Re: Starting down the wrong path
Deb Lewis
***coercion can be/include leading by example,***
Coercion is the use of force or intimidation. Maybe you mean "influence."
An example of coercion might be an early post suggesting imposing body language and a forceful stare. That's intimidation, that's a form of coercion and that's not a useful tool for people trying to apply the principles of unschooling in their lives.
We influence our children by our behavior. When we're kind, generous, respectful, that becomes the model of living for our children. The model unschoolers are working toward is a model free from coercion, intimidation and force.
How old are your kids and how long have you been unschooling?
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Coercion is the use of force or intimidation. Maybe you mean "influence."
An example of coercion might be an early post suggesting imposing body language and a forceful stare. That's intimidation, that's a form of coercion and that's not a useful tool for people trying to apply the principles of unschooling in their lives.
We influence our children by our behavior. When we're kind, generous, respectful, that becomes the model of living for our children. The model unschoolers are working toward is a model free from coercion, intimidation and force.
How old are your kids and how long have you been unschooling?
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
brad jones
When I initially used the word coerce, I simply meant the act of <creating> a desirable behaviour in the child. I did not mean to force them in the manner of force you are describing. In my opinion, leading by example is perhaps unintended coercion since it will most likely lead to <creating> a behaviour in the subject. I admit, when using the black and white dictionary definition of coerce, it would sound as if I'm suggesting using force and/or intimidation. I assure you that is not the case. As I've stated before, civility is not natural but neither is un-civility. In a natural state a human simply survives, no effort is made to make someone else happy or unhappy like the OP's daughter was described as doing.
You have misinterpreted my earlier posts about body language and eye contact to be about intimidation. I have to blame myself for that because of my lack of proper communication skills. When I suggested it, I meant to do it in the same way you'd do it to fend off any attacker since the original poster in that thread was describing getting attacked by her children. I often see many of you here give the example of not letting your children do things that you wouldn't let strangers do. I do not think that is anti-unschooly. Again, I apologize about my poor communication skills, since I do not advocate the use of force and intimidation.
I have a 7 year old daughter that has been in school from 2 years old til now, and I have an 11 month old boy. I have just begun my unschooling lifestyle. I did not know unschooling existed until 3 months ago. I asked several people what unschool meant and got several definitions, I'm still making up my mind precisely what it means.
All my life, I've never held a strong position on alternative teaching methods. I was aware that homeschooling existed but never thought it feasible since I was taught you had to be state certified to homeschool. I was recently made aware that you didn't have to be and I began to research my options and this is where I'm strongly leaning. I like these yahoo groups, I'm learning quite a bit. So thank you all for being here.
Brad Jones
Deb Lewis <d.lewis@...> wrote:
***coercion can be/include leading by example,***
Coercion is the use of force or intimidation. Maybe you mean "influence."
An example of coercion might be an early post suggesting imposing body language and a forceful stare. That's intimidation, that's a form of coercion and that's not a useful tool for people trying to apply the principles of unschooling in their lives.
We influence our children by our behavior. When we're kind, generous, respectful, that becomes the model of living for our children. The model unschoolers are working toward is a model free from coercion, intimidation and force.
How old are your kids and how long have you been unschooling?
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
You have misinterpreted my earlier posts about body language and eye contact to be about intimidation. I have to blame myself for that because of my lack of proper communication skills. When I suggested it, I meant to do it in the same way you'd do it to fend off any attacker since the original poster in that thread was describing getting attacked by her children. I often see many of you here give the example of not letting your children do things that you wouldn't let strangers do. I do not think that is anti-unschooly. Again, I apologize about my poor communication skills, since I do not advocate the use of force and intimidation.
I have a 7 year old daughter that has been in school from 2 years old til now, and I have an 11 month old boy. I have just begun my unschooling lifestyle. I did not know unschooling existed until 3 months ago. I asked several people what unschool meant and got several definitions, I'm still making up my mind precisely what it means.
All my life, I've never held a strong position on alternative teaching methods. I was aware that homeschooling existed but never thought it feasible since I was taught you had to be state certified to homeschool. I was recently made aware that you didn't have to be and I began to research my options and this is where I'm strongly leaning. I like these yahoo groups, I'm learning quite a bit. So thank you all for being here.
Brad Jones
Deb Lewis <d.lewis@...> wrote:
***coercion can be/include leading by example,***
Coercion is the use of force or intimidation. Maybe you mean "influence."
An example of coercion might be an early post suggesting imposing body language and a forceful stare. That's intimidation, that's a form of coercion and that's not a useful tool for people trying to apply the principles of unschooling in their lives.
We influence our children by our behavior. When we're kind, generous, respectful, that becomes the model of living for our children. The model unschoolers are working toward is a model free from coercion, intimidation and force.
How old are your kids and how long have you been unschooling?
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ENSEMBLE S-WAYNFORTH
----- Original Message ----
In a natural state a human simply survives, no effort is made to make someone else happy or unhappy like the OP's daughter was described as doing.
=========
In a natural state a human lives with other humans. Humans are naturally social animals. Most apes are social animals. Even Orangutangs are being found to be much more social than previously thought. Humans have been social since long before they were humans. Whatever natural state you are referring to isn't a normal state for a human to find himself or herself in.
Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
In a natural state a human simply survives, no effort is made to make someone else happy or unhappy like the OP's daughter was described as doing.
=========
In a natural state a human lives with other humans. Humans are naturally social animals. Most apes are social animals. Even Orangutangs are being found to be much more social than previously thought. Humans have been social since long before they were humans. Whatever natural state you are referring to isn't a normal state for a human to find himself or herself in.
Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Mar 12, 2008, at 11:40 AM, brad jones wrote:
the ideas in your head into someone else's with as little loss as
possible. If you find the words you're using to convey a thought
aren't carrying the thought as clearly as you want, it's easier,
wastes less time, to change your words than to get a whole list of
people to agree to a new definition of the words you want to use.
Because coerce to most people means to force, it just isn't going to
be a useful word to describe a process that avoids forcing ideas on
another. While my daughter has certainly absorbed a lot of our social
behaviors, I haven't made my choices the only choices. She's free to
try things out. I'm free to suggest, that might not be as good as
this other idea. Through that process, she's certainly surpassed me
in social skills!
While there are similarities between modeling and coercing, places
where the sets of behaviors overlap, the differences are more
important when you're trying to find ways to help and not impose.
It's useful to examine the parts where they overlap, certainly but
when trying to help someone move away from conventionally coercive
methods, it's way more useful to see how helping differs so they can
make better choices.
selfish are. How we go about fulfilling those desires, the techniques
we use, are absorbed by living with others. The innate desire is
there. And children pick up how to social (and selfish) by watching
us and others and trying various things out and being helped.
My theory about social and selfishness -- though I doubt that it's
new -- is that we have the selfish, "keep ourselves alive long enough
to reproduce" drives of our reptilian (and further back) ancestors.
