Good Choices
ECHSA
Kolleen wrote:
Its not easy taking that unschooling step into trust and then not feeling
butterflies or stress when you see your kid repeatedly do something that
YOU deem of no value.
Ok. But what about when it is something that really is of no value, or
worse - that is of negative value? Like kids who torture animals for
instance?
I'm sure these hypothetical what-if's irritate those of you who have enough
experience to know how unlikely those what-if's are in practise. Please bear
with me.
Cathy
Its not easy taking that unschooling step into trust and then not feeling
butterflies or stress when you see your kid repeatedly do something that
YOU deem of no value.
Ok. But what about when it is something that really is of no value, or
worse - that is of negative value? Like kids who torture animals for
instance?
I'm sure these hypothetical what-if's irritate those of you who have enough
experience to know how unlikely those what-if's are in practise. Please bear
with me.
Cathy
Fetteroll
on 2/8/02 2:15 PM, ECHSA at echsa@... wrote:
to deal with. *Why* is the child torturing animals? What's going on in his
life that is causing him to feel this is okay?
Personal issues make discussing philosophy much easier because the influence
and affect of the environment and parental attitudes are much easier to
examine.
they'll absorb are put into practice and discussed. Not in a lecture way,
but the reasons *you* do what you do, not why they should do it too.
If their ideas are treated with respect and they are allowed to experiment
with choices. They will often choose differently than we would. Sometimes
they'll be "wrong". Sometimes they need to experience something that isn't
ideal for a while to gain what they need from it.
That can't be applied like a formula, though. It really needs lots of
examples and lots of discussion.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Ok. But what about when it is something that really is of no value, orNothing happens without a reason. That's why hypothetical questions are hard
> worse - that is of negative value? Like kids who torture animals for
> instance?
to deal with. *Why* is the child torturing animals? What's going on in his
life that is causing him to feel this is okay?
Personal issues make discussing philosophy much easier because the influence
and affect of the environment and parental attitudes are much easier to
examine.
> I also wonder - is everyone entirely honest about this? Are people sayingIf they're brought up in a home environment where the values you hope
> that people will always make good choices, left to themselves? Personally I
> find that quite hard to believe...(maybe the country I live in has something
> to do with it)
they'll absorb are put into practice and discussed. Not in a lecture way,
but the reasons *you* do what you do, not why they should do it too.
If their ideas are treated with respect and they are allowed to experiment
with choices. They will often choose differently than we would. Sometimes
they'll be "wrong". Sometimes they need to experience something that isn't
ideal for a while to gain what they need from it.
That can't be applied like a formula, though. It really needs lots of
examples and lots of discussion.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Lynda
From: "Fetteroll" <fetteroll@...>
time we stop looking to blame parents for everything that a person may or
maynot grow up to be.
should be questioned, "is everyone entirely honest about this." It is a
well known phenomena that some people reinvent themselves on the net.
People find a nitch and become the "perfect" example of the nitch they
choose. The computer/net has provided some folks with the perfect escape
from their not perfect lives. Their family becomes all the things they wise
they were in real life and aren't. They're poor, they become rich, their
abuse spouses become the perfect Valentine lover, their ungrateful brats
become perfect children. There are some of "those" in every group/list type
on the net.
Lynda
> Nothing happens without a reason. That's why hypothetical questions arehard
> to deal with. *Why* is the child torturing animals? What's going on in hisinfluence
> life that is causing him to feel this is okay?
>
> Personal issues make discussing philosophy much easier because the
> and affect of the environment and parental attitudes are much easier to***Did you ever read or see any of the interviews of Dahmer? I think it is
> examine.
time we stop looking to blame parents for everything that a person may or
maynot grow up to be.
> > I also wonder - is everyone entirely honest about this? Are peoplesaying
> > that people will always make good choices, left to themselves?Personally I
> > find that quite hard to believe...(maybe the country I live in hassomething
> > to do with it)***It would take lots of discussion however, part of what she questions
>
> If they're brought up in a home environment where the values you hope
> they'll absorb are put into practice and discussed. Not in a lecture way,
> but the reasons *you* do what you do, not why they should do it too.
>
> If their ideas are treated with respect and they are allowed to experiment
> with choices. They will often choose differently than we would. Sometimes
> they'll be "wrong". Sometimes they need to experience something that isn't
> ideal for a while to gain what they need from it.
>
> That can't be applied like a formula, though. It really needs lots of
> examples and lots of discussion.
should be questioned, "is everyone entirely honest about this." It is a
well known phenomena that some people reinvent themselves on the net.
