Its important to gather good parental advice

Please help me give good parental advice!

I'm trying to outline various topics using a formal process to identify reasons to agree/disagree and published documents that agree/disagree in a method that automates cost/benefit analysis and conflict resolution between those who agree and disagree with each belief.

Please leave your comments to help me outline this issue.

Thesis: It’s important to gather good parental advice

Reasons to agree:

1. Dangers of addiction and substance abuse.
1. Evidence: Documented correlation between early intervention and reduced addiction rates
2. Key Example: Impact of alcohol abuse on academic and career trajectories
3. Supporting Research: Studies showing the effectiveness of parent-child communication about substance risks
2. Risk of life-altering relationships and economic pitfalls.
1. Evidence: Statistical data on teen pregnancy and poverty correlation
2. Source: "The Lives of Teen Parents After Welfare Reform" (HHS Study)
3. Key Finding: 25% of teen mothers require welfare within 3 years
3. Positive impact of well-timed, respectful advice.
4. Danger of living a pointless, shallow, selfish, unexamined consumeristic life.  
5. Some things can drastically worsen your quality of life. You should identify things you should avoid and explain why. 
1. Reasons to agree:
1. Alcohol can destroy your life
1. Reasons to agree:
1. Drunk driving
2. I know people who were much smarter than me, but they partied in school and suffered the rest of their lives because of it. 
3. Websites that agree:
1. http://thecleanlife.hubpages.com/hub/How-Alcoholism-Can-Ruin-Your-Life
2. The interest of those who agree:
1. Validating their decision not to drink
2. Honestly seeking truth
3. Being careful
3. The interest of those who agree:
1. Validating their decision to drink
2. Honestly seeking truth
3. Being "fun"
2. Drugs can destroy your life
3. Falling in love with the wrong person can destroy your life
1. Books that Agree
1. "The Great Gatsby," by F. Scott Fitzgerald
4. Teen Pregnancy increases the chance of poverty. Poverty makes it much more difficult to have a good life
1. Publications That Agree:
1. Approximately one-quarter of teen mothers go on welfare within 3 years of the child’s birth 
1. Kaye, K. & Chadwick, L., The Lives of Teen Parents After Welfare Reform and the Role of TANF, 2006, Unpublished manuscript, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation.
2. Poverty is almost nonexistent among those who graduated high school and did not have kids out of wedlock.
3. Two-thirds of families beginners with a young unmarried mother are poor.
1. Sawhill, I.V., Analysis of the 1999 Current Population Survey
2. Webpages that agree
1. http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/why-it-matters/pdf/poverty.pdf
6. Poverty can destroy your dreams
1. Books that Agree
1. "The Grapes of Wrath," by John Steinbeck
7. All you need is good love. Good love involves respect. You should respect people who can provide for themselves. 
8. you must correctly define a successful life to give good parental advice. If there is an afterlife, living a good life would involve preparing for it. You can prepare for the next life and live a good life now.
9. You might need to respect your kids if you want a long-term relationship and feel good giving them your inheritance. You need to at least explain your side of what it takes to be respectful

Reasons to Disagree and Limitations

1. Your kids must live their own lives.
2. Practical Constraints
1. Limited windows for meaningful communication
2. Competing time demands
3. Cultural/family dynamic variations
4. There are not very many times that your kids will want to hear your advice. Time passes; if you don’t have regular time to share your thoughts, everyone stays busy. They don’t need advice. They need good examples and a stable place to learn.
3. For those who grew up with very strict definitions of what is required to be “good,” it’s impractical to expect parenting to involve gathering with your children and family life to be a philosophical salon.

 

Recommendations for Implementations

1.       Regularly doing things with kids, asking about their lives, and doing fun things. Being open, honest, and transparent.

Objectives:

• Rank advice by its expected benefits and costs using tools to automate scoring.
• Foster consensus on best practices using evidence-based argument aggregation.

Freakonomics, the podcast that draws on Twin Studies, has shown that parents have very limited impact on Children’s lives. 

Navigating the Hierarchy of Beliefs: A Score-Based Argument Evaluation System

Here’s a complete, polished version that integrates clarity, accurate mathematical representation, and actionable insights for your audience:

---

Belief Score System: Evaluating Arguments

This framework introduces a relational database system to evaluate beliefs and conclusions by scoring them based on their supporting and opposing arguments. Users can submit beliefs as reasons to support or oppose other beliefs, creating a hierarchical structure where conclusions depend on the strength of their underlying assumptions.

