What do you think?
Rate this book
The Sovereign Child: How a Forgotten Philosophy Can Liberate Kids and Their Parents
Could it really be okay to let kids eat whatever they want? Sleep whenever they want? Watch whatever they want? If kids are completely free to make their own choices, they’ll develop damaging habits that will haunt them into adulthood. Surely parents have a duty to set a few limits.
But what if this conventional wisdom is wrong? What if our deepest ideas of how learning works, how knowledge grows, and the nature of personhood all point to the brute fact that parenting philosophies have missed a critical detail?
In The Sovereign Child, Aaron Stupple explains Taking Children Seriously, the only parenting philosophy that accounts for the fact that children are people—their reasons, desires, emotions, and creativity all work precisely the same way that those of adults do. Because of this, much of the conventional wisdom simply cannot work as intended.
Using examples gleaned from his years as a father of five, Aaron takes a close look at the unavoidable harms of rule enforcement and the startling alternatives available when parents never give up on treating children as if their reasons for their choices matter as much as anyone else's.
But what if this conventional wisdom is wrong? What if our deepest ideas of how learning works, how knowledge grows, and the nature of personhood all point to the brute fact that parenting philosophies have missed a critical detail?
In The Sovereign Child, Aaron Stupple explains Taking Children Seriously, the only parenting philosophy that accounts for the fact that children are people—their reasons, desires, emotions, and creativity all work precisely the same way that those of adults do. Because of this, much of the conventional wisdom simply cannot work as intended.
Using examples gleaned from his years as a father of five, Aaron takes a close look at the unavoidable harms of rule enforcement and the startling alternatives available when parents never give up on treating children as if their reasons for their choices matter as much as anyone else's.
212 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 13, 2025
820 people are currently reading
1884 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
January 17, 2025
BRUTAL read
It was bad from the beginning and only got worse
This anecdotal, narcissistic, inexperienced nonsense should be taken seriously by no one
Naval recommended it and I'm a big fan of Naval but this is a great example of taking advice from someone who had huge success in one realm and assuming it gives their opinion credibility outside of that realm
I read a fair amount and this may be my first ever one star
The effort level was low and the book is disingenuous
It was bad from the beginning and only got worse
This anecdotal, narcissistic, inexperienced nonsense should be taken seriously by no one
Naval recommended it and I'm a big fan of Naval but this is a great example of taking advice from someone who had huge success in one realm and assuming it gives their opinion credibility outside of that realm
I read a fair amount and this may be my first ever one star
The effort level was low and the book is disingenuous
January 28, 2025
Mind bending (but not in a good way…)
I bought this book because it was recommended by Naval Ravikant. I disagreed with almost everything in it, because it seemed to me to be “first world problem” fodder. Your child is mad because they have to get in the car seat on the way to school? Don’t worry about being late to your job. Spend time figuring out a fun game or buy a bunch of toys to creatively get your child to choose the car seat. Or… your child is a part of a family and this family has places to be in order for the family to pay its bills and function in society at large. And, yes you DO have to get in the car seat.
Should you look for more ways to say yes than no to your kids? Absolutely.
Are they off the hook for helping with chores or eating with the family or (God forbid) greeting extended family when they visit your house? Absolutely not.
I live in a home, not a hotel, and I am a parent, not a maid. Family members help one another and it doesn’t matter to me whether kids are skilled at chores. It matters to me that they see themselves as a part of a larger societal unit and not merely an individual. This last point is the one that bothered me the most about the entire book. I listened to the 3 hour Tim Ferris podcast with the author and came away just as bothered. Rearing children to explore their own individuality is wonderful. But it does not have to be at the expense of also belonging to society at large and an actual family at a smaller scale. I’m sure he’s a wonderful parent, but this philosophy only works with homeschooling and with parents who can hire a nanny, as they do, or don’t work and can spend every day coming up with daily unique fun ways of getting their children to do everyday things that humans have done forever.
I bought this book because it was recommended by Naval Ravikant. I disagreed with almost everything in it, because it seemed to me to be “first world problem” fodder. Your child is mad because they have to get in the car seat on the way to school? Don’t worry about being late to your job. Spend time figuring out a fun game or buy a bunch of toys to creatively get your child to choose the car seat. Or… your child is a part of a family and this family has places to be in order for the family to pay its bills and function in society at large. And, yes you DO have to get in the car seat.
Should you look for more ways to say yes than no to your kids? Absolutely.
Are they off the hook for helping with chores or eating with the family or (God forbid) greeting extended family when they visit your house? Absolutely not.
I live in a home, not a hotel, and I am a parent, not a maid. Family members help one another and it doesn’t matter to me whether kids are skilled at chores. It matters to me that they see themselves as a part of a larger societal unit and not merely an individual. This last point is the one that bothered me the most about the entire book. I listened to the 3 hour Tim Ferris podcast with the author and came away just as bothered. Rearing children to explore their own individuality is wonderful. But it does not have to be at the expense of also belonging to society at large and an actual family at a smaller scale. I’m sure he’s a wonderful parent, but this philosophy only works with homeschooling and with parents who can hire a nanny, as they do, or don’t work and can spend every day coming up with daily unique fun ways of getting their children to do everyday things that humans have done forever.
February 7, 2025
This book made me cry—and not in a good way.
I have never read a book as shockingly bad as this, nor have I ever felt compelled to give a one-star rating—until now. I found myself oscillating between laughing at the sheer absurdity of its claims and genuinely grieving for the children subjected to such a chaotic and neglectful environment. I kept hoping the book would end with a twist—“Just kidding! This was a social experiment on the reader!”—but unfortunately, it wasn’t.
The so-called parenting philosophy in this book is not just misguided; it is irresponsible and dangerous:
• Allowing a child to go to sleep whenever they want while being addicted to an iPad is neglect, not freedom.
• Allowing a child to eat only ice cream for months is not choice; it is borderline abuse.
• Allowing a child to draw on walls unchecked doesn’t foster creativity; it fosters a disregard for authority—the kind of mindset that leads to serious behavioral consequences. Teaching a child they are “sovereign” and free from authority isn’t parenting; it’s abandoning your role as a parent altogether.
I genuinely pray that Stupple rethinks his approach and stops encouraging other parents to adopt this reckless experiment on their own children. His claims are not backed by research, experience, or data—just a philosophical idea from Karl Popper that he felt justified testing on his kids.
This book rejects all conventional wisdom, not because it’s innovative, but because it’s foolish and harmful. If anything, it should be reclassified as satire—because the alternative is too disturbing to take seriously.
I have never read a book as shockingly bad as this, nor have I ever felt compelled to give a one-star rating—until now. I found myself oscillating between laughing at the sheer absurdity of its claims and genuinely grieving for the children subjected to such a chaotic and neglectful environment. I kept hoping the book would end with a twist—“Just kidding! This was a social experiment on the reader!”—but unfortunately, it wasn’t.
The so-called parenting philosophy in this book is not just misguided; it is irresponsible and dangerous:
• Allowing a child to go to sleep whenever they want while being addicted to an iPad is neglect, not freedom.
• Allowing a child to eat only ice cream for months is not choice; it is borderline abuse.
• Allowing a child to draw on walls unchecked doesn’t foster creativity; it fosters a disregard for authority—the kind of mindset that leads to serious behavioral consequences. Teaching a child they are “sovereign” and free from authority isn’t parenting; it’s abandoning your role as a parent altogether.
