most visual square footage in any given outfit. They also tend to move more than other clothes as our bodies move through the world, which creates more inflection points where they can attract notice — and where they can go wrong. “A T-shirt is so much simpler,” Hine said. “A sweater is so much simpler. Even with a button-up, you can fake it: roll up the sleeves, unbutton the neck.” But “there’s no place to hide in a bad-fitting pair of pants.

“Pants are diabolical as design objects,” Hine went on. “You can look at the measurements for the waist and the inseam, but that won’t tell you anything besides how they fit in two places, when there’s so many other variables — the rise, the hemline, fabric weight, drape. It’s an object that throughout history was made by tailors and craftsmen, and when it got mass-produced and casualized, what happened was they took this really intricate garment and tried to tell us, ‘Everyone can wear this every day, and it’ll be easy to find a pair that makes sense for your body’ — but it’s actually an enormous challenge.”

It’s a challenge whether you’re a self-identifying clotheshorse or someone who simply doesn’t want to look comically out of touch, like Obama on the pitcher’s mound. This is a big part of why trends around the “right” pants tend to move so slowly. Once you find a style you like — or once you acquiesce to the style you’re supposed to like and then hope your perception adjusts accordingly — it’s reasonable to want to drop anchor.

That was particularly true with a style as extreme as slim pants, which required a leap of faith for lots of people to accept in the first place. Skinny silhouettes were, in hindsight, a highly unlikely proposition for mass adoption: not just physically constrictive but also revealing to a degree that could verge on a violation of privacy. And yet, in short order, the ultraslim look flowed outward from tip-of-the-spear European jeans makers like Cheap Monday and A.P.C. to “elevated” mall brands like J. Crew. Influential designer labels like Band of Outsiders and Dior Homme made slim-fit synonymous with a chic, faintly roguish urbanity, and Thom Browne went one further, cutting trousers not just tight but also high, positing the exposed male ankle as its own sort of statement accessory. Fast-fashion chains like Zara and H&M peddled unisex pantomimes of these skinny upmarket styles, and before long, so did mass-retail behemoths like Old Navy and Target, signaling and consolidating small pants’ grip on the zeitgeist. (...)

Of course, word of the king’s death hasn’t reached everyone yet. Saager Dilawri, a very stylish man who owns one of my favorite clothing shops, the Vancouver-based Neighbour, told me that, over the holidays, he got a drink with some guys he plays hockey with. “I was wearing loose jeans, and everyone was wearing slim pants — maybe too slim,” Dilawri recalled. “And one of them came up to me and said: ‘Back in the day we all wore loose pants, then we were told, “Slim pants are cool,” so now we’re all wearing slim pants. You’re the only one here wearing loose pants. Are the trends changing again?’”

If, in 2024, pants feel unsettled, it’s not only because the consensus around the “right” pants has whipped so precipitously from small to big but also because, at the very same time, a more fundamentally nagging question has started to creep up: Is there actually anything resembling consensus around trends anymore? (...)

The pandemic accelerated many trends in the virtualization of life; assembling outfits as much for your digital self as for the one who moves through the physical world is one of them. Against that backdrop, it feels like no coincidence that the extreme of skinny pants gave way so rapidly to the extreme of big pants: This has been a moment in fashion characterized by extremes more than anything, because extremes are what play best on phone screens. We see this in recent vogues for eye-popping graphic tees, for viral novelty footwear like the Big Red Boots and for so-called haul videos, where the point is to flaunt a staggering volume of new acquisitions. We also see it, less intuitively, in the countervailing vogue for “quiet luxury,” a style of dressing that is putatively about tasteful restraint — no logos, no garish, déclassé patterns — but in actual practice is deafening in its emphasis on soft, pampering fabrics, excessive volumes, sumptuous hues and, never far from mind, astronomical pricing.

Where fashion and technology converge is in their mutual dependence on novelty and obsolescence — products need to phase out so that different products can phase in — and the current swing to big pants might prove nothing more than a brief overcorrection after the long reign of small ones. There are some reasons to be bullish about the chances of mainstream big-pants hegemony. J. Crew now offers the giant-fit chino in a range of colors, and Madewell, whose customer is similar, recently relaunched its men’s line with a bunch of wide and baggy pants styles. In 2022, Levi’s rolled out a reissue of its infamously wide ’90s-era SilverTab jeans with Kohl’s, as mass-market a retailer as you can imagine. And yet, some people think skinny is bound to make a swift comeback — slim pants were surprisingly well-represented on designer runways in January — and I’m already seeing an uptick in Y2K-style ultra-low-rise flares. If the internet hasn’t broken the pants pendulum, where is the pendulum right now, exactly?

by Jonah Weiner, NY Times | Read more:
Images: Bobby Doherty for The New York Times: Sloan/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images; Mohd Rasfan/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images; Bryan Cranston for Kith via; and via.