People find a nitch and become the "perfect" example of the nitch they
choose. The computer/net has provided some folks with the perfect escape
from their not perfect lives. Their family becomes all the things they wise
they were in real life and aren't. They're poor, they become rich, their
abuse spouses become the perfect Valentine lover, their ungrateful brats
become perfect children. There are some of "those" in every group/list type
on the net.
Lynda
Fetteroll
on 2/10/02 1:00 PM, Lynda at lurine@... wrote:
Sorry if my response was misleading. My statement wasn't taking the nurture
side of the nature vs. nurture debate. If you want to start another thread
on that, perhaps there may be some people interested in debating it.
I was responding to the idea of whether or not it was useful to discuss
hypothetical problems. If a hypothetical child is torturing animals, how can
we discuss how to hypothetically handle it? Even if the child is Jeffrey
Dahmer, there *is* a cause behind the behavior. It may be genetic. It may be
biological. It may be chemical. It may be physical abuse. It may be
psychological abuse. It may be a combination. Solutions must deal with the
cause, not the symptoms. Abuse of animals -- and lying and bedwetting and
pinching as well as a few thousand more things that kids could do -- is only
a symptom that could be caused by many different factors. And it's the
factors that need to be examined, not the symptoms.
lying about her children then she's going to lie about whether she's being
truthful ;-)
Hypothetically speaking we should treat *all* information we receive --
whether it's from a list or message board or book or friend or newspaper or
magazine or tv show or ... -- as open to question. People being people they
will lie, simplify things to make a point clearer, let their enthusiasm
paint a rosier picture, be mistaken regardless of the medium they use to
tell their story through.
The information we get here should only be the beginning. We shouldn't take
any of it on blind faith. We can run everything that sounds interesting
through the test of whether it makes sense. We can ask questions. (Which is
what makes this medium, despite it's limitations, so useful.) We can do
research. We can test it out.
If we do that, then it won't make any difference if some people are lying or
being unintentially misleading because we'll be thinking for ourselves and
finding out for ourselves.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> From: "Fetteroll" <fetteroll@...>Okay.
>> Nothing happens without a reason. That's why hypothetical questions are hard
>> to deal with. *Why* is the child torturing animals? What's going on in his
>> life that is causing him to feel this is okay?
>>
>> Personal issues make discussing philosophy much easier because the influence
>> and affect of the environment and parental attitudes are much easier to
>> examine.
> ***Did you ever read or see any of the interviews of Dahmer? I think it is
> time we stop looking to blame parents for everything that a person may or
> maynot grow up to be.
Sorry if my response was misleading. My statement wasn't taking the nurture
side of the nature vs. nurture debate. If you want to start another thread
on that, perhaps there may be some people interested in debating it.
I was responding to the idea of whether or not it was useful to discuss
hypothetical problems. If a hypothetical child is torturing animals, how can
we discuss how to hypothetically handle it? Even if the child is Jeffrey
Dahmer, there *is* a cause behind the behavior. It may be genetic. It may be
biological. It may be chemical. It may be physical abuse. It may be
psychological abuse. It may be a combination. Solutions must deal with the
cause, not the symptoms. Abuse of animals -- and lying and bedwetting and
pinching as well as a few thousand more things that kids could do -- is only
a symptom that could be caused by many different factors. And it's the
factors that need to be examined, not the symptoms.
> part of what she questionsIt's a good question but I don't think there's a good answer! If someone is
> should be questioned, "is everyone entirely honest about this."
lying about her children then she's going to lie about whether she's being
truthful ;-)
Hypothetically speaking we should treat *all* information we receive --
whether it's from a list or message board or book or friend or newspaper or
magazine or tv show or ... -- as open to question. People being people they
will lie, simplify things to make a point clearer, let their enthusiasm
paint a rosier picture, be mistaken regardless of the medium they use to
tell their story through.
The information we get here should only be the beginning. We shouldn't take
any of it on blind faith. We can run everything that sounds interesting
through the test of whether it makes sense. We can ask questions. (Which is
what makes this medium, despite it's limitations, so useful.) We can do
research. We can test it out.
If we do that, then it won't make any difference if some people are lying or
being unintentially misleading because we'll be thinking for ourselves and
finding out for ourselves.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Lynda
My response was to "What's going on in his life that is causing him to feel
this is okay?" which seems to be the automatic response be it real or
hypothetical. The point of Dahmer is that even in hypothetical people
always jump on the "there *is* a cause behind the behavior" and
automatically assume the cause is something to do with the home environment.