I genuinely pray that Stupple rethinks his approach and stops encouraging other parents to adopt this reckless experiment on their own children. His claims are not backed by research, experience, or data—just a philosophical idea from Karl Popper that he felt justified testing on his kids.
This book rejects all conventional wisdom, not because it’s innovative, but because it’s foolish and harmful. If anything, it should be reclassified as satire—because the alternative is too disturbing to take seriously.
January 25, 2025
Based on Naval’s recommendation started reading this book but found that it has an extremist view about parenting, which Naval himself does not follow (as he himself mentioned in Tim ferris podcast). The parenting advice offered in the book seems impractical.
Read
February 7, 2025Gonna have to let this one simmer a bit more. Lots I disagree with at first pass (unfettered access to technology; not teaching kids to obey parents, which is a training ground for obeying God; atheistic epistemology as the underpinnings) but plenty that challenged me to be a better dad (honoring your kids as image bearers; low view of school with a high view of education; just enjoying kids and letting them explore).
March 7, 2025
This was SO good in my opinion. Aaron raises the question: can we raise children without rules? In his household at least he is trialling this method of parenting.
It has a very casual conversational style which on top of its controversial content I think is one of the reasons for its somewhat poor reviews. But as somebody who has read a few structured, well researched parenting books I loved reading something more casual and experimental. I also think sometimes it’s just nice to read for fun without assuming every page is bible and preparing defences.
It takes “child led” to the extreme and while it brushes up against some disagreements within me (the question of screen time is such a tough one for this generation), there are many parts I wholeheartedly agree with. (Read: food habits being child led, sleep not being routine and not having rules for children about the right way to use a slide in a playground and other arbitrary rules).
I loved seeing the examples of the “no rules” philosophy in action and some of the outcomes in the authors own home were incredibly wholesome. Some were admittedly a little absurd but I felt the author was honest about his approach and I found his clear honest intent towards the wellbeing of his children to be admirable. (I found this particularly telling in the paragraph where he admits he sometimes fails to not make “rules” for his children but when he does he doesn’t rub salt in the wound by blaming them).
I adore the concept of taking children seriously, an often overlooked concept that dismisses children’s emotions as exactly that, children’s experiences rather than a very real, very human reaction. I also adore the idea of giving them as much freedom and autonomy to become their own person, while supporting this endeavour as much as possible.
April 10, 2025
Wow. Could it be this simple?
No rules. I read this after listening to the Tim Ferriss podcast with Naval Ravikant. This makes the case both logically and emotionally why treating kids (and for that matter anyone) like adults and fostering problem solving simply makes so much more sense than arbitrary authoritarian rule creation. So many great examples. The one that hit home for me was when I yelled at a kid a random rule: “no climbing on the table” when we had just come from a playground where climbing was encouraged. This book explains why we do it and the freeing alternatives! Fantastic read.
No rules. I read this after listening to the Tim Ferriss podcast with Naval Ravikant. This makes the case both logically and emotionally why treating kids (and for that matter anyone) like adults and fostering problem solving simply makes so much more sense than arbitrary authoritarian rule creation. So many great examples. The one that hit home for me was when I yelled at a kid a random rule: “no climbing on the table” when we had just come from a playground where climbing was encouraged. This book explains why we do it and the freeing alternatives! Fantastic read.
April 15, 2025
Thought provoking. This is a challenging philosophy to put 100% into practice but it seems obvious to me that there are some nuggets of wisdom to incorporate into your parenting style. We will see :-)
March 21, 2025
Parenting is often a balancing act between granting freedom and enforcing structure. Parents worry that too much autonomy may lead to unhealthy habits, while conventional wisdom insists that firm boundaries are necessary for a child’s development. The common belief is that without clear rules, children might struggle with responsibility and discipline later in life. However, what if this assumption is flawed? What if children are naturally capable of developing self-discipline and sound judgment without being coerced? Could parental control actually be counterproductive, leading to power struggles and resentment rather than genuine learning? These questions form the basis of an alternative philosophy—one that suggests children should be treated as autonomous individuals capable of reasoning, adapting, and making their own choices. By abandoning traditional rule enforcement in favor of guidance and trust, this approach proposes that children can learn responsibility through experience rather than imposed limitations.
The concept, known as Taking Children Seriously, challenges the widespread belief that children require strict discipline to become well-adjusted adults. Instead of seeing kids as impulsive individuals needing external control, this perspective treats them as full human beings who, like adults, learn best through exploration and self-direction. Conventional parenting often revolves around setting limits and deciding how to enforce them—whether through rewards, punishments, or gentle encouragement. But rather than debating the best way to enforce rules, Taking Children Seriously rejects the need for rules altogether. Advocates believe that children flourish when they have full control over their lives, including decisions about sleep, food, screen time, and learning. Instead of rules dictating when a child should go to bed, eat, or do homework, this philosophy allows them to make these choices independently, trusting that they will naturally find a balance.
At first glance, this might seem like a recipe for chaos, but supporters argue that children, when given freedom, learn to regulate themselves. A child without a set bedtime, for example, might initially stay up too late but will eventually recognize how tiredness affects them and adjust accordingly. Similarly, a child unrestricted in their eating habits may indulge in sweets for a time but will soon notice how different foods impact their body and begin to make healthier choices. This approach also extends to conflict resolution. Instead of a parent stepping in to mediate sibling disputes, children are encouraged to work things out on their own, fostering negotiation skills and emotional intelligence. The idea is that rather than following arbitrary rules, children develop a deeper understanding of cause and effect, learning through direct experience rather than imposed structure.
Many parents assume that enforcing rules helps children develop discipline, but often, it has the opposite effect. Restrictions can lead to deception, power struggles, and a breakdown in trust between parents and children. When a child wants something that is prohibited—whether it’s extra screen time, a late night, or a certain food—they often see the parent as a barrier to be outmaneuvered. This can lead to sneaking, lying, or bargaining to get what they want. It’s not that the child is being manipulative by nature, but rather that human beings instinctively try to overcome obstacles. Adults do the same when faced with rules that seem unfair or unnecessary. In traditional parenting, the response to resistance is often to shut it down with authority, reinforcing the idea that questioning rules is defiance. But when children aren’t allowed to question or negotiate, they may stop seeking guidance from their parents altogether. Instead of trusting their caregivers for support and wisdom, they see them as enforcers of arbitrary limitations.
Another unintended consequence of strict rule enforcement is that children may fail to develop true responsibility. If they constantly feel constrained by external rules, they may not learn how to internalize good decision-making. When rules interfere with a child’s natural curiosity and desires, resentment can build. Over time, this frustration may shape their perception of authority, leading to rebellion or passive compliance rather than genuine understanding. More concerning is that children who feel constantly restricted may grow into adults who view life as something that happens to them rather than something they have control over. A rigidly structured upbringing can create individuals who struggle to take initiative, expecting others to dictate what they should do instead of making independent choices.
Rejecting rigid rules doesn’t mean allowing complete chaos. Rather, it shifts the focus from control to problem-solving. Instead of forcing children to comply with rules, parents can collaborate with them to find creative solutions that meet both their needs and their child’s desires. Instead of saying, “No drawing on the walls,” and enforcing punishment for breaking the rule, parents can ask why the child is drawn to this activity. If it’s the appeal of a large canvas, they can provide a giant paper roll on the floor. If the child still prefers the wall, washable markers and removable wallpaper could be introduced, allowing them to explore their creativity without damaging the home. The idea isn’t to impose a compromise that still feels like restriction but to find an option that satisfies both parties.
