My friend and I discussed this today and are still left without a lot of good ideas for our kids (who are mostly normal), but show shocking levels (to us) of materialism and lack of gratitude.
What’s developmentally appropriate? When is a kid ready to focus away from shiny stuff onto what matters for a good life?
#1: Questions: "What made you feel good today? ... Tell me about it.." (By them telling the story, they relive the experience, and the brain releases the same feel-good endorphins)
#2: Receptors: Even if kids don't understand language yet, they're still hypersensitive to your emotions. By you yourself practicing gratitude in their presence, they'll tune into it and receive the signal.
According to Montessori theory, it's ages 6-12 years old (the elementary years). That's when their mental development is naturally focused on fairness, what's right/wrong, social groups, justice, rules, etc. They begin to show a genuine interest in others, locally and globally. Role models play a huge part in developing their values at this time.
Piaget agrees, but puts it at 7-11 years old.
Both say the beginning and ending ages are an approximation and development occurs throughout, but that's the developmental stage when the brain is particularly sensitive to it.
Just make sure they learn to recognize the value of trans-material assets: one can loose their financial wealth in an instant easily, but their reputation, skills, knowledge, intelligence, health, psychological capacity, inner dignity and freedom of compassion, unconditioned vision and decision-making are less volatile. Understanding this is the first step upwards and is enough for many. Eventually, as the consciousness develops and matures a subject can also recognize these assets are also volatile and seek forth to meet their true self that actually owns these and is the only reliable invariant in their subjective universe.
At the same time try to avoid values dichotomization so the kid won't grow up with a destructive idea of financial wealth being a bad thing to pursue.
If their intelligence seems not sufficient try to make it fun for them to play n-back games like BrainWorkshop, their intelligence will develop stronger and my experience suggests it helps to grok all kinds of stuff (including even transcendental matters!) a lot, in whatever an age (it in fact has enhanced my own mind capacity enough to instantly realize that life in a society is not a zero-sum game and it is usually more beneficial for myself to help others to develop, succeed and strive than to care about maintaining competitive advantage over them and that in whatever an argument the primary objectives are to understand the opponent (whatever bizarre they may sound and regardless to whether or not they're wrong) and enrich your vision while winning the argument is a secondary objective and even happens to be irrelevant in many cases).
> Just make sure they learn to recognize the value of trans-material assets: one can loose their financial wealth in an instant easily, but their reputation, skills, knowledge, intelligence, health, psychological capacity, inner dignity and freedom of compassion, unconditioned vision and decision-making are less volatile.
Your post has good aim but I don't believe this is the case. Financial wealth is relatively trivial to safeguard after a point - particularly more stable forms (if you own a home outright, in a jurisdiction without property tax, it's essentially yours).
By contrast, one could wake up tomorrow suffering amnesia, could be hit by a car, or suffer any number of health ailments that would drastically curtail those "inner" attributes.
How does one "meet their true self" and what exactly is it? Also, the influence of n-back training on general intelligence is anything but uncontroversial.
By observing everything that is not them but theirs (memories and feelings included) and recognizing what remains.
> what exactly is it?
That's you.
> Also, the influence of n-back training on general intelligence is anything but uncontroversial.
How is it controversial? There are at least 2 credible papers proving it works and the empirical experience of mine and of other people I know demonstrates its efficiency.
Put them to work and make them earn things. Understanding the calculus of how much picking rocks out of the garden or how many times you have to mow the lawn for a new doodad is a kind of tethering that persists for many years.
Do you have any evidence for this? I haven't seen any studies into it, but it comes from the same school of Protestant work ethic as many disproven pieces of "common sense".
I had in mind a combination of the Cambridge Summerville youth study, the massive body of research that working more hours isn't good for productivity, and the (admittedly currently ongoing) research into personal relationships which is showing a marked improvement in relationship outcomes for couples who live together before getting married.
I would assume that your best bet is to reflect about your own stance on materialism. Usually children develop in the long run towards very similar personalities as those of their parents.
Personal observation - I cannot provide a study for that. As far as I can tell parents (or who ever raises a child most of the time) is the reference point for personal development. That either manifests in emulation or rebellion - depending on the quality of the relationship and the phase a child is going through. But in the long run the similarities outweigh the differences. A bit like a photo and its negative - both convey the same information but look very different.
