how do kids learn self control?
rubixscuba
i found this article really interesting right now as i am starting to question mainstream ideas such as rules (no dessert till after dinner, having curfews, no TV till after homework is done etc etc) and of course the idea that parents and teachers need to TEACH kids how to be in the world so that they will be successful adults.
it really got me thinking about how some (most?) parents send their kids to school to learn "how to be" in the world. i think there are schools out there that try to create an enriched, stimulating environment for the kids to learn in. and there are parents who work 9-5 everyday away from their kids and then at home things are in fact LESS interesting than at school (often just a routine of eating dinner, doing homework, getting ready for bed + maybe some fun/family time on the weekend).... i know i used to be a part of that rat race myself.
it seems to me that the daycare mentioned in the article has some positive ideas, such as cue cards that remind the kids how to get along (instead of constant verbal directives or reprimands from teachers) and involving the kids in the solutions to problems that arise (instead of time-outs and forced apologies). those things seem to me very different than blanket rules, like what is suggested for parents to do at home.
it's a bit frightening to hear such messages about future success depending on self control when you don't feel like you have enough tools to help your kids learn. i think some parents probably read this and think they need to force their kids to clean up their blocks "or else" at a young age...
i'd also like to read the actual study and see how they measured all those variables such as self control and success, and whether they investigated how this was "taught to" (ie learned by) the kids. and whether success = happiness.
anyway, i would love to hear a bit about what your take is on this article and the message. here is the link:
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133629477/for-kids-self-control-factors-into-future-success&sc=nl&cc=es-20110220
it really got me thinking about how some (most?) parents send their kids to school to learn "how to be" in the world. i think there are schools out there that try to create an enriched, stimulating environment for the kids to learn in. and there are parents who work 9-5 everyday away from their kids and then at home things are in fact LESS interesting than at school (often just a routine of eating dinner, doing homework, getting ready for bed + maybe some fun/family time on the weekend).... i know i used to be a part of that rat race myself.
it seems to me that the daycare mentioned in the article has some positive ideas, such as cue cards that remind the kids how to get along (instead of constant verbal directives or reprimands from teachers) and involving the kids in the solutions to problems that arise (instead of time-outs and forced apologies). those things seem to me very different than blanket rules, like what is suggested for parents to do at home.
it's a bit frightening to hear such messages about future success depending on self control when you don't feel like you have enough tools to help your kids learn. i think some parents probably read this and think they need to force their kids to clean up their blocks "or else" at a young age...
i'd also like to read the actual study and see how they measured all those variables such as self control and success, and whether they investigated how this was "taught to" (ie learned by) the kids. and whether success = happiness.
anyway, i would love to hear a bit about what your take is on this article and the message. here is the link:
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133629477/for-kids-self-control-factors-into-future-success&sc=nl&cc=es-20110220
Schuyler
The author is trying to pin the work being done in the Clara Barton daycare on
the findings being presented in Terrie Moffitt's study. Terrie Moffitt says at
the beginning of the article "Children who had the greatest self-control in
primary school and preschool ages were most likely to have fewer health
problems when they reached their 30s." She doesn't say where they got their
self-control. She doesn't say what helps or hinders the production of
self-control. She says those folks who have self control at age x do better at
age y.
In the abstract of the paper the authors state their findings have sweeping
benefits for the public. It is important to know that funding for research in
the UK (apparently the U.S. started it, so there too) is demanding that there be
a public good outcome. Blue sky research is not considered valuable. Only that
research which will have public policy contributions will go more easily to
being funded. In the face of that researchers may be prone to overstating the
applicability to the individual and the group when writing up their findings.
In the abstract, in direct contradiction of the idea that learning is what is
key to self control, the authors write: "In another cohort of 500 sibling-pairs,
the sibling with lower self-control had poorer outcomes,
despite shared family background." It argues that shared environment isn't what
produces self-control. It argues that it is something genetic and on a spectrum,
or gradient as the authors term it. I don't know if they did any birth order
analyses, but I think those kinds of analyses may be relatively unlikely to come
to significance anyhow.
I think the daycare setup sounds more like operant conditioning than it sounds
like working to create an environment where learning self control is more
likely. "The two teachers give the children multiple cues when it's time to
clean up: Lights flash, a bell rings and the children clap and count to 100.