Overlaid on that is the "come together and cooperate to survive" of
our ape (and further back) ancestors. Both drives are perfectly
natural, but also conflict with each other. (I suspect that's where
the concept that man is inherently evil comes from. But it's not evil
to be selfish. Just reptilian ;-) And since the selfish drives are
way older, way more streamlined, they do come more naturally. But
when basic needs are met, it's way more useful to cooperate and that
natural drive is in us. Being social is not merely an idea overlaid
by society. It's a real chemically driven need to be together.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> When I initially used the word coerce, I simply meant the act ofThe purpose of words -- especially on a discussion list -- is to get
> <creating> a desirable behaviour in the child. I did not mean to
> force them in the manner of force you are describing.
the ideas in your head into someone else's with as little loss as
possible. If you find the words you're using to convey a thought
aren't carrying the thought as clearly as you want, it's easier,
wastes less time, to change your words than to get a whole list of
people to agree to a new definition of the words you want to use.
Because coerce to most people means to force, it just isn't going to
be a useful word to describe a process that avoids forcing ideas on
another. While my daughter has certainly absorbed a lot of our social
behaviors, I haven't made my choices the only choices. She's free to
try things out. I'm free to suggest, that might not be as good as
this other idea. Through that process, she's certainly surpassed me
in social skills!
While there are similarities between modeling and coercing, places
where the sets of behaviors overlap, the differences are more
important when you're trying to find ways to help and not impose.
It's useful to examine the parts where they overlap, certainly but
when trying to help someone move away from conventionally coercive
methods, it's way more useful to see how helping differs so they can
make better choices.
> I've stated before, civility is not natural but neither is un-I think they're both natural. At least the desires to be social or
> civility.
selfish are. How we go about fulfilling those desires, the techniques
we use, are absorbed by living with others. The innate desire is
there. And children pick up how to social (and selfish) by watching
us and others and trying various things out and being helped.
My theory about social and selfishness -- though I doubt that it's
new -- is that we have the selfish, "keep ourselves alive long enough
to reproduce" drives of our reptilian (and further back) ancestors.
Overlaid on that is the "come together and cooperate to survive" of
our ape (and further back) ancestors. Both drives are perfectly
natural, but also conflict with each other. (I suspect that's where
the concept that man is inherently evil comes from. But it's not evil
to be selfish. Just reptilian ;-) And since the selfish drives are
way older, way more streamlined, they do come more naturally. But
when basic needs are met, it's way more useful to cooperate and that
natural drive is in us. Being social is not merely an idea overlaid
by society. It's a real chemically driven need to be together.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: brad jones <bhmjones@...>
In my opinion, leading by example is perhaps
unintended coercion since it will most likely lead to <creating> a
behaviour in
the subject.
-=-=-=-=-
But again, the behavior "created" may not be the intended behavior
"taught."
There's a *reason* the phrase "Do what I say, not what I do" exists.
<g> Often, the behavior modeled is NOT the intended lesson.
Smacking a child for hitting his sister because "hitting isn't nice"
and "we don't hit!" doesn't really make the point the parent was trying
to make. Just the opposite, in fact.
-=-=-=-===-
I admit, when using the black and white dictionary definition of
coerce, it would sound as if I'm suggesting using force and/or
intimidation. I
assure you that is not the case.
-=-=-=-=-
Uhhh---can there be another definition of coerce? <g>
-=-=-=-=-=-
As I've stated before, civility is not natural
but neither is un-civility.
-=-=-=-=-=-
I don't agree. In a society (and we're social animals!), how can
civility NOT be a natural state?
-=-=-=-=-
In a natural state a human simply survives, no
effort is made to make someone else happy or unhappy like the OP's
daughter was
described as doing.
-=-=-=-=-
What un-natural state are you living in? <g>
I think it's VERY natural to want to have those around you in a happy
state.
I mean, Give Peace a Chance, man! There's a SONG and everything!!!
-=-=-=-=-=-
You have misinterpreted my earlier posts about body language and eye
contact
to be about intimidation. I have to blame myself for that because of my
lack of
proper communication skills. When I suggested it, I meant to do it in
the same
way you'd do it to fend off any attacker since the original poster in
that
thread was describing getting attacked by her children.
-=-=-=-=-
I can stop my kids with a look. I can probably stop *you* with a look
too. <g>
We are among many animals who "read" others' eyes to communicate. Good
magicians make a LIVING doing just that! <G>
-==-=-=-=-=-=-
I often see many of you
here give the example of not letting your children do things that you
wouldn't
let strangers do. I do not think that is anti-unschooly.
--=-=-=-=-=-
Right.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Again, I apologize about my poor communication skills, since I do not
advocate the use of force and
intimidation.
-=-=-=
Good. <g>
-=-=-=-==-
I have a 7 year old daughter that has been in school from 2 years old
til now,
and I have an 11 month old boy. I have just begun my unschooling
lifestyle. I
did not know unschooling existed until 3 months ago. I asked several
people what
unschool meant and got several definitions, I'm still making up my mind
precisely what it means.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Whom did you ask? And what were the responses? Maybe we can help tweak.
-=-=-=-=-=-
All my life, I've never held a strong position on alternative
teaching
methods. I was aware that homeschooling existed but never thought it
feasible
since I was taught you had to be state certified to homeschool.
-=-=-=-=-
Damn that teaching! Lots of people have been taught that. And they
never bother to question it! Funny how that works!
-=-=-=-=-=-
I was recently made aware that you didn't have to be and I began to
research my options and
this is where I'm strongly leaning. I like these yahoo groups, I'm
learning
quite a bit. So thank you all for being here.
-=-=-=-=-=
Glad you're here. But I will suggest being as clear as possible in your
writing.
You've left me scratching my head more than once.
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org
From: brad jones <bhmjones@...>
In my opinion, leading by example is perhaps
unintended coercion since it will most likely lead to <creating> a
behaviour in
the subject.
-=-=-=-=-
But again, the behavior "created" may not be the intended behavior
"taught."
There's a *reason* the phrase "Do what I say, not what I do" exists.
<g> Often, the behavior modeled is NOT the intended lesson.
Smacking a child for hitting his sister because "hitting isn't nice"
and "we don't hit!" doesn't really make the point the parent was trying
to make. Just the opposite, in fact.
-=-=-=-===-
I admit, when using the black and white dictionary definition of
coerce, it would sound as if I'm suggesting using force and/or
intimidation. I
assure you that is not the case.
-=-=-=-=-
Uhhh---can there be another definition of coerce? <g>
-=-=-=-=-=-
As I've stated before, civility is not natural
but neither is un-civility.
-=-=-=-=-=-
I don't agree. In a society (and we're social animals!), how can
civility NOT be a natural state?
-=-=-=-=-
In a natural state a human simply survives, no
effort is made to make someone else happy or unhappy like the OP's
daughter was
described as doing.
-=-=-=-=-
What un-natural state are you living in? <g>
I think it's VERY natural to want to have those around you in a happy
state.
I mean, Give Peace a Chance, man! There's a SONG and everything!!!