[ed. About time. Skinny pants look ridiculous; and super baggy ones do too (remember the 80s Miami Vice craze and M.C. Hammer?). Maybe that's why sweat and yoga pants and leggings are so popular. Different looks for different occasions, just save the big bucks for quality items that never go out of style. See also: Levi’s Wants You to Rethink Your Denim Shopping (NYT).]

Disney Trips Are So Complicated You Need a Class to Plan One

Rob Kayris and his family of six were “dumping a boatload of money” into a Disney trip last year and wanted to make the most of it. So a few months before the vacation, they took a class about the new ride reservation system, Genie Plus.

Then right before the trip in February, they took it again.

“I feel like if you don’t know how it works, you’re going to waste probably two to three days before you have a grip on what’s what,” said Kayris, a copy machine salesman who lives outside Philadelphia.

Disney has always been a paradise for planners — or nightmare for the disorganized. When is the best time to go? How can we save money? Is it possible to avoid long lines?

David Semanoff, a public relations firm owner who has been visiting Disney parks since he was an infant, distributes a 10-page primer to friends with tips on rides, dining, character interaction and what to do if it rains (“get your ponchos and go to the park!”). Reactions to his advice can be mixed.

“I think some are already so overwhelmed at the idea of the trip,” he said.

Travel agents, YouTubers, influencers, bloggers, friends-with-experience, Disney experts and paid services like Touring Plans have filled the knowledge gap and helped frazzled families figure out their dream vacation even as the cost has soared. Some visitors turn to VIP tours that cost between $450 and $900 an hour, plus park admission. Others have used the service of independent guides, a practice Disney has been cracking down on.

The pandemic added a new layer of complications, though some of the biggest pain points — such as the need to make reservations and restrictions on when guests could hop from park to park — went away this month in Florida. Then came a fresh upheaval: Instead of the old, free-to-use ride-reservation system, the company introduced one that costs money, requires early wake-ups and drains cellphone battery life. The 2021 introduction of Genie Plus, which mobilizes vacationers to reserve rides starting at 7 a.m. and then throughout the day, turned vacation organization into a near-competitive sport. And it created a new lane for tipsters, content creators, travel advisers and savvy regulars.

One of those is Brooke Raybould, a social media content creator who sells a 200-page digital “Mom’s Guide to Disney World” for $40. Her TikTok on her family’s early-morning approach to tackling the Magic Kingdom featuring a 7:20 a.m. arrival at the park with her four sons — went viral last year.

“There’s an entire system to doing Disney World the right way,” she said. (...)

Learning the lingo

For the average Joe, the nomenclature of a Disney World trip can befuddle. Lightning lanes let you bypass longer standby lines to get faster entry to a ride. Genie Plus is the way you get access — unless you’ve paid for an individual lightning lane, which is only available for certain rides and doesn’t require Genie Plus. Those can be booked at 7 a.m. for resort guests and at park opening time for everyone else. Virtual queues for the newest, hottest rides are free, but also open for booking at 7 a.m. and often fill up quickly.

Got all that?

“I knew it would be complicated, but I don’t think I could have imagined the Disney-industrial complex was this complicated,” Theresa Brown, a New York City resident who took a family trip to Disney World in August, said in an email. “The sheer brain power just to figure out the Disney lingo and landscape is monumental.” (...)

A costly, time-consuming perk

Murphy sees the value in Genie Plus, but she wishes visitors had more transparency about the price. At Disneyland, the price varies but starts at $30. At Walt Disney World, prices change according to the day and park; on Tuesday, for example, the service cost $17 at Animal Kingdom up to $27 at Magic Kingdom or for multiple parks. The price reached $39 at Magic Kingdom around Christmas, according to Disney Tourist Blog.

“I think the thing that people have the hardest time wrapping their brain around is not knowing how much it costs in advance,” Murphy said.

by Hannah Sampson, Washington Post | Read more:
Image: Katty Huertas/Illustration by Katty Huertas/The Washington Post; iStock

Paramore

[ed. Nice cover. Lots of energy. Nobody gets tired of this one.]