That makes it easier to switch gears without a meltdown." That just speaks of
Skinnerian psychological practices. Maybe that is what they mean by
self-control, maybe if you haven't got it you should fake it is the model that
they are hoping will work. If you can be given rituals to perform that get you
to wait for 100 seconds you, too, can have self control?
Then the end of the article makes no sense at all:
"Parents can help teenagers learn self-control by making sure the family has
clear rules for things like curfew or finishing homework before they have
screen time. Teenager who have problems with impulsivity may benefit from
special driving classes that let them practice controlling the car in difficult
conditions on a racetrack. For all teens, clear rules such as curfews help them
regulate themselves."
How is that about self-control? How is that about anything other than
traditional parenting practices. Other than the racetrack thing, which sounds
like fun. The article just went from external control methods being used in
daycare to external control methods being used with teenagers. Nothing
particularly valuable.
One of the problems with the belief that if you don't have it by preschool age
you won't get it is that school is a huge culturally defining factor in many
societies' group experiences. Linnaea may (or may not) have looked as though she
didn't have much self-control by the age of 3 or 4. She wanted what she wanted
when she wanted it. At 10 she looks very different. Having had her needs met and
her interests supported she's very capable of really examining what she wants
and how long she's willing to wait for something or how much she's willing to
pay. She hasn't had to compete with 20 to 30 other children on a daily basis to
get her needs met. She hasn't had a life that is largely not about her needs
being met. The children in the Clara Barton daycare in Cabin John, MD may be
better off than the children at a less enlightened and modern daycare down the
road, or in the next town, but they aren't better off than their unschooled
peers who are being supported and nurtured and not pushed to independent hand
washing with pictorial guide by age 4.
Schuyler
________________________________
From: rubixscuba <rebecca@...>
anyway, i would love to hear a bit about what your take is on this article and
the message. here is the link:
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133629477/for-kids-self-control-factors-into-future-success&sc=nl&cc=es-20110220
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
the findings being presented in Terrie Moffitt's study. Terrie Moffitt says at
the beginning of the article "Children who had the greatest self-control in
primary school and preschool ages were most likely to have fewer health
problems when they reached their 30s." She doesn't say where they got their
self-control. She doesn't say what helps or hinders the production of
self-control. She says those folks who have self control at age x do better at
age y.
In the abstract of the paper the authors state their findings have sweeping
benefits for the public. It is important to know that funding for research in
the UK (apparently the U.S. started it, so there too) is demanding that there be
a public good outcome. Blue sky research is not considered valuable. Only that
research which will have public policy contributions will go more easily to
being funded. In the face of that researchers may be prone to overstating the
applicability to the individual and the group when writing up their findings.
In the abstract, in direct contradiction of the idea that learning is what is
key to self control, the authors write: "In another cohort of 500 sibling-pairs,
the sibling with lower self-control had poorer outcomes,
despite shared family background." It argues that shared environment isn't what
produces self-control. It argues that it is something genetic and on a spectrum,
or gradient as the authors term it. I don't know if they did any birth order
analyses, but I think those kinds of analyses may be relatively unlikely to come
to significance anyhow.
I think the daycare setup sounds more like operant conditioning than it sounds
like working to create an environment where learning self control is more
likely. "The two teachers give the children multiple cues when it's time to
clean up: Lights flash, a bell rings and the children clap and count to 100.
That makes it easier to switch gears without a meltdown." That just speaks of
Skinnerian psychological practices. Maybe that is what they mean by
self-control, maybe if you haven't got it you should fake it is the model that
they are hoping will work. If you can be given rituals to perform that get you
to wait for 100 seconds you, too, can have self control?
Then the end of the article makes no sense at all:
"Parents can help teenagers learn self-control by making sure the family has
clear rules for things like curfew or finishing homework before they have
screen time. Teenager who have problems with impulsivity may benefit from
special driving classes that let them practice controlling the car in difficult
conditions on a racetrack. For all teens, clear rules such as curfews help them
regulate themselves."
How is that about self-control? How is that about anything other than
traditional parenting practices. Other than the racetrack thing, which sounds
like fun. The article just went from external control methods being used in
daycare to external control methods being used with teenagers. Nothing
particularly valuable.