Of course, this approach isn’t always straightforward. Sometimes, children will resist alternatives, and parents may need to keep adjusting their approach until a truly satisfying solution emerges. If a child refuses to wear shoes before leaving the house, rather than engaging in a power struggle, parents might turn it into a game, allowing the child to race to the door and put on shoes as part of the fun. Instead of seeing defiance as a problem, this mindset encourages parents to explore what motivates their child’s behavior and how to guide them toward cooperation in a positive way.
The long-term benefit of this philosophy is that it fosters collaboration rather than conflict. Children raised with this approach don’t learn to obey out of fear or habit but rather develop the ability to make thoughtful choices. They understand that their parents aren’t arbitrary rule enforcers but partners in problem-solving. This leads to a home environment built on trust and respect rather than power struggles. Parents also find more fulfillment in their role, as they shift from policing behavior to understanding their child’s perspective and working toward creative solutions.
One of the most valuable aspects of this approach is the emphasis on failure as part of the learning process. Unlike rules, which are rigid and often provoke resistance, win-win solutions require trial and error. A solution that works once may not work again, and that’s okay. This flexibility allows both parents and children to continuously refine their interactions. For instance, if a child refuses to take medicine, rather than forcing them, a parent might try mixing it into food. If that doesn’t work, they could turn it into a game or involve a sibling in the process. The goal isn’t to enforce compliance but to discover a way that makes the experience positive rather than adversarial.
The core idea behind this philosophy is that cooperation is always possible. When parents shift their mindset from control to creativity, they open up endless possibilities for resolving conflicts. This doesn’t mean parenting becomes effortless, but it does create a dynamic where children feel heard, respected, and willing to engage in problem-solving. Over time, this approach builds independent, confident individuals who are equipped to navigate life not because they were told what to do, but because they learned how to think critically and make good decisions for themselves.
Parenting is most rewarding when it moves beyond rigid enforcement and into collaboration. By focusing on curiosity, patience, and creative problem-solving, parents can guide their children without resorting to control. This philosophy doesn’t offer a strict formula for success, but it provides a framework that fosters trust and mutual respect. It encourages parents to embrace trial and error, recognizing that solutions take time to develop. Ultimately, by shifting from enforcing rules to understanding motivations, parenting becomes not just easier but more meaningful. The goal isn’t to raise obedient children but to nurture independent thinkers who approach life with curiosity, confidence, and a sense of personal responsibility.
The concept, known as Taking Children Seriously, challenges the widespread belief that children require strict discipline to become well-adjusted adults. Instead of seeing kids as impulsive individuals needing external control, this perspective treats them as full human beings who, like adults, learn best through exploration and self-direction. Conventional parenting often revolves around setting limits and deciding how to enforce them—whether through rewards, punishments, or gentle encouragement. But rather than debating the best way to enforce rules, Taking Children Seriously rejects the need for rules altogether. Advocates believe that children flourish when they have full control over their lives, including decisions about sleep, food, screen time, and learning. Instead of rules dictating when a child should go to bed, eat, or do homework, this philosophy allows them to make these choices independently, trusting that they will naturally find a balance.
At first glance, this might seem like a recipe for chaos, but supporters argue that children, when given freedom, learn to regulate themselves. A child without a set bedtime, for example, might initially stay up too late but will eventually recognize how tiredness affects them and adjust accordingly. Similarly, a child unrestricted in their eating habits may indulge in sweets for a time but will soon notice how different foods impact their body and begin to make healthier choices. This approach also extends to conflict resolution. Instead of a parent stepping in to mediate sibling disputes, children are encouraged to work things out on their own, fostering negotiation skills and emotional intelligence. The idea is that rather than following arbitrary rules, children develop a deeper understanding of cause and effect, learning through direct experience rather than imposed structure.
Many parents assume that enforcing rules helps children develop discipline, but often, it has the opposite effect. Restrictions can lead to deception, power struggles, and a breakdown in trust between parents and children. When a child wants something that is prohibited—whether it’s extra screen time, a late night, or a certain food—they often see the parent as a barrier to be outmaneuvered. This can lead to sneaking, lying, or bargaining to get what they want. It’s not that the child is being manipulative by nature, but rather that human beings instinctively try to overcome obstacles. Adults do the same when faced with rules that seem unfair or unnecessary. In traditional parenting, the response to resistance is often to shut it down with authority, reinforcing the idea that questioning rules is defiance. But when children aren’t allowed to question or negotiate, they may stop seeking guidance from their parents altogether. Instead of trusting their caregivers for support and wisdom, they see them as enforcers of arbitrary limitations.
Another unintended consequence of strict rule enforcement is that children may fail to develop true responsibility. If they constantly feel constrained by external rules, they may not learn how to internalize good decision-making. When rules interfere with a child’s natural curiosity and desires, resentment can build. Over time, this frustration may shape their perception of authority, leading to rebellion or passive compliance rather than genuine understanding. More concerning is that children who feel constantly restricted may grow into adults who view life as something that happens to them rather than something they have control over. A rigidly structured upbringing can create individuals who struggle to take initiative, expecting others to dictate what they should do instead of making independent choices.
Rejecting rigid rules doesn’t mean allowing complete chaos. Rather, it shifts the focus from control to problem-solving. Instead of forcing children to comply with rules, parents can collaborate with them to find creative solutions that meet both their needs and their child’s desires. Instead of saying, “No drawing on the walls,” and enforcing punishment for breaking the rule, parents can ask why the child is drawn to this activity. If it’s the appeal of a large canvas, they can provide a giant paper roll on the floor. If the child still prefers the wall, washable markers and removable wallpaper could be introduced, allowing them to explore their creativity without damaging the home. The idea isn’t to impose a compromise that still feels like restriction but to find an option that satisfies both parties.
Of course, this approach isn’t always straightforward. Sometimes, children will resist alternatives, and parents may need to keep adjusting their approach until a truly satisfying solution emerges. If a child refuses to wear shoes before leaving the house, rather than engaging in a power struggle, parents might turn it into a game, allowing the child to race to the door and put on shoes as part of the fun. Instead of seeing defiance as a problem, this mindset encourages parents to explore what motivates their child’s behavior and how to guide them toward cooperation in a positive way.
The long-term benefit of this philosophy is that it fosters collaboration rather than conflict. Children raised with this approach don’t learn to obey out of fear or habit but rather develop the ability to make thoughtful choices. They understand that their parents aren’t arbitrary rule enforcers but partners in problem-solving. This leads to a home environment built on trust and respect rather than power struggles. Parents also find more fulfillment in their role, as they shift from policing behavior to understanding their child’s perspective and working toward creative solutions.
One of the most valuable aspects of this approach is the emphasis on failure as part of the learning process. Unlike rules, which are rigid and often provoke resistance, win-win solutions require trial and error. A solution that works once may not work again, and that’s okay. This flexibility allows both parents and children to continuously refine their interactions. For instance, if a child refuses to take medicine, rather than forcing them, a parent might try mixing it into food. If that doesn’t work, they could turn it into a game or involve a sibling in the process. The goal isn’t to enforce compliance but to discover a way that makes the experience positive rather than adversarial.