Thinking About A.I. with Stanisław Lem

We are going to speak of the future,” the Polish writer Stanisław Lem wrote, in “Summa Technologiae,” from 1964, a series of essays, mostly on humanity and the evolution of technology. “Yet isn’t discoursing about future events a rather inappropriate occupation for those who are lost in the transience of the here and now?” Lem, who died in 2006 at the age of eighty-four, is likely the most widely read writer of science fiction who is not particularly widely read in the United States. His work has been translated into more than forty languages, many millions of copies of his books have been printed, and yet, if I polled a hundred friends, 2.3 of them would know who he was. His best-known work in the U.S. is the 1961 novel “Solaris,” and its renown stems mostly from the moody film adaptation by Andrei Tarkovsky. [ed. the 2002 Soderbergh remake with George Clooney is more faithful to the original novel.]

Among Lem’s fictional imaginings are a phantomatic generator (a machine that gives its user an extraordinarily vivid vision of an alternate reality), an opton (an electronic device on which one can read books), and a network of computers that contains information on most everything that is known and from which people have a difficult time separating themselves. Though we may have forgotten the prophet, the prophecies have not forgotten us.

Lem also wrote numerous stories about machines whose intelligence exceeds that of their creators. About two years ago, when OpenAI released ChatGPT, my initial reaction was: what a fun toy! The poems it wrote were so charming. It also seemed like an interesting form of “distant reading,” since its writing was based on having “eaten” enormous amounts of text from the Internet; it could tell us something about the language and interests people have collectively expressed online. I wasn’t too troubled about such a tool replacing more conventionally human writers. If writers have to become art therapists or math teachers or climate scientists instead, is that so bad? I am programmed, I have come to realize, to default to the reassuring assessment of “no biggie.”

A few news cycles later I was reading—and maybe thinking?—that ChatGPT and its A.I. cousins could easily be like what radio was to Hitler. (Or would it be like what the printing press was to Martin Luther?) Geoffrey Hinton, the godfather of A.I., whom we all suddenly knew about, had resigned from his position at Google and was speaking openly about everything that was likely to go wrong with his creation—a creation he appeared to regret only slightly less than Victor Frankenstein did his. There were very knowledgeable people who thought that all these concerns were nonsense and very knowledgeable people who found them terrifying. I wondered, What would Stanisław Lem think? Or, What did Stanisław Lem think, given that he so accurately foresaw enough of our modern world that he should be taken at least as seriously as Nostradamus or Pixar? (...)

“Solaris” is mostly serious in tone, which makes it a misleading example of Lem’s work. More often and more distinctively, he is funny and madcap and especially playful on the level of language. A dictionary of his neologisms, published in Poland in 2006, has almost fifteen hundred entries; translated into English, his invented words include “imitology,” “fripple,” “scrooch,” “geekling,” “deceptorite,” and “marshmucker.” (I assume that translating Lem is the literary equivalent of differential algebra, or category theory.) A representative story, from 1965, is “The First Sally (A) or, Trurl’s Electronic Bard.” Appearing in a collection titled “The Cyberiad,” the story features Trurl, an engineer of sorts who constructs a machine that can write poetry. Does the Electronic Bard read as an uncanny premonition of ChatGPT? Sure. It can write in the style of any poet, but the resulting poems are “two hundred and twenty to three hundred and forty-seven times better.” (The machine can also write worse, if asked.)

It’s not Trurl’s first machine. In other stories, he builds one that can generate anything beginning with the letter “N” (including nothingness) and one that offers supremely good advice to a ruler; the ruler is not nice, though, so it’s good that Trurl put in a subcode that the machine will not destroy its maker. The Electronic Bard is not easy for Trurl to make. In thinking about how to program it, Trurl reads “twelve thousand tons of the finest poetry” but deems the research insufficient. As he sees it, the program found in the head of even an average poet “was written by the poet’s civilization, and that civilization was in turn programmed by the civilization that preceded it, and so on to the very Dawn of Time.” The complexity of the average poet-machine is daunting.

But Trurl manages to work through all that. When glitches occur—such as the machine in early iterations thinking that Abel murdered Cain, or that “gray drapes,” rather than “great apes,” are members of the primate family—Trurl makes the necessary tweaks. He adjusts logic circuits and emotive components. When the machine becomes too sad to write, or resolves to become a missionary, he makes further adjustments. He puts in a philosophical throttle, half a dozen cliché filters, and then, last but most important, he adds “self-regulating egocentripetal narcissistors.” Finally, it works beautifully.