One of the problems with the belief that if you don't have it by preschool age
you won't get it is that school is a huge culturally defining factor in many
societies' group experiences. Linnaea may (or may not) have looked as though she
didn't have much self-control by the age of 3 or 4. She wanted what she wanted
when she wanted it. At 10 she looks very different. Having had her needs met and
her interests supported she's very capable of really examining what she wants
and how long she's willing to wait for something or how much she's willing to
pay. She hasn't had to compete with 20 to 30 other children on a daily basis to
get her needs met. She hasn't had a life that is largely not about her needs
being met. The children in the Clara Barton daycare in Cabin John, MD may be
better off than the children at a less enlightened and modern daycare down the
road, or in the next town, but they aren't better off than their unschooled
peers who are being supported and nurtured and not pushed to independent hand
washing with pictorial guide by age 4.
Schuyler
________________________________
From: rubixscuba <rebecca@...>
anyway, i would love to hear a bit about what your take is on this article and
the message. here is the link:
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133629477/for-kids-self-control-factors-into-future-success&sc=nl&cc=es-20110220
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Feb 20, 2011, at 2:58 PM, rubixscuba wrote:
supposed to rather than what you want to.
But adults get to choose what "supposed tos" they're willing to put up
with to get what they want. For one adult, being expected to wear a
suit everyday for a great job might be worth it. For another adult, it
might not and they'd turn the job down.
Why would someone take a suit-expected job and then fight against the
suit?
Some people do! And they do it not because they lack self control or
discipline but because they've felt controlled all their lives and
they're, in a knee jerk way, fighting anything that feels like
control. People who feel they have control in their lives don't need
to constantly fight for it or fight against other people having some.
I don't think they were driven by a lofty desire for self control but
by a desire to be competent.
At 4 being able to follow rules like in a game can feel like an
accomplishment. It's like needing to jump Mario from the box to the
ledge while missing the cactus each time you enter a particular level.
But also, emotions are powerful and it feels like they make you do
things you don't necessarily want to. At 4 experiencing the ability to
seize control from an emotion is undoubtedly a big deal. Being able to
stop that impulse to rush into the room in order to do something first
-- as, importantly, other kids were doing -- might feel like a
discovery of power for some kids.
So it's not a drive to *self* control but a broader more general drive
to feel more competent and more in control. (Or less out of control. A
feeling of not always needing to be a slave to the whims of emotion.)
This has been going around for a while, and if you haven't taken the
time to watch it, you've been missing something good! And helpful for
unschoolers.
Drive by David Pink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
But imposing expectations and then making kids comply with them is
likely to make them feel *less* in control! And that's how undoubtedly
most schools would end up implementing such ideas. The goal would be
to make kids obey rules instead of their inner voice. To do what
someone else tells them to instead of what they want to do.
world and how it must rock to be big so you can make other people do
what you want them to do. Or even go so far as to make them jump
through hoops that make no sense.
and the consequences," then "Here's our expectations," will have more
positive effects.
But that's not optimal. It doesn't help kids make better decisions. It
just controls them until they're older and their point of view and
emotions become more adult like. (And for some kids who feel even a
little control strongly, it can have relationship damaging
consequences. And make them fight against suits ;-)
control if they are given the opportunity to acquire skills to feel
more in control.
Without rules life can feel like no one's in control. It feels unsafe
and like no one cares if you're safe.
But better than rules is someone being there for you to be your
partner, mentor and guide. Someone who is there to support your drive
to be more competent in life.
Joyce
> it's a bit frightening to hear such messages about future successI'm guessing they're defining self control as doing what you're
> depending on self control when you don't feel like you have enough
> tools to help your kids learn. i think some parents probably read
> this and think they need to force their kids to clean up their
> blocks "or else" at a young age...
supposed to rather than what you want to.
But adults get to choose what "supposed tos" they're willing to put up
with to get what they want. For one adult, being expected to wear a
suit everyday for a great job might be worth it. For another adult, it
might not and they'd turn the job down.
Why would someone take a suit-expected job and then fight against the
suit?