The core idea behind this philosophy is that cooperation is always possible. When parents shift their mindset from control to creativity, they open up endless possibilities for resolving conflicts. This doesn’t mean parenting becomes effortless, but it does create a dynamic where children feel heard, respected, and willing to engage in problem-solving. Over time, this approach builds independent, confident individuals who are equipped to navigate life not because they were told what to do, but because they learned how to think critically and make good decisions for themselves.
Parenting is most rewarding when it moves beyond rigid enforcement and into collaboration. By focusing on curiosity, patience, and creative problem-solving, parents can guide their children without resorting to control. This philosophy doesn’t offer a strict formula for success, but it provides a framework that fosters trust and mutual respect. It encourages parents to embrace trial and error, recognizing that solutions take time to develop. Ultimately, by shifting from enforcing rules to understanding motivations, parenting becomes not just easier but more meaningful. The goal isn’t to raise obedient children but to nurture independent thinkers who approach life with curiosity, confidence, and a sense of personal responsibility.
January 18, 2025
As a father of a 2 year old and a huge fan of Naval, when I saw a Naval tweet about “the single most important book on parenting” I bought and started reading.
The book addresses my biggest worries straight on: what type of parenting will prepare kids in the age of abundant ultra-processed food, social media and porn. As Naval says: “all modern diseases are diseases of abundance” - how to raise kids in this modern environment is top of mind for any parent. The book’s answer was shocking: there should be no rules, kids eat what they want, sleep when they want, and watch whatever they want (on screens).
Every idea caused me a very strong reaction—either intense agreement or disagreement! That should tell you more about how much I care about this topic rather than about my own certainty on my judgement.
I will start with what I agree with: keeping rules to the minimum. Children should have freedom and autonomy to do what they want with parents acting as supportive mentors. This means there is no coercion - no enforcement of strict rules - which helps build curiosity, trust and gives more meaning to every action the kid decides to make! In abstract these all sound wonderful, but the real meat is when the author describes how to apply these in challenging real-life examples - fortunately the book is packed with such examples! For example, the author does not enforce family dinners, allowing the kids to choose whether to join. One child often opts out, which highlights their genuine decision-making power, and makes everyone’s decision to be there real and meaningful.
However, no rules, zero, nada, seems a bit too extreme. The author does say that well-known poisons and substances like alcohol are reasonable limits, but besides obvious safety risks no more limits are mentioned. So, what about the modern “diseases of abundance”? Are they in the group of “well known poisons”? Not according to the author, and this is where I disagree. This means I disagree mostly with kids eating and watching what they want and I agree with the principle of letting them sleep when they want. The modern world is just very different regarding what is available to eat and watch when compared to just 100 years ago (basically nothing in evolutionary time).
The author explains why alcohol is off-limits when things like fast-food are not. Alcohol is a true addiction as it creates a chemical dependence. Alcohol binds to some receptors in the brain which reduces anxiety and “induces a state of pleasurable calm”. However, after prolonged use of alcohol, biology adapts, as it usually does, and now we need more alcohol to obtain the same pleasurable calm effect. Even worse, if we withdraw from alcohol our anxiety will not return to our previous baseline level but it will go to a higher level - so we are now dependent on alcohol just to feel normal again. This is all good, adaptation is how biology handles stimuli and we could replace alcohol with perfume, caffeine, and… fast-food? No, the author claims that “many people who make a concerted effort to quit fast food report feeling better almost immediately. They may crave a Big Mac, but […] is a world away from the physiological torment of withdrawal from a true addiction”. Well, while they may report feeling ‘better’, this doesn’t mean their hunger has decreased. Consuming ultra-processed foods and simple carbs over time leads to biological adaptation—just like alcohol does. These types of foods increase our appetite and make us overeat. If we often overeat, we gain insulin resistance, which causes diabetes, and leptin resistance! Leptin is the hormone that tells our brain we are satiated. If we gain leptin resistance we need more food to feel satiated - basically our natural mechanism to detect when enough food is enough becomes uncalibrated - if we withdraw from fast-food our appetite level will not return to normal but to a higher level. I highly recommend watching this lecture [1], and any lecture from Uri Alon really, that explains how our bodies can regulate our appetite and how modern artificial food breaks our regulation system and creates the obesity epidemic we currently have. Many studies show that long-term weight-loss is extremely hard and most people who go through a strict calorie-restricting diet end up regaining more weight than they lost in the following 5 years (this is popularly known as the yo-yo effect, example study here [2]).
So what is the solution? As the author points out having no rules has many advantages. I also endorse that, you can eat whatever we have in the house for as much (or little) as you want. However, in our house we only have real food (no ultra-processed or simple sugars). There are no fights over food. Our kid doesn’t even know that super delicious artificial food exist. Sometimes he decides to just eat the mushrooms and leave the meat behind. The next day he will be more interested in something else. With real food, I am confident he can self-regulate, it is not possible to overeat or undereat consistently (except maybe for some rare diseases). The adults eat the same things, and so do the guests. There are no treats locked up anywhere. If one of us really wanted to stock the house with junk food, it would make life harder for everyone else. Not eating junk food that is in the fridge requires a constant struggle and increases the odds of everyone getting unhealthier. A common limit for freedoms is summarised by: your freedom ends where the freedom of others begin. So to change everyone’s environment there should be at least a poll!
The author rightly argues that it is inevitable for kids to encounter cheap, processed food. He asks: is a sudden exposure to junk food in their late teens a good way to teach restraint? Yes, I believe it is. The chances of being healthy in the future increases the longer one has already been healthy (this is related to the concepts of the Lindy effect and the body’s tendency to maintain homeostasis):
- eating healthily becomes a part of your identity
- you know what healthy eating is like. if you lose track, you know your way back, just do what you were previously doing
- you know it is super easy, you didn’t even realize you were doing something special - this increases your confidence
This essay is getting too long so I will wrap up here with some quick thoughts on screens and describe a principle that is more broadly applicable.
The jury on the effects of fast-food is out. We ran the experiment, the results are available for anyone to see. Ultra-processed food should be added to the list of known poisons. The jury on screens is still ongoing. Personally, I don’t see a benefit in running that experiment. There are no serious downsides in raising a baby without screens. Humanity did just that since forever. But, people also said that comic books and radio were dangerous, and they were wrong! So, what? We also thought cigarets were healthy for adults and were wrong. Fortunately we have run the experiment on many old technologies and we now have a better idea on which ones are safe. Surely, we can wait a bit longer to gain a deeper understanding of new technology?
So the general principle is keep your environment Lindy (just like the good old days) and within that environment there are no rules.
P.S. When writing this I was thinking of a 2 year old. I intend to allow limited (damn a rule!) use of screens once he gets older. Not sure when, any thoughts? Also, as a curiosity I ask my partner to set up parental controls on my own phone so that I have limited screen time on apps where I tend to lose track of time.
P.S.2. This is a thought provoking book and definitely worth a read. I find the concepts around freedom and autonomy to be timeless. I also haven’t yet finished the book, I started writing this as part of my journaling and got carried away - will probably update this later.
[1] [Nutrition and Longevity](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQFyM...)
[2] [Medicare's search for effective obesity treatments: diets are not the answer.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469...)
