My social network helped diagnose a rare disease that our doctors missed. - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/id/2297933/pagenum/all/ <comment><USER2> Her network didnt produce this, a friend who had a kid with the same disease produced this. Stop mis-attributing individual connections as being performed by the collective. Those Nazi photographs that made the rounds recently? At the time they were heralded as a "wisdom of the crowds" moment, some great network shifting in to gear to crunch a hard problem. The case here & there are the same; it's not about the network, the collective knowledge, it's connecting to the right individuals.[1]

[1] [http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/world-war-ii- myster...](http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/world-war-ii-mystery- solved-in-a-few-hours/)

<comment><USER3> Actually, as a former homemaker who was routinely made to feel like an idiot by doctors and often felt like showing up at the hospital with a list of my academic credentials stapled to my lapel, my read on it is a little different. It looks to me like one of the big things was not the diagnosis per se but shoring up her confidence to stand up for her child and insist on being taken seriously. In addition to the excerpt below, earlier in the article she indicates her spouse was dismissing it as nothing.

 _I called my family doctor and told him I was heading to the hospital. "I just have a Spidey sense," I said, "that he's really sick." Not a lie, but not the whole truth, either, though what was I going to say? Three of my Facebook friends think my kid has an extremely rare childhood auto-immune disorder which I just read about on Wikipedia, and since they all contacted me after I posted a photo of him on my wall, I'm going? It seemed … wrong! Reactionary. And yet as much as I wanted to be my usual mellow self, the immediacy of the Facebook feedback was enough to push me out the door._

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> a) As far as I can tell from the article, her doctor was at most a couple hours behind her "social network".

b) Her social network also produced "various diagnoses" which were presumably wrong.

c) I wonder how often this sort of thing happens, vs. people's networks encouraging them to not vaccinate their kids, or go on a "cleanse" or what- have-you.

<comment><USER5> >"You know what?" he said, "I was actually just thinking it could be Kawasaki disease. Makes total sense. Bravo, Facebook."

From the article I read, her doctors handling of it was tenuous, at best.

To me, the idea that doctors should be able to process god knows how many patients per day, and diagnose their illnesses properly, while still keeping up to date on recent discoveries, considering that medical knowledge is changing on a daily basis, is absolute madness, like pure crazy thinking.

Of course you're going to get crazy recommendations from your friends on facebook, but do you really think its humanly possible for any general practitioner to have a "good" grasp of even 50% of the medical knowledge known to date, AND see their patient load, AND read all the latest medical journals? It is not even close to possible.

Who has all the eyeballs? Google and Facebook, and somewhat Microsoft. Ignoring all the legal landmines, this is a niche that some startup should be focusing on, a way for parents/families who have intimate and in-depth experience with rare ilnesses can interact with each other. The SME's will gladly give their knowledge for free, but no one seems to have the balls to aggregate it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Awesome example of crowd-sourcing.

To be honest, if I was her, I'd be a little upset (not sure at who but maybe just at the situation) that it wasn't caught sooner. It's great that the kid is alive, but judging by what the author wrote about the disease, it sounds like he is worse off for the delay.

The ideal user experience would give me more control. I think it's fine to outsource the decision-making process to doctors if you so choose, but there should also be an easy way to get a list of every single possibility, along with associated cost of eliminating those possibilities, etc. Yes, some diseases are really rare, but maybe the consequences of leaving it uncaught for some period of time are severe enough that I'm willing to pay to test for it up-front.

I'm sure most people would still opt for just letting the doctor handle everything (paradox of choice, etc.) but it seems broken that this is not at least an option. I suppose you could theoretically push your physician today for this information, but my intuition is that it'd be difficult.

I don't know what it would take to make this a reality (my guess is a lot of changes in the economic structure of healthcare would need to be made) but I think we should strive toward this ideal.

<comment><USER7> The problem is that misdiagnosis is really easy.

Lets take HIV for example. First symptoms of infection are usually a high fever and very sick -- like a really bad flu (after this initial spike, you can go asymptomatic for years).

So you go to the doctor with flu-like symptoms, and they give you an HIV test. Now if you haven't had unprotected sex or blood transfusion with an at risk partner the odds of you having contracted HIV is extremely low. So the general recommendation is not to test you for HIV. But you say, "I want to rule it out. Give me the HIV test." Modern medical testing is rarely 100%. The HIV test is 99% accurate, but 1% of the time you won't have HIV, but it will say you do.

So imagine a population of 1000 zero risk people who take the test. On average 10 are going to come back as HIV positive. And maybe start an HIV regimine, rather than just realizing that its just the flu, which would have gone away in another day.

The point is you try to focus on what is common first. You rule those things out first, before diving into the more obscure. This not only reduces healthcare costs, but also reduces the burden on the healthcare system, and likely improves the health of virtually everybody.

<comment><USER6> Ideally, if your HIV test comes back positive, you'd also be given information such as how likely false positives are and what the economic / health consequences of starting the HIV regimine (versus getting a second test) are.

I understand that the way things are currently structured, it might be detrimental to the system as a whole to dive into the more obscure stuff. However, it's safe to say in this case, this boy suffered as a result. Ideally, there wouldn't be this tradeoff between the efficiency of the system and any one individual's health.

I definitely don't think this ideal will be easy to achieve, or know what needs to happen to make it possible, but I think we should strive for it. I realize it's pretty lame to critique the system without offering a solution - but I felt compelled to post because the article struck me as an example of how the medical system can fail people, as much as it's an example of the power of FB, etc. (yet it didn't seem to strike people as such).

