a world of bullshit (long; large world of bullshit)
Sandra Dodd
I've been listening to several books while I do other things around
the house, while I work in the yard, while I play pattern games to
recover from working and doing.
One, I've finished. One's not bothering me so much. They're all
social science, with commentaries on research. They have
similarities. The easy "good" one is _Click_, about friendships that
form suddenly and easily. One is _How Pleasure Works_; still
listening to that one, but it's not bugging me.
One is taking a long time because it bothers me a lot. It's
_NurtureShock_. I could say a lot about it, and somewhere (facebook?
RUNning?) someone asked. If anyone remembers where that request to
discus it was, I could go there, later, when I'm through it.
The reader is doing a bad job of reading. He wrote it. Still, his
voice is painful because he's using a sing-song with high-pitched
emphasis. I hope he doesn't talk to his own child that way, but I'm
guessing he does. Can't say it "monotonous," because musically
speaking, it's all over the place. But it's like the same irritating
bird call over and over and over. So I should say that I'm pre-
irritated, and I don't want to pay for the book in hard copy just so I
can get through it more quickly. Then it will be sitting in my house
like a brick. I might get the paperback used, later, for marking
passages, or something.
Here's what I wrote down to share, though. This is about research on
young children. These phrases were used without shame or amusement,
as though they made a great deal of sense and were worthy of deep
thought:
"preschoolers' EF capability"
"attentional focus"
"cognitive control" (defined as "when the brain has to manipulate
information in the mind")
What the hell!?
The emperor is wearing and breathing a bunch of hooey! It's not real
communication. Can those medical-sounding latinate terms be
translated into plain real English?!
First, "EF capability" is "executive function capability," which
phrase alone is wordy word word for doey-do-do.
All those quoted phrases above are about learning and thinking.
This list is about learning and thinking. We're not wiring any kids
up, or having them prove they can (or can't) associate a picture on a
computer of a flower with their right, and a heart with their left (or
the other way around). We're not doing catscans on them while they
"manipulate information."
I will stop and show you a different kind of treatment of learning,
thinking and English:
Below is something Joyce Fetteroll wrote in the discussion about toy
guns. It is not bullshit. It's in plain English. It's based on
direct experience and years of association with other people, of being
observant, of thinking and of learning. If you want to re-read it as
a contrast to the phrases above, you'll see the beauty in plain
English, and maybe understand a little better why I don't want people
using any initials or jargon on this list:
(Joyce, from here to the end)
====================
When these gun and TV and sugar discussions come up I suspect it reads
to some people like the unschoolers have different values. It's easy
to allow your kids to play with (toy) guns and eat Fritos if you don't
believe those are dangerous.
But one of the goals of unschooling is creating an environment where
our kids can play around with ideas and decide what's right for them.
Part of creating that environment is how parents can prevent their own
beliefs from *interfering* with that process. Parents can't help but
influence. Nor should they! But they should be aware of how powerful
their influence is. Depending on a child's sensitivity, if beliefs
from their parents are starting to make more sense, they can feel
guilty and bad for having "wrong' thoughts. As they get deeper into
different beliefs that are feeling more right to them, they will trust
their parents less. And -- this is huge if someone wants unschooling
to work -- they can't bounce these new ideas off their parents to get
more input. They already know their thoughts are "wrong". They already
know their parents want them not to see the right in those ideas.
When parents impose their own beliefs -- even when they provide what
they're certain is good, solid information to support their beliefs --
they're doing what schools are doing: handing kids information to
accept as right and true. They're doing what any propagandist does:
providing information meant to sway someone's emotions and thoughts
towards a particular conclusion.
But unschooling is about the messy process of trying on different
ideas like hundreds of different colored glasses to see what the world
looks like through them. They will layer glasses. They will toss some
aside after wearing them for a good while. Some won't even appeal so
they won't try. Every pair will have good points and bad points. The
question they're always asking is, "Is the good worth the bad?"
They will create, as they will continue to create through out their
lives, a unique collection of filters that feel right to them and
clarify the world in a way that's meaningful to them.
