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 Kaye, K. & Chadwick, L., The Lives of Teen Parents After Welfare Reform and the Role of TANF, 2006, Unpublished manuscript, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation.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. 

Scoring System for Arguments: A Hierarchical Approach

Objective:

To establish a scoring system for evaluating arguments based on their hierarchical relationship to a main conclusion. Arguments closer to the conclusion have more weight, with weight halving for each level of removal.

Definitions:

• n: The level of an argument, indicating its distance from the conclusion.

• Level 1: Direct arguments.
• Level 2: Arguments supporting or opposing level-1 arguments, and so on.

N_A,n: Number of arguments for the conclusion at level n.

N_D,n: Number of arguments against the conclusion at level n.

Correct Equation:

The score for the conclusion is calculated using this summation:

$$\text{<span style="background-color: white;">Score</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">=</span>\underset{\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">n</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">=</span>\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">1</span>}}{\overset{\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">\infty </span>}}{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">\sum </span>}}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">(</span><span\; style="background-color:\; white;">(</span>{\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">N</span>}}_{\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">A</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">,</span>\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">n</span>}}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">-</span>{\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">N</span>}}_{\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">D</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">,</span>\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">n</span>}}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">)</span><span\; style="background-color:\; white;">\times </span>{\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">2</span>}}^{\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">1</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">-</span>\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">n</span>}}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">)</span>$$

Explanation:

• The summation (

  ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\mathrm{\infty }}$

  ) iterates over all levels of arguments from the closest (n=1) to the furthest (n approaches infinity).
• At each level n, we find the net number of arguments (for minus against) and multiply it by the weight

  $2^{1-n}$

  (or

  $\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}$

  ), which decreases by half for each successive level.

Rationale for Correction:

• The initial formulation mistakenly treated A_n and D_n as the sum of argument scores rather than counts.
• By correcting this to represent the number of arguments and multiplying by the appropriate weight, we ensure each argument's influence is accurately reflected in the score.

Example:

• Suppose there are 3 arguments for the conclusion at level 1 (N_A,1 = 3) and 1 against (N_D,1 = 1).
• At level 2, there are 2 arguments for (N_A,2 = 2) and none against (N_D,2 = 0).

The score calculation would be:

$$\text{<span style="background-color: white;">Score</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">=</span><span\; style="background-color:\; white;">(</span>\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">3</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">-</span>\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">1</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">)</span><span\; style="background-color:\; white;">\times </span>{\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">2</span>}}^{\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">1</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">-</span>\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">1</span>}}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">+</span><span\; style="background-color:\; white;">(</span>\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">2</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">-</span>\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">0</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">)</span><span\; style="background-color:\; white;">\times </span>{\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">2</span>}}^{\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">1</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">-</span>\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">2</span>}}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">=</span>\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">2</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">\times </span>\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">1</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">+</span>\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">2</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">\times </span>\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">0.5</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">=</span>\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">2</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">+</span>\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">1</span>}<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">=</span>\mathrm{<span\; style="background-color:\; white;">3</span>}$$

This results in a score of 3, correctly accounting for the weighted contributions from each argument level.