Some people do! And they do it not because they lack self control or
discipline but because they've felt controlled all their lives and
they're, in a knee jerk way, fighting anything that feels like
control. People who feel they have control in their lives don't need
to constantly fight for it or fight against other people having some.
> Director Linda Owen says the children are expected to be responsibleI suspect the kids are experiencing a much different reality!
> for a series of actions when they arrive at school each morning,
> without help from Mom and Dad. The children sign in, put away their
> lunches, hang up their own clothes, wash their hands before they can
> play, and then choose activities in the classroom.
>
> "All those things help with self-management," Owen says.
>
I don't think they were driven by a lofty desire for self control but
by a desire to be competent.
At 4 being able to follow rules like in a game can feel like an
accomplishment. It's like needing to jump Mario from the box to the
ledge while missing the cactus each time you enter a particular level.
But also, emotions are powerful and it feels like they make you do
things you don't necessarily want to. At 4 experiencing the ability to
seize control from an emotion is undoubtedly a big deal. Being able to
stop that impulse to rush into the room in order to do something first
-- as, importantly, other kids were doing -- might feel like a
discovery of power for some kids.
So it's not a drive to *self* control but a broader more general drive
to feel more competent and more in control. (Or less out of control. A
feeling of not always needing to be a slave to the whims of emotion.)
This has been going around for a while, and if you haven't taken the
time to watch it, you've been missing something good! And helpful for
unschoolers.
Drive by David Pink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
But imposing expectations and then making kids comply with them is
likely to make them feel *less* in control! And that's how undoubtedly
most schools would end up implementing such ideas. The goal would be
to make kids obey rules instead of their inner voice. To do what
someone else tells them to instead of what they want to do.
> For example, preschoolers can learn that they don't always get whatPreschoolers can have reinforced how little power they have in the
> they want immediately; they may need to wait for that treat.
world and how it must rock to be big so you can make other people do
what you want them to do. Or even go so far as to make them jump
through hoops that make no sense.
> Parents can help teenagers learn self-control by making sure theIf the choice is "Do whatever," or "Here's a few clear expectations
> family has clear rules for things like curfew or finishing homework
> before they have screen time.
>
and the consequences," then "Here's our expectations," will have more
positive effects.
But that's not optimal. It doesn't help kids make better decisions. It
just controls them until they're older and their point of view and
emotions become more adult like. (And for some kids who feel even a
little control strongly, it can have relationship damaging
consequences. And make them fight against suits ;-)
> Teenager who have problems with impulsivity may benefit from specialTeens who feel they don't have control in their lives can feel more in
> driving classes that let them practice controlling the car in
> difficult conditions on a racetrack.
>
control if they are given the opportunity to acquire skills to feel
more in control.
> For all teens, clear rules such as curfews help them regulateStated as if it were a fact.
> themselves.
>
Without rules life can feel like no one's in control. It feels unsafe
and like no one cares if you're safe.
But better than rules is someone being there for you to be your
partner, mentor and guide. Someone who is there to support your drive
to be more competent in life.
Joyce
shirarocklin
Joyce wrote:
--- But better than rules is someone being there for you to be your
partner, mentor and guide. Someone who is there to support your drive
to be more competent in life. ---
I don't know if this helps anyone else, but it reminded me of when I've been asked about unschooling (by those who probably will never unschool, but who are interested in learning about new things - so not diabolically opposed to the ideas)... and one response I've gotten, that being a 'friend' to your child is damaging. That children need you to 'parent' them, which for them means rules or boundaries or something. So, I really liked seeing this idea of being a 'partner, mentor and guide,' and I think I'll use it in the future to describe what I do.
Shira Rocklin
--- But better than rules is someone being there for you to be your
partner, mentor and guide. Someone who is there to support your drive
to be more competent in life. ---
I don't know if this helps anyone else, but it reminded me of when I've been asked about unschooling (by those who probably will never unschool, but who are interested in learning about new things - so not diabolically opposed to the ideas)... and one response I've gotten, that being a 'friend' to your child is damaging. That children need you to 'parent' them, which for them means rules or boundaries or something. So, I really liked seeing this idea of being a 'partner, mentor and guide,' and I think I'll use it in the future to describe what I do.