<comment><USER7> _Ideally, if your HIV test comes back positive, you'd also be given information such as how likely false positives_

Unfortunately, try telling someone that the ELISA test is 99% accurate to resasure them that they probably aren't HIV positive. :-)

 _Ideally, there wouldn't be this tradeoff between the efficiency of the system and any one individual's health._

If we could diagnose w/ 100% accuracy then it would be easy. If our medications had no side effects and resistance to antibiotics didn't then it would be easy. But once you put those two things together, even throwing economics aside, you have to be careful that you're not harming more people than helping, net.

While FB saved the day here, I know from my doctor friends that online diagnosis in the hands of most people hasn't been net beneficial. With that said, in the hands of some (and I suspect that those of us on HN are in this minority) we can provide real value to doctors.

<comment><USER6> _If we could diagnose w/ 100% accuracy then it would be easy. If our medications had no side effects and resistance to antibiotics didn't then it would be easy. But once you put those two things together, even throwing economics aside, you have to be careful that you're not harming more people than helping, net._

Well, in my last paragraph, I said it probably wouldn't be easy. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I admit, I have a bias towards personal choice - I suppose it's possible society would be worse off with more freedom in this case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Bored stay-at-home moms (and I know you all read HN), please don't take this article as a suggestion to make even more Facebook posts about your children. :(

(Seriously though, pretty amazing story...I find it pretty unbelievable that not just one but three of her FB friends knew about a rare immune disorder.)

<comment><USER9> >three of her FB friends knew about a rare immune disorder.

sounds like not that rare. Or is it rare just because doctor couldn't diagnose it?

Just an experiment - googled "Face swelling" and the first page of the first organic result has

"If you experience facial swelling accompanied by difficulty breathing, hives, intense distress, fever, redness, or warmth, seek immediate medical care (call 911)."

I see how the following logic also may be applied - they went to ER on the 3rd something day as a result of FB suggestions, while the search on Google directs to 911 immediately. So did the FB help? Or may be wasting time on FB diverted the time and attention from the more effective information search activities?

<comment><USER10> There wasn't really a very clear timeline but you appear to have confused things somewhat.

The parents noticed the rash and swelling on the Sunday and so were in the paediatricians office that same day. If the [emergency] paediatrician gives a clear diagnosis in person would you really say "hang on a minute Google's SERPs say I should call 911". You're standing there with the doctor, you don't need to call for one.

The next day [Monday] it seems the mother sent images to her family doctor. The test to confirm the diagnosis came back false and one of the images sent to the doctor was incidentally posted on Facebook. A friend, mother of a Kawasaki disease sufferer, and a relative who specialised in cardiology both offered the diagnosis that pushed the mother to go to seek emergency medical aid _for the second time_.

She doesn't say what her family doctor's reaction to the second diagnosis was nor interestingly does it appear that the paediatrician she sought counsel from offer an alternate diagnosis when tests came back negative (though this info could just be missing).

<comment><USER9> >If the [emergency] paediatrician gives a clear diagnosis in person would you really say "hang on a minute Google's SERPs say I should call 911". You're standing there with the doctor, you don't need to call for one.

Bringing up such seemingly applicable to your case search results while talking with doctor is necessary even if only to make sure that the professional would rule the results out as not really applicable to your situation.

Anyway, if you replace "Google SERP's" with "FB social search", then your gave a pretty accurate description of what happened in the article. It is just that "FB social search" took days, though it happened to bring more specific results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Well, may be article is sensationalized and doesn't reflect the reality, but wasn't it obvious that they they had to go to the hospital on the second day when symptoms got worse despite the amoxicillin? "Eyes swelled shut" and you still talking to your Facebook friends?

<comment><USER10> > _"Eyes swelled shut" and you still talking to your Facebook friends?_

She was mailing images to her family doctor whilst awaiting test results and had already been given a diagnosis and treatment. The mother was clearly questioning the diagnosis. The use of one of the images that she'd sent to the doctor was incidental, a progress report for family and friends. She probably didn't want to use the phone for fear of missing the doctor's call but still wanted to let people (her mother is mentioned) updated.

Could you say how you feel the article is sensationalised?

<comment><USER11> >Could you say how you feel the article is sensationalised?

May be in reality situation on the second day was not as obvious as described in the article, but from the article it's clear that treatment was not working, and new measures were required. If on the second day of taking antibiotics situation is getting worse, at least for me it's the indication to go to the hospital.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _it was inconceivable to me that complete strangers would ever fret over my child's welfare_

Why are complete strangers on her Facebook? I honestly don't think her social network helped diagnose this at all. With every correct diagnoses, there are bound to be numerous incorrect ones. If you're just looking for a list of possible problems, you might as well open a med school text book.

Better yet, someone could organize all known medical conditions into a database by searchable symptoms and severity, and compose an algorithm to list possibilities by likelihood.

</comment><comment><USER13> Check out Sermo - it's been around since 2006 or so and has an iPhone app that lets docs take a picture and get crowd-sourced advice. www.sermo.com

<comment><USER13> <http://www.sermo.com>

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Never underestimate the usefulness of bored friends.

<comment><USER15> You mean friends that have been through life and had experiences you haven't, right? I believe it was the one that had a child that had had the illness that first suggested that illness.

<comment><USER14> I mean, friends looking through a page of your random thoughts, and then typing in their thoughts about that thought. It's not something people really did before Facebook; sure, you could call people "just to chat", but this is on a much greater scale.