One way to help parents avoid imposing strongly held beliefs is for
them to examine the foundation of beliefs *that interfere with
children's exploration of beliefs." To examine what actually happens
IN UNSCHOOLING FAMILIES where children are allowed to explore freely.
(Not just any family where the philosophy of parents towards children
is a big fat X of unknowable.)
Unschooling parents *can* be anti-gun pacifists, non-sugar-eating
vegetarians without creating an atmosphere where kids feel wrong for
trying on other beliefs.
But holding a belief that toy guns and playacting violence promote
violence *will* interfere. *And*, not only that, but it doesn't hold
up to examination as the stories here indicate. I have yet to meet a
child who is respected for who he is, whose beliefs are respected, who
acts violently. It's not guns or legs of lamb or candlesticks that
cause violent desires but how people are treated by others.
One of the great things about playacting violence is being able to
play in a world that someone *doesn't* want to live in but is
interested in exploring to see what it's like living with different
rules (different colored glasses). Living in a world where someone
solves problems with a gun means living in a world where *other*
people solve problems with guns. It's not a world where anyone can
peacefully go to the park or relax in the evening to watch TV. Kids
growing up in secure homes where they're respected for who they are
(even if they like guns and eating meat!) don't have any desire to
live in a world like that. They'd have to give up too many other
beautifully colored glasses to wear the "solve problems by shooting
problem people" glasses.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
the house, while I work in the yard, while I play pattern games to
recover from working and doing.
One, I've finished. One's not bothering me so much. They're all
social science, with commentaries on research. They have
similarities. The easy "good" one is _Click_, about friendships that
form suddenly and easily. One is _How Pleasure Works_; still
listening to that one, but it's not bugging me.
One is taking a long time because it bothers me a lot. It's
_NurtureShock_. I could say a lot about it, and somewhere (facebook?
RUNning?) someone asked. If anyone remembers where that request to
discus it was, I could go there, later, when I'm through it.
The reader is doing a bad job of reading. He wrote it. Still, his
voice is painful because he's using a sing-song with high-pitched
emphasis. I hope he doesn't talk to his own child that way, but I'm
guessing he does. Can't say it "monotonous," because musically
speaking, it's all over the place. But it's like the same irritating
bird call over and over and over. So I should say that I'm pre-
irritated, and I don't want to pay for the book in hard copy just so I
can get through it more quickly. Then it will be sitting in my house
like a brick. I might get the paperback used, later, for marking
passages, or something.
Here's what I wrote down to share, though. This is about research on
young children. These phrases were used without shame or amusement,
as though they made a great deal of sense and were worthy of deep
thought:
"preschoolers' EF capability"
"attentional focus"
"cognitive control" (defined as "when the brain has to manipulate
information in the mind")
What the hell!?
The emperor is wearing and breathing a bunch of hooey! It's not real
communication. Can those medical-sounding latinate terms be
translated into plain real English?!
First, "EF capability" is "executive function capability," which
phrase alone is wordy word word for doey-do-do.
All those quoted phrases above are about learning and thinking.
This list is about learning and thinking. We're not wiring any kids
up, or having them prove they can (or can't) associate a picture on a
computer of a flower with their right, and a heart with their left (or
the other way around). We're not doing catscans on them while they
"manipulate information."
I will stop and show you a different kind of treatment of learning,
thinking and English:
Below is something Joyce Fetteroll wrote in the discussion about toy
guns. It is not bullshit. It's in plain English. It's based on
direct experience and years of association with other people, of being
observant, of thinking and of learning. If you want to re-read it as
a contrast to the phrases above, you'll see the beauty in plain
English, and maybe understand a little better why I don't want people
using any initials or jargon on this list:
(Joyce, from here to the end)
====================
When these gun and TV and sugar discussions come up I suspect it reads
to some people like the unschoolers have different values. It's easy
to allow your kids to play with (toy) guns and eat Fritos if you don't
believe those are dangerous.
But one of the goals of unschooling is creating an environment where
our kids can play around with ideas and decide what's right for them.