I used to work in informal education with children ages 5-18. I never studied child development but the 5-7 year old kids had to be given a structure just to do basic things like sharing. These kids will straight up lie about things, too. The 5-7 year groups needed staffing levels somewhere around 3:1.
It wasn’t until the middle school groups (age 12-14) that you really saw kids with what looked like genuine concern for others, and we ran staffing levels more like 6:1.
I am not an expert on this subject matter but I suspect much of the required structure for younger kids is only a necessity due to constant restrictions and monitoring that's been put in place by modern society. In other words, we are not giving enough space to develop on their own terms and explore their surroundings.
I grew up in the 80s and 90s and remember spending a lot of time unsupervised going about wherever and doing all sorts of wild things well before I was 7 years old. Looking back now as a parent it is absolutely terrifying to me what I was "allowed" to do. Then again when I think about the Norma in countries like Japan (where it is not uncommon to see kindergarten kids walking home by themselves and crossing streets and intersections), I am reminded that kids can develop independently to a great tune than we give them credit for. I don't know about Japanese kids materials levels but I've noticed that they are typically given more freedoms to act independently and spend a lot more time on outdoor and social activities. If I had to guess I'd say they are a lot less materialistic than their Western counterparts.
As for my own child, I try to let him be independent even at 1 year. For example, we have a TV stand that any parent would be terrified if their kid climbed on it. I was terrified at first but then with some observation and secret supervision I let him climb it. To my surprise he quickly learned how to turn around and get down safely. There was only a single time when he fell from it sideways unhurt, but now he goes up and down like a pro without any supervision. I can leave the room knowing he will always get down fine. To what effect independence will have an impact on materialism remains to be seen but I suspect one of the commenters is right on the money with mirroring behavior and values.
Yes, children should absolutely be given enough space to develop on their own terms and explore their surroundings. However, to be blunt, the rest of the comment seems like it’s mostly feelings that you’ve developed based on your personal experiences (which are valid!) rather than a more measured assessment of our society.
My experience with Japanese children is limited, but when I worked in informal education we had a number of groups of high school students from Japan, and when I was in college there was a large group of exchange students from Japan. Some of my American friends went on to become full-time teachers in Japan… and some of the Japanese people I knew went on to become full-time teachers in America. My impression is that if you think that Japanese children are “given more freedoms to act independently” then this is probably a result of your cultural bias around what it means to be independent. The phrase that usually gets thrown around is “出る釘は打たれる”, which means “the nail that sticks out is hammered down.” There is generally a lot of structure in the lives of Japanese children. As for materialism—your mileage may vary. The Japanese people I’ve known haven’t been exceptionally different from Americans when it comes to broad aspects like materialism. Japan definitely has its share of brand-conscious consumers.
And this is a song and dance we’ve heard before. “If I only raise my child using principle X, then they’ll grow up to be great people.” There is no secret technique to raising better children, there’s just a million little things and a lifetime of effort.
> I am not an expert on this subject matter but I suspect much of the required structure for younger kids is only a necessity due to constant restrictions and monitoring that's been put in place by modern society. In other words, we are not giving enough space to develop on their own terms and explore their surroundings.
It's mentioned by Piaget that kids are inherently ego-centric at that level, and likely won't share. It think it's a generally relative thing for them to be very self-centered at that age.
If you don’t think “shiny stuff” is needed for a good life just deprive your kids of it. You’ll find out in a decade or two whether you were right or whether your kids just resent you. If you have > 1 kid, then this is the perfect time to run an A/B test.
I grew up poor and never had a strong desire for material things. I don't know if growing up poor is the reason for this, but I do know that not having access to "fancy" things a kid might have access to, made me spend a lot more time playing outside and keeping occupied with activities. Of course this was all before I had access to a computer. The moment I discovered Age of Empires, I had a strong urge to have my own computer.
By the metrics, the most generous person in the world is Bill Gates who has given away something approaching 30 billion dollars. Maybe there is an argument that he isn't materialistic, but I think the evidence is against that.
I suspect they are misusing "materialist" in this context and they meant "selfish". The link is selfishness causes materialism, not materialism causes selfishness.