This article is a look at the good that can come from this.

(I say "bored friends" because people don't read Facebook updates when they are engaged in highly-stimulating mental activities. It's a downtime thing.)

<comment><USER10> I don't think you're quite being fair. I've certainly used FB to check on someone who was ill without having to call them directly; not out of boredom but out of concern. Also simply not being involved in complex mental activity doesn't make one bored.

<comment><USER14> Concern couldn't have been the case this time, though, because people found out about the kid's illness by randomly checking Facebook.

In conclusion, I find my one sentence analysis to be largely accurate.

<comment><USER10> You've done a ninja edit haven't you?

<comment><USER14> No edits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _to pepper both Beth, the pediatrician, and Emily, the pediatric cardiologist, with an endless series of random questions with which I was too embarrassed to bother my own doctors_

It's your child's health! Why are there any questions that you are too embarrassed to ask his doctors?

</comment><comment><USER17> i was thinking about a site like this awhile back because it seems doctors typically only have a few data points on most matters. the site would almost be analogous to code review except you're posting symptoms and pictures instead of code, the result is that you get more sets of eyes on the problem. the only drawback is that the wrong diagnosis could be fatal whereas a bad checkin problem just breaks the build or causes the controls of an airplane to malfunction and crash flaming into the ground. probably a legal nightmare.

<comment><USER17> btw this is an invitation for lawyers or legal experts to prove me wrong so i can go build this. i personally found a need for this type of site a while back for myself, of course i would take each person's feedback with a (larger) grain of salt and still consult my doctors.

<comment><USER3> I'm not a lawyer but I do belong to a number of health lists and I do run a health site and my day job is in a related industry, so I get ongoing training and exposure to some of the laws and these types of issues.

a) All email support groups (that I belong to) have huge disclaimers at the bottom of every email announcing something like "This is a free and open discussion of health issues. This is not medical advice. Please consult your doctor...blah blah blah" to try to cover their butts.

b) A published author in the alternative health space actively encouraged me to adapt his own written disclaimer to put on my website to try to help me cover my butt. He has at least once been dragged before a medical review board/court/some such because of the information he disseminates. So, yeah, it's a real problem.

c) Privacy laws are a big deal and there are very big problems with encouraging people to post pics of symptoms, including how much of the body to show. I have seen a photo of a naked child (from the back) covered in a rash posted on a group and I think it was handled carefully by someone knowledgeable (the woman who posted it was herself a lawyer, so I imagine she knew what she was doing) but I can see this space being open to serious pitfalls in that regard.

d) I went and did the very rude thing of getting myself healthy when that is supposed to be impossible given my diagnosis. I have been repeatedly told that I am engaging in irresponsible, dangerous, evil behavior for talking about how I accomplished that, even though the path I followed is really incredibly conservative (for example: get informed about food chemistry because everything you put in your mouth has an impact on your body chemistry).

So, in short, there are some very big problems/challenges with your idea. Your concerns are real concerns, not neurotic worries at all. That doesn't mean it can't be done. But, no, there is no magic wand of "I talked to a lawyer and it's all okay now". You would have a lot of work to do to make this at all viable.

<comment><USER17> thanks mz, this has been incredibly informative, i agree that there's no magic bullet hand waving that could approve/disapprove this, and thanks for sharing your experiences.

i was thinking of the goal of this site, it would be all non-profit in hopes of helping mankind to bring an alternative for the machine that is today's modern medical system. i will noodle on this a bit more, the last thing i want is someone to be harmed by something that i've done, especially if the goal is to help. and anything that gets big, even if it's non-profit would be a target for litigation.

<comment><USER3> _thanks mz_

No problem.

 _goal of this site: helping mankind to bring an alternative for the machine that is today's modern medical system_

Yeah, I'm working on a piece of that. It's slow going to win mindshare in this space. Alternative stuff tends to have a bad rep in a lot of circles. There's lots of challenges with that piece of it alone.

 _the last thing i want is someone to be harmed by something that i've done, especially if the goal is to help._

Ditto. I have often contemplated taking down my website. But given how deadly my condition is, I feel doing nothing is the bigger danger. :-/

Peace.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I sense the next Zynga hit: DiagnosisVille.

</comment><comment><USER19> The title is not sensationalist enough. It should read: "How Facebook Cured Kawasaki's Disease"

<comment><USER10> The title is descriptive of the story, succinct, without dramatisation or hyperbole. What would you have it read instead?

<comment><USER19> The title is perfect. Looking back, I'm not surprised you took it the wrong way. It was a bad joke.</comment></comment></comment>


Not A Bug... - <AUTHOR> http://www.photobasement.com/not-a-bug/

<comment><USER2> Maybe it is time to expand the size of the editor base. "Articles" like this should be killed.

<comment><USER3> Of all the posts people have complained about lately, this was the best one by far. I cracked up and even my wife thought it was funny. And I've defended the integrity of YCNews as much as anyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Haha. Brilliant.

It will be interesting to see who gets it right away on here. The funny thing is, I didn't get it until I looked at it for a few seconds. I've never heard that one before.

<comment><USER5> if you don't get it, you might not belong here. (hate to be so real)

<comment><USER6> why exclude anyone? i got the joke but there's tons of other stuff that's posted here, that i don't understand, and may never understand. who cares?

great things happen when people from different backgrounds collaborate. i think hacking is independent of medium.