-=-=-=-=-=-
You have misinterpreted my earlier posts about body language and eye
contact
to be about intimidation. I have to blame myself for that because of my
lack of
proper communication skills. When I suggested it, I meant to do it in
the same
way you'd do it to fend off any attacker since the original poster in
that
thread was describing getting attacked by her children.
-=-=-=-=-
I can stop my kids with a look. I can probably stop *you* with a look
too. <g>
We are among many animals who "read" others' eyes to communicate. Good
magicians make a LIVING doing just that! <G>
-==-=-=-=-=-=-
I often see many of you
here give the example of not letting your children do things that you
wouldn't
let strangers do. I do not think that is anti-unschooly.
--=-=-=-=-=-
Right.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Again, I apologize about my poor communication skills, since I do not
advocate the use of force and
intimidation.
-=-=-=
Good. <g>
-=-=-=-==-
I have a 7 year old daughter that has been in school from 2 years old
til now,
and I have an 11 month old boy. I have just begun my unschooling
lifestyle. I
did not know unschooling existed until 3 months ago. I asked several
people what
unschool meant and got several definitions, I'm still making up my mind
precisely what it means.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Whom did you ask? And what were the responses? Maybe we can help tweak.
-=-=-=-=-=-
All my life, I've never held a strong position on alternative
teaching
methods. I was aware that homeschooling existed but never thought it
feasible
since I was taught you had to be state certified to homeschool.
-=-=-=-=-
Damn that teaching! Lots of people have been taught that. And they
never bother to question it! Funny how that works!
-=-=-=-=-=-
I was recently made aware that you didn't have to be and I began to
research my options and
this is where I'm strongly leaning. I like these yahoo groups, I'm
learning
quite a bit. So thank you all for being here.
-=-=-=-=-=
Glad you're here. But I will suggest being as clear as possible in your
writing.
You've left me scratching my head more than once.
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org
Karen Swanay
> ----- Original Message ----******************************************************************
> In a natural state a human simply survives, no effort is made to make
> someone else happy or unhappy like the OP's daughter was described as doing.
OP here....Morgan's early life was ANYTHING but natural. She had one
of the most artificial and contrived rearing situations on Earth.
Loved and nutured until 4 weeks of age, then left in a park at night
with a note pinned to her chest. Brought to the Social Welfare
Institute and run through a battery of health checks like one might do
to a foundling calf....then confined to a crib most of the time. At
18 months old, she was presented to a family for adoption and they
rejected her for not being able to sit still at dinner in the dining
room and not being quiet enough so they could pray. Additionally she
would refuse to look at them and she would not kiss and hug them.
(They had her only 3 days and she had a cold.) So they returned
her....with a hole in her heart. (They had pressured China to keep
her from having her surgery to be able to do it in California where
they could pray over her.) So, because she was ill, and rejected, the
SWI figured she was unadoptable and was too sick to be allowed the
minimal play the other kids got. So she was tied flat on her back
into the crib and she stayed there for 5 months. No baths, no sitting
up, no toys, but bedsores aplenty. The only contact she got was to be
fed and changed and that was either by the person who abused her or
someone else. When I petitioned the Chinese to be allowed to adopt
her they did her heart surgery and she went from the SWI to being tied
into a hospital bed with no pain management after open heart surgery.
She was there for 8 weeks. Then returned to the SWI, where they
attempted to "fix" her autism by letting her play outside for 20
minutes once a week.
Morgan would have attempted to make someone happy or unhappy if she
had the slightest inkling that she had some control over the world but
the world was something that happened TO her. This is not natural not
by a long shot. Now that she's here, she expresses her displeasure,
and happiness. The day she cried when she hit her head on the table
was one of the happiest of my life. That meant she felt something and
expressed it....because she knew someone was listening! Before that,
nothing that happened to her made her express any emotion. She was
numb. I was pleased because I hadn't expected her to drop her
defenses this quickly.
FWIW, I have continued to cheer her accomplishments. Things she tries
to do, and does *properly* (meaning successfully like getting food on
a spoon and into her mouth...one of her biggest challenges) I say
"Good Job!" because that's what she wants me to say. If she tries
and fails she says "uh-oh!" then tries again after announcing "nother
one" meaning she will try again. I may be molding her behavior with
these displays of praise but for now, this is what she seems to want
and need. I am following her lead. She will ask me to "do dat?" if
she needs help with something or she will sit and struggle with
something herself if she wants to do it herself. But I think she's a
pretty happy kid. There are very few "no"s in her world and a WHOLE
lot of cheering. Everything Morgan does is amazing. and she has
connected this praise to good feelings because she will cheer for me
if I do something she thinks is hard. I think if she was feeling
pressured by this she wouldn't do it for me.
--
Karen
http://temptabo.blogspot.com/
Karen
I know you didn't come here for praise, but your story brought tears
to my eyes. It is so wonderful to know there are people like you in
this world that are willing to open their lives to a child no one else
wants. You and Morgan are so blessed to have each other.
Karen
But I think she's a
to my eyes. It is so wonderful to know there are people like you in
this world that are willing to open their lives to a child no one else
wants. You and Morgan are so blessed to have each other.
Karen
But I think she's a
> pretty happy kid. There are very few "no"s in her world and a WHOLE
> lot of cheering. Everything Morgan does is amazing. and she has
> connected this praise to good feelings because she will cheer for me
> if I do something she thinks is hard. I think if she was feeling
> pressured by this she wouldn't do it for me.
> --
> Karen
>
> http://temptabo.blogspot.com/
>
brad jones
Yes, I've heard this theory many times. I disagree that humans are naturally social.
ENSEMBLE S-WAYNFORTH <s.waynforth@...> wrote:
----- Original Message ----
In a natural state a human simply survives, no effort is made to make someone else happy or unhappy like the OP's daughter was described as doing.
=========
In a natural state a human lives with other humans. Humans are naturally social animals. Most apes are social animals. Even Orangutangs are being found to be much more social than previously thought. Humans have been social since long before they were humans. Whatever natural state you are referring to isn't a normal state for a human to find himself or herself in.
Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ENSEMBLE S-WAYNFORTH <s.waynforth@...> wrote:
----- Original Message ----
In a natural state a human simply survives, no effort is made to make someone else happy or unhappy like the OP's daughter was described as doing.
=========
In a natural state a human lives with other humans. Humans are naturally social animals. Most apes are social animals. Even Orangutangs are being found to be much more social than previously thought. Humans have been social since long before they were humans. Whatever natural state you are referring to isn't a normal state for a human to find himself or herself in.
Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
brad jones
Karen, I hope you have read my other reply where I explained that I mixed up two threads and have not been talking about you and your daughter when I was talking about the red-zone girl.
Let me re-iterate that I am deeply humbled by your story and wish I was there to wrap my big ole arms around you and that precious baby to forever protect her. She is most definitely NOT the one I'm talking about.