The book addresses my biggest worries straight on: what type of parenting will prepare kids in the age of abundant ultra-processed food, social media and porn. As Naval says: “all modern diseases are diseases of abundance” - how to raise kids in this modern environment is top of mind for any parent. The book’s answer was shocking: there should be no rules, kids eat what they want, sleep when they want, and watch whatever they want (on screens).
Every idea caused me a very strong reaction—either intense agreement or disagreement! That should tell you more about how much I care about this topic rather than about my own certainty on my judgement.
I will start with what I agree with: keeping rules to the minimum. Children should have freedom and autonomy to do what they want with parents acting as supportive mentors. This means there is no coercion - no enforcement of strict rules - which helps build curiosity, trust and gives more meaning to every action the kid decides to make! In abstract these all sound wonderful, but the real meat is when the author describes how to apply these in challenging real-life examples - fortunately the book is packed with such examples! For example, the author does not enforce family dinners, allowing the kids to choose whether to join. One child often opts out, which highlights their genuine decision-making power, and makes everyone’s decision to be there real and meaningful.
However, no rules, zero, nada, seems a bit too extreme. The author does say that well-known poisons and substances like alcohol are reasonable limits, but besides obvious safety risks no more limits are mentioned. So, what about the modern “diseases of abundance”? Are they in the group of “well known poisons”? Not according to the author, and this is where I disagree. This means I disagree mostly with kids eating and watching what they want and I agree with the principle of letting them sleep when they want. The modern world is just very different regarding what is available to eat and watch when compared to just 100 years ago (basically nothing in evolutionary time).
The author explains why alcohol is off-limits when things like fast-food are not. Alcohol is a true addiction as it creates a chemical dependence. Alcohol binds to some receptors in the brain which reduces anxiety and “induces a state of pleasurable calm”. However, after prolonged use of alcohol, biology adapts, as it usually does, and now we need more alcohol to obtain the same pleasurable calm effect. Even worse, if we withdraw from alcohol our anxiety will not return to our previous baseline level but it will go to a higher level - so we are now dependent on alcohol just to feel normal again. This is all good, adaptation is how biology handles stimuli and we could replace alcohol with perfume, caffeine, and… fast-food? No, the author claims that “many people who make a concerted effort to quit fast food report feeling better almost immediately. They may crave a Big Mac, but […] is a world away from the physiological torment of withdrawal from a true addiction”. Well, while they may report feeling ‘better’, this doesn’t mean their hunger has decreased. Consuming ultra-processed foods and simple carbs over time leads to biological adaptation—just like alcohol does. These types of foods increase our appetite and make us overeat. If we often overeat, we gain insulin resistance, which causes diabetes, and leptin resistance! Leptin is the hormone that tells our brain we are satiated. If we gain leptin resistance we need more food to feel satiated - basically our natural mechanism to detect when enough food is enough becomes uncalibrated - if we withdraw from fast-food our appetite level will not return to normal but to a higher level. I highly recommend watching this lecture [1], and any lecture from Uri Alon really, that explains how our bodies can regulate our appetite and how modern artificial food breaks our regulation system and creates the obesity epidemic we currently have. Many studies show that long-term weight-loss is extremely hard and most people who go through a strict calorie-restricting diet end up regaining more weight than they lost in the following 5 years (this is popularly known as the yo-yo effect, example study here [2]).
So what is the solution? As the author points out having no rules has many advantages. I also endorse that, you can eat whatever we have in the house for as much (or little) as you want. However, in our house we only have real food (no ultra-processed or simple sugars). There are no fights over food. Our kid doesn’t even know that super delicious artificial food exist. Sometimes he decides to just eat the mushrooms and leave the meat behind. The next day he will be more interested in something else. With real food, I am confident he can self-regulate, it is not possible to overeat or undereat consistently (except maybe for some rare diseases). The adults eat the same things, and so do the guests. There are no treats locked up anywhere. If one of us really wanted to stock the house with junk food, it would make life harder for everyone else. Not eating junk food that is in the fridge requires a constant struggle and increases the odds of everyone getting unhealthier. A common limit for freedoms is summarised by: your freedom ends where the freedom of others begin. So to change everyone’s environment there should be at least a poll!
The author rightly argues that it is inevitable for kids to encounter cheap, processed food. He asks: is a sudden exposure to junk food in their late teens a good way to teach restraint? Yes, I believe it is. The chances of being healthy in the future increases the longer one has already been healthy (this is related to the concepts of the Lindy effect and the body’s tendency to maintain homeostasis):
- eating healthily becomes a part of your identity
- you know what healthy eating is like. if you lose track, you know your way back, just do what you were previously doing
- you know it is super easy, you didn’t even realize you were doing something special - this increases your confidence
This essay is getting too long so I will wrap up here with some quick thoughts on screens and describe a principle that is more broadly applicable.
The jury on the effects of fast-food is out. We ran the experiment, the results are available for anyone to see. Ultra-processed food should be added to the list of known poisons. The jury on screens is still ongoing. Personally, I don’t see a benefit in running that experiment. There are no serious downsides in raising a baby without screens. Humanity did just that since forever. But, people also said that comic books and radio were dangerous, and they were wrong! So, what? We also thought cigarets were healthy for adults and were wrong. Fortunately we have run the experiment on many old technologies and we now have a better idea on which ones are safe. Surely, we can wait a bit longer to gain a deeper understanding of new technology?
So the general principle is keep your environment Lindy (just like the good old days) and within that environment there are no rules.
P.S. When writing this I was thinking of a 2 year old. I intend to allow limited (damn a rule!) use of screens once he gets older. Not sure when, any thoughts? Also, as a curiosity I ask my partner to set up parental controls on my own phone so that I have limited screen time on apps where I tend to lose track of time.
P.S.2. This is a thought provoking book and definitely worth a read. I find the concepts around freedom and autonomy to be timeless. I also haven’t yet finished the book, I started writing this as part of my journaling and got carried away - will probably update this later.
[1] [Nutrition and Longevity](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQFyM...)
[2] [Medicare's search for effective obesity treatments: diets are not the answer.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469...)
February 28, 2025
Definitely a radical and a thought provoking book!
Would recommend this book to young parents for a non-traditional view on parenting.
Let me start by stating what this book is not.
This is NOT a book grounded in any scientific research but rather based on a philosophy "Critical rationalism" promoted by Karl Popper and David Deutsch.
The main idea is to treat kids like adults and respect their choices. Give them what they need and let them learn from their mistakes. No limits on food, sleep, screen time, etc. – let them figure out what's bad for them.
Honestly, I think people should read the last two chapters first to understand the philosophy before reading the practical examples.
You can also watch the 2h podcast with Naval, the author, and Tim Ferris.
https://youtu.be/2bZSzObqAjE?si=6dobL...
What are the core ideas?
- Rules confuses children on why a certain thing needs to be done.
- Process of knowledge discovery happens the best when kids are given full freedom
- Kids will learn how to navigate conflicts in the world when they feel the consequences. Artificial rules are not required to teach them discipline.
- By not having rules, parents will not spend enormous time in policing/rule-enforcement. This will potentially make parent less adversarial so kids will trust them more. Parents would be seen as a cool, fun curator of the world.
- When kids face issues, they will come for help to the parents. Once they solve a particular problem, thats when the kids will truly learn about the world.
I'm not sure if the whole philosophy would work in real life, but I might try it a little.