My point was that if one reads the interviews it throws a monkey wrench into
the idea that some folks are just born "bad." There was nothing going on in
Dahmer's life to cause him to feel that way.
Lynda
this is okay?" which seems to be the automatic response be it real or
hypothetical. The point of Dahmer is that even in hypothetical people
always jump on the "there *is* a cause behind the behavior" and
automatically assume the cause is something to do with the home environment.
My point was that if one reads the interviews it throws a monkey wrench into
the idea that some folks are just born "bad." There was nothing going on in
Dahmer's life to cause him to feel that way.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fetteroll" <fetteroll@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Good Choices
> on 2/10/02 1:00 PM, Lynda at lurine@... wrote:
>
> > From: "Fetteroll" <fetteroll@...>
>
> >> Nothing happens without a reason. That's why hypothetical questions are
hard
> >> to deal with. *Why* is the child torturing animals? What's going on in
his
> >> life that is causing him to feel this is okay?
> >>
> >> Personal issues make discussing philosophy much easier because the
influence
> >> and affect of the environment and parental attitudes are much easier to
> >> examine.
>
> > ***Did you ever read or see any of the interviews of Dahmer? I think it
is
> > time we stop looking to blame parents for everything that a person may
or
> > maynot grow up to be.
>
> Okay.
>
> Sorry if my response was misleading. My statement wasn't taking the
nurture
> side of the nature vs. nurture debate. If you want to start another thread
> on that, perhaps there may be some people interested in debating it.
>
> I was responding to the idea of whether or not it was useful to discuss
> hypothetical problems. If a hypothetical child is torturing animals, how
can
> we discuss how to hypothetically handle it? Even if the child is Jeffrey
> Dahmer, there *is* a cause behind the behavior. It may be genetic. It may
be
> biological. It may be chemical. It may be physical abuse. It may be
> psychological abuse. It may be a combination. Solutions must deal with the
> cause, not the symptoms. Abuse of animals -- and lying and bedwetting and
> pinching as well as a few thousand more things that kids could do -- is
only
> a symptom that could be caused by many different factors. And it's the
> factors that need to be examined, not the symptoms.
>
> > part of what she questions
> > should be questioned, "is everyone entirely honest about this."
>
> It's a good question but I don't think there's a good answer! If someone
is
> lying about her children then she's going to lie about whether she's being
> truthful ;-)
>
> Hypothetically speaking we should treat *all* information we receive --
> whether it's from a list or message board or book or friend or newspaper
or
> magazine or tv show or ... -- as open to question. People being people
they
> will lie, simplify things to make a point clearer, let their enthusiasm
> paint a rosier picture, be mistaken regardless of the medium they use to
> tell their story through.
>
> The information we get here should only be the beginning. We shouldn't
take
> any of it on blind faith. We can run everything that sounds interesting
> through the test of whether it makes sense. We can ask questions. (Which
is
> what makes this medium, despite it's limitations, so useful.) We can do
> research. We can test it out.
>
> If we do that, then it won't make any difference if some people are lying
or
> being unintentially misleading because we'll be thinking for ourselves and
> finding out for ourselves.
>
> Joyce
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
kaydeecross
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Lynda" <lurine@s...> wrote:
cause him to feel that way? Maybe he doesn't remember, and time has a
way of distancing ourselves from ourselves.
I beleive we come into this life with 'stuff', but that much stuff is
definately outside the scope.
Its up to parents to help you work through that stuff, or they can
add to it and make it a monster.
There are also traumas that we don't remember, from birth to age 3 or
4. Quite a few studies say that that is what is with us for the rest
of our lives. That age range, the first 36 months, determine who we
are in life. And since that time is forgotten, we can never heal
through it.
Anyway, enough babble :-), Lynda, do you have any links to some of
the interviews, I'd like to take a look. I might need to rethink my
beleif system yet again *smile*
regards,
kolleen
> My point was that if one reads the interviews it throws a monkeywrench into
> the idea that some folks are just born "bad." There was nothinggoing on in
> Dahmer's life to cause him to feel that way.How does one know if there was 'nothing' going on in his life to
> Lynda
cause him to feel that way? Maybe he doesn't remember, and time has a
way of distancing ourselves from ourselves.
I beleive we come into this life with 'stuff', but that much stuff is
definately outside the scope.
Its up to parents to help you work through that stuff, or they can
add to it and make it a monster.