There is absolute and relative generosity. On absolute terms Bill is the most generous. On relative terms even after giving away $30b he still has more money than he could ever spend so there is really no personal sacrifice made.
Don’t discount the fact that he also gives time. Time that eh could literally do anything in the world he wants with, since he has all of that money. In my mind, time is where the real giving happens.
Anyone with a lot of money can give a lot without any impact on themselves. When someone inconveniences themselves / gives their time and sweat, I’m more impressed.
Actually, on relative terms I think he has given away roughly half the money he has ever earned, which makes him exceptionally generous relatively speaking.
I stopped calling myself Christian as a result of reading the Bible, but it does have some interesting takes on this topic:
“””Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood.”””
I don't think this story is useful because it makes poverty imaginarily virtuous and downplays the very real benefit of philanthropy. In absolute and relative terms, Bill Gates is lightyears ahead of nearly everyone, since he both pledges billions of dollars to charity and also pledges (if I remember correctly) a majority of his money to charities. Would you mind explaining why you think it's better for the woman to donate what little she had than the rich to donate their surplus?
It's not depicting poverty as virtuous it's depicting sacrifice as virtuous.
Bill Gates is sacrificing basically nothing by giving away half (or even 90%) of his wealth. He lives the exact same life of supreme comfort that he did before.
Weirdly this is one of the few things the bible was actually abundantly clear about (and it's a pretty good point).
I’m saying “more generous”, not “better”. As CMCDragonkai wrote, the passage is a criticism of a system which says gift givers are more virtuous the more they give, when many others cannot give without harming themselves.
To put it another way, although one can give the Gates generosity-brownie-points for caring about other people, they don’t get fourty thousand times as many such points as a normal couple who “only” donates a million dollars to charity.
First, in terms of ends, it's not better, but you can say it is more virtuous, in the sacrificial sense of putting the needs of others before hers, even though probably pointless in practice.
Thus, in terms of practicality, I do think it's better for the poor to keep their money, and the rich to redistribute their surplus.
But, in this practical sense, I feel it would be even more efficient if our society could improve its systems so that the surplus simply never happened in the first place. What would be both virtuous and better in practice in my opinion is if Bill Gates simply had chosen to give himself a smaller share and a lower wage from the beginning.
Now, maybe if you take into account psychology and motivations, it might be that humans require our current system of winning it all and then giving it back. So its hard to say if it could be implemented at all.
The commentary is very interesting and observes that the passage is talking about something entirely different than generosity. It is intead rebuking the institution that receives such gifts.
Curses, he's working to eradicate polio without suffering personally for it?
This has always been the argument in favour of things like materialist and capitalist philosophy - the outcomes are much better than the alternative.
There are countless well-meaning individuals who have achieved nothing, because they give their wealth away early on, compared to this one convenient counterexample in Gates, who firstly made obscene wealth with tactics that were pretty shady in my opinion, certainly anti competitive, then did flat-out more good.
If Gates were more relatively generous through his life, it is pretty plausible that he and a lot of poor people throughout in the world would be _worse off_. This is a strong argument against being relatively generous.
I've made a similar point to yours myself in the past, and people really don't like hearing it.
I guess part of the problem is that Gates just so happens to have deployed his vast wealth for good, whereas there are plenty of very rich people that are ambivalent at best and (depending on your political viewpoint) negative at worst i.e. rich people funding climate-sceptic organisations.
On balance though I'm sticking to my point, which is that all the people preaching on incessantly about why us evil unenlightened need to mend our ways would do far better to shut up, make a stack of money being an evil capitalist, and then give it all away to their noble cause of preference.
Isn't that just feudalism? Or the idea of benevolent dictator? I feel it would be best to avoid such extreme wealth, and downplay the advantages of shady practices, to enable legitimate competition in all areas. To be honest, I feel this is actually the idea behind capitalism, it created the middle class, and that's its biggest strength. The truth is, under capitalism, for a while, the gap between poor and rich was at its lowest ever, and the middle class was at its strongest ever. That was its best attribute, and why it is lauded.
But, in recent years, we're seeing a shift, and that's why people talk about late stage capitalism, because it seems that it no longer creates the reduction in the extremes it did in tbe beginning. The question is, what can be done about this?