Karen Swanay <luvbullbreeds@...> wrote:
OP here....Morgan's early life was ANYTHING but natural. She had one
of the most artificial and contrived rearing situations on Earth.
Loved and nutured until 4 weeks of age, then left in a park at night
with a note pinned to her chest. Brought to the Social Welfare
Institute and run through a battery of health checks like one might do
to a foundling calf....then confined to a crib most of the time. At
18 months old, she was presented to a family for adoption and they
rejected her for not being able to sit still at dinner in the dining
room and not being quiet enough so they could pray. Additionally she
would refuse to look at them and she would not kiss and hug them.
(They had her only 3 days and she had a cold.) So they returned
her....with a hole in her heart. (They had pressured China to keep
her from having her surgery to be able to do it in California where
they could pray over her.) So, because she was ill, and rejected, the
SWI figured she was unadoptable and was too sick to be allowed the
minimal play the other kids got. So she was tied flat on her back
into the crib and she stayed there for 5 months. No baths, no sitting
up, no toys, but bedsores aplenty. The only contact she got was to be
fed and changed and that was either by the person who abused her or
someone else. When I petitioned the Chinese to be allowed to adopt
her they did her heart surgery and she went from the SWI to being tied
into a hospital bed with no pain management after open heart surgery.
She was there for 8 weeks. Then returned to the SWI, where they
attempted to "fix" her autism by letting her play outside for 20
minutes once a week.
Morgan would have attempted to make someone happy or unhappy if she
had the slightest inkling that she had some control over the world but
the world was something that happened TO her. This is not natural not
by a long shot. Now that she's here, she expresses her displeasure,
and happiness. The day she cried when she hit her head on the table
was one of the happiest of my life. That meant she felt something and
expressed it....because she knew someone was listening! Before that,
nothing that happened to her made her express any emotion. She was
numb. I was pleased because I hadn't expected her to drop her
defenses this quickly.
FWIW, I have continued to cheer her accomplishments. Things she tries
to do, and does *properly* (meaning successfully like getting food on
a spoon and into her mouth...one of her biggest challenges) I say
"Good Job!" because that's what she wants me to say. If she tries
and fails she says "uh-oh!" then tries again after announcing "nother
one" meaning she will try again. I may be molding her behavior with
these displays of praise but for now, this is what she seems to want
and need. I am following her lead. She will ask me to "do dat?" if
she needs help with something or she will sit and struggle with
something herself if she wants to do it herself. But I think she's a
pretty happy kid. There are very few "no"s in her world and a WHOLE
lot of cheering. Everything Morgan does is amazing. and she has
connected this praise to good feelings because she will cheer for me
if I do something she thinks is hard. I think if she was feeling
pressured by this she wouldn't do it for me.
--
Karen
http://temptabo.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Let me re-iterate that I am deeply humbled by your story and wish I was there to wrap my big ole arms around you and that precious baby to forever protect her. She is most definitely NOT the one I'm talking about.
Karen Swanay <luvbullbreeds@...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----******************************************************************
> In a natural state a human simply survives, no effort is made to make
> someone else happy or unhappy like the OP's daughter was described as doing.
OP here....Morgan's early life was ANYTHING but natural. She had one
of the most artificial and contrived rearing situations on Earth.
Loved and nutured until 4 weeks of age, then left in a park at night
with a note pinned to her chest. Brought to the Social Welfare
Institute and run through a battery of health checks like one might do
to a foundling calf....then confined to a crib most of the time. At
18 months old, she was presented to a family for adoption and they
rejected her for not being able to sit still at dinner in the dining
room and not being quiet enough so they could pray. Additionally she
would refuse to look at them and she would not kiss and hug them.
(They had her only 3 days and she had a cold.) So they returned
her....with a hole in her heart. (They had pressured China to keep
her from having her surgery to be able to do it in California where
they could pray over her.) So, because she was ill, and rejected, the
SWI figured she was unadoptable and was too sick to be allowed the
minimal play the other kids got. So she was tied flat on her back
into the crib and she stayed there for 5 months. No baths, no sitting
up, no toys, but bedsores aplenty. The only contact she got was to be
fed and changed and that was either by the person who abused her or
someone else. When I petitioned the Chinese to be allowed to adopt
her they did her heart surgery and she went from the SWI to being tied
into a hospital bed with no pain management after open heart surgery.
She was there for 8 weeks. Then returned to the SWI, where they
attempted to "fix" her autism by letting her play outside for 20
minutes once a week.
Morgan would have attempted to make someone happy or unhappy if she
had the slightest inkling that she had some control over the world but
the world was something that happened TO her. This is not natural not
by a long shot. Now that she's here, she expresses her displeasure,
and happiness. The day she cried when she hit her head on the table
was one of the happiest of my life. That meant she felt something and
expressed it....because she knew someone was listening! Before that,
nothing that happened to her made her express any emotion. She was
numb. I was pleased because I hadn't expected her to drop her
defenses this quickly.
FWIW, I have continued to cheer her accomplishments. Things she tries
to do, and does *properly* (meaning successfully like getting food on
a spoon and into her mouth...one of her biggest challenges) I say
"Good Job!" because that's what she wants me to say. If she tries
and fails she says "uh-oh!" then tries again after announcing "nother
one" meaning she will try again. I may be molding her behavior with
these displays of praise but for now, this is what she seems to want
and need. I am following her lead. She will ask me to "do dat?" if
she needs help with something or she will sit and struggle with
something herself if she wants to do it herself. But I think she's a
pretty happy kid. There are very few "no"s in her world and a WHOLE
lot of cheering. Everything Morgan does is amazing. and she has
connected this praise to good feelings because she will cheer for me
if I do something she thinks is hard. I think if she was feeling
pressured by this she wouldn't do it for me.
--
Karen
http://temptabo.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pamela Sorooshian
On Mar 12, 2008, at 9:34 PM, brad jones wrote:
Seems so obvious to me that that is what we are, just from observation
of human behavior. I'm pretty sure that the scientific evidence
supports that perspective, as well.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Yes, I've heard this theory many times. I disagree that humans areSeriously? You don't see us as evolutionarily advanced herd animals?
> naturally social.
Seems so obvious to me that that is what we are, just from observation
of human behavior. I'm pretty sure that the scientific evidence
supports that perspective, as well.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
wisdomalways5
maybe instead of one sentence answers you could defend or define what
you are talking about
Julie
--- In [email protected], brad jones <bhmjones@...>
wrote:
you are talking about
Julie
--- In [email protected], brad jones <bhmjones@...>
wrote:
>naturally social.
> Yes, I've heard this theory many times. I disagree that humans are
>
brad jones
Yes seriously.
I think the scientific evidence is biased, and I think that herding together is a result of institutionalization.
----- Original Message ----
From: Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:20:01 PM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
I think the scientific evidence is biased, and I think that herding together is a result of institutionalization.
----- Original Message ----
From: Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:20:01 PM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
On Mar 12, 2008, at 9:34 PM, brad jones wrote:
> Yes, I've heard this theory many times. I disagree that humans are
> naturally social.