There are also traumas that we don't remember, from birth to age 3 or
4. Quite a few studies say that that is what is with us for the rest
of our lives. That age range, the first 36 months, determine who we
are in life. And since that time is forgotten, we can never heal
through it.
Anyway, enough babble :-), Lynda, do you have any links to some of
the interviews, I'd like to take a look. I might need to rethink my
beleif system yet again *smile*
regards,
kolleen
Lynda
I'll see if I can find them. I watched several of them on television.
I worked with an ex-offenders' program and have interviewed hundreds of guys
in prison. I have also overheard hundreds of conversations between felons
and their lawyers/social workers/etc.
I've also worked for years with shrinks.
The bottomline is that most of the stories are just that, stories. A good
percentage of the stories are "fed" to the supposed interviewees.
That is not to say that "bad stuff" doesn't happen, the problem is that not
as much "bad stuff" is happening out there as all the nice little reports
and studies are carping about.
The point to remember is that if there isn't enough "bad stuff" to report,
then they don't get a free ride or have anything to send out grant proposals
about.
You have to understand that all the "shrink" stuff began with a man that
liked to use people as guinea pigs to test the results of doses of cocaine
on. a man that liked to push people to the edge to see if he could bring
them back from it. A man that believed that the manipulation of data was
justified by the outcome. AND, the methods haven't changed a whole lot
since then.
I've always wondered why humans are "o.k." with looking at say a litter of
puppies that have the same mother and father and were all treated the same
and when one turns out "bad" saying that it was the "bad apple." Yet they
can't do that with with humans. They have to pick apart the whole life of
the "bad apple" and his/her family to find out "why." Just maybe sometimes
there is no "why," there is just an "is."
Lynda
I worked with an ex-offenders' program and have interviewed hundreds of guys
in prison. I have also overheard hundreds of conversations between felons
and their lawyers/social workers/etc.
I've also worked for years with shrinks.
The bottomline is that most of the stories are just that, stories. A good
percentage of the stories are "fed" to the supposed interviewees.
That is not to say that "bad stuff" doesn't happen, the problem is that not
as much "bad stuff" is happening out there as all the nice little reports
and studies are carping about.
The point to remember is that if there isn't enough "bad stuff" to report,
then they don't get a free ride or have anything to send out grant proposals
about.
You have to understand that all the "shrink" stuff began with a man that
liked to use people as guinea pigs to test the results of doses of cocaine
on. a man that liked to push people to the edge to see if he could bring
them back from it. A man that believed that the manipulation of data was
justified by the outcome. AND, the methods haven't changed a whole lot
since then.
I've always wondered why humans are "o.k." with looking at say a litter of
puppies that have the same mother and father and were all treated the same
and when one turns out "bad" saying that it was the "bad apple." Yet they
can't do that with with humans. They have to pick apart the whole life of
the "bad apple" and his/her family to find out "why." Just maybe sometimes
there is no "why," there is just an "is."
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "kaydeecross" <Kolleen@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 10:29 AM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Good Choices
> --- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Lynda" <lurine@s...> wrote:
> > My point was that if one reads the interviews it throws a monkey
> wrench into
> > the idea that some folks are just born "bad." There was nothing
> going on in
> > Dahmer's life to cause him to feel that way.
> > Lynda
>
>
> How does one know if there was 'nothing' going on in his life to
> cause him to feel that way? Maybe he doesn't remember, and time has a
> way of distancing ourselves from ourselves.
>
> I beleive we come into this life with 'stuff', but that much stuff is
> definately outside the scope.
>
> Its up to parents to help you work through that stuff, or they can
> add to it and make it a monster.
>
> There are also traumas that we don't remember, from birth to age 3 or
> 4. Quite a few studies say that that is what is with us for the rest
> of our lives. That age range, the first 36 months, determine who we
> are in life. And since that time is forgotten, we can never heal
> through it.
>
> Anyway, enough babble :-), Lynda, do you have any links to some of
> the interviews, I'd like to take a look. I might need to rethink my
> beleif system yet again *smile*
>
> regards,
> kolleen
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Tia Leschke
>How often does a litter of puppies stay together with the same owner? The
>
>I've always wondered why humans are "o.k." with looking at say a litter of
>puppies that have the same mother and father and were all treated the same
>and when one turns out "bad" saying that it was the "bad apple." Yet they
>can't do that with with humans. They have to pick apart the whole life of
>the "bad apple" and his/her family to find out "why." Just maybe sometimes
>there is no "why," there is just an "is."
bad apple dogs I've run across could always be explained by the way they
were treated. Even in human families, one or more of the kids can get
treated completely differently by the parents. It happens.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
Lyonness
<<<Even in human families, one or more of the kids can get
treated completely differently by the parents. It happens.>>>
Ok I just had to pipe up and say my brother and me were treated completely
different, like night an day, so yes it does happen.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
treated completely differently by the parents. It happens.>>>
Ok I just had to pipe up and say my brother and me were treated completely
different, like night an day, so yes it does happen.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Lynda
"Can" works for me. "always" doesn't. Which brings us back to people
looking to blame.
