[demorro]

> Does this mean you'd be incapable of learning anything?

Yes. This strikes me as obvious. People don't have the sort of impulse control you're implying by default, it has to be learnt just like anything else. This sort of environment would make you an idiot if it's all you've ever known.

You might as well be saying that you can just explain to children why they should eat their vegetables and rely on them to be rational actors.

[bornfreddy]

I agree with your premise, but this example I strongly disagree with:

> You might as well be saying that you can just explain to children why they should eat their vegetables and rely on them to be rational actors.

YES! Explain to them, and trust them. They might not do exactly as you wish for them, but I'll bet you don't do exactly as you wish for yourself either. The children need your trust and they must learn how to navigate this world by themselves, with parents providing guidance and only taking the hard stance (but still explaining and discussing!) when safety is concerned. Also, lead by example. If you eat vegetables then children are likely to eat them too. The children are not stupid, they just don't have enough experience yet. Which you gain by trying (and failing), not by listening.

[demorro]

You're right, it was a bad example. I also don't eat my vegetables. I was more trying to make the point that most of us are not rational actors either, was just using children as a convenient proxy, unfairly.

[andoando]

I see it as being more personality/interest than impulse control. A curious/interested person would try and get involved and be a part of it, someone uninterested will just say what's the point and get by having the work done for them.