Seriously? You don't see us as evolutionarily advanced herd animals?
Seems so obvious to me that that is what we are, just from observation
of human behavior. I'm pretty sure that the scientific evidence
supports that perspective, as well.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
brad jones
I'm scared to at this point, perhaps you've seen my latest blunder-ous attempts at lengthy dialog, I suck at it. <G>
----- Original Message ----
From: wisdomalways5 <wisdom1133@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:08:25 PM
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
maybe instead of one sentence answers you could defend or define what
you are talking about
Julie
--- In unschoolingbasics@ yahoogroups. com, brad jones <bhmjones@.. .>
wrote:
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----- Original Message ----
From: wisdomalways5 <wisdom1133@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:08:25 PM
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
maybe instead of one sentence answers you could defend or define what
you are talking about
Julie
--- In unschoolingbasics@ yahoogroups. com, brad jones <bhmjones@.. .>
wrote:
>naturally social.
> Yes, I've heard this theory many times. I disagree that humans are
>____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ren Allen
~~I think the scientific evidence is biased, and I think that herding
together is a result of institutionalization.~~
How do you explain the fact that humans have always "herded" together?
Waaaayyy before institutionalization. There are always some humans who
need more and some who need less, but anyone who is truly solitary is
considered a bit of an aberration.
I think it's pretty difficult to come up with any kind of real
evidence that we are not herd animals. We need other humans in order
to survive. How many people do you know personally that want a
completely solitary existence? Wait...you wouldn't know them because
they'd be living where you can't find them.:)
I really wonder where this idea that we aren't "herding" creatures
comes from. Nothing in sociology would point to another conclusion as
far as I can see.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
together is a result of institutionalization.~~
How do you explain the fact that humans have always "herded" together?
Waaaayyy before institutionalization. There are always some humans who
need more and some who need less, but anyone who is truly solitary is
considered a bit of an aberration.
I think it's pretty difficult to come up with any kind of real
evidence that we are not herd animals. We need other humans in order
to survive. How many people do you know personally that want a
completely solitary existence? Wait...you wouldn't know them because
they'd be living where you can't find them.:)
I really wonder where this idea that we aren't "herding" creatures
comes from. Nothing in sociology would point to another conclusion as
far as I can see.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
Pamela Sorooshian
On Mar 13, 2008, at 6:35 PM, brad jones wrote:
groups of friends - these are all examples of our herding urges. We
need social and physical contact - touch - or we don't thrive.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Yes seriously.Interesting. I think families, extended families, communities, tribes,
> I think the scientific evidence is biased, and I think that herding
> together is a result of institutionalization.
groups of friends - these are all examples of our herding urges. We
need social and physical contact - touch - or we don't thrive.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ENSEMBLE S-WAYNFORTH
Do you think that institutions arose in a vacuum? Surely they are just bigger forms of the normal choices for humans?
As a sidenote my husband has collected some of the scientific evidence on herding behavior in humans. But if you believe that it is nurture rather than nature that produces the behavior I guess his work wouldn't persuade you otherwise?
Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com
----- Original Message ----
From: brad jones <bhmjones@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 14 March, 2008 1:35:19 AM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
Yes seriously.
I think the scientific evidence is biased, and I think that herding together is a result of institutionalization.
----- Original Message ----
From: Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:20:01 PM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
As a sidenote my husband has collected some of the scientific evidence on herding behavior in humans. But if you believe that it is nurture rather than nature that produces the behavior I guess his work wouldn't persuade you otherwise?
Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com
----- Original Message ----
From: brad jones <bhmjones@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 14 March, 2008 1:35:19 AM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
Yes seriously.
I think the scientific evidence is biased, and I think that herding together is a result of institutionalization.
----- Original Message ----
From: Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:20:01 PM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
On Mar 12, 2008, at 9:34 PM, brad jones wrote:
> Yes, I've heard this theory many times. I disagree that humans are
> naturally social.
Seriously? You don't see us as evolutionarily advanced herd animals?
Seems so obvious to me that that is what we are, just from observation
of human behavior. I'm pretty sure that the scientific evidence
supports that perspective, as well.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
swissarmy_wife
--- In [email protected], brad jones <bhmjones@...> wrote:
Biased how?
>together is a result of institutionalization.
> Yes seriously.
> I think the scientific evidence is biased, and I think that herding
Biased how?
Karen Swanay
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
On Mar 13, 2008, at 6:35 PM, brad jones wrote:
>
> > Yes seriously.
> > I think the scientific evidence is biased, and I think that herding
> > together is a result of institutionalization.
>
> Interesting. I think families, extended families, communities, tribes,
> groups of friends - these are all examples of our herding urges. We
> need social and physical contact - touch - or we don't thrive.
>
>
> -pam
******************************************************************************************************
Which is why for so many "early" or "primitive" cultures (and those
quotation marks are there on purpose) shunning and exile was the most
horrific punishment they could dole out. Better to kill the person
and have it be over, than for them to be driven out of the group to
fend for themselves and live alone. Better to kill or lock up the
person than to have them live amongst those they called friends and
family but be invisible to them. If we were not social creatures,
these wouldn't be punishments. If we were not social creatures,
solitary folks wouldn't be seen as, and in fact be such oddities. I
don't think it has any dependence on institutionalization whatsoever.
You'll have to back that up since all available evidence points to
the opposite pole. AND if you happen to believe in evolution as I do,
we came from monkeys and they are social. It's in the genes.
Karen
PS) I understand you are afraid to speak up, but once you lay
something out there you've got to step up to the keyboard and defend
or retract Brad. And I say that with the Internet scars to prove it.
=)
Joyce Fetteroll
On Mar 13, 2008, at 9:35 PM, brad jones wrote:
observation and thought. The above seems to be a rejection of the
idea of humans being social creatures because it's something non-
nihilists believe. Sort of like a child rejecting all his parents
values because he hates his parents.
Zoo keepers know which animals you can cage together and which you
can't and how many and how much personal space each needs. It's not
random. You can't put as many tigers into a space as you can apes.
It's natural for apes to gather together.
No one could institutionalize people if people didn't feel some draw
towards each other. And the reason they feel a draw is because we're
naturally social creatures. We're also selfish creatures, but we're
social creatures to.
That doesn't mean it's automatic that babies left alone in nature
will recreate civilization. That's too complex. And it also doesn't
mean that hitting someone isn't easier than talking things out.
Obviously hitting doesn't take much higher brain power. But there's
no biological reason humans would have put this much energy into
creating social systems from families to civilizations if it weren't
part of our make up to desire to be and work together. Obviously
we've learned how to make social systems work from our ancestors. The
knowledge isn't inherent or instinctual. But the desire to find ways
to pull together is pretty obviously natural by looking at the
natural behavior of animals.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Yes seriously.Better than trusting research is employing the powers of personal
> I think the scientific evidence is biased, and I think that herding
> together is a result of institutionalization.
observation and thought. The above seems to be a rejection of the
idea of humans being social creatures because it's something non-
nihilists believe. Sort of like a child rejecting all his parents
values because he hates his parents.