My primary concern is the potential for irreversible harm caused by this level of freedom and exploration. For instance, could unrestricted screen time lead to long term eye damage, or unhealthy eating habits cause permanent gastroenterological issues?
Could poor sleeping patterns impair brain development in these formative years?
Furthermore, could this approach inadvertently foster a sense of entitlement in the child?
As a philosophy, it sounds good, but adults know more than kids about some things. We should use that to help them grow, maybe with a little "manipulation," while still paying attention to their interests.
I'm open to new ideas, but I'm also quick to change if things don't work. I want to try this, but I need to make sure it doesn't turn into neglect.
A few more things: kids don't understand the long-term benefits of things like taking the bitter medicine, and you need a lot of patience for this so that kids voluntarily take it.
I agree with the author's philosophy, but it seems like only rich people have the time and money for this kind of parenting.
Rules are good to have order, but parents should be willing to discuss changing them if needed, and kids should be able to question them.
Some quotes that I loved :
Would recommend this book to young parents for a non-traditional view on parenting.
Let me start by stating what this book is not.
This is NOT a book grounded in any scientific research but rather based on a philosophy "Critical rationalism" promoted by Karl Popper and David Deutsch.
The main idea is to treat kids like adults and respect their choices. Give them what they need and let them learn from their mistakes. No limits on food, sleep, screen time, etc. – let them figure out what's bad for them.
Honestly, I think people should read the last two chapters first to understand the philosophy before reading the practical examples.
You can also watch the 2h podcast with Naval, the author, and Tim Ferris.
https://youtu.be/2bZSzObqAjE?si=6dobL...
What are the core ideas?
- Rules confuses children on why a certain thing needs to be done.
- Process of knowledge discovery happens the best when kids are given full freedom
- Kids will learn how to navigate conflicts in the world when they feel the consequences. Artificial rules are not required to teach them discipline.
- By not having rules, parents will not spend enormous time in policing/rule-enforcement. This will potentially make parent less adversarial so kids will trust them more. Parents would be seen as a cool, fun curator of the world.
- When kids face issues, they will come for help to the parents. Once they solve a particular problem, thats when the kids will truly learn about the world.
I'm not sure if the whole philosophy would work in real life, but I might try it a little.
My primary concern is the potential for irreversible harm caused by this level of freedom and exploration. For instance, could unrestricted screen time lead to long term eye damage, or unhealthy eating habits cause permanent gastroenterological issues?
Could poor sleeping patterns impair brain development in these formative years?
Furthermore, could this approach inadvertently foster a sense of entitlement in the child?
As a philosophy, it sounds good, but adults know more than kids about some things. We should use that to help them grow, maybe with a little "manipulation," while still paying attention to their interests.
I'm open to new ideas, but I'm also quick to change if things don't work. I want to try this, but I need to make sure it doesn't turn into neglect.
A few more things: kids don't understand the long-term benefits of things like taking the bitter medicine, and you need a lot of patience for this so that kids voluntarily take it.
I agree with the author's philosophy, but it seems like only rich people have the time and money for this kind of parenting.
Rules are good to have order, but parents should be willing to discuss changing them if needed, and kids should be able to question them.
Some quotes that I loved :
It(rules) confuses kids by teaching them that there are external authorities who know the answers about how to live.
If they don’t hurry (to some class), it indicates that they don’t care, and so neither do we. It’s a nice way of filtering out activities that they don’t value, so their time can be spent on things they do
Everything is new to a child, and their default state is vulnerability and ignorance mixed with curiosity.
Imposing rules and enforcing them through physical and psychological dominance is a decisive advantage, the ultimate ace in the hole. Giving it up is scary. It leaves you vulnerable and without a backup plan. It puts you at risk of the ultimate failure: being a bad parent. Of course, you can always fail with and because of rules, but rule enforcement grants you the excuse that at least you tried in the socially acceptable way. You did not neglect your kids. You may have failed, but you didn’t fail them.
As Bryan Caplan describes in The Case Against Education, school functions as a sorting and labeling mechanism for employers, not as a productivity booster.
A pastime, even an obsessional one, is a wonderful thing, and it’s nobody else’s business. Labeling those pastimes that violate your sensibilities as addictions misses the fact that everyone’s interests and problem situations are infinitely unique.
A unifying theme is that no one can know ahead of time how a process of discovery will play out. This includes parents and other adults. Parents cannot know what’s best for their children because they don’t know what their children will discover about their own interests.
All of parenting can be summarized as supplying the child with the knowledge to reduce their own suffering.
The range of acceptable things to do has narrowed, and part of you needs to pay attention to your impulses so that you don’t break a rule. This paying attention is what it means to be self-conscious and is an essential ingredient in anxiety and low self-esteem.
In fact, forcing the kid to act under duress only hinders their ability to understand why the thing is worth doing in the first place. If something is so important that it’s worth incurring relationship damage to get a kid to do it, then it’s even more important that the kid understands why that thing is necessary.
February 13, 2025
This is definitely a very different perspective on parenting than what is common today. Basically, the author focuses on no rules parenting and says that problem solving and autonomy are the most effective and helpful methods of parenting. I do think ultimately I learned new ideas from this book; some of them I may implement in my parenting style. However, I do think it is too extreme or idealistic to think you can have zero rules. Aside from the obvious issues like zero enforcement on screen time, behavior, school requirements, sleep and food, the book lacks any bibliography or studies at all. It has a chapter at the end that discusses the general philosophy on which the principles are based. The author also has young children which he uses as the majority of examples for his philosophy. This is helpful but obviously they are still children and we don’t know if these things will actually be helpful or harmful in the long run. I do think I will lessen up on certain rules or engage in a more creative and problem solving forward approach with my kids. I am thankful for the totally contrarian point of view and the courage is required to publish this book. My last criticism is that I worry this style of parenting creates self centered people. I do think life is about being able to problem solve and function independently but also much of life is about thinking and acting for others to be 1) socially accepted, supported and have successful relationships and 2) to make the world better. The “do whatever you want” philosophy neglects a major part of life which is responsibility to one another, even when, especially when, it is inconvenient to the individual.
January 31, 2025
A book in its own class
Many of the critiques in 1- and 2-star reviews seem to misunderstand the book’s core arguments. I got the sense that the reviewers never got past the first chapter about an endless supply of ice-cream and oreo cookies…
Nevertheless, this is the best parenting book I’ve ever read—completely in a class of its own.
Of course, the solutions posed by Aaron are radical, but we need a new way of thinking if we want to address things like depression, anxiety and addiction in children.
Einstein was right in saying that the significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking that created the problems in the first place.
The sovereign child embodies this new thinking.
Personally, my wife and I adopted Taken Children Seriously after our first son was born. It’s been 5 years and we’re not 100% there yet; we still struggle at times and often react out of our own fears and pre-conceived ideas. But the act of taking up this philosophy has slowly started to transform ourselves and family.
My biggest criticism is that the book doesn’t address a parent’s inner growth and healing and its impact in adopting this philosophy. To take children seriously, parents must first take themselves seriously. Our own inner growth has helped us relax, let go of rules, and build a more trusting relationship with our kids.
I would have loved to hear stories about how Aaron and his family view inner growth and how they approach it.
Despite this, I wholeheartedly give this book 5 stars.
