Note: their definition of “community” is quite problematic in many ways…

  • poVoq@slrpnk.netOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Mainly the focus on authorities, religion and so on. I get that they mean stability, which is probably good for children, but it is a bit too much of a projection of the “good old times” that never really existed.

    • Sibbo@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Yeah, I guess this is written from a more conservative standpoint.

      I believe the principal ideas from the article apply to other people as well. Like progressive people could join a local sports club for example. Keeps them healthy and fit, and provides social contacts. Or then a book club, painting club, you name it.

      And well, parents can create communities around their kindergarten or school classes, or maybe also some children’s sports club.

    • RobotZap10000@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I agree. The study seems a bit biased. In the article (or the previous in the series, I forgot), a study claims that religious children say that they have trusted persons more often than secular children. I (don’t) wonder how this might change if the child in question wasn’t cisgender and/or heterosexual.

      It is a very insightful article nonetheless. Thanks for sharing!

      • Tiresia@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I (don’t) wonder how this might change if the child in question wasn’t cisgender and/or heterosexual.

        Simple: non-cishet children quickly stop being part of religious communities, and so the religious community is very accepting to all its members. Classic survivorship bias.