And I say that assuming that we learned many times already that a few ultra rich with concentrated power and wealth do not become generous and efficient leaders, solving world hunger, ending poverty, etc.
I think it's very possible that he was materialistic earlier in life, and now that he's got some experience winning at money he's not and is on to generosity.
What I realized as I get older and have met many different people, is that, everyone, is, judgmental. Of course, different people value different things. Some judge by wealth, some by looks, some by height, skin color, hobby, manner, education, intellect, family background, job, way you speak, way you act, etc, etc.
Why are some judgmental criterias more acceptable than others? I mean, compared to many of the less change-able traits like look, skin color, where you are from, intelligence, etc, isn't wealth, being acquire-able, a somewhat more "fair" criteria to be judged on?
This seems like a straw man argument. Obviously everyone is “judgmental” to some degree or another (maybe with the exception of some people with severe mental injuries or the like), especially if you can make as expansive a definition as you want for “judgment”.
But not everyone is equally judgmental, certainly not publicly. Some are constantly publicly disparaging everyone and every thing, offering unsolicited advice, making rude exclamations, making public comparisons, bragging, chatting behind people’s backs, or the like.
Others get along without ever making obvious negative judgments, e.g. don’t obviously concern themselves too much with other people, or keep their criticisms to themselves and keep their conversation no-nonsense, or find genuine compliments to dish out in a wide variety of circumstances, or talk about themselves out of joy at spreading ideas vs. personal marketing, etc.
Some of these people are just exceptionally empathetic (and don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings) or politically savvy, but some pretty clearly just don’t care that much.
> isn't wealth, being acquire-able, a somewhat more "fair" criteria to be judged on?
Personally, I don’t feel like I should care about it, and I try not to care. There’s nothing inherently bad about wealth, but I don’t really find it very impressive or interesting per se.
I am much more judgmental (personally, not necessarily aloud) about how excited people are about what they are doing, how adventurous they are at trying ideas, how kind they are, how much they empathize with others, how reliable, etc.
Wealth is one of the least valuable signals I have found for predicting whether I will like someone in the long term... though I admit I judge people negatively for wantonly wasting resources or bragging about their wealth.
There's a difference between judging - which is an exercise in locating people along your own value scale, whatever that is - and aggressive narcissistic devaluation.
The letter is absolutely toxic, irrespective of political orientation. And it can lead to toxic actions and violent abuse - which may be institutionalised.
Sure. But even in the case of personal internal judgments, people vary widely in how much they do this. Some are constantly consciously trying to measure and compare everyone they meet, whereas others seem to generally not notice much.
No, because wealth is not fairly distributed. The biggest predictor of wealth is being born rich. Looking at only the best case is not sufficient to call a criterion "fair."
Also comparing wealth to judge people doesn't make sense because many don't even strive for it. At least in Germany most people just want a middle class lifestyle (i.e. normal job and house) but have absolutely no ambitions for more.
Is anything truly "fair" then? Even people's decisions and actions are affected by their genetics and upbringing, none of which are really fair. By this logic it's unacceptable to judge people on anything.
> By this logic it's unacceptable to judge people on anything.
Why do we need to judge people at all? If it is simply to feel superior, you can just make stuff up. "Look at that person with/without an iPhone while I don't have/have one."
IPhone is just a proxy for wealth. I suggest instead, "Look at that pathetic guy trying to justify evil actions by making wealth at any cost seem like a virtue."
This is an important point. The implicit assumption of the OP, “if we’re going to judge in one thing” is bogus.
Why do we have to judge on only one thing? Why can’t we judge different traits and characteristics based on different metrics? What does material wealth tell us about someone? What is it about them we are judging?
You are arguing that the frying pan is not as bad as the fire. If your morality is so impoverished that this is the least-bad you can think of, you should take a break from judgement.
It all depends on your definition of judgment. Of course we all judge, that's how we choose to be with the people who do us good and are pleasant to associate with, and avoid others who are not. (And basically navigate life in a way that is safe and healthy). But it is not a value judgment, just about making good decisions.
But putting people in a hierarchy where some people are better or worse than others (in particular in respect to one self) is IMO rooted in insecurity, it makes us feel good to put ourself in the same box as people we admire and above those we loathe.