Part of creating that environment is how parents can prevent their own
beliefs from *interfering* with that process. Parents can't help but
influence. Nor should they! But they should be aware of how powerful
their influence is. Depending on a child's sensitivity, if beliefs
from their parents are starting to make more sense, they can feel
guilty and bad for having "wrong' thoughts. As they get deeper into
different beliefs that are feeling more right to them, they will trust
their parents less. And -- this is huge if someone wants unschooling
to work -- they can't bounce these new ideas off their parents to get
more input. They already know their thoughts are "wrong". They already
know their parents want them not to see the right in those ideas.
When parents impose their own beliefs -- even when they provide what
they're certain is good, solid information to support their beliefs --
they're doing what schools are doing: handing kids information to
accept as right and true. They're doing what any propagandist does:
providing information meant to sway someone's emotions and thoughts
towards a particular conclusion.
But unschooling is about the messy process of trying on different
ideas like hundreds of different colored glasses to see what the world
looks like through them. They will layer glasses. They will toss some
aside after wearing them for a good while. Some won't even appeal so
they won't try. Every pair will have good points and bad points. The
question they're always asking is, "Is the good worth the bad?"
They will create, as they will continue to create through out their
lives, a unique collection of filters that feel right to them and
clarify the world in a way that's meaningful to them.
One way to help parents avoid imposing strongly held beliefs is for
them to examine the foundation of beliefs *that interfere with
children's exploration of beliefs." To examine what actually happens
IN UNSCHOOLING FAMILIES where children are allowed to explore freely.
(Not just any family where the philosophy of parents towards children
is a big fat X of unknowable.)
Unschooling parents *can* be anti-gun pacifists, non-sugar-eating
vegetarians without creating an atmosphere where kids feel wrong for
trying on other beliefs.
But holding a belief that toy guns and playacting violence promote
violence *will* interfere. *And*, not only that, but it doesn't hold
up to examination as the stories here indicate. I have yet to meet a
child who is respected for who he is, whose beliefs are respected, who
acts violently. It's not guns or legs of lamb or candlesticks that
cause violent desires but how people are treated by others.
One of the great things about playacting violence is being able to
play in a world that someone *doesn't* want to live in but is
interested in exploring to see what it's like living with different
rules (different colored glasses). Living in a world where someone
solves problems with a gun means living in a world where *other*
people solve problems with guns. It's not a world where anyone can
peacefully go to the park or relax in the evening to watch TV. Kids
growing up in secure homes where they're respected for who they are
(even if they like guns and eating meat!) don't have any desire to
live in a world like that. They'd have to give up too many other
beautifully colored glasses to wear the "solve problems by shooting
problem people" glasses.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Chris S.
I was just checking that book out on iTunes this morning. I wanted
something to listen to while I work out on the elliptical machine.
That booked seemed... pretentious may be the word I'm thinking. I
downloaded Orwell's 1984 instead.
Chris
something to listen to while I work out on the elliptical machine.
That booked seemed... pretentious may be the word I'm thinking. I
downloaded Orwell's 1984 instead.
Chris
On Jul 11, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Sandra Dodd wrote:
> One is taking a long time because it bothers me a lot. It's
> _NurtureShock_. I could say a lot about it, and somewhere (facebook?
> RUNning?) someone asked. If anyone remembers where that request to
> discus it was, I could go there, later, when I'm through it.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***One is taking a long time because it bothers me a lot. It's
_NurtureShock_. I could say a lot about it, and somewhere (facebook?
RUNning?) someone asked. If anyone remembers where that request to
discus it was, I could go there, later, when I'm through it.***
I'm certain it was RUNning
here... http://familyrun.ning.com/forum/topics/nurtureshock-1
You even commented on it saying that you were going to follow that thread! I
haven't read the book. The title turned me off! So, please do review away and
I'll read up! I'm reading 3 other books right now, so I won't be picking up any
more soon!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
_NurtureShock_. I could say a lot about it, and somewhere (facebook?
