Interesting article. I believe it makes sense what they are saying in the big picture. Certainly, people would benefit from creating and joining local non-online communities.

What in their definition of community do you find problematic?

[–] poVoq 27 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Mainly the focus on authorities, religion and so on. I get that they mean stability, which is probably good for children, but it is a bit too much of a projection of the "good old times" that never really existed.

[–] RobotZap10000@feddit.nl 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I agree. The study seems a bit biased. In the article (or the previous in the series, I forgot), a study claims that religious children say that they have trusted persons more often than secular children. I (don't) wonder how this might change if the child in question wasn't cisgender and/or heterosexual.

It is a very insightful article nonetheless. Thanks for sharing!

[–] Tiresia 7 points 4 months ago

I (don’t) wonder how this might change if the child in question wasn’t cisgender and/or heterosexual.

Simple: non-cishet children quickly stop being part of religious communities, and so the religious community is very accepting to all its members. Classic survivorship bias.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)