Many of the critiques in 1- and 2-star reviews seem to misunderstand the book’s core arguments. I got the sense that the reviewers never got past the first chapter about an endless supply of ice-cream and oreo cookies…
Nevertheless, this is the best parenting book I’ve ever read—completely in a class of its own.
Of course, the solutions posed by Aaron are radical, but we need a new way of thinking if we want to address things like depression, anxiety and addiction in children.
Einstein was right in saying that the significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking that created the problems in the first place.
The sovereign child embodies this new thinking.
Personally, my wife and I adopted Taken Children Seriously after our first son was born. It’s been 5 years and we’re not 100% there yet; we still struggle at times and often react out of our own fears and pre-conceived ideas. But the act of taking up this philosophy has slowly started to transform ourselves and family.
My biggest criticism is that the book doesn’t address a parent’s inner growth and healing and its impact in adopting this philosophy. To take children seriously, parents must first take themselves seriously. Our own inner growth has helped us relax, let go of rules, and build a more trusting relationship with our kids.
I would have loved to hear stories about how Aaron and his family view inner growth and how they approach it.
Despite this, I wholeheartedly give this book 5 stars.
March 29, 2025
This book resonates with me, largely I believe because in many ways it’s how I was raised. While my mother would throw out rules, they were rarely enforced or held up consistently and I had a lot of leeway as a child.
Conceptually the idea that children are learning machines and your job as a parent is to facilitate their learning as much as possible strikes me as absolutely correct. To learn is to conduct experiments and rules inhibit exploration.
After reflecting on the advocated approach of the book, I believe there are two domains where rules are still needed and make sense.
1. When the child is going to physically harm themselves or others or things where that harm is significant. The book generally acknowledges these as legitimate domains for rules.
2. Where there is an arbitrary societial decorum. In this case there is no psychical reality to test things against there is only the social structure to push against and to experience the negative reactions of other people. In this case it seems like it’s perfectly valid and often desirable for the parent to provide this feedback instead of strangers or relations outside of the family.
I think the second point is mainly unaddressed by the book and where I feel my own style diverges most from their methodology.
Conceptually the idea that children are learning machines and your job as a parent is to facilitate their learning as much as possible strikes me as absolutely correct. To learn is to conduct experiments and rules inhibit exploration.
After reflecting on the advocated approach of the book, I believe there are two domains where rules are still needed and make sense.
1. When the child is going to physically harm themselves or others or things where that harm is significant. The book generally acknowledges these as legitimate domains for rules.
2. Where there is an arbitrary societial decorum. In this case there is no psychical reality to test things against there is only the social structure to push against and to experience the negative reactions of other people. In this case it seems like it’s perfectly valid and often desirable for the parent to provide this feedback instead of strangers or relations outside of the family.
I think the second point is mainly unaddressed by the book and where I feel my own style diverges most from their methodology.
March 26, 2025
3.5 stars
The biggest impetus the book gives me is to root my decisions about what my kid is doing in optimism rather than in fear- helps in having lesser situations that need rules.
Also, when such situations do arise, the book makes me strongly want to be think about them from the perspective of the kid to come up with creative win-win solutions rather than impose one-sided rules that the kid cannot escape from.
The book is based on very strong ideology of Popper’s and Deustch’s Critical Rationalism applied to parenting. The result is a radical looking approach rooted in complete freedom- letting the kid learn from nature/society directly rather than from authority figures like parents. I can understand the ideal but feel that it is just that- ideal. For one- a lot of parents cannot afford the time, money and even effort for what is being suggested. But more importantly, most of the world has settled on free market with some governance (to prevent negative externalities and bubbles and so on) which means there is probably some place for rules.
However, I understand the push that the book is making and the pendulum definitely has swung too much towards rules and that needs to change. It has already done some and more is hopefully on the way.
The last two chapters of the book, though fully theoretical and philosophical, were excellent and very strong (for me). The examples given and the structure of the book could have been much better though.
The biggest impetus the book gives me is to root my decisions about what my kid is doing in optimism rather than in fear- helps in having lesser situations that need rules.
Also, when such situations do arise, the book makes me strongly want to be think about them from the perspective of the kid to come up with creative win-win solutions rather than impose one-sided rules that the kid cannot escape from.
The book is based on very strong ideology of Popper’s and Deustch’s Critical Rationalism applied to parenting. The result is a radical looking approach rooted in complete freedom- letting the kid learn from nature/society directly rather than from authority figures like parents. I can understand the ideal but feel that it is just that- ideal. For one- a lot of parents cannot afford the time, money and even effort for what is being suggested. But more importantly, most of the world has settled on free market with some governance (to prevent negative externalities and bubbles and so on) which means there is probably some place for rules.
However, I understand the push that the book is making and the pendulum definitely has swung too much towards rules and that needs to change. It has already done some and more is hopefully on the way.
The last two chapters of the book, though fully theoretical and philosophical, were excellent and very strong (for me). The examples given and the structure of the book could have been much better though.
April 4, 2025
“The central message of this book is that controlling knowledge growth in people is not possible, including children. In fact, we should pursue the opposite: freedom. Freedom doesn’t mean neglect—it still involves safety, health, and order. But these are achieved while preserving kids’ autonomy, not at the expense of autonomy.
This isn’t easy, and there are no simple rules for achieving this, because this requires unpredictable creativity, knowledge growth, and discovery by the parent, but it is a more productive target for a parent’s efforts than working to control. Maximizing control and maximizing freedom both take work, but the latter is more fun and less work in the long run because the sovereign child can take care of themself sooner.
Childhood is a period of supported knowledge growth until a person is capable of solving life’s problems on their own. Knowledge grows by guessing and testing, trial-and-error elimination, conjecture and criticism. The necessary condition is freedom, where guesses and criticisms are encouraged and given a chance to work, and mistakes are never punished or shamed.”
This isn’t easy, and there are no simple rules for achieving this, because this requires unpredictable creativity, knowledge growth, and discovery by the parent, but it is a more productive target for a parent’s efforts than working to control. Maximizing control and maximizing freedom both take work, but the latter is more fun and less work in the long run because the sovereign child can take care of themself sooner.
Childhood is a period of supported knowledge growth until a person is capable of solving life’s problems on their own. Knowledge grows by guessing and testing, trial-and-error elimination, conjecture and criticism. The necessary condition is freedom, where guesses and criticisms are encouraged and given a chance to work, and mistakes are never punished or shamed.”
January 24, 2025
Aaron Stupple's "The Sovereign Child" describes an innovative but intimidating approach to parenting. This philosophy suggests that children should have the freedom to decide their own times for eating, sleeping, and playing. Yet, Stupple introduces the idea of 'voluntary rules'—suggestions that children can choose to follow, offering a framework for safety and interaction with others without strict enforcement. This new way of raising children pushes against traditional methods by encouraging kids to make their own choices. It could lead to remarkable independence and creativity, but it might also raise worries among parents about their children's well-being. The concept of voluntary rules provides a balanced approach, giving some structure while still valuing freedom, though it might be a challenging concept for parents used to setting firm guidelines. This method is both liberating and complex, highlighting the fine balance between freedom and responsibility in child-rearing.
May 25, 2025
Extreme, speculative, anecdotal -- The author provides zero scientific evidence for the very unconventional arguments except for the anecdotal experience of his own. The counter-arguments to the conventional parenting wisdoms are speculative, like rules 'might risk backfiring'. Could it be that the rules only backfires when you are introducing it wrong?