Zoo keepers know which animals you can cage together and which you
can't and how many and how much personal space each needs. It's not
random. You can't put as many tigers into a space as you can apes.
It's natural for apes to gather together.
No one could institutionalize people if people didn't feel some draw
towards each other. And the reason they feel a draw is because we're
naturally social creatures. We're also selfish creatures, but we're
social creatures to.
That doesn't mean it's automatic that babies left alone in nature
will recreate civilization. That's too complex. And it also doesn't
mean that hitting someone isn't easier than talking things out.
Obviously hitting doesn't take much higher brain power. But there's
no biological reason humans would have put this much energy into
creating social systems from families to civilizations if it weren't
part of our make up to desire to be and work together. Obviously
we've learned how to make social systems work from our ancestors. The
knowledge isn't inherent or instinctual. But the desire to find ways
to pull together is pretty obviously natural by looking at the
natural behavior of animals.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Deb Lewis
*** I think that herding
together is a result of institutionalization.***
Humans lived in social groups long before they ever created prisons or schools. Both those institutions were invented to ensure the continued safety of the social group, however ill conceived or misguided some might think those inventions were.
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
together is a result of institutionalization.***
Humans lived in social groups long before they ever created prisons or schools. Both those institutions were invented to ensure the continued safety of the social group, however ill conceived or misguided some might think those inventions were.
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
brad jones
I think we work hard at herding/socializing, I'll admit that much. But you'll have to admit even here there are those that vehemently seek out alone time. I think many people think being social is the act of living out your life near others. Well that ain't the definition of <social>. Ants would be a better example of truly social animals, but even they tend to only socialize with their own family. Being truly social, one would never seek out refuge from others. I would urge any of you who disagree to find a definition of <social> that allows for such. Ren please consider this as a response to your email also since the question was very similar.
----- Original Message ----
From: Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 12:31:53 AM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
----- Original Message ----
From: Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 12:31:53 AM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
On Mar 13, 2008, at 6:35 PM, brad jones wrote:
> Yes seriously.
> I think the scientific evidence is biased, and I think that herding
> together is a result of institutionalizatio n.
Interesting. I think families, extended families, communities, tribes,
groups of friends - these are all examples of our herding urges. We
need social and physical contact - touch - or we don't thrive.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
brad jones
Ask him to seek out any definition of <social> to include seeking out alone time.
----- Original Message ----
From: ENSEMBLE S-WAYNFORTH <s.waynforth@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 3:08:55 AM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
Do you think that institutions arose in a vacuum? Surely they are just bigger forms of the normal choices for humans?
As a sidenote my husband has collected some of the scientific evidence on herding behavior in humans. But if you believe that it is nurture rather than nature that produces the behavior I guess his work wouldn't persuade you otherwise?
Schuyler
www.waynforth. blogspot. com
----- Original Message ----
From: brad jones <bhmjones@yahoo. com>
To: unschoolingbasics@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Friday, 14 March, 2008 1:35:19 AM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
Yes seriously.
I think the scientific evidence is biased, and I think that herding together is a result of institutionalizatio n.
----- Original Message ----
From: Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@mac. com>
To: unschoolingbasics@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:20:01 PM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
----- Original Message ----
From: ENSEMBLE S-WAYNFORTH <s.waynforth@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 3:08:55 AM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
Do you think that institutions arose in a vacuum? Surely they are just bigger forms of the normal choices for humans?
As a sidenote my husband has collected some of the scientific evidence on herding behavior in humans. But if you believe that it is nurture rather than nature that produces the behavior I guess his work wouldn't persuade you otherwise?
Schuyler
www.waynforth. blogspot. com
----- Original Message ----
From: brad jones <bhmjones@yahoo. com>
To: unschoolingbasics@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Friday, 14 March, 2008 1:35:19 AM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
Yes seriously.
I think the scientific evidence is biased, and I think that herding together is a result of institutionalizatio n.
----- Original Message ----
From: Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@mac. com>
To: unschoolingbasics@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:20:01 PM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
On Mar 12, 2008, at 9:34 PM, brad jones wrote:
> Yes, I've heard this theory many times. I disagree that humans are
> naturally social.
Seriously? You don't see us as evolutionarily advanced herd animals?
Seems so obvious to me that that is what we are, just from observation
of human behavior. I'm pretty sure that the scientific evidence
supports that perspective, as well.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools. search.yahoo. com/newsearch/ category. php?category= shopping
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------ --------- --------- ------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
brad jones
I think each instance would have to be individually analyzed to determine the bias, so if you'll show me the evidence, I'll show you the bias. I imagine this response probably sounds confrontational, but I can assure you it is not. I am being genuinely serious. I'm not asking for all the evidence in existence, I'm just talking about what ever evidence that convinces you.
----- Original Message ----
From: swissarmy_wife <heatherbean@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 5:59:56 AM
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
----- Original Message ----
From: swissarmy_wife <heatherbean@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 5:59:56 AM
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
--- In unschoolingbasics@ yahoogroups. com, brad jones <bhmjones@.. .> wrote:
>
> Yes seriously.
> I think the scientific evidence is biased, and I think that herding
together is a result of institutionalizatio n.
Biased how?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
bhmjones
**********************************************************************
********************************
<anti-social> by those driving him out. Most people think simply
living your life around other people is <social> but that is not the
definition, a truly social animal would not drive another member
away. You posit that driving them out would be punishment since they
are social, I posit that they are anti-social and that driving them
out would be punishment because they then wouldn't have other people
to prey on and not because they have some sort of genetic need to
socialize.
institutionalized beliefs of people who really believe they are
<social> animals, but all they have to do is attempt to properly
define <social> to see that they indeed are not.
asserts that humans and apes have a common ancestor. It however can
not prove that humans did not prefer alone time.
********************************
> Which is why for so many "early" or "primitive" cultures (and thosemost
> quotation marks are there on purpose) shunning and exile was the
> horrific punishment they could dole out. Better to kill the personI would posit that the person being driven out would be considered
> and have it be over, than for them to be driven out of the group to
> fend for themselves and live alone. Better to kill or lock up the
> person than to have them live amongst those they called friends and
> family but be invisible to them. If we were not social creatures,
> these wouldn't be punishments.
<anti-social> by those driving him out. Most people think simply
living your life around other people is <social> but that is not the
definition, a truly social animal would not drive another member
away. You posit that driving them out would be punishment since they
are social, I posit that they are anti-social and that driving them
out would be punishment because they then wouldn't have other people
to prey on and not because they have some sort of genetic need to
socialize.
> If we were not social creatures,They don't seem odd to me.
> solitary folks wouldn't be seen as, and in fact be such oddities.
> Iwhatsoever.
> don't think it has any dependence on institutionalization
> You'll have to back that up since all available evidence points toThere is no evidence that points to the opposite pole except the
> the opposite pole.
institutionalized beliefs of people who really believe they are
<social> animals, but all they have to do is attempt to properly
define <social> to see that they indeed are not.