But how does the world around it work? Trurl’s machine responds to requests to write a lofty, tragic, timeless poem about a haircut, and to write a love poem expressed in the language of mathematics. Both poems are pretty good! But, of course, the situation has to go awry, because that is the formula by which stories work. Lem doesn’t give much space to worries about undetectably faked college essays, or displaced workers. Nor does he pursue a thought line about mis- or disinformation. (In another story, however, Trurl builds a machine that says the answer to two plus two is seven, and it threatens Trurl’s life if he won’t say that the machine is right.)

The poets have various manners of letting Trurl know their take on his invention. “The classicists . . . fairly harmless . . . confined themselves to throwing stones through his windows and smearing the sides of his house with an unmentionable substance.” Other poets beat Trurl. Picket lines form outside his hospital room, and one could hear bullets being fired. Trurl decides to destroy his Electronic Bard, but the machine, seeing the pliers in his hand, “delivered such an eloquent, impassioned plea for mercy, that the constructor burst into tears.” He spares the uncannily well-spoken machine but moves it to a distant asteroid, where it starts to broadcast its poems via radio waves; alas, they are a tremendous success. But thinking about the perils of the technology is not at the center of the story; thinking about the vanity and destructiveness of people is.

by Rivka Galchen, New Yorker | Read more:
Image: Mark Pernice
[ed. A favorite author. Along the same lines/theme, see also: Matthew Salesses on the Possibilities of Climate Fiction (LitHub).]

via:

via:

I saw this idea fly by on Twitter yesterday, half trolling half real:

someone should make a dating app where an LLM clone of you goes on thousands of dates with LLM clones of other people, and then your matches are when the LLMs decide to date each other.

They continue, you can literally build this right now, and later in the thread, it gets trained on your iMessages.

I mean, it’d work!

Let me point out Adams’ Electric Monk:

The Electric Monk was a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe.

An Electric Monk for dating??

Why not. It’s very now.

[ ed. Suggestions that we're living in a form of the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. From: Tech has graduated from the Star Trek era to the Douglas Adams age (Interconnected). See also: Are We All Too Cynical for Star Trek? (The Bulwark).]

Your TV is Too Good For You

Last fall, when Netflix hiked the cost of its top-tier Ultra HD plan by 15 percent, I had finally had enough: $22.99 a month just felt like too much for the ability to see Jaws in 4K video resolution. A couple of weeks later, I heard that Max was pushing up the fee of its own 4K streaming by 25 percent. Now I wasn’t just annoyed, but confused. Super-high-res televisions are firmly ensconced as the next standard for home viewing of TV and movies. And yet, super-high-res content seems to be receding ever further into a specialty consumer niche. What happened?

4K certainly is ubiquitous; you won’t find many sets with lower resolution for sale at Best Buy. In practice, though, the technology is rarely used. Cable signals are generally mere HD, as are the standard plans on most streaming services. And the fancy new displays, as they’re placed and viewed in people’s homes, may never end up looking any sharper than the old ones, no matter what Netflix plan you have. In short, the ultra-high-definition future for TV has turned out to be a lie.

A relentless narrative of progress brought us to this point, but it did not begin in 2012, when the first 4K televisions were brought to market at roughly the price of a Honda Accord. Rather it extends back into the early days of TV, with the idea that picture quality can and always will be improved: first with the introduction of color sets, then with bigger screens, then with added pixels. But sometimes progress ends. The peak of television-picture quality, as actually seen by TV viewers, was reached 15 years ago, and we’ve been coasting ever since. Forget the cable signals and the streaming plans. Most people just can’t sit close enough to today’s televisions to make full use of their picture.

Years ago, sitting too close was the problem. If you’re old enough to remember watching cathode-ray-tube sets, you may have been enjoined to give them space: Move back from the TV! The reasons were many. Cold War–addled viewers had developed the (somewhat justified) fear that televisions emitted radiation, for one. And the TV—still known as the “boob tube” because it might turn its viewers into idiots—was considered a dangerous lure. Its resolution was another problem: If you got close enough to the tube, you could see the color image break down into the red, blue, and green phosphor dots that composed its picture.