Personally I love being with people who are not judgmental (by putting value on people, and yes they exist). And funny thing is that it is contagious, I feel much less like being judgmental when being around those people. The opposite is also true, the easiest people to judge are those who just judged someone, in particular if they judged me.
My primary criteria, way above anything else, is simple plain old 'good heart'. People that don't take more then they are given, are reliable, honest and don't have evil/selfish traits.
Traits you mention are completely irrelevant in face of those - at least for me.
It's fine to judge by these, depending on the circumstances, since these are actions people take, rather than things about them that are out of their control or out of their reach.
If you don't think that intelligence is very modifiable, then you must also not think that wealth is very modifiable too, given that IQ is the most accurate predictor of wealth that we have.
They didn't measure materialism, and very poorly measured generosity.
They had some of the participants journal what they were grateful for, they paid all the participants, and they suggested that participants make a supposedly anonymous donation of cash to an unknown cause.
Keeping the money is supposedly materialism. No, it is not. Spending the money on frivolous status symbols might be materialism, but that wasn't measured. Keeping the money long-term, or spending it on something of importance, is financially responsible. Giving the money to an unknown cause (might even be an offensive cause) is foolhardy.
Now, what that tells us about action in opposite direction? How to spoil the kid? Tell it that he should feel no gratitude because wealth distribution is random and that hard work, merit, or discipline matter.
> According to research, materialism has been linked to a variety of mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression, as well as selfish attitudes and behaviors.
It would be interesting to many here, I suppose, to find details of such research. Also comparisons of problems caused my materialistic world view versus idealistic world view could be interesting.
However we may easily trip into religious disagreements here, which are both burdensome and seem to be quite outside of the YC area. May be we best leave this topic undiscussed here?
> comparisons of problems caused my materialistic world view versus idealistic world view could be interesting
Materialism ties your happiness to the state of a vast and unfriendly external system that you, particularly if you are a child in a non-wealthy family, cannot control. Suppose one day materialistic instincts - manipulated by advertisers and wealthy, high-status peers - inform you that you ought to acquire an expensive Thing to maintain your status and sense of self-worth. Your parents are unwilling or unable to provide the Thing for you. You, as a young person, cannot earn or save enough to buy the Thing on your own. As a result, you become unhappy. The situation repeats frequently, as materialistic instincts then go on to tell you that you ought to acquire Thing_2, Thing_3, etc.
>Suppose one day materialistic instincts - manipulated by advertisers and wealthy, high-status peers - inform you that you ought to acquire an expensive Thing to maintain your status and sense of self-worth. Your parents are unwilling or unable to provide the Thing for you. You, as a young person, cannot earn or save enough to buy the Thing on your own. As a result, you become unhappy.
Wouldn't this depend on the personality of the child? Maybe the child decides "I'm going to work hard, study hard and hussle until I have these things, and have more of them than my wealthy peers". I've spent a lot of time in China, where the majority of people grew up way poorer than even the poorest Americans (albeit with better access to schooling) and such an attitude is not uncommon.
I don’t know about that but my parents always said: Money doesn’t bring happiness, but being unhappy in a Porsche sure as hell beats having your old clunker break down on the way to pick up your kids from kindergarten.
Money solves problems. Fewer priblems makes you happier.
Ironically the "old clunker" is likely to generate fewer problems that cost less.
I recently had someone complain to me about getting their newer BMW serviced at service centers; I told them you could always buy a 10 year old car that you could take anywhere; like me.
> Indeed, materialism among this population has been linked to a variety of mental health problems such as anxiety and depression (Froh, Emmons, Card, Bono, & Wilson, 2011a), the use of addictive substances such as alcohol and illegal drugs (Williams, Cox, Hedberg, & Deci, 2000), and selfish attitudes and behaviors (Kasser, 2005).
Froh, J. J., Emmons, R., Card, N., Bono, G., & Wilson, J. (2011a). Gratitude and the reduced costs of materialism in adolescents. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(2), 289–302.
Williams, G. C., Cox, E. M., Hedberg, V. A., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Extrinsic life goals and health-risk behaviors in adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1756–1771.