Shira Rocklin
Sandra Dodd
Drive by David Pink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
Daniel Pink.
If anyone has his book in paperback, and if you noticed a link to my site, could you let me know whether "todd" was changed to "dodd"? A year ago when the hardback came out, Robin Bentley had one and discovered he had linked to my writings. I had no idea. But there was a typo. She wrote and let someone (publisher/editor, someone) know.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
Daniel Pink.
If anyone has his book in paperback, and if you noticed a link to my site, could you let me know whether "todd" was changed to "dodd"? A year ago when the hardback came out, Robin Bentley had one and discovered he had linked to my writings. I had no idea. But there was a typo. She wrote and let someone (publisher/editor, someone) know.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
NCMama
Pam Sorooshian posted about being a friend to your child here, back in May of 2009. Here's the link to the original post:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/message/45495
I love what she said:
-=-=-
Something that has rattled around in my head for years is the line,
"You're the parent, not their friend."
I was just reading a news article and someone was quoted as saying:
""Your kids donât need a 40-year-old friend. They need a parent,"
What a tragic dichotomy that one little line sets up!
Every single time that line has ever entered my head, it was leading me
in the wrong direction. Every time.
What is a friend? I'm not talking about the schoolmates teenagers go out
partying and drinking with. Not talking about the 5 year old kid your
child happens to play with at the park that day. I'm talking about real
friendship.
1 a*:* one attached to another by affection or esteem
Knowing what I know now, with my kids grown, I strongly feel that that
that one line, which permeates parental consciousnesses, should be
quickly and actively contradicted and rooted out like a pernicious weed
every single time it sprouts up.
Instead of "You're the parent, not their friend," substitute, "Be the
very very best friend to them you can possibly be."
Do your kids need you to be their "40 year old friend?" YES! Children do
need to feel attached to their parents "by affection or esteem." What
better connection is there than by affection and esteem?
AND, what's more, parents need their children's friendship, too. Some
people seem to think there is something wrong with parents "needing"
their children. They act like being mutually attached to each other
means children have not become independent enough and parents are being
a "burden to their children."
A 40 year old friend isn't going to have the same relationship with a 5
year old as his/her 5 year old friends or 10 year old friends. And
parent-child friendships evolve over the years until they are,
eventually, adult-with-adult friendships.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be your child's friend. Do what
it takes to earn their friendship - be supportive and kind and honest
and trustworthy and caring and generous and loyal and fun and
interesting and interested in them and all the other things that good
friends are to each other. Be the best 40 year old friend you can be (or
whatever age you are).
People use "I'm the parent, not a friend," as an excuse to be mean,
selfish, and lazy. Instead, be the adult in the friendship. Be mature.
You've BEEN a five-year-old and your child has not been a
forty-year-old, so you have an advantage in terms of long-term and wider
perspective. Use that advantage to be an even better friend. You know
how to be kinder and less self-centered and you know how beneficial it
is to put forth the effort.
I can honestly say that my children and I are friends. I know they'd say
the same. I'm not trying to act like I'm 18 or 21 or 24 -- I am 57 years
old. They're having a "Halo" party at someone else's house tonight and
will stay up all night playing video games and I'm not going to go and
hang out with them all night and play Halo. I'm going to make a huge
platter of deviled eggs for them to take over there, but I'm going to
stay home and watch a movie with my husband and go to bed early enough
that I'll feel good tomorrow. I'm not 18 and I don't recover as quickly
as they do from a night with no sleep. I didn't go to the midnight
showing of the Terminator movie the other night, for the same reason.
But I was certainly invited and welcome.
My kids are not spoiled brats because I've tried to be their friend.
They hold jobs, they manage money, they make good and responsible
decisions. We are very strongly "attached by affection and esteem."
I wish I could wipe that expression out of everybody's minds and replace
it with "Be the best friend to your children that you can be."
~ Pam Sorooshian
-=-=-
peace,
Caren
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/message/45495
I love what she said:
-=-=-
Something that has rattled around in my head for years is the line,
"You're the parent, not their friend."
I was just reading a news article and someone was quoted as saying:
""Your kids donât need a 40-year-old friend. They need a parent,"
What a tragic dichotomy that one little line sets up!
Every single time that line has ever entered my head, it was leading me
in the wrong direction. Every time.
What is a friend? I'm not talking about the schoolmates teenagers go out
partying and drinking with. Not talking about the 5 year old kid your
child happens to play with at the park that day. I'm talking about real
friendship.
1 a*:* one attached to another by affection or esteem
Knowing what I know now, with my kids grown, I strongly feel that that
that one line, which permeates parental consciousnesses, should be
quickly and actively contradicted and rooted out like a pernicious weed
every single time it sprouts up.
Instead of "You're the parent, not their friend," substitute, "Be the
very very best friend to them you can possibly be."
Do your kids need you to be their "40 year old friend?" YES! Children do
need to feel attached to their parents "by affection or esteem." What
better connection is there than by affection and esteem?
AND, what's more, parents need their children's friendship, too. Some
people seem to think there is something wrong with parents "needing"
their children. They act like being mutually attached to each other
means children have not become independent enough and parents are being
a "burden to their children."
A 40 year old friend isn't going to have the same relationship with a 5
year old as his/her 5 year old friends or 10 year old friends. And
parent-child friendships evolve over the years until they are,
eventually, adult-with-adult friendships.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be your child's friend. Do what
it takes to earn their friendship - be supportive and kind and honest
and trustworthy and caring and generous and loyal and fun and
interesting and interested in them and all the other things that good
friends are to each other. Be the best 40 year old friend you can be (or
whatever age you are).
People use "I'm the parent, not a friend," as an excuse to be mean,
selfish, and lazy. Instead, be the adult in the friendship. Be mature.
You've BEEN a five-year-old and your child has not been a
forty-year-old, so you have an advantage in terms of long-term and wider
perspective. Use that advantage to be an even better friend. You know
how to be kinder and less self-centered and you know how beneficial it
is to put forth the effort.
I can honestly say that my children and I are friends. I know they'd say
the same. I'm not trying to act like I'm 18 or 21 or 24 -- I am 57 years
old. They're having a "Halo" party at someone else's house tonight and
will stay up all night playing video games and I'm not going to go and
hang out with them all night and play Halo. I'm going to make a huge
platter of deviled eggs for them to take over there, but I'm going to
stay home and watch a movie with my husband and go to bed early enough
that I'll feel good tomorrow. I'm not 18 and I don't recover as quickly
as they do from a night with no sleep. I didn't go to the midnight
showing of the Terminator movie the other night, for the same reason.
But I was certainly invited and welcome.
My kids are not spoiled brats because I've tried to be their friend.
They hold jobs, they manage money, they make good and responsible
decisions. We are very strongly "attached by affection and esteem."
I wish I could wipe that expression out of everybody's minds and replace
it with "Be the best friend to your children that you can be."
~ Pam Sorooshian
-=-=-
peace,
Caren
Jenny Cyphers
***...and one response I've gotten, that being a 'friend' to your child is
damaging. That children need you to 'parent' them, which for them means rules or
boundaries or something. So, I really liked seeing this idea of being a
'partner, mentor and guide,' and I think I'll use it in the future to describe
what I do.***
You could say that AND friend! If you asked my 16 yr old about it, she'd say
that I'm her friend. She likes being friends with me. I'm not a "peer" friend.
I'm an adult friend, not unlike some of her other adult friends, but I have a
lot more influence because I'm also her parent.
I just took her and some of her friends to the light rail to get into the city
to go and play. She said, "hey you could just take us all the way and stay and
hang out with us. I would love it if you did, and not just the drive us there
part, but if you actually came and played with us." It was sweet, but I had to
decline because we were almost to the transit center and I wasn't at all
prepared to spend the evening in a chilly city for hours. That, and I'd already
told my younger daughter that I'd spend the evening with her. None of her
friends objected to the idea of me hanging out, in fact they tried to convince
me. It made me feel loved!
I like my kids, often more than I like some of my adult friends! They are
interesting and fun to be around. I think our culture, in general, has been so
ingrained with thinking that friends can only be one's own age that parents
don't befriend younger people much. It's so separated. Like when, at family
gatherings, all the kids disappear away from the adults. Not that kids
shouldn't or don't want kid time, it just so often feels artificial, or that,
for kids, adults aren't all that great to be around. Since so many adults
aren't all that great to be around, it doesn't surprise me that kids are wary of
adults, and adults accept that role as being more adult.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
damaging. That children need you to 'parent' them, which for them means rules or
boundaries or something. So, I really liked seeing this idea of being a
'partner, mentor and guide,' and I think I'll use it in the future to describe
what I do.***
You could say that AND friend! If you asked my 16 yr old about it, she'd say
that I'm her friend. She likes being friends with me. I'm not a "peer" friend.
I'm an adult friend, not unlike some of her other adult friends, but I have a
lot more influence because I'm also her parent.
I just took her and some of her friends to the light rail to get into the city
to go and play. She said, "hey you could just take us all the way and stay and
hang out with us. I would love it if you did, and not just the drive us there
part, but if you actually came and played with us." It was sweet, but I had to
decline because we were almost to the transit center and I wasn't at all
prepared to spend the evening in a chilly city for hours. That, and I'd already
told my younger daughter that I'd spend the evening with her. None of her
friends objected to the idea of me hanging out, in fact they tried to convince
me. It made me feel loved!
I like my kids, often more than I like some of my adult friends! They are
interesting and fun to be around. I think our culture, in general, has been so
ingrained with thinking that friends can only be one's own age that parents
don't befriend younger people much. It's so separated. Like when, at family
gatherings, all the kids disappear away from the adults. Not that kids
shouldn't or don't want kid time, it just so often feels artificial, or that,
for kids, adults aren't all that great to be around. Since so many adults
aren't all that great to be around, it doesn't surprise me that kids are wary of
adults, and adults accept that role as being more adult.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***How is that about self-control? How is that about anything other than
traditional parenting practices. Other than the racetrack thing, which sounds
like fun. The article just went from external control methods being used in
daycare to external control methods being used with teenagers. Nothing
particularly valuable.***
And not only not particularly valuable, erroneous. External control methods are
a crap shoot anyway. Sometimes they work, and I guess the outcomes of external
control methods that worked, could be pointed to as examples that they work.
That's the same thing schools do when they count all the kids with good grades.
All the kids without good grades are still products of school, just like all
the kids who have had external controls foisted upon them who have rejected it,
are also products of that same system.
Unless it had a 99% rate of kids who grew into adults who exhibited a great deal
of self control in all aspects of their lives, I wouldn't put much stock in it.
Women who don't want to get pregnant aren't going to go for the contraceptive
that claims 50% effectiveness....
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
traditional parenting practices. Other than the racetrack thing, which sounds
like fun. The article just went from external control methods being used in
daycare to external control methods being used with teenagers. Nothing
particularly valuable.***
And not only not particularly valuable, erroneous. External control methods are
a crap shoot anyway. Sometimes they work, and I guess the outcomes of external
control methods that worked, could be pointed to as examples that they work.
That's the same thing schools do when they count all the kids with good grades.
All the kids without good grades are still products of school, just like all
the kids who have had external controls foisted upon them who have rejected it,
are also products of that same system.
Unless it had a 99% rate of kids who grew into adults who exhibited a great deal
of self control in all aspects of their lives, I wouldn't put much stock in it.
Women who don't want to get pregnant aren't going to go for the contraceptive
that claims 50% effectiveness....
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
shirarocklin
Yes, I remember reading Pam's post, I think. It sounds very familiar. Thanks for reposting it.
Reading this made me remember how when I met my husband, I thought he was very strange... like something must be wrong with him. He didn't have any close, long-term, friends in his own age group! Every time he talked about 'his friend,' and then I'd meet them, they were old! They were actually his parents best friends (they had good taste in friends), and it was a very small town, and he made them his friends too. And it was so good for him, probably exactly the types of friends he needed growing up. I'm glad I remembered that.
Shira
Reading this made me remember how when I met my husband, I thought he was very strange... like something must be wrong with him. He didn't have any close, long-term, friends in his own age group! Every time he talked about 'his friend,' and then I'd meet them, they were old! They were actually his parents best friends (they had good taste in friends), and it was a very small town, and he made them his friends too. And it was so good for him, probably exactly the types of friends he needed growing up. I'm glad I remembered that.
Shira