All of these factors helped affirm the TV’s appropriate positioning—best viewed at a middle distance—and thus its proper role within the home. A television was to be seen from across the room, and it could be used as much for ambience as for focused viewing. A soap opera or a news program or a cartoon might be on while people in the house read newspapers, balanced checkbooks, cooked meals, or vacuumed—the second-screen activities of the age before second screens. The media theorist Marshall McLuhan famously described television as a “cool” medium, one that provides somewhat meager sensory stimulation, as opposed to a “hot” medium such as cinema, which intensely targets the eyes and ears. (...)

But television technology pressed on. A 4K TV has four times the resolution of an HD set, which suggests that screens might get even hotter, even bigger than they’ve ever been before. In practice, though, these newer sets haven’t really changed the medium at all. If anything, all of those pixels have allowed too much; they’ve become decoupled from the normal scale of domestic life and home design. According to the many TV-size-to-distance calculators available online, when you’re sitting on a couch a dozen feet from your television, a 65-inch screen will look the same whether it’s HD or 4K. The latter has more pixels, but your eyes won’t pick them up. You’ll never know the difference. For the picture to look much better—for you to “see” the benefits of modern ultra-high resolution—you’d need to upgrade to a preposterously large screen, more than 100 inches in diagonal. 

by Ian Bogost, The Atlantic |  Read more:

Image: Brian Finke / Gallery Stock
[ed. I remember when having a large TV sitting prominently in the middle of your living room used to be considered kind of gauche; an indicator of a somewhat limited interior/cultural life. Man, have times changed. Even now 32 in. is still my max (and it's fine).]

This Bookshop is Paying People to Sit Down and Read Quietly

Fort Collins, Colo. — The reader-in-residence position at Perelandra Bookshop doesn’t make sense on paper. Unlike an artist-in-residence or a writer-in-residence program, which provide a stipend and studio space for creating new work, the reader-in-residence isn’t expected to produce anything.

The reader-in-residence doesn’t have to write an essay. They don’t have to host a book club or moderate a panel discussion. They don’t have to contribute to a blog or create sponsored content. They don’t have to do anything, except show up to the bookstore a couple of times per week and read.

“I think the residence paralleled my own personal concerns about the extent to which we focus ourselves on production,” said Joe Braun, principal book buyer at Perelandra, and the person who dreamed up the position. “In focusing on production, foregrounding content creation, what we do is necessarily create a consumer in the process. The idea is: produce, consume, produce, consume.”

Braun wanted to break that cycle. Is the residency replicable? Maybe. Is it scalable? Probably not. But that has never been the point. The point is to envision what a bookshop can do, not what it already is, Braun said.

“Having gone through undergrad and grad school — even though they were great experiences — there was that constant drive to show that you understand. To make something of your understanding. I’m like, you know what, we kind of just need understanding. We don’t always need proof of it,” he said.

The reader gets a small stipend for their three-month stint — $50 per month for books, and another $50 per month for coffee. They also have access to Perelandra’s wholesale book catalog. The overt goal of the residency is to foster a space for people to experience literature more thoughtfully. The underlying goal is to make them want to smash their phones with a sledgehammer.

“We do so much reading now, but it’s mostly reading for information at best. At best. At worst it’s like a pure little shot of dopamine before moving to the next post,” said Steven Shafer, Perelandra’s current reader-in-residence. “It is almost the exact opposite of what I’ve gotten to experience here.”

Shafer was selected the way all of Perelandra’s readers have been selected so far: Through word-of-mouth. The first book he read during his residency, which lasts through March, was “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley. He had different takeaways this time around, almost 20 years since he first read the book.

“When you’re 18, you feel like ‘Yeah definitely, fight the man! Become a revolutionary!’ And then 20 years on it’s kind of like, ‘Eh, I’m definitely part of the system.’ I don’t know if I’d be the one necessarily to step up and try to burn it all down. I’d probably say, like, let’s take a breath, there’s a lot at stake here.”

That’s kind of the formula of the entire bookstore: A little bit of fight the man mixed with a little bit of let’s take a breath.

by Parker Yamasaki, The Colorado Sun |  Read more:

Image: Olivia Sun, The Colorado Sun via Report for America
[ed. See also: Bring Back the Big, Comfortable Bookstore Reading Chair (LitHub).]

Helen Units

A helen is a humorous unit of measurement based on the concept that Helen of Troy had a "face that launched a thousand ships". The helen is thus used to measure quantities of beauty in terms of the theoretical action that could be accomplished by the wielder of such beauty.