Some things just are.
Lynda
looking to blame.
Some things just are.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tia Leschke" <leschke@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Good Choices
>
> >
> >
> >I've always wondered why humans are "o.k." with looking at say a litter
of
> >puppies that have the same mother and father and were all treated the
same
> >and when one turns out "bad" saying that it was the "bad apple." Yet
they
> >can't do that with with humans. They have to pick apart the whole life
of
> >the "bad apple" and his/her family to find out "why." Just maybe
sometimes
> >there is no "why," there is just an "is."
>
> How often does a litter of puppies stay together with the same owner? The
> bad apple dogs I've run across could always be explained by the way they
> were treated. Even in human families, one or more of the kids can get
> treated completely differently by the parents. It happens.
> Tia
>
> No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
> Eleanor Roosevelt
> *********************************************
> Tia Leschke
> leschke@...
> On Vancouver Island
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Fetteroll
on 2/11/02 3:26 PM, Lynda at lurine@... wrote:
behavior. (And by cause I am *not* assuming it must be bad parenting. It can
be their environment. Or biology. Or any of the others I mentioned before.)
Bad people don't just happen. There *are* reasons. To assume that's so is to
assume that African Americans are inherently worse than other races since
they are disporportionately represented in prisons.
My beliefs that there are causes to children's behavior isn't based on
believing the stories told by psychologists or felons but by the problems
parents have brought to homeschooling message boards and lists.
Can we assume an adult's bad behavior was caused by a rotten childhood or
bad parenting? No.
Can a parent bring a problem they're having with a child to a list and
though questioning and introspection and trying out various suggestions
uncover the factors (that might even be biological) that are behind the
child's behavior? Yes, so far I have seen it to be possible.
That doesn't mean all children will be sweetness and light if we only parent
properly. Many children are high energy, loud, physical, demanding, quiet,
introverted and a whole host of other personality types that society deems
"wrong" and "in need of correction". Often the "problem" isn't the child's
behavior so much as the parent's need to change the child into something he
is not.
I suspect even the most well meaning parents can turn out bad kids because
they parent by "the rules" (eg., the way kids are "supposed" to be raised)
rather than expecting every chlld to be a unique individual with his own
needs, parents who try to shape and mold rather than listen and understand
to help the child grow in the way he was meant to go. (It's even possible
that parents who do their best to understand or who try to protect their
kids from a bad environment will be overwhelmed.) A free spirited child in a
home that is tightly controlled is undoubtedly at risk for turning bad. But
no one would be able to pinpoint that the parents were to blame strictly
from the type of parenting they did that thousands of other parents had used
to turn out good kids. (At risk, too, is a child who wants a lot of guidance
whose parents are saying do with your life what you will. But society would
jump all over that type of parenting since it's assume that will always turn
out bad kids.)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> The bottomline is that most of the stories are just that, stories. A goodJust because the stories are made up doesn't mean there isn't a cause to the
> percentage of the stories are "fed" to the supposed interviewees.
behavior. (And by cause I am *not* assuming it must be bad parenting. It can
be their environment. Or biology. Or any of the others I mentioned before.)
Bad people don't just happen. There *are* reasons. To assume that's so is to
assume that African Americans are inherently worse than other races since
they are disporportionately represented in prisons.
My beliefs that there are causes to children's behavior isn't based on
believing the stories told by psychologists or felons but by the problems
parents have brought to homeschooling message boards and lists.
Can we assume an adult's bad behavior was caused by a rotten childhood or
bad parenting? No.
Can a parent bring a problem they're having with a child to a list and
though questioning and introspection and trying out various suggestions
uncover the factors (that might even be biological) that are behind the
child's behavior? Yes, so far I have seen it to be possible.
That doesn't mean all children will be sweetness and light if we only parent
properly. Many children are high energy, loud, physical, demanding, quiet,
introverted and a whole host of other personality types that society deems
"wrong" and "in need of correction". Often the "problem" isn't the child's
behavior so much as the parent's need to change the child into something he
is not.
