@Carey Sipp Child abuse has a long, long legacy so addressing the question of "where did the grandfather learn it," I know that answer is complex but it's interesting to not pederasty in ancient Greece. "Pederasty in ancient Greece was a socially acknowledged romantic relationship between an older male (the erastes) and a younger male (the eromenos) usually in his teens.[2] It was characteristic of the Archaic and Classical periods.[3] The influence of pederasty on Greek culture of these periods was so pervasive that it has been called "the principal cultural model for free relationships between citizens."[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ty_in_ancient_Greece
Although I dislike the usage of the word "relationship here" and especially "free relationships," as there was an abusive dynamic of the older person over the younger person, even if teens weren't considered children during the times of the Ancient Greeks. We know that teens do not have the necessary power to consent.
@Jane Stevens I read Change this weekend. I would be curious to hear what you got out of it. It feels like a rehash of ideas in a lot of social psychology books, especially Persuasion by Robert Cialdini. Emotional contagion exists, yes, people need to trust their contacts, yes, people get embarrassed by health conditions, yes, networks and the spread of ideas is are complex, yes. A new idea that I got from it is that people need a certain concentration in their social networks, so those who are well-connected need to see an idea more times than those with fewer connections--which is counterintuitive. That was interesting. I thought his examples were kinda rambly and didn't always support his points. Like when he was talking about the Arab Spring he was saying that people had to see that the people in their networks were showing up before they decided to show up for protests. But someone would first have to decide they were going to show up, right? So how do those early adopters decide? I didn't think his point was proved with this example. I wasn't sure what he was trying to say. I'd be much more likely to believe that there was some sort of critical mass of suffering reached and would have been curious to learn more about that. With Google Glass he made a point about techies not feeling relatable to most people but I think the reason that product didn't take off is because it's not a useful product. I've tried on Google Glass and the product barely works. I didn't see the point. Anyway, curious to hear the points that resonated with you in his book!