The classic reference to Helen's beauty is Marlowe's lines from the 1592 play The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus, "Was this the face that launch'd a thousand ships / And burnt the topless towers of Ilium?" In the tradition of humorous pseudounits, then, 1 millihelen is the amount of beauty needed to launch a single ship.

In his 1992 collection of jokes and limericks, Isaac Asimov claimed to have invented the term in the 1940s as a graduate student. In a 1958 letter to the New Scientist, R.C. Winton proposes the millihelen as the amount of beauty required to launch one ship. In response, P. Lockwood noted that the unit had been independently proposed by Edgar J. Westbury and extended by the pair to negative values, where −1 millihelen was the amount of ugliness required to sink a battleship.

The earliest known print citation is found in Punch magazine dated June 23 1954 and attributed to an unnamed "professor of natural philosophy".

by Wikipedia |  Read more:

Image:Helen leaving for Troy with Paris, as depicted by Guido Reni

[ed. My mom's name was Helen; it's my grandaughter's middle name, too.]

via:

The Fairy-Tale Promises of Montessori Parenting

Giving my 4-year-old a random food without explanation to see what he does,” an automated voice says at the start of a TikTok from the parenting influencer known as LauraLove. She hands her son, Carter, a container of ricotta cheese. He announces quickly: He’ll make stuffed shells.

Carter seems incredibly prepared, standing on a platform to reach the stove. He seasons the beef, cooks the pasta, mixes the filling, and stuffs the shells. Sure, his motions are clumsy and he goofs off while he works. But the end dish looks pretty good. Even more compelling, though, might be how Carter responds to his mistakes. When he drops a stuffed shell upside down, he makes a joke. When he splashes egg on himself, he doesn’t flinch. “I got a little wet,” he says. “But that’s fine. That happens when you’re cooking.”

The whole video—Carter’s demeanor, the equipment he stands on, even the choice of activity—is filled with the hallmarks of Montessori parenting. You might recognize the name Montessori from the group of schools known for prioritizing child autonomy and learning through play. Though the parenting approach is not officially affiliated with Montessori education, you can think of it as a sort of DIY descendant, in which people apply many of the same concepts in a new realm. Recently it’s become highly visible, in large part because of social media. (LauraLove, for instance, has nearly 8 million followers.) Now Montessori influences pervade the design of playrooms, popular toys, and even the general ethos of self-sufficiency that defines many modern child-rearing theories.

I was curious about the philosophy’s appeal, so I spoke with seven Montessori-parenting adherents. Some were stay-at-home parents; others had to balance caregiving with paid work. Many told me about being nervous first-time parents who just wanted a child-rearing style to rely on. Indeed, Mairin Augustine, a researcher who studies parenting, told me that applying Montessori educational ideas to raising kids can amount to good parenting. (Even if it is dressed up in impressive branding and comes with a whole lot of merch.) But while Montessori parenting can be rewarding, it can also be particularly expensive and labor-intensive.

Of course, TikToks like the one of Carter cooking leave a lot out. Clearly this wasn’t his first time in the kitchen. (LauraLove does have other videos where she teaches her sons to cook, and admitted in a comment that she gave Carter “a little help here & there,” but said he “remembered & did most of it on his own.”) As any parent will tell you, such videos just aren’t representative of what cooking with young kids is typically like.

“Make time for your child to do things in her own way and at her own pace,” the Association Montessori Internationale’s parenting website preaches. A lovely idea, but not exactly a practical one for many parents. When making muffins, for example, Nicole Kavanaugh, the creator of a Montessori-parenting blog and podcast, told me that she might be eager to dump the batter into the tin, “but my child might want to sit and whisk.” Waiting for a kid to finish can be logistically disruptive, but for Kavanaugh, the greater struggle was often mental. She described literally sitting on her hands to stop herself from intervening in one of her children’s tasks.

Depictions of Montessori parenting, particularly on social media, can make it seem like a prescription for idyllic family life—they suggest that your kid, too, could be cooking fancy Italian meals at age 4, and that tantrums could be easily defused by empathetic conversation, and that your home could also be effortlessly tidy, if you just adopted Montessori. But raising kids isn’t so simple, and even parents who are willing and able to invest the money, time, and emotional work in this method may find themselves disappointed when expectations butt up against reality. Ultimately, no one can escape the hard truth: No matter how hard you work to organize a playroom, you can’t eliminate chaos or uncertainty from parenting.