> AND if you happen to believe in evolution as I do,The theory of evolution does not assert we evolved from monkeys. It
> we came from monkeys and they are social. It's in the genes.
>
asserts that humans and apes have a common ancestor. It however can
not prove that humans did not prefer alone time.
> Karenit.
> PS) I understand you are afraid to speak up, but once you lay
> something out there you've got to step up to the keyboard and defend
> or retract Brad. And I say that with the Internet scars to prove
> =)I'll give it a go.... <G>
>
bhmjones
> Better than trusting research is employing the powers of personalI can accept it seems that way to you, but I can also assure you that
> observation and thought. The above seems to be a rejection of the
> idea of humans being social creatures because it's something non-
> nihilists believe. Sort of like a child rejecting all his parents
> values because he hates his parents.
I am not simply rebelling against non-nihilists. I am trusting my own
observations, and I have observed the definition of <social> not to
include seeking out alone time, not to include building of fences and
borders, not to include isolationism, not to include imprisonment,
not to include anonymity, and the list goes on and on. The evidence
is overwhelming that we humans are most certainly not <social>
animals. Simply living your life around other people is not the
definition of <social>.
>not
> Zoo keepers know which animals you can cage together and which you
> can't and how many and how much personal space each needs. It's
> random. You can't put as many tigers into a space as you can apes.You are incorrect here.
> It's natural for apes to gather together.
>draw
> No one could institutionalize people if people didn't feel some
> towards each other.Feeling a draw to other people is not the definition of <social>
> And the reason they feel a draw is because we'reArguably.
> naturally social creatures.
> We're also selfish creatures, but we'reI'll agree that we are selfish, but I won't agree that we are
> social creatures to.
<social> based on the available evidence. Remember, simply living
your life around other people is not the definition of <social>.
>doesn't
> That doesn't mean it's automatic that babies left alone in nature
> will recreate civilization. That's too complex. And it also
> mean that hitting someone isn't easier than talking things out.there's
> Obviously hitting doesn't take much higher brain power. But
> no biological reason humans would have put this much energy intoweren't
> creating social systems from families to civilizations if it
> part of our make up to desire to be and work together. ObviouslyThe
> we've learned how to make social systems work from our ancestors.
> knowledge isn't inherent or instinctual. But the desire to findways
> to pull together is pretty obviously natural by looking at the......And not seeing what you were institutionalized to see when
> natural behavior of animals......
observing
them.
Melissa Gray
SO what's your definition of social? Because it's a fuzzy concept,
and most social scientists don't agree on what it means.
Quite frankly, I'm tired of the discussion, because it seems the
speakers are dancing around each other without agreeing on the steps.
Melissa
Mom to Joshua, Breanna, Emily, Rachel, Samuel, Daniel and Avari
Wife to Zane
blog me at
http://startlinglives.blogspot.com/
and most social scientists don't agree on what it means.
Quite frankly, I'm tired of the discussion, because it seems the
speakers are dancing around each other without agreeing on the steps.
Melissa
Mom to Joshua, Breanna, Emily, Rachel, Samuel, Daniel and Avari
Wife to Zane
blog me at
http://startlinglives.blogspot.com/
On Mar 14, 2008, at 10:49 AM, bhmjones wrote:
> > Better than trusting research is employing the powers of personal
> > observation and thought. The above seems to be a rejection of the
> > idea of humans being social creatures because it's something non-
> > nihilists believe. Sort of like a child rejecting all his parents
> > values because he hates his parents.
>
> I can accept it seems that way to you, but I can also assure you that
> I am not simply rebelling against non-nihilists. I am trusting my own
> observations, and I have observed the definition of <social> not to
> include seeking out alone time, not to include building of fences and
> borders, not to include isolationism, not to include imprisonment,
> not to include anonymity, and the list goes on and on. The evidence
> is overwhelming that we humans are most certainly not <social>
> animals. Simply living your life around other people is not the
> definition of <social>.
>
> >
> > Zoo keepers know which animals you can cage together and which you
> > can't and how many and how much personal space each needs. It's
> not
> > random. You can't put as many tigers into a space as you can apes.
> > It's natural for apes to gather together.
>
> You are incorrect here.
>
> >
> > No one could institutionalize people if people didn't feel some
> draw
> > towards each other.
>
> Feeling a draw to other people is not the definition of <social>
>
> > And the reason they feel a draw is because we're
> > naturally social creatures.
>
> Arguably.
>
> > We're also selfish creatures, but we're
> > social creatures to.
>
> I'll agree that we are selfish, but I won't agree that we are
> <social> based on the available evidence. Remember, simply living
> your life around other people is not the definition of <social>.
>
> >
> > That doesn't mean it's automatic that babies left alone in nature
> > will recreate civilization. That's too complex. And it also
> doesn't
> > mean that hitting someone isn't easier than talking things out.
> > Obviously hitting doesn't take much higher brain power. But
> there's
> > no biological reason humans would have put this much energy into
> > creating social systems from families to civilizations if it
> weren't
> > part of our make up to desire to be and work together. Obviously
> > we've learned how to make social systems work from our ancestors.
> The
> > knowledge isn't inherent or instinctual. But the desire to find
> ways
> > to pull together is pretty obviously natural by looking at the
> > natural behavior of animals......
>
> ......And not seeing what you were institutionalized to see when
> observing
> them.
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
I am LOL as I know David and he is one of the most intelligent man I have met in my life, my dh thinks the same about him too. Both Schuyler and David are amazingly intelligent and they are both Anthropologists. LOL
Alex
brad jones <bhmjones@...> wrote:
Ask him to seek out any definition of <social> to include seeking out alone time.
----- Original Message ----
From: ENSEMBLE S-WAYNFORTH <s.waynforth@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 3:08:55 AM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
Do you think that institutions arose in a vacuum? Surely they are just bigger forms of the normal choices for humans?
As a sidenote my husband has collected some of the scientific evidence on herding behavior in humans. But if you believe that it is nurture rather than nature that produces the behavior I guess his work wouldn't persuade you otherwise?
Schuyler
www.waynforth. blogspot. com
----- Original Message ----
From: brad jones <bhmjones@yahoo. com>
To: unschoolingbasics@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Friday, 14 March, 2008 1:35:19 AM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
Yes seriously.
I think the scientific evidence is biased, and I think that herding together is a result of institutionalizatio n.
----- Original Message ----
From: Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@mac. com>
To: unschoolingbasics@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:20:01 PM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
Alex
brad jones <bhmjones@...> wrote:
Ask him to seek out any definition of <social> to include seeking out alone time.
----- Original Message ----
From: ENSEMBLE S-WAYNFORTH <s.waynforth@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 3:08:55 AM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
Do you think that institutions arose in a vacuum? Surely they are just bigger forms of the normal choices for humans?
As a sidenote my husband has collected some of the scientific evidence on herding behavior in humans. But if you believe that it is nurture rather than nature that produces the behavior I guess his work wouldn't persuade you otherwise?
Schuyler
www.waynforth. blogspot. com
----- Original Message ----
From: brad jones <bhmjones@yahoo. com>
To: unschoolingbasics@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Friday, 14 March, 2008 1:35:19 AM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
Yes seriously.
I think the scientific evidence is biased, and I think that herding together is a result of institutionalizatio n.
----- Original Message ----
From: Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@mac. com>
To: unschoolingbasics@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:20:01 PM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Starting down the wrong path
On Mar 12, 2008, at 9:34 PM, brad jones wrote:
> Yes, I've heard this theory many times. I disagree that humans are
> naturally social.
Seriously? You don't see us as evolutionarily advanced herd animals?
Seems so obvious to me that that is what we are, just from observation
of human behavior. I'm pretty sure that the scientific evidence
supports that perspective, as well.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools. search.yahoo. com/newsearch/ category. php?category= shopping
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------ --------- --------- ------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
__________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Karen Swanay
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:26 AM, bhmjones <bhmjones@...> wrote:
I would posit that the person being driven out would be considered
> <anti-social> by those driving him out. Most people think simply
> living your life around other people is <social> but that is not the
> definition, a truly social animal would not drive another member
> away. You posit that driving them out would be punishment since they
> are social, I posit that they are anti-social and that driving them
> out would be punishment because they then wouldn't have other people
> to prey on and not because they have some sort of genetic need to
> socialize.
***********************************
Not all exiles were/are from anti-social behavior, like murder. In
some cases taboo breaking caused it and in others due to the religious
constraints. Even today in one African tribe (the name escapes me at
the moment) they have very definite ideas about what are signs from
G-d. The birth of twins for example because it's an oddity, is
considered a bad omen (they have a word for it) and so the parents
must abandon one of the twins for the good of the tribe. If they
don't do this, they are driven out for the safety of the tribe. I
would posit that the social aspect of this group of people is the
coming together for safety and shared labor. You can tell they are
social because they dance, celebrate and mourn together. You are
correct that simply living near another person does not make one
social, but I would define social behavior as any behavior that
contributes to the good of the group as a whole. As another poster
suggested, the definition of social is up for debate even by people
for whom this is a life's work. But for me, this is my working
definition.
But in your example, you say driving them out would be punishment
because the social group doesn't want them around for the safety of
the group. That pretty much defines social to me. But if you are
driven out because you got pregnant out of wedlock, you certainly
aren't anti-social and driving you out isn't for the safety of the
group but to punish you for breaking societal rules and stripping you
of your safety and social connection. It is folly to believe that all
such punishments are visited on the dangerous or mal-adjusted.
Shunning is still in use in Amish communities for breaking the social
contract where morals are concerned. The group recognizes the need
for the individual to remain in the community so instead of exile
which might lead to the person simply assimilating into the secular
culture around them, they use shunning to make the point to the
transgressor and the community at large.
Karen
PS) Is this topic OT for this list? I saw one person say she was
tired of this thread. If it should be stopped, then you can delete my
reply.
Joyce Fetteroll
On Mar 14, 2008, at 11:49 AM, bhmjones wrote:
people understand children's behavior or to unschool. Seems you're
putting people in a selfish box (wanting to be alone) when that's not
all they do, but denying them time in a social box (wanting to be
together) when that's not the only thing they do either.
Things like:
and won't help a mom help a child be more at peace so that *she* can
find a purpose in life (if she wants).
How many kids do you have? How many kids have you helped find meaning
in life (have a purpose)? What was the out come? Are they happier?
How does it translate to kids of different personalities and
temperaments?
What's more useful is practical applications of the philosophies that
have been helping parents help their kids. While it's possible some
kids might like to try out a purpose that they've been helped to
find, how will it help a child who does want to define a purpose? Who
is content to not question why they're here?
What helps kids find their own purpose (or not as they see fit) is to
create a safe, nurturing environment, and help them find ways to be
comfortable in their own skins while they explore what it means to be
themselves.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I'll agree that we are selfish, but I won't agree that we areThen your definition of social isn't going to be useful to help
> <social> based on the available evidence. Remember, simply living
> your life around other people is not the definition of <social>.
people understand children's behavior or to unschool. Seems you're
putting people in a selfish box (wanting to be alone) when that's not
all they do, but denying them time in a social box (wanting to be
together) when that's not the only thing they do either.
Things like:
> My initial response is that if she thought her life meantwhile certainly an interesting theory, it won't help people unschool
> something, IE <has a purpose>, then she wouldn't sweat the small
> stuff/injustices, but again, I'm just letting everyone know my
> opinions is all.
and won't help a mom help a child be more at peace so that *she* can
find a purpose in life (if she wants).
How many kids do you have? How many kids have you helped find meaning
in life (have a purpose)? What was the out come? Are they happier?
How does it translate to kids of different personalities and
temperaments?
What's more useful is practical applications of the philosophies that
have been helping parents help their kids. While it's possible some
kids might like to try out a purpose that they've been helped to
find, how will it help a child who does want to define a purpose? Who
is content to not question why they're here?
What helps kids find their own purpose (or not as they see fit) is to
create a safe, nurturing environment, and help them find ways to be
comfortable in their own skins while they explore what it means to be
themselves.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ren Allen
Here's a definition of "social" that I found online:
social:living together or enjoying life in communities or organized
groups;
I would venture to say that there would not be cities and communities
and clubs and all the social texture in our world if humans were not
driven to be social. How did people decide to build tribes and all the
structures around them? Because we are naturally driven to be
connected with other humans. If humans could thrive without other
humans, we would stay with our parents until weaning and then be on
our own.
The fact that we also choose non-social activities does not make us
non-social animals. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Even
the less social people I know, would be most unhappy without ever
having other humans to connect with.
Hamsters are a good example of non-social. Once they are weaned and
start puberty they try to KILL each other. Very much driven towards
solitude in adult life. We don't see humans acting like this very
often. It's a rare person who does not need/want ANY human contact.
That being said, this has gotten off track from unschooling and will
not help anyone understand the philosophy, so let's reign it back in
please....
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
social:living together or enjoying life in communities or organized
groups;
I would venture to say that there would not be cities and communities
and clubs and all the social texture in our world if humans were not
driven to be social. How did people decide to build tribes and all the
structures around them? Because we are naturally driven to be
connected with other humans. If humans could thrive without other
humans, we would stay with our parents until weaning and then be on
our own.
The fact that we also choose non-social activities does not make us
non-social animals. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Even
the less social people I know, would be most unhappy without ever
having other humans to connect with.
Hamsters are a good example of non-social. Once they are weaned and
start puberty they try to KILL each other. Very much driven towards
solitude in adult life. We don't see humans acting like this very
often. It's a rare person who does not need/want ANY human contact.
That being said, this has gotten off track from unschooling and will
not help anyone understand the philosophy, so let's reign it back in
please....
Ren
learninginfreedom.com