I suspect even the most well meaning parents can turn out bad kids because
they parent by "the rules" (eg., the way kids are "supposed" to be raised)
rather than expecting every chlld to be a unique individual with his own
needs, parents who try to shape and mold rather than listen and understand
to help the child grow in the way he was meant to go. (It's even possible
that parents who do their best to understand or who try to protect their
kids from a bad environment will be overwhelmed.) A free spirited child in a
home that is tightly controlled is undoubtedly at risk for turning bad. But
no one would be able to pinpoint that the parents were to blame strictly
from the type of parenting they did that thousands of other parents had used
to turn out good kids. (At risk, too, is a child who wants a lot of guidance
whose parents are saying do with your life what you will. But society would
jump all over that type of parenting since it's assume that will always turn
out bad kids.)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 2/12/02 2:52 AM, Lynda at lurine@... wrote:
Maybe from the environment you were working in you are used to people
looking to place the blame for their own action on somewhere other than on
themselves?
I don't see that making the assumption we might be able to help a parent
with a problem if they can tell us what's going on at home as being the same
as assuming a parent is to blame for rotten adults.
I'm seeing a difference between:
1) someone saying their childhood is to blame for the rotten adult they
became. If we do seek to understand why someone did what they did, it
doesn't mean we absolve them of responsibility. Understanding isn't the same
as saying it's okay.
2) a parent saying my child is torturing animals, what should I do and then
people asking for some background. Assuming we can pinpoint a cause isn't
the same as saying the parent must be at fault. (And it also is *not* saying
the adult the child will become is automatically absolved of responsibility
for their actions.) Maybe the child was a crack baby. Maybe there's a
genetic fault. My point is we can't begin to make suggestions unless we can
know what's causing it. And we can't know the causes if the problem is
hypothetical.
Just because we can find a cause for a child's behavior doesn't therefore
make whatever they do as an adult forgivable.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> "Can" works for me. "always" doesn't. Which brings us back to peopleI'm really trying to get where you're coming from Lynda.
> looking to blame.
Maybe from the environment you were working in you are used to people
looking to place the blame for their own action on somewhere other than on
themselves?
I don't see that making the assumption we might be able to help a parent
with a problem if they can tell us what's going on at home as being the same
as assuming a parent is to blame for rotten adults.
I'm seeing a difference between:
1) someone saying their childhood is to blame for the rotten adult they
became. If we do seek to understand why someone did what they did, it
doesn't mean we absolve them of responsibility. Understanding isn't the same
as saying it's okay.
2) a parent saying my child is torturing animals, what should I do and then
people asking for some background. Assuming we can pinpoint a cause isn't
the same as saying the parent must be at fault. (And it also is *not* saying
the adult the child will become is automatically absolved of responsibility
for their actions.) Maybe the child was a crack baby. Maybe there's a
genetic fault. My point is we can't begin to make suggestions unless we can
know what's causing it. And we can't know the causes if the problem is
hypothetical.
Just because we can find a cause for a child's behavior doesn't therefore
make whatever they do as an adult forgivable.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bonni Sollars
I just have to make a comment about the myth of the first three years
thing. Perhaps it is a myth, but I know that who I am has its roots in
who I was from the very beginning of my life, and I still remain affected
by my responses to my situations in my earliest days. None of us has a
choice of circumstances in our lives when we are that small, but even
then we react in different ways to it that influence our reactions to
similar circumstances later on in life.
People's behavior has to do with our subconscious beliefs which are
almost inseparable from our early experiences. Most of the people I know
who have been drug addicts or abusive actually don't believe that they
were abused (though they might say it because they've been told so by
psychologists and lawyers or to get on government assistance or out of
jail) because they don't feel it. And often when they accept that truth
they can accept the truth that they have a problem and are responsible
for it. One denial leads to another, so to speak. When we build a
building, it is only as strong as its foundation. Sometimes we need to
rebuild the foundation, but we can't if we keep saying there is nothing
wrong with it.
But a bad beginning doesn't excuse us, it just means we might have more
of a struggle in certain areas. We are all responsible for what we
accept as ours in terms of our beliefs. I think someone who is hurting
others deliberately has accepted into the heart something that is wrong
rather than rejecting it, and usually because on a subconscious level
they think it will somehow help in surviving. But this can be changed by
identifying the wrong belief and refusing to accept it anymore. Then we
can choose new beliefs that truly are helpful to ourselves and others.
I know that probably what I am saying will get picked apart, and I won't
be able to defend it with any scientific studies, but this is just my
personal opinion based on my own science experiment, life. I have never
seen anyone who committed wrong behavior who didn't base it on a wrong
belief. And I have never seen anyone who changed their wrong behavior
without also changing the wrong beliefs with truth. The interesting
thing to me is, the wrong belief didn't come from what anyone did or said
to them as much as how they processed and chose to think of what was done
or said to them. So our belief comes from within us and we own it and it
cannot be blamed on anyone else any more than wrong actions can be blamed
on anyone else.
Bonni
thing. Perhaps it is a myth, but I know that who I am has its roots in
who I was from the very beginning of my life, and I still remain affected
by my responses to my situations in my earliest days. None of us has a
choice of circumstances in our lives when we are that small, but even
then we react in different ways to it that influence our reactions to
similar circumstances later on in life.
People's behavior has to do with our subconscious beliefs which are
almost inseparable from our early experiences. Most of the people I know
who have been drug addicts or abusive actually don't believe that they
were abused (though they might say it because they've been told so by
psychologists and lawyers or to get on government assistance or out of
jail) because they don't feel it. And often when they accept that truth
they can accept the truth that they have a problem and are responsible
for it. One denial leads to another, so to speak. When we build a
building, it is only as strong as its foundation. Sometimes we need to
rebuild the foundation, but we can't if we keep saying there is nothing
wrong with it.
But a bad beginning doesn't excuse us, it just means we might have more
of a struggle in certain areas. We are all responsible for what we
accept as ours in terms of our beliefs. I think someone who is hurting
others deliberately has accepted into the heart something that is wrong
rather than rejecting it, and usually because on a subconscious level
they think it will somehow help in surviving. But this can be changed by
identifying the wrong belief and refusing to accept it anymore. Then we
can choose new beliefs that truly are helpful to ourselves and others.
I know that probably what I am saying will get picked apart, and I won't
be able to defend it with any scientific studies, but this is just my
personal opinion based on my own science experiment, life. I have never
seen anyone who committed wrong behavior who didn't base it on a wrong
belief. And I have never seen anyone who changed their wrong behavior
without also changing the wrong beliefs with truth. The interesting
thing to me is, the wrong belief didn't come from what anyone did or said
to them as much as how they processed and chose to think of what was done
or said to them. So our belief comes from within us and we own it and it
cannot be blamed on anyone else any more than wrong actions can be blamed
on anyone else.
Bonni
Joseph Fuerst
>kolleen,
> There are also traumas that we don't remember, from birth to age 3 or
> 4. Quite a few studies say that that is what is with us for the rest
> of our lives. That age range, the first 36 months, determine who we
> are in life. And since that time is forgotten, we can never heal
> through it.
>
there's also a book called "the myth of the first three years" which shows
that ther's no solid research to establish the junk they tell you about
early child/brain development. That 'first 3 years stuff is more a
political movement than anything else.
Susan
Lynda
Words such as "blame," etc. are used as crutches, excuses and a way out of
responsibility. That was the point. Folks use excuses for their own
choices. They look to place blame anywhere but where it belongs, on their
own shoulders or in their genetic make-up.
Our society has become excuse driven. There is an expert or shrink or study
to say "oh poor baby, it isn't your fault" around every corner.
My point was that frequently one needs to look not further than the person
themselves and how society has presented them with a dozen excuses for any
behavior regardless of its origin or cause.
Too often society confuses the definitions of "excuse" and "explanation."
Lynda
responsibility. That was the point. Folks use excuses for their own
choices. They look to place blame anywhere but where it belongs, on their
own shoulders or in their genetic make-up.
Our society has become excuse driven. There is an expert or shrink or study
to say "oh poor baby, it isn't your fault" around every corner.
My point was that frequently one needs to look not further than the person
themselves and how society has presented them with a dozen excuses for any
behavior regardless of its origin or cause.
Too often society confuses the definitions of "excuse" and "explanation."
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fetteroll" <fetteroll@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 3:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Good Choices
> on 2/12/02 2:52 AM, Lynda at lurine@... wrote:
>
> > "Can" works for me. "always" doesn't. Which brings us back to people
> > looking to blame.
>
> I'm really trying to get where you're coming from Lynda.
>
> Maybe from the environment you were working in you are used to people
> looking to place the blame for their own action on somewhere other than on
> themselves?
>
> I don't see that making the assumption we might be able to help a parent
> with a problem if they can tell us what's going on at home as being the
same
> as assuming a parent is to blame for rotten adults.
>
> I'm seeing a difference between:
>
> 1) someone saying their childhood is to blame for the rotten adult they
> became. If we do seek to understand why someone did what they did, it
> doesn't mean we absolve them of responsibility. Understanding isn't the
same
> as saying it's okay.
>
> 2) a parent saying my child is torturing animals, what should I do and
then
> people asking for some background. Assuming we can pinpoint a cause isn't
> the same as saying the parent must be at fault. (And it also is *not*
saying
> the adult the child will become is automatically absolved of
responsibility
> for their actions.) Maybe the child was a crack baby. Maybe there's a
> genetic fault. My point is we can't begin to make suggestions unless we
can
> know what's causing it. And we can't know the causes if the problem is
> hypothetical.
>
> Just because we can find a cause for a child's behavior doesn't therefore
> make whatever they do as an adult forgivable.
>
> Joyce
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
psam ordener
> I suspect even the most well meaning parents can turn out bad kids becausea
> they parent by "the rules" (eg., the way kids are "supposed" to be raised)
> rather than expecting every chlld to be a unique individual with his own
> needs, parents who try to shape and mold rather than listen and understand
> to help the child grow in the way he was meant to go. (It's even possible
> that parents who do their best to understand or who try to protect their
> kids from a bad environment will be overwhelmed.) A free spirited child in
> home that is tightly controlled is undoubtedly at risk for turning bad.But
> no one would be able to pinpoint that the parents were to blame strictlyused
> from the type of parenting they did that thousands of other parents had
> to turn out good kids. (I hear you saying that a mismatch between personalities and needs can cause
these behaviors. I believe that's true; it can happen. I was abused as a
child, yet I'm an upstanding citizen of the country - a bit eccentric, it's
true (homeschooling, Libertarian), but nevertheless generally law-abiding
and peaceable.
psam
psamo@...
Motherhood - not just a job, it's an Adventure!
Lynda
That would have to do with personality types. Folks are born with
personality types, some are laid back, some outgoing, AND, some narcistic.
So, if you take your thoughts on processing input from one's environment,
regardless of the quality of the homelife, you can end up with some folks
that are just plain "bad apples" regardless of how they were treated as
children.
Lynda
personality types, some are laid back, some outgoing, AND, some narcistic.
So, if you take your thoughts on processing input from one's environment,
regardless of the quality of the homelife, you can end up with some folks
that are just plain "bad apples" regardless of how they were treated as
children.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bonni Sollars" <BSOLLARS@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Good Choices
> I just have to make a comment about the myth of the first three years
> thing. Perhaps it is a myth, but I know that who I am has its roots in
> who I was from the very beginning of my life, and I still remain affected
> by my responses to my situations in my earliest days. None of us has a
> choice of circumstances in our lives when we are that small, but even
> then we react in different ways to it that influence our reactions to
> similar circumstances later on in life.
> People's behavior has to do with our subconscious beliefs which are
> almost inseparable from our early experiences. Most of the people I know
> who have been drug addicts or abusive actually don't believe that they
> were abused (though they might say it because they've been told so by
> psychologists and lawyers or to get on government assistance or out of
> jail) because they don't feel it. And often when they accept that truth
> they can accept the truth that they have a problem and are responsible
> for it. One denial leads to another, so to speak. When we build a
> building, it is only as strong as its foundation. Sometimes we need to
> rebuild the foundation, but we can't if we keep saying there is nothing
> wrong with it.
> But a bad beginning doesn't excuse us, it just means we might have more
> of a struggle in certain areas. We are all responsible for what we
> accept as ours in terms of our beliefs. I think someone who is hurting
> others deliberately has accepted into the heart something that is wrong
> rather than rejecting it, and usually because on a subconscious level
> they think it will somehow help in surviving. But this can be changed by
> identifying the wrong belief and refusing to accept it anymore. Then we
> can choose new beliefs that truly are helpful to ourselves and others.
> I know that probably what I am saying will get picked apart, and I won't
> be able to defend it with any scientific studies, but this is just my
> personal opinion based on my own science experiment, life. I have never
> seen anyone who committed wrong behavior who didn't base it on a wrong
> belief. And I have never seen anyone who changed their wrong behavior
> without also changing the wrong beliefs with truth. The interesting
> thing to me is, the wrong belief didn't come from what anyone did or said
> to them as much as how they processed and chose to think of what was done
> or said to them. So our belief comes from within us and we own it and it
> cannot be blamed on anyone else any more than wrong actions can be blamed
> on anyone else.
> Bonni
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>