The montessori approach to parenting is rooted in a respected pedagogical system started in the early 20th century by the Italian educator Maria Montessori. She preached that kids were innately orderly, focused, and self-motivated, and should be given freedom to choose what they learn. She believed that play is educational, and she filled schoolrooms with what others saw as mere toys. She found value in housework, too, and had students do chores as part of their lessons. She lamented that the world was not built to be accessible to children—and she created a school that was. Its philosophy lives on in the many modern-day schools that bear her name.

When Simone Davies, the author of the popular book The Montessori Toddler, discovered the approach about 20 years ago, Montessori schools had already started to proliferate in the U.S. Yet Davies, who is based in Amsterdam, struggled to find any books that explained how to implement these principles at home. But over the past decade, Kavanaugh told me, platforms such as Instagram and YouTube have become a “breeding ground” for Montessori parenting. Those platforms are visual, and the philosophy lends itself well to striking aesthetics: The playrooms tend to be clean and minimalist; watching a 2-year-old chop vegetables is mesmerizing. “It was just this perfect storm,” Kavanaugh said. Add the tie to a prestigious educational brand, and it’s no wonder the approach has taken off.

But much of what is labeled Montessori today has little meaningful association with the original philosophy. Because the name was never trademarked, anyone can use it. (The Association Montessori Internationale, which Maria co-founded with her son, offers certifications to schools and teachers, but those are optional.) So-called Montessori toys abound: See, for example, the Pikler triangle—also billed as a “Montessori Climber,” despite having been created by a different pioneer in early education—a sort of glorified ladder that sells for as much as $299. The Montessori aesthetic has become so heavily marketed that if you mention Montessori on a parenting board, people may think you mean beige wooden blocks, not a radical pedagogical approach that centers children’s needs.

The actual parenting philosophy is adapted from Maria’s educational principles as well as comments she made about parents’ role in child development. At its core, Montessori parenting is defined by three main features. The first, and most important, Davies told me, is a gentle and respectful way of interacting with children that does away with traditional discipline and encourages independence. The second involves creating what is known as a “prepared space”: a well-organized area for kids to play in, with child-size furniture and objects that are all within the child’s reach. The final element is facilitating specialized activities depending on the kid’s age, which can be educational play or helping with chores—like cooking.

Psychologists generally agree that the ideal parenting style is “authoritative” and is characterized by high levels of warmth and control. That means “having consistent messages about what I want from you, but knowing that I love you,” Augustine told me. Many of Maria’s ideas fit nicely under that umbrella. Certain fringe Montessori beliefs are not evidence-backed. (For instance, Maria notoriously preached that cribs, the safest place for infants to sleep, were inhumane cages.) But the overall approach is largely aligned with that authoritative-parenting ideal. (...)

The parents I spoke with who answered that call weren’t necessarily expecting perfection, nor were they completely drawn in by social media’s illusions. Still, when Montessori didn’t work as expected, they tended to be disappointed. Many blamed themselves, but few criticized the philosophy itself. Indeed, Montessori has a principle that makes it customizable but also impossible to disprove: “Follow the child”—which roughly means Be responsive to your kid. So, for example, if a kid doesn’t like a Montessori-style activity a parent spent hours creating, that doesn’t mean something’s wrong with the activity; that means the parent didn’t understand their child’s needs. (...)

Montessori is remarkable for the extent to which it takes children seriously, involving innovations small (art hung at kids’ eye level in their own rooms) and large (putting play at the center of children’s education). The parenting style encourages kids to express themselves—and sometimes, for toddlers, that self-expression involves throwing fits. No amount of respect for your children’s emotional life can change that. The implication that Montessori would make parenting orderly and predictable was always doomed to fail. But the philosophy does give parents something to steady themselves while living through the havoc of helping someone else grow up.

by Kate Cray, The Atlantic |  Read more:

Image: Katie Martin

[ed. Just treat them like normal people, which means not being overly authoritative or protective (a necessity sometimes, but children know when it's needed), or talking down to them; mainly just being yourself and letting them see and interact with you as your own self, not just a parent. It provides a good baseline and context for their own growth (hopefully); and mutual respect. And don't forget to help and support them in finding their own interests and independence. See also: Protocols for Excellent Parenting & Improving Relationships of All Kinds (Huberman Lab):]

via:
[ed. At least he got an autograph.]

via:

via: