Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> What do you think of that that parents want that their children had all what he did not possible to receive? As to good parents, yours faithfully. And here when try to make of the child what did not possible to become - negatively. S> often such ancestors try to make children popular (on everyones and other), I with do not understand these, on , in the old manner, look films, clips and I listen to music. Therefore what for there push children - I not undertake to judge. S> solve for them Here is forced to confess, and parents with helped me, planimetric cards, for example, painted over, I hated this business. Still a diary of observations conducted on natural study which I in a coffin saw. Much still was mandatory nonsenses at school, especially in low, all you will not remember. And it is very difficult to child to do that, senselessness of that is obvious to it, but inactivity of that can complicate to it life. S> (the ridiculous reaches - when competition among parents turns out) and so forth Sorevnovatelnost - in a human nature why not to compete children. And still the high generation is frequent : and here at Njury - ogo th! S> Push on paid separations, give bribes - if only was IN. So was always, to attach the children on places better - in a human nature. And without a tower, it is frequent - lime, now even with the cashier in an epicure it is problematic to be arranged. Such here an institutional trap. Behind a hillock this problem learned to solve, inventing a bachelor degree when actually you study in nothing, but a crust you receive. At us like would start to adopt. The society more provided became simple, presumes even more foolish expenditure, here and decided to prolong stupidly on a trick the carefree childhood of years till 25-30, it is ostensibly better, than on gates the moment to smell. S> generally what sense in it? After all individuality that of anything with you has - at them no and at you the , you do not feel that they feel. Yes to parents on everyones , they did not hear the such, from what itself feel - that is better and do. S> and in it there is one minus. Those children, which parents do not intend to give life for the child - lose competitive advantage. They need to do all, and it is much more difficult. And in it there is one plus. Those children, which parents intend to give life for the child - get competitive advantage. And if it allows them to play back more than the genes (so also genes of parents), this correct evolutionary behavior. Other question that necessity all do most can to give too competitive advantage, making more angrily and (more independently). Here as carries. There are two (extreme) programs, there is all intermediate, everyone selects the at whom it turns out - that and the rights is better. S> what do you think of a subject? Whether condemn or try to embody in the children what in the life it was not possible to reach? And sense them to condemn? The children at me are not present, and among others I see that to whom parents helped - those help the children, and self-punched - is more rare, but often condemn the helping. So this program too is transferred, so, the percent helping more or less reflects success of this help.