[neumann_alfred]

"No, but I was one."

And frankly, most of the criticism has nothing to do with parenting but with intellectual honesty and how much you yourself understand about the world. If you teach your kid 2+2=5, I will be sure that is wrong, and "but you don't have kids" is a hilarious rebuttal.

[Cushman]

Until you talk to a few parents and they say, "2+2=5? Yeah, we tried that. It worked pretty well up until 6 or 7 when we were able to have a real conversation about addition. Why do you think that's wrong?"

Then you might realize that, yes, not knowing anything about parenting actually does mean you have no basis to evaluate parenting decisions.

[neumann_alfred]

Until you talk to a few parents and they say, "2+2=5? Yeah, we tried that. It worked pretty well up until 6 or 7 when we were able to have a real conversation about addition. Why do you think that's wrong?"

I would ask what did they mean by "working"? If the kid doesn't understand addition anyway, and asks what is 2+2, why not tell them 4? What would be the rationale to say it's 5, what is "working" here? It answered the question, but so would the correct answer.

Then you might realize that, yes, not knowing anything about parenting actually does mean you have no basis to evaluate parenting decisions.

If that parenting knowledge gives people expert insight, why don't they share it? Why hide behind "only parents would understand" (even ignoring that some parents disagree with them)? Why not refute the so obviously wrong armchair amateur advice with the correct facts? I see lots of talk, where is the money?

not knowing anything about parenting actually does mean you have no basis to evaluate parenting decisions.

It's cute, but sadly I saw what you did there: What or who, other than asexually reproducing life forms, or maybe those that lay eggs, does not know anything about parenting?

[Cushman]

Let me take a step back here and lay this out in a more reductionist way.

There is an scientific approach to parenting. We can take a testable metric like body weight, and apply rigorous analysis of contributing factors, like eating habits and exercise, and arrive at a more-or-less objective conclusion like, "Feeding kids lots of sugar will make them fat." That's not a conclusion that's amenable to subjective analysis, and non-parents are as capable of drawing them as parents are (and in fact, non-parents may be better, because...)

There is also an intuitive approach to parenting, which is how most parenting decisions actually get made, because once you get the little details of keeping your kid alive and healthy taken care of, you start running into abstract problems like, "I want my child to have a happy and fulfilled life," for which really actionable scientific evidence is thin on the ground. Parents develop this intuition over the course of years of near-constant exposure to their children, where every single little thing they do has some consequence which they have nowhere near enough time or energy to seriously consider. It's the sort of problem our brains are made to solve, and generally it works out okay.

Consider that if you aren't a parent or full-time-plus childcare professional, you have something like one one thousandth that level of interaction with children, and much less in a custodial role. So let's swap out some nouns and see if this makes sense to you:

There's a question about a programming language. In the discussion are a layman, who has never used the language, and an amateur, with fifty thousand hours of subject matter experience. Somewhere are educated people studying the language rationally, but they are not here.

The amateur says, "Look, I know you have your own opinion and all, but I don't think you're really even qualified to discuss this if you haven't done any programming before."

The layman says, "Why not? This stuff is just common sense."

The amateur replies, "I understand it looks like common sense to you, but, in the nicest way possible, you just don't know anything about this."

The layman protests, "Of course I know about it! I use computers almost every day, and so does everyone here."

The amateur is frustrated. "That's... not really the same thing as programming at all."

The layman feels challenged. "Okay, if you're the big expert here, why don't you just share some of this so-called expertise with the rest of us?"

The amateur is perplexed. "...that's what I'm doing."

This discussion will never arrive at a productive result. There is just no path from here to there.

[neumann_alfred]

Funnily you ignore that everybody who was a kid usually has about 10 years of all sorts of adults trying all sorts of things on them. And some of them were bright, separated the wheat from the chaff right then and there, and do remember. Sure, if you know that AND parenting, I'd like to hear your advice. But if you don't have the faintest clue what that even means, you could raise 10 kids and I would not be impressed.

Look, I know you have your own opinion and all, but I don't think you're really even qualified to discuss this if you haven't done any programming before.

Yeah, but if the programmer actually does have the experience, he CAN prove it, albeit in language the layman may not understand or follow. I don't see this happening here in this particular case. And therefore...

The layman feels challenged. "Okay, if you're the big expert here, why don't you just share some of this so-called expertise with the rest of us?"

The amateur is perplexed. "...that's what I'm doing."

This discussion will never arrive at a productive result.

Where are you guys doing that, sharing the expert knowledge? You skip INSTANTLY to "only parents would understand", AND you ignore the facts that some parents disagree, which is rendering your entire argument zilch -- that isn't hard to get, I already mentioned that and am now repeating; will you repeat with an even bigger wall of text every time I point out that flaw? Are you treating me like a kid, perhaps? No need to explain, just keep using big words and bloat it up? Pah.

[Cushman]

The fact that your intuition is deceiving you is expert knowledge. The lesson, as has been reiterated by parents several times in these comments, is: Parenting decisions in the real world are hard, complex, and individual. It's treacherous enough for one parent to judge another's decision; if you are not a parent, stop now.

Maybe I should make it explicit that I'm not a parent; I've just heard enough experts say that to believe it. I am flattered you think I talk like a grown up, though.

[neumann_alfred]

So you're not a parent, but say the following... that's hilarious and not worth further comment. But here's the reply I would have made to a parent, anyway.

The fact that your intuition is deceiving you is expert knowledge.

Nah, it's gotta have slightly more substance than that; no matter how often you repeat it. Just literally telling me to shut up won't cut it either.

Riddle me this, how is it not possible to tell your kid you want them to be not yell so loud when playing computer games impossible, and in what situation is it preferably to deceive them? If they actually respect their toys more than their parents, that's clearly a FUBAR situation.

You might say you don't know, because you are not familiar with the details. Well then, what of the stuff you do have experience with would lead you to say "hands off, it's 'their' children"? I mean, by this logic you also give carte blanche to any and all abuse, too: after all, nobody should judge what people do with 'their' children. I say bollocks to that, and am still waiting for a single argument that actually applies to this situation, instead of just hiding behind generalities, strawmen and logical fallacies.