---

Core Algorithm

Equation #1: Conclusion Score ($CS$)

$$CS(C) = \frac{\sum_{i} \left( LS(A(C, i)) \cdot BS(A(C, i)) \right) - \sum_{j} \left( LS(D(C, j)) \cdot BS(D(C, j)) \right)}{\sum_{i} BS(A(C, i)) + \sum_{j} BS(D(C, j))}$$

Where:

• $C$: The conclusion being evaluated.
• $A(C, i)$: The $i$-th argument supporting $C$.
• $D(C, j)$: The $j$-th argument opposing $C$.
• $LS$: Linkage Score, measuring how strongly an argument supports/opposes $C$ (range: 0 to 1).
• $BS$: Belief Score, calculated recursively for arguments based on their own supporting and opposing arguments.

Base Case:

For root arguments with no supporting assumptions, $BS = 1$ if valid and $BS = 0$ if invalid.

---

Explanation

Numerator:

• Weighted difference between supporting and opposing arguments, scaled by their relevance ($LS$).
• If opposing arguments outweigh supporting ones, the numerator will be negative.

Denominator:

• Sum of all argument scores (supporting + opposing), ensuring $CS(C)$ remains between -1 and 1.

Recursive Nature:

• $BS(A)$ is calculated using the same formula, allowing the score to cascade through hierarchies of arguments.

---

Example

Conclusion: "It was good for us to join WWII."

1. Supporting Argument ($A_1$): "Nazis committed genocide."
   • $LS = 0.9, BS = 0.95$
   • Contribution: $0.9 \cdot 0.95 = 0.855$
2. Opposing Argument ($D_1$): "War causes many deaths."
   • $LS = 0.7, BS = 0.8$
   • Contribution: $0.7 \cdot 0.8 = 0.56$

Calculation:

$$CS(C) = \frac{0.855 - 0.56}{0.95 + 0.8} = \frac{0.295}{1.75} \approx 0.169$$

Result: $CS(C) \approx 0.169$, indicating moderate support for the conclusion.

---

Additional Scoring Features

Uniqueness Score:

To manage redundancy, arguments deemed semantically identical are grouped and weighted to reduce overrepresentation.

---

Other Factors Affecting Conclusion Scores

1. Monetary Investment:

Beliefs can receive scores based on collective investment:

$$MoneyScore(B) = \frac{M(B)}{\text{AverageInvestment}}$$

Where $M(B)$ is the money invested in belief $B$, and $\text{AverageInvestment}$ is the total money divided by the number of beliefs.

2. Legal Influence:

$$LegalScore = \frac{\text{Laws Supporting} - \text{Laws Opposing}}{\text{Total Laws}}$$

This normalizes the influence of laws supporting or opposing a conclusion.

3. Logical Verification:

• Verified logical assessments from certified logic professors ($.edu$ affiliations) add credibility to arguments.

4. Media and Cultural Support:

• Media like books, films, and expert opinions are integrated using a linkage score for relevance and quality.

5. Up/Down Votes:

• Users vote on attributes such as logic, clarity, originality, and relevance. These scores feed into $BS$ calculations.

---

Practical Examples

1. Cultural Beliefs (e.g., Burqas):

To assess societal norms, calculate the difference between countries enforcing and banning burqas, normalized by the total number of countries.

2. Moral Dilemmas (e.g., Shooting Intruders):

Aggregate state laws supporting/opposing actions like shooting intruders to evaluate societal consensus.

---

Potential Challenges

1. Technical Development:
   • SQL and PHP expertise are needed to implement the database and algorithms effectively.
2. Scalability:
   • Managing large, hierarchical datasets and ensuring computational efficiency.

---

Call to Action

This system aims to create a transparent, scalable platform for evaluating beliefs and conclusions. With your support, we can build this tool to promote evidence-based reasoning and foster informed decision-making.

---

This refined version provides a cohesive explanation, aligning mathematical rigor with practical applications. Let me know if you'd like to focus on specific implementation aspects or provide visual aids for this system!