RUNning?) someone asked. If anyone remembers where that request to
discus it was, I could go there, later, when I'm through it.***
I'm certain it was RUNning
here... http://familyrun.ning.com/forum/topics/nurtureshock-1
You even commented on it saying that you were going to follow that thread! I
haven't read the book. The title turned me off! So, please do review away and
I'll read up! I'm reading 3 other books right now, so I won't be picking up any
more soon!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
AlexS
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
I take a lot of notes when I read. Here's my Cliff Notes version:
-Self-esteem programs INCREASE aggressive behavior of youth at risk.
-College students who kept gratitude journals regularly (but not daily I think) seemed to become happier, more optimistic, and got sick less often.
-Up to 15 months babies learn the names for objects much easier if you wiggle the object while saying the name.
-Babies gain vocabulary faster when parents pay more attention to what the baby is looking at than what the word sounds like when trying to figure out new speech
-In cultures in which spanking is seen as totally normal for kids, kids who are spanked are much less likely to exhibit more violent behavior than their peers
-Teen brain scans show that they actually consider doing horribly uncomfortable things when asked. While they usually say no just like adults, it's not because of a visceral reaction like the adults had, because they don't have enough experience yet to FEEL it
-The teen need for autonomy is higher at 11 than 18, and peaks around 14-15
-Telling a kid The Boy Who Cried Wolf doesn't usually decrease lying. Telling the George Washington & cherry tree story (role model who will not lie) usually does. The fact that that story appears to be a lie was not discussed. :)
-Some 3 and most 4 year olds lie
-In 1 study, the teens who lied the least were the ones with just a few rules in a few areas of their life, which were consistent and openly discussed in the context of a warm relationship
-The change in attention span for kids who got one hour less versus one hour extra sleep is greater than the gap between the average 4th and 6th graders
There's more of course. I'm sure I goofed something, and I can't give you the research that these assertions came from. But that's at least 2/3 of what interested me about the book.
Alex
mama to Katya
>I loved this book, to skim. I love research--yes, the kind with scientific researchers interacting with people, not just people reading books that support what they already believe!--which examines whether the popular ways of doing things are, actually, bullshit.
> I've been listening to several books while I do other things around
> the house\
> One is taking a long time because it bothers me a lot. It's
> _NurtureShock_.
I take a lot of notes when I read. Here's my Cliff Notes version:
-Self-esteem programs INCREASE aggressive behavior of youth at risk.
-College students who kept gratitude journals regularly (but not daily I think) seemed to become happier, more optimistic, and got sick less often.
-Up to 15 months babies learn the names for objects much easier if you wiggle the object while saying the name.
-Babies gain vocabulary faster when parents pay more attention to what the baby is looking at than what the word sounds like when trying to figure out new speech
-In cultures in which spanking is seen as totally normal for kids, kids who are spanked are much less likely to exhibit more violent behavior than their peers
-Teen brain scans show that they actually consider doing horribly uncomfortable things when asked. While they usually say no just like adults, it's not because of a visceral reaction like the adults had, because they don't have enough experience yet to FEEL it
-The teen need for autonomy is higher at 11 than 18, and peaks around 14-15
-Telling a kid The Boy Who Cried Wolf doesn't usually decrease lying. Telling the George Washington & cherry tree story (role model who will not lie) usually does. The fact that that story appears to be a lie was not discussed. :)
-Some 3 and most 4 year olds lie
-In 1 study, the teens who lied the least were the ones with just a few rules in a few areas of their life, which were consistent and openly discussed in the context of a warm relationship
-The change in attention span for kids who got one hour less versus one hour extra sleep is greater than the gap between the average 4th and 6th graders
There's more of course. I'm sure I goofed something, and I can't give you the research that these assertions came from. But that's at least 2/3 of what interested me about the book.
Alex
mama to Katya
renee_cabatic
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
renee
>It may have also been someone else but I read _Nurture Shock_ and I posted on Facebook a request to discuss it. It was a while back so I can't recall my specific questions but I know I was very annoyed with most of the book.
>
> One is taking a long time because it bothers me a lot. It's
> _NurtureShock_. I could say a lot about it, and somewhere (facebook?
> RUNning?) someone asked. If anyone remembers where that request to
> discus it was, I could go there, later, when I'm through it
renee