<comment><USER5> The keyword was _might_.You must admit ynews isn't for some of the people who get on here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Would have been better without the punchline as the post title.

<comment><USER8> Far better, yet a lot of folks wouldn't get it. Even with the current title not everyone seems to understand it.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Dealing with kids desire for virtual goods - <AUTHOR>

My niece is very much into Webkinz and these days she is having fits about how much she wants to buy a 7$ (real money) wardrobe for her virtual pet cat. She even says she'll pay with her own pocket money.
Of course her parents aren't too trilled about it, they have went out of their way to explain her how its just a way of exploiting her but it doesn't goes through, maybe she is too young to really understand yet. Since it didn't work and I am "the internet knowledgeable person", they turned to me for advice and I am not sure at all about the best way to deal with the situation and other kids in the family were never in such a situation because these online "communities" only appeared when they were older. Of course the ultimate goal is to be satisfied with the buying choices she make not be a victim of her impulses. There is of course fear that just saying "no way" will make her worse once she is old enough to be free to do what she wants.
I'd say let her buy the thing and she'll realize how much it isn't worth it but I am not sure it will work as she has little other use for the money. Maybe show her how to build her own stuff but I doubt she'll see it as being as cool. Maybe suggest a different online gaming platform that isn't so much about exploiting the children's vulnerability. Maybe just cut down the time she spends online so that she develops other interests and get a relative sense of the value.
What do you think? Any suggestions? <comment><USER2> I would look into another platform. My kids are older now so I couldn't recommend one without researching. I am sure there are plenty of good sites out there.</comment>


How to Raise a Creative Child. Step One: Back Off - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/how-to-raise-a-creative-child-step-one-back-off.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0 <comment><USER2> I believe in the creative power of boredom. Boredom and lack of distractions amongst kids create the most creative environment and nurture real interest and exploration.

Today's kids are oversaturated with distractions and their lives are fully planned around activities. So they live according to templates, but not according to their own motivators.

Then again, having a child myself (10 months old) I have noticed many parents have so many activities and things planned themselves that they distract their children (read consume content on iPads) in order to pacify them. It's a circle.

<comment><USER3> I have to agree with this. I grew up in a village (pop < 250) in the mountains, and those were some of the most creative years of my life. When the entire town jokes that watching grass grow or paint dry is a fun thing to do in summer, you quickly learn to entertain yourself in novel ways.

As a side note, one other thing I think this has done is make me comfortable with silence. During the summer break when I would do long camping trips, sometimes I could go days without speaking, and I enjoyed it. Now I see people all around who seem to need and want something going on at all times. Since I no longer live in the mountains, meditation outside helps assuage my need for silence and solitude, but I am considering building an isolation tank.

On subject, I agree that freedom begets creativity. I love that I could mark a place on the forest service map, list my supplies, and say "if Im not back by sundown on day 3, then call the forest service". Thats a level of independence and freedom that was encouraged in my family that has served me well in many areas since.

<comment><USER4> Go rent an isolation tank, as someone who built one. They take up a lot of space, changing water, filling with epson salts, etc is a not fun. But maybe there are better systems nowadays, I built mine in the 80s. I had to move it once, I had a friend who owned a herse and we loaded it on top. Must have looked like we were carrying the coffin of a 1500 pound man.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _From its inception in 1942 until 1994, the search recognized more than 2000 precocious teenagers as finalists. But just 1 percent ended up making the National Academy of Sciences, and just eight have won Nobel Prizes._

Just eight have won Nobel Prizes? What a bunch of dunces. But wait, only 870 people have ever won a Nobel Prize. So these numbskulls have _only_ managed to win 1% of all Nobel Prizes ever.

If your parenting standard is "Nobel Prize or the gutter" there's a serious problem.

<comment><USER6> Also, the article segues to fostering creativity without ever coming back to the question of whether those kids are more successful as adults.

So having fewer rules supposedly leads to more creative children, but do those kids do well later in life? Article doesn't say.

I'm basically sympathetic to the more "hands off" parenting style being discussed. But the article really doesn't make its case.

<comment><USER7> >So having fewer rules supposedly leads to more creative children, but do those kids do well later in life?

Is having no rules a steadfast rule? Chew on that one for a while :)

And while you're thinking about that, realize that most children growing up in poor environments don't have many rules to follow. Few people would consider poor communities as bastions of creativity (not to say there isn't creative things happening in these communities, just they are not perceived that way).

The problem with this article and others like it is the subjects - children - are not one thing in a vacuum. Some children will thrive in a structureless home life. But most won't. Some children will thrive with rigid structure. But most won't. So what's the answer? It depends on the kid. From my experience, most children need some sort of structure in their lives. They simply don't have the faculties to deal with the complexity of how life is today. That's what the parent is for. But to go overboard with rules generally doesn't work very well either.

<comment><USER8> I feel that raising your child like so (having fewer rules) in fact parallels doing well later in life. The measure of success, especially here on hacker news, feels heavily skewed towards making money, success in the Silicon Valley, etc. But while some creative lifestyles may not make enough money (poets, writers, artists) I would argue that they would end up living more fulfilling lives, following their intrinsic motivations rather than any socially constructed notion of success.

<comment><USER7> My point was children, in the abstract, are easy to overgeneralize. In reality, it's difficult to say how any given child will react to any given stimuli. Few rules might work for one child but not the next...and there is no rhyme or reason to it.

Children are complicated things. Just as adults are complicated things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The article reminds me of this:

"Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, And though they are with you they belong not to you. You may give them your love but not your thoughts, for they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls, For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams. You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday. You are the bow from which your children as living arrows are sent forth. The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrow may go swift and far. Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness; For even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable." * - "The Prophet" (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951) p.17-18.

Most parents that enforce their own ideals and values on their children are narcissistic. They either do not love their children or have so poor an understanding of love itself that they cannot love properly.

<comment><USER10> Do you have children? If you don't teach them values, where do they get them from?

<comment><USER11> How do you get "don't teach your children any values" from that quote? Seriously?

<comment><USER10> Jonathanks said:

> Most parents that enforce their own ideals and values on their children are > narcissistic.

Which I took to mean that they don't agree with enforcing rules (which come from values) on children. I think if you have children, you know that this just won't work. Without rules and boundaries, kids will literally kill themselves.

<comment><USER9> That's quite true. I now see where the problem comes from. I did not apply the right words to convey my intended message. You can blame me for that. The topic is about raising creative children and I actually intended to criticize imposing ideals and ambitions on children, or forcing them to a religion or cultural practice that is just preferred by the parents but not generally true or acceptable. For example, I have severally witnessed parents coercing their children to take up a career in a particular field without regard to the children's strengths and weaknesses, just because the said fields are appealing to the parents. Some I've seen even threatened to discontinue the children's upkeep should they dissent. I have also seen parents become alienated from their children due to religious differences: the child prefers to make his life more about his service to society through his career but his parents want him to be more religious and devout. Sometimes the parents go against any form of reasoning that conflicts with the tenets of their religion. Such cases are the intended targets of my original comment and the quote I added. Sorry for the confusion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Empathy is the highest form of understanding. When raising a child, i would certainly start there.

That's all that is needed from a parent: genuine, and fully embodied empathy.

Backing off is not the answer. Neither is controlling. Engaging empathically is all that we as parents need to do. There are two concepts here: engagement And empathy.

True empathy is easier to achieve in parent->child relationship than any other kind of relationship.

Engage empathically. The child will lead their own growth as a conversation with you, the parent, and their environment. So listening deeply (beneath the words and behavior) to the child is the first order of business, not backing off.

Parengs should spend time being with their kids rather than take time away from their kids to write crappy articles or comment on HN (An advise that I should take, too, obviouslh :)

<comment><USER13> Empathy is always a good place to start; and I generally agree with what you've said. However...

> True empathy is easier to achieve in parent->child relationship than any > other kind of relationship.

I disagree with the above statement. Empathy is easiest when attachments are fewest. This does not describe the typical parent-child relationship. I think parent->child empathy may be easy for many because they are very much like their children and their children are going through very similar experiences to their own. I, on the other hand, have lead a very different life than the life my child is very fortunate to be living. I am fortunate my child is similar to me in many aspects so I do get glimpses of understanding; but my child is also very different from me so it is not always easy.

Not to toot my own horn, but people have praised me for both my empathy towards others and my parenting skills. I work very hard at being a good parent. I am very attentive. I listen. I consult. I read. I think, and I act. But I find empathy to be probably _most_ difficult in this relationship than in any other I've had.

<comment><USER12> I too think you're a very good parent because you are engaging with the goal of arriving af empathy, no matter how hard may be. That's the key I suppose, not how hard or easy it is. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > They become doctors who heal their patients without fighting to fix the > broken medical system or lawyers who defend clients on unfair charges but do > not try to transform the laws themselves.

The author assumes many parents intend their children to be pioneers in their field. Despite the memes, many asian parents largely steer their children to conservative paths: work hard, risk little, and grow steady wealth. The child may not become a household name, but they are unlikely to end up bankrupt either and the parents are content for the child to securely occupy the upper- middle class. There's not really a push for the child to be "the next Steve Jobs" so long as they get enough ammo to 1-up the local parents at the next social.

<comment><USER15> By Asian you mean CJK right?

<comment><USER14> Yes, I should specify east asian. By my perception at least Indian asians have a more entrepreneurial spirit and I see more of them as founders. I admire that, and I'd be interested to hear how their upbringing differs, ie, what ways they were encouraged, pressures, values.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Of all the examples they could have chosen to support their argument, this one made me chuckle:

"The gifted learn to play magnificent Mozart melodies, but rarely compose their own original scores."

Unlike, er, Mozart himself who had what we might today call a Tiger Father and yet seemed quite capable of creativity.

<comment><USER17> There's a bit more context a few paragraphs on:

> Mozart showed interest in music before taking lessons, not the other way > around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Creative people tend to set their own goals. Winning Nobel Prizes or revolutionizing a field might not be what they want out of life. A 'boring' day job that supports the family can be the perfect tool to let you spend the rest of your time on hobbies and passions.

I am an underachiever in my career, to be sure. But I have made a lot of art, climbed many mountains, hiked what seems like every trail in Colorado, and learned a few crafts, while also maintaining a marriage and raising a family. I'm happy with my life, no matter what the world thinks of it.

<comment><USER19> I don't even want anymore for my kids to win Nobel prizes or the equivalent in other fields. If it becomes their passion, sure, I'll support them. But I won't push them to be the absolute best, or wathever it is that tiger parents supposedly are doing to make their kids geniuses or CEOs. I'm pretty sure I don't even want that life for them, as the CEOs and the geniuses I've met either led very stressful lives or were downright assholes (but I'm sure there are many exceptions). I found out, soon after my first one was born (I have two), that all I wish for them is: a happy and meaningful life, health, and that they have a good heart. If they never amount to nothing money/carrer wise, well, so what?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think genetics is a big confounding variable here. If creative parents enforce fewer rules and creative parents have creative children, creative children will have fewer rules even if having fewer rules has nothing to do with creativity. In this scenario, if some atypical creative parents enforce many rules their children will still be creative, and backing off won't help your children if you are not creative.

<comment><USER21> Not just genetics, but there may be thousands of things that parents of creative children do in addition to have few rules.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The argument that this article makes is somewhat muddled, but if I'm understanding correctly: child prodigies don't end up advancing their fields to the extent that their early talent might suggest because by and large they're not original/creative, which is because they learned at an early age to conform to well-defined standards of success instead of pushing the envelope. So we get "excellent sheep," or masters of using ordinary methods who still receive nice but ordinary results.

But 0.5% of the Westinghouse pool winning Nobels is still far better than the population average. What this article tells me is something that seems pretty obvious: that raw ability is correlated to being recognized by society for acts of genius, but so are other things, including both the "thinking out of the box"-ness that the author trumpets as well as entirely extrinsic and random factors (ie the Nobel committee likes you, your style of work or area of focus happens to align with or be amplified by a prevailing intellectual trend, etc). Prodigies don't always succeed in pushing the enelope because it's vanishingly unlikely for anyone to do so; they still do a sight better at it than most.

</comment><comment><USER23> I worked in a lab with a professor who spent a portion of time training new graduate students to be creative again (tons of handouts on it and so on). It can be taught to some degree; our brains don't just stop changing completely in adulthood (its just harder).

Also 8/2000 got Nobel prizes? Thats some pretty good odds.

<comment><USER24> Do you have any references to books or research on stimulating creative thinking in adults that you could share?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> "just" 8 have won nobels and "just" 1% end up in the national academy of sciences? this is unimpressive compared to what?

this article is just bad science and lazy writing. before we can even entertain his conjecture we need two data sets, easily calculable by anyone with freshman college math:

x% of child prodigies become nobel prize winners or national science foundation award winners. the distribution of other scientific achievements for such prodigies has a median of y and spread of z.

a% of STEM college graduates become nobel prize winners / national academy members. the distribution of other accolades is b with a spread of c.

x,y,z compares how with a,b,c

the results can be interpreted different ways but at least we have a starting point for rational discussion. the rest of his article is mere conjecture with emotional posturing with an agenda.

</comment><comment><USER26> [https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/692474630205001728](https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/692474630205001728) One of the most consistently replicated findings of behavioral genetics is that the environment shared by siblings (parenting) has no effect.

<comment><USER27> Don't you find it disturbing that behavioral genetics, as a field, is unable to find actual genetic evidence for its most replicated correlations? (See the response to your linked article.) Rather than reevaluating their assumptions, instead they've decided to punt to the idea that it _must_ be that it's actually many small effects that they just happen to be unable to measure?

Additionally, if you were a parent, what would be the practical advice from this finding?

<comment><USER26> Mostly I find that it keeps me from worrying too much. My wife and I can just do our best and not be concerned that we are causing irreparable damage. (It also keeps me from caring about parenting fads like TFA. Whatever works for our family is probably good enough.)

<comment><USER27> You didn't answer my first question.

Additionally, why would you do your best, though? As you said, it has zero impact.

<comment><USER27> I'll take the lack of response as an admission that you were at best unaware and are now embarrassed by your ignorance, or at worst don't actually believe what you're posting as fact on the internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> A question for the journalist, how long would you expect your culture and society and economy to survive if all 2000 were actually "revolutionary adult creators"?

Another good question is why smart people have to be slaves. If a smart person wants to spend their life meditating, or serving the poor, or in a religious vocation, the journalists unhappiness about their decision is sad for the journalist, but I'm not really seeing the problem for the person. I'd even double down, and in a culture that's strongly anti-intellectual, a smart dude might very well see that his best course thru life of maximized happiness and love, is a non- or less- intellectual career. Sort of an "Atlas Shrugged" attitude. A "winner takes all" system doesn't motivate everyone, much like the lottery, the winners are those who don't play.

</comment><comment><USER29> I like the headline, but I felt the rest of the article didn't really live up to it.

The setup is intriguing - for instance, the notion that micromanaged children will become excellent concert violinists, but may not become ground breaking classical composers (let alone the next Bob Dylan).

The example put forth in the article to support this assertion is... Itzak Perlman. A wonderful violinist and (I don't know him at all, this is what I've read) a generous spirit as well. But aside form a foray into jazz that I thought wasn't especially notable, Perlman's greatness is more or less as a concert violinist. Interesting to hear he was rejected from music school, but this seems a very odd example.

Why not focus on someone like Stefan Grapelli, who started playing at an older age, asked a busker in the paris metro how to play the violin (who laughed the question)? Why not look into the careers and lives of musicians who made their mark through creativity rather than virtuosity? I really like violin, from a lot of angles. I enjoy the amazing precision of the great classical musicians, but I do find myself even more intrigued by musicians like Steve Wickham (who played with U2 and the water boys, among others). I do tend to agree with the article that the micromanagement many young classical musicians go through in their quest to play _perfectly_ may indeed vastly reduce the possibility that the musician will be able to put together an interesting track for "Sunday Bloody Sunday" or collaborate with a rock musician to produce something like Fisherman's Blues. These things may in fact be inversely correlated.

There's a lot here, unfortunately, I just don't think it was explored in interesting directions by the article.

</comment><comment><USER30> I have a different interpretation. Most of the muscles that a parent gives to a child are the structured muscles to prevent one from failing. College, grad school are in some sense insurance. Therefore most of the upper middle class upbringing is guaranteeing insurance of a person's middle life or retirement.

Whereas the muscles that you learn from being independent are the muscles from conceptualizing, taking risks, creating, and learning from the experience. This is a completely different muscle than previous set of muscles.

It's not really about letting go or being too controlling. It's about building the right set of mental models so that someone can guide and create their own lives.

</comment><comment><USER31> Most children are creative. I taught in a school for a year and there was only one child who had zero creativity (the exercise was to write a film plot and he basically reproduced the "Cool Runnings" story). But the school system has had to prepare kids for adult life and repetitive boring jobs. That may change as the machines take over, so like Baudelaire we can truly become lovers of clouds.

<comment><USER32> Regarding your uncreative kid: Talent borrows..

<comment><USER31> He didn't fail the exercise because I like Cool Runnings:-

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It would be great to see some data about results of alternative education that's supposed to foster creativity: Montessori, democratic schools etc.

<comment><USER34> Lived in a place where montessori was basically the only way of schooling and parenting was extremely hands off. Turns out children like structure and without one they ends up forming gangs at an alarming rate. Most grow out of it, but the pack mentality remains fostering xenophobia, while some other never get out of it and it's a huge social problem.

Won't name and shame so don't ask. I think some freedom to experiment is good, as long as one also gets plenty positive role models and strong sense of what's wrong.

<comment><USER6> I wondered about the "average of fewer than one rule" cited in the article. Some parents have _zero_ rules? I consider myself a pretty liberal parent and we definitely have more than one rule. e.g., Don't be mean, brush your teeth, be careful crossing the street, take your shoes off inside the house. Even if you generalize those to "be good to others and to yourself," that's still a rule!

<comment><USER35> I think it depends on what you mean by "rule." I would say that we don't have any hard and fast rules that our daughter must obey simply because we say so. That doesn't mean we let her do anything particularly dangerous, but we try to explain why we say, "no," rather than just saying, "because I said so."

<comment><USER6> Exactly - that's been our approach too, at least once she reached ~3. "Brush your teeth because otherwise you get cavities." I'd still call that a rule but the article was vague.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> >> First, can't practice itself blind us to ways to improve our area of study? Research reveals that the more we practice, the more we become entrenched — trapped in familiar ways of thinking.

The only way practice traps you in familiar ways of thinking is if you focus practice only on the things that are familiar to you. Letting Anki help schedule your practices is a way to avoid this. Here is what I do.

\- Review phase: Do exercises based on whatever is up for review.

\- Attack the weakness phase: Spend extra time reteaching yourself the stuff one you feel you did poorly on.

\- Project phase: As you work on interesting challenging projects, add new Anki cards as you encounter and learn new things.

It's a good technique which I think could be accessible to a lot of children. Let them choose the area of interest. Just instill in them a sense of discipline in whatever area THEY choose to pursue.

</comment><comment><USER37> Yesterday I taped a piece of paper down on the kitchen table and got out the crayons. Was asked for a Yellow Submarine so held my 3 year old's hand and drew one with him. He was almost ecstatic at having an image appear from his hand.

Creativity is a mix of confidence, encouragement, hand holding, and structure.

<comment><USER38> What a great way of teaching to draw! I would not have thought of that. Thanks for the idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> If you don't give your kids an ethical framework, then the TV, their teachers, or their peers will. Unique people tend to not conform to standards? Not shocking at all, but this article is ridiculous. It's not the lawyer's job to rewrite how the criminal justice system works. It's not the doctor's job to reform healthcare laws. This is some anachronistic thinking that somehow thinks that people exist in vacuums. If the "cost" of parents bothering to actually raise their kids is that we're given more people who competently perform their jobs, then so be it. That's more important than getting some new style of architecture anyways.

</comment><comment><USER40> Variety of experiences is the key. Traveling, big collection of coffee table books (these photo books of India and Himalaya are so wonderful), classical music, of course, and dance (much better than sports). Then a child will make her own patterns out of it.

Restricted, repetitive behavior is the root of all evil.

<comment><USER41> Except where it applies to bathing, eating, sleeping, practicing dance and sports, learning basics like the alphabet and how to read, math, and pretty much everything else that makes this generalization rather silly.

I do agree with the bit about a wealth of experiences, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> How to Raise a ???? Child. Step One: Nobody knows what the fuck they're doing.

</comment><comment><USER43> >>Child prodigies rarely become adult geniuses who change the world.

But, this is equally true of other children as well!

<comment><USER44> Sure, but you normally have higher expectations from prodigies and geniuses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> What exactly qualifies as "creative" is not well defined . . .

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm glad NYT writer and so many HN posters finally figured out the _correct_ way to raise kids, and are sharing it here. I thought we'd have to wait another 5000 years for it.

<comment><USER33> [http://www.salon.com/2015/11/22/snark_is_good_for_you_scienc...](http://www.salon.com/2015/11/22/snark_is_good_for_you_science_reveals_the_surprising_benefits_of_sarcasm_partner/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Just had my first baby 2 weeks ago. I guess I'll be returning that Haskell book I bought for him...

<comment><USER33> True that, you'll be better off with Python for the first few months, at least until weening.

<comment><USER48> Don't you think hardware development might be a better start? My daughter's 10 months old and still can't read, let alone pick reasonable variable names. But she's been able to hold the soldering iron for at least 6 months and I believe I see progress.

<comment><USER33> Anecdotally my son is 2 years old and he's getting really interested in what I'm doing on my laptop. I explained that I write code, except where I come from the words 'code' and 'cat' sound almost the same. So... my son deeply believes his dad deals a lot with cats. Ultimately he might be quite right - the Internet is all about cats ;)

<comment><USER25> where the heck does code sound like cat??

<comment><USER33> Poland. Cat - 'kot', code - 'kod'. Trailing 'd' is always soft when spoken so there you go.

<comment><USER25> :)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What do you enjoy least about being a software developer? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> really unreasonable customers.</comment>


The Seeds of the Next Big Thing Are Being Planted Now - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/10/04/the-seeds-of-the-next-big-thing-are-being-planted-now/ <comment><USER2> _Don't stop working on side projects and ideas that interest you, because those ideas not only might turn into brilliant products or services but also might turn into the economic catalyst that spurs our economy onward._

Or more realistically, turns in to something that allows you to quit your job (if you're not happy there) or make some fun side money. While everyone else is "right sizing" (puke) - laying off good people that cost a small fortune to hire in the first place, wasting time restructuring, cutting revenue drivers (oh yes) and slashing R&D costs - you'll be building.

If you own a business and are contemplating lay offs, remember how much those good people (if applicable) cost to hire. What if you reduced bonuses instead? Or lowered everyone's salary instead of firing people? Of cut some nice to have but not necessary perks? Or _gasp_ eliminated your own salary if you can afford it. There's many many other options as well. Almost everything is negotiable. Most people I know would rather take a pay cut than be fired.

It always puzzles me how adamantly companies speak of the importance of hiring and retaining talent. But then, when something bad happens, they treat everyone like a fucking commodity.

To think that less than 1.5 months ago, angels I talked to were saying deal flow was as high as ever.

</comment><comment><USER3> It makes sense... when everything is going down, only the strongest, most innovative ideas will be able to rise to the top. If someone comes to you know pitching 'Digg, but for XX and YY' you're going to laugh, but when someone shows you an idea that does to XX what google did to search, you're going to throw all the money you can at them.

<comment><USER4> My dream pitch is, perhaps obviously, "Digg, but with integrity." and I'm the living proof that it lacks that.

<comment><USER5> what are you working on now?

<comment><USER4> I have a job now. For <http://tripadvisor.com>. Saving lots of money, and actually working on a cool project, but I can't talk about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> i hope this guy is planning on launching his own start-up.

he'd be wise to read Paul Bucheit's oft-quoted advice = limited life experience + over-generalization.

while 'inspirational' it lacks the quality of reading someone who's been there and done it...

</comment><comment><USER6> Next Big Thing = Revolution in America

</comment><comment><USER7> 2000 and the current situation are not the same. The credit crunch is a lot worse.

</comment><comment><USER8> the next "big thing" is not going to be a website of any kind

sell me a car that gets 120mpg and costs less than 25k, you have the next big thing

sell me solar panels that can erase my utility bill for $5k installed, you have the next big thing

make a website that connects me to people with my interests and lets me comment on news, and you will be eating ramen

ETC

<comment><USER9> [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/is-information- over...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/is-information- overload-a-650-billion-drag-on-the-economy/)

How about solving information overload, 4.6% of our GDP, with web/mobile technology?

<http://store.ovum.com/Product.asp?pid=36856>

How about cutting the cost of enterprise software, 1.5% of our GDP, using web/mobile technology?

How about using web/mobile technology to improve supply chain management, logistics, warehousing, shipping, transportation, and manufacturing so that as a country, we can transition to solar energy at the least cost and afford to produce a 125mpg car that costs less than 25k?

We have only barely begun to use computers and the internet to their full potential, you just have to look in the right places for the big ideas.

<comment><USER8> _How about using web/mobile technology to improve supply chain management, logistics, warehousing, shipping, transportation, and manufacturing so that as a country_

salesforce.com is taking resumes now, don't delay</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Anybody using postgres-xl? - <AUTHOR> I have recently started using postgres-xl and I'm quite impressed with it although there is one problem somebody flagged on stack-overflow that makes me worried - the sharded database cannot be replicated to avoid downtime when one of, say, coordinators or data nodes goes down.
So I started testing some ideas on using keepalived to elevate live fail-over without much of a downtime and without my intervention at the time of fail-over. The intention is to document it and share back to the community. I am through two weeks of night-testing and now I have hit the wall I cannot find the solution myself.
In postgresql the one can bind the process to IP interface. Coordinators and data nodes are just postgresql processes, though they seem to ignore listen_address option. The process itself can be started with extra parameters (-h ip_address) which will result in what I need however postmaster.opts file (which seems to be used by pgxc_ctl to start coordinator) gets overwritten by pgxc_ctl each time coordinator is started (before it's started).
Does somebody from YC community have some experience with this? <comment><AUTHOR> Ok, it seems pgxc_ctl explicitly calls pg_ctl with `-i` option when starting coordinator. So this for some reason was hardcoded since when postgres is started with `-i` option then `listen_addresses` is ignored.

</comment><comment><USER2> Try reaching out to the Postgres-XL community at postgres-xl- email@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> In the end I looked into the source (I'm so glad I did this). The `-i` option was hardcoded within pgxc_ctl coord_command.c file. So I just removed it and recompiled. This is now binding as expected.

Many thanks!</comment></comment>