Kasser, T. (2005). Frugality, generosity, and materialism in children and adolescents. In K. A. Moore, L. H. Lippman, K. A. Moore, & L. H. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish: Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 357–373). New York, NY, US: Springer Science + Business Media
You could definitely say that people starving feel entitled to food, and feel justified in stealing it. You could also say that an ideology that can be used to explain every power struggle and social ill is very attractive to those who are too smart for their own good.
I don't think entitlement is as tightly coupled with a single economic philosophy as you'd like to think.
Yes there is entitlement evident in the example you're citing, but there's plenty of entitlement evident in other scenarios – e.g., colonialism, feudalism, the behaviour of banking executives in the 2008 financial crisis.
It'd be neat if we could simply assign a single political/economic philosophy as being the one that's characterised by entitlement, but like most things in life, the reality is rather more complex.
>Most Marxist revolutions involved attacking the producers which did lead to starvation.
Yes.
> Just because there are people in the world doing better than you does not automatically mean you are being oppressed.
Certainly.
>The idea you are entitled to what other people have is absolutely the root of Marxism.
Here is where I disagree. I think Marxism is fundamentally the idea that all significant suffering in the world is caused by wealthy elites exploiting common people, and that sufficiently eliminating this exploitation will lead to a utopia. It's more than a simple "Give me that!" urge. How else could it be so superficially appealing to naive college students for centuries of history?
Don't take this as justification for Marxism. It's not. Marxism is one level above Nazism in a level of evil (if it's not evil, what else could you call evil?) since Nazism eventually demonizes everyone who looks or acts differently than you, but Marxism eventually demonizes (and kills) everyone.
Did you get this from reading the works Marx and Engels (that is to say, the founders of Marxism), or elsewhere?
>caused by wealthy elites exploiting common people
No. Even a cursory reading of Marx (other than the Manifesto, which is a propaganda pamphlet he wrote) would suggest that Marx's issue is with capital and abstract labour. The title of his magnum opus is: Capital, a critical analysis of capitalist production. If you read it, the references to actualized instances of "wealthy elites" is paltry in comparison to his references to society, political economy, abstract structures and history. In fact, there's a wonderful little quote from the man himself demonstrating this:
"To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose [i.e., seen through rose-tinted glasses]. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them."
This is from the preface, by the way. You don't even have to open the book properly to read this.
>sufficiently eliminating this exploitation will lead to a utopia
No. There is no "sufficiently" about it; the Marxist project is to eliminate what Marx sees as the class structure, present in "all societies hitherto" which leads to such exploitation. Beware that "exploitation" is a technical term, not a moral one. Marx does not mean to cast any moral judgement on the fact.
>How else could it be so superficially appealing to naive college students for centuries of history?
Marx was generally not appealing to college students around the time of his death in 1883. One century from then makes 1983, so you're right for about one century. Since then the popularity has generally declined, only recently seeing a resurgence. I question why you brought up "naive college students" when academics at the forefront of sociology, philosophy and political economy describe themselves as Marxists or at least influenced by his ideas. The student protests in May '68 France were joined by academics and the massive French trade unionist movement.
>Marxism is one level above Nazism in a level of evil
Marxism does not prescribe the indiscriminate murder of people (including capitalists!) due to their inherent characteristics. Although we'd both agree that the actions of the 20th c. Communist dictators were horrific, Badiou and Zizek question whether these are "inherent" to the Marxist project at all, or even the Marxist-Leninist project.
I think we disagree in a couple major ways. I don't take at face value the text written by the creators of an ideology to be its only ideas, without searching for subtext or underlying motivations. I also don't think that the actions that people take under the banner of a political ideology are necessarily separate from that ideology. Those are interpretative generosities rarely extended to political ideologies. I'm very cautious to extend them to Marxism given the bloody history of regimes that believe in it. For your information, I have read the Manifesto and Capital. I do not think that's all there is to Marxism.
I will agree so, since I discovered this and how this and positivity affect my perception I practice it daily like a meditative practice . basically it prolongs your instant gratification.
My 2 centidollars: Consistent boundaries and "no" to almost everything. Dumpster diving, second hand stores and DIY maker craft_ship. Resourcefulness over new and shiny. Occasional extravagances where it makes sense.
What’s developmentally appropriate? When is a kid ready to focus away from shiny stuff onto what matters for a good life?