The Briggs book referenced in the article is a really interesting read. I tracked down a copy after several articles like this one appeared shortly after her death. I assumed that the book primarily focused on child-rearing, but while that aspect of their culture is certainly an aspect of the book, her study of the concept of "ihuma" and how it applies to interactions between her host family and other adults in the same band were even more interesting to me, and her general observations about day to day life both on and off the ice were very enjoyable. It's not a tale of adventure unless you're really excited by cleaning fish, but as a voracious reader of native american culture it provides a great glimpse into a way of life which tragically would not last much longer.
Some of the stuff in here is obvious stuff that nonetheless is great to get reminders of, like leading by example. There was a unique piece that really intrigues me: Putting on a play/putting on a drama.<p>"Putting on a drama" seems like a pretty romanticized way to say it, but if I understand correctly, it's practicing better responses to events that led to bad behavior. "Johnny, I'm going to steal your toy, and instead of hitting me like you hit your brother, use your words." That kind of explicit practice/rehearsal of skills isn't something I'd have thought of, but it makes total sense as a valuable way to teach and learn.
This was discussed a year ago at length:
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19396563" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19396563</a>
First, we mustn't discount the importance of properly expressed anger. Just as there is such a thing as excess or inappropriate anger, there is also such a thing as deficient and inappropriate anger. What "inappropriate" and "excess"/"deficient" anger are will require mature situational judgement on the part of the parent. There's no way around that, and defaulting to "no displays of anger" is not a true substitute. Anger is in fact necessary to convey, both to children and adults (though the degree and manner will vary), the gravity of an injustice and this communication enables remorse, repentance, seeking forgiveness, and edification. It is one elements in shaping discipline and character. That doesn't mean flying off the handle like a madman, of course. Reason should remain intact.<p>Second, lying to children with silly stories is not a solution. It's one thing if you tell the child a funny story with the understanding that the child doesn't really believe it, but rather finds it both amusing to imagine and comprehends the underlying message. It's an entirely different thing to outright lie. Lying is never admissible, certainly never noble, and will only work to undermine trust toward parents and consequently parental authority.<p>P.S. Is there perhaps an element of romanticism in this article?
One Inuit parenting technique that works on my kids. If a child hits you or bites you, don't yell at them. Instead pretend to cry in an exaggerated way. I have found this to be way more effective than yelling or timeouts. My oldest is almost 4, so this might not work on older kids. But then older kids do not bite very often anyway.
So a large part is to lie? I don't know. I mean, yes, I get angry by my children, and I don't know any parent that does not. Probably I get angry too often too early. But I really try hard never to lie to my kids. I even show them that I am angry because I think that's part of the game. Kids need to learn that other people have emotions.<p>But telling stories about horrific creatures to avoid dangerous places? I don't know. I mean yes, I guess it works, but why not tell them the (horrific) truth?
It's easy to shape children so single mindedly when the cultural context of that child is completely controlled.<p>More simply, public schools and Youtube would break this sort of conditioning in short order. It only works if you only expose a kid to that singular unified world view until they lose easy plasticity. And as a personal note, I don't think that reserving kids to a single world view like that is net good, even if you view numbed anger as benefit (which I also don't).
CBC interview/documentary from Ideas with Paul Kennedy “Never in Anger” parts 1 and 2 -<p>1) <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2263114454" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2263114454</a><p>2) <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2263120301" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2263120301</a>
leading/teaching by example. Show, don't tell. I wonder though what selection pressure made for anger to be a non-beneficial trait in the Inuit society. In our typical society anger, while definitely not always, is a beneficial trait frequently and sufficiently enough to be practiced by many. It seems that in Inuit society anger is almost never a beneficial trait and thus is actively suppressed (so behavioral adaptation while curiously not fully selected out at biological level - probably the key here is "to control anger" in the sense of being in control, not eliminating completely, so that means an ability to deploy only when needed in a very controlled/measured/managed fashion. So may be by showing no anger while it is clearly supposed be there the Inuit parents teach not a "no anger" (which would be a lie as the other commenters pointed out), and instead they teach of how to be a master of your anger instead of a slave to it).
I always find this kind of title weird.<p>Coming from a relatively "homogenous" (for lack of a better word) ethnicity, I think I can see a point to generalize something like "this is how X people teach their children math", but "control anger"? This seems to me a very personalized thing that varies wildly from family to family.
The article seems fairly problematic.<p><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/b0so4h/how_inuit_parents_teach_kids_to_control_their/eihcuf8/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/b0so4h/how_...</a><p>EDIT: Well this is proving to be a pretty wild ride. As far as I can tell both this post and its replies (by TheAdamAndChe and ebg13) are getting voted down, which is very surprising to me (I would've expected either/or not both).<p>That leads me to believe there's something wrong with my link.<p>Does HN know something about my link that I don't?
You can witness something similar in many rural areas, specifically where people are surviving off the land. Rarely does mother nature or anything else cooperate with plans or expectations. People just get used to it and develop a very workmanlike attitude.
> Winter temperatures could easily dip below minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit<p>Trivia: you can omit "Fahrenheit" after -40 without introducing ambiguity. -40 F == -40 C. (You can assume it is not K or Ra because those place their 0 points at absolute zero so -40 K or -40 Ra is not possible).
it's funny how the world works<p>> a Harvard graduate student made a landmark discovery about the nature of human anger.<p>the article doesn't credit the inuits with the discovery.<p>> By contrast, Briggs seemed like a wild child, even though she was trying very hard to control her anger. "My ways were so much cruder, less considerate and more impulsive," she told the CBC. "[I was] often impulsive in an antisocial sort of way. I would sulk or I would snap or I would do something that they never did."<p>but instead credits Briggs, who is the one exhibiting primitive behavior and being exposed to the higher path
Inuit people have terrible life outcomes with disease, alcoholism, and suicide, and while there might be a lot of reasons for this, I would still take any of their examples with a grain of salt.