The book's logics are flawed. Should you treat your toddlers as a houseguest and trying to meet their desire and respect their choices as much as possible? Not if your houseguests are 2 years old and haven't formed good judgements on many things. Modern industry and technology have figured out ways to hook you, children are especially vulnerable. Would you give your kids alcohol if they request and ended up enjoying it?
Anyways, I thought this is a parenting book, but ended up disappointed, this book is more like a fiction.
The book's logics are flawed. Should you treat your toddlers as a houseguest and trying to meet their desire and respect their choices as much as possible? Not if your houseguests are 2 years old and haven't formed good judgements on many things. Modern industry and technology have figured out ways to hook you, children are especially vulnerable. Would you give your kids alcohol if they request and ended up enjoying it?
Anyways, I thought this is a parenting book, but ended up disappointed, this book is more like a fiction.
November 4, 2025
This book is for you if money is not a concern in your household. I would submit the ideas in this book to the following litmus test: Can these ideas be adopted by any family in our country, regardless of their socioeconomic background? The answer is no. Not every family can afford to hire a full time nanny because their children have chosen not to go to school. Not every parent can go in late to work because their children chose to sleep in. Not every family can afford to buy 5+ of the same toy because God forbid their children learn how to share. I don’t think you have to forgo rules to take children seriously. Also, I think it might’ve been easier to accept these ideas if a) there was scientific research to back it up and b) his children were functioning adults that contribute to society. But this seems more like a big experiment and here’s hoping that it works!
December 4, 2025
In principle, the concept sounds nice. Kids should be sovereigh and self-directed! How can we promote more independence?! Hmm, maybe this book has some great ideas. But....
Prettttty bad. No data. Mostly some dude speculating that his way is better than every other way. Reads like he's just coddling his kids and saying that everyone else is wrong. Or that he's probably right, but it's just not proven yet.
I always have issues with non-fiction books that rely on seemingly cherry-picked data to make their points. Finally, I have found that rate book that doesn't even bother to cherry pick data, it just makes up points. Bravo.
Bro brags about how his kids rarely draw on the walls now because he has purchased easels and easy-to-reach art supplies. Guy, how about you try disciplining your kid and telling them that they can't draw on the walls maybe.
Prettttty bad. No data. Mostly some dude speculating that his way is better than every other way. Reads like he's just coddling his kids and saying that everyone else is wrong. Or that he's probably right, but it's just not proven yet.
I always have issues with non-fiction books that rely on seemingly cherry-picked data to make their points. Finally, I have found that rate book that doesn't even bother to cherry pick data, it just makes up points. Bravo.
Bro brags about how his kids rarely draw on the walls now because he has purchased easels and easy-to-reach art supplies. Guy, how about you try disciplining your kid and telling them that they can't draw on the walls maybe.
June 5, 2025
I think he has some good and some bad points. It would be fine if he presented his ideas clearly and made room for disagreeing with him. Instead he uses a lot of deceptive argumentation. I am curios of how his kids turn out.
The idea is to have no rules for your kids. And instead be a helper that gives advice and help them explore the world without force. It sounds nice in theory, but I am afraid that when you have industries combatting for our attention and money, often to the detriment of our wellbeing and development it makes sense to let your children explore the world inside safer frames. I do however agree that our society today treat children mostly as property and that we would benefit from treating them more like humans.
The idea is to have no rules for your kids. And instead be a helper that gives advice and help them explore the world without force. It sounds nice in theory, but I am afraid that when you have industries combatting for our attention and money, often to the detriment of our wellbeing and development it makes sense to let your children explore the world inside safer frames. I do however agree that our society today treat children mostly as property and that we would benefit from treating them more like humans.
June 24, 2025
The book builds heavily on Karl Popper's ideas about personal development and makes a case for raising kids as if they were adults - without any rules. I love how provocative the book is and I did appreciate reading about an extreme parenting version to make me think deeper about the issue. The author brushed over some important topics such as societal pressure and how to handle misbehaving kids in public. Worth a read for new parents, leaning more towards independence is definitely wanted in a world of helicopter parenting.
January 26, 2025
Granted the author only has a five-year-old so we have no idea how his kids will end up in the future but in the hyper addictive environment that we live in whether it be the algorithm on YouTube, food addiction, and late night screen usage. None of the stuff is practical. It might work for one person’s kid but the other kid might be predisposed to addiction and completely ruined his life
I can make the same argument he has for food and YouTube to hard drugs
I can make the same argument he has for food and YouTube to hard drugs
March 29, 2025
Really radical and thought-provoking. A lot of passages really upended beliefs i didn't know I had. A critique I read that I resonate with is that Stupple is treating the kid as a sovereign individual at the expense of socialisation, we already live in a hyper-individualistic culture and i feel like Stupple's philosophy might have blind spots. But as yet, I was actually pretty convinced and inspired by his ideas.
June 11, 2025
Lunacy. Should we think of different ways to give agency to our kids? Absolutely. My goal is to raise self-reliant, resilient little humans.
Here’s all you need to know: 1.) the book is based on anecdotal experience, not science and 2.) that experience is informed by an author who has 6 years of parenting experience.
Will allowing your child to eat ice cream for every meal pay off in the form of sovereign or diabetic children?? I guess time will tell.
Here’s all you need to know: 1.) the book is based on anecdotal experience, not science and 2.) that experience is informed by an author who has 6 years of parenting experience.
Will allowing your child to eat ice cream for every meal pay off in the form of sovereign or diabetic children?? I guess time will tell.
August 13, 2025
Freedom is found within boundaries (aka rules). Putting paper on the wall and telling your kid to write on the paper is still establishing a rule that you can’t write on the walls. The author seems to be maturing with his child and using words differently to explain common sense instead of leading appropriately with a mature mindset. A few good nuggets here and there, but overall it’s better as a “what if” work of fiction than an instructional book.
November 5, 2025
"not neglect" then proceeds to describe neglect but it's "loving neglect".
A kind of extremist Montessori gone wrong.
There are proven long term issues in mental development by letting toddlers watch hours of TV daily, let alone let him pick likely dopamine content like cocomelon.
Letting a kid eat ice cream as staple for months on end is likely going to end up in early diabete issues, how is totally worth his dogmatic "no enforced rules".
A kind of extremist Montessori gone wrong.
There are proven long term issues in mental development by letting toddlers watch hours of TV daily, let alone let him pick likely dopamine content like cocomelon.
Letting a kid eat ice cream as staple for months on end is likely going to end up in early diabete issues, how is totally worth his dogmatic "no enforced rules".
February 4, 2025
If you live a life where you can rearrange your entire schedule around the whims of your children and have immense confidence in their innate ability to make good choices, then this might be for you. It's not for me.
February 21, 2025
an obligation to read
At first I was shocked, then I was horrified, then I was curious, then I was hooked. It’s not a thriller but it’s so mesmerizingly compelling. If you like David Deutsch and have kids, def read it.
At first I was shocked, then I was horrified, then I was curious, then I was hooked. It’s not a thriller but it’s so mesmerizingly compelling. If you like David Deutsch and have kids, def read it.
March 8, 2025
Naval recommendation so I gave it a shot - wish I could give this negative stars. I got through 3-4 chapters and couldn’t make myself keep reading. What a waste of time - I want a refund of my time from naval.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews