"socializing with non-homeschoolers"
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/22/02 4:08:12 PM, jsjulian@... writes:
<<
At a recent hs support group meeting, the topic was "socializing w/
non-homeschoolers". >>
I meant to comment on this, too:
Just a little bit ago, we were talking about camping arrangements for Grand
Outlandish, a big SCA event here Memorial Day weekend. I suggested I'd just
as well have a small camp this year, just family (instead of the 25-person
extravaganzas we've had the past few years). It was pointed out to me that
we would have "the teens" anyway. That means the crowd that's usually at our
house (all but one homeschooled), and the unschoolers who are friends with my
niece in another town.
Someone said that another family (the mom I've known for 23 years; the oldest
kid is 15 or so) wanted to camp near us because they were going to have some
visiting teenaged girls.
I kind of froze inside and said, "But they're schooled kids, and it will be
different."
Creepy feeling, having boys after all my years of being a girlchild and
teenaged girl in a family of all girls!
I realize that while I trust eight to ten homeschooled kids to be responsible
and non-sexual and careful and to eventually go to bed in their own beds, I
do NOT trust the addition of several school kids (of any gender, really).
It will just change the balance.
I'm trying to tell myself it's silly, but something nags at me.
Sandra
<<
At a recent hs support group meeting, the topic was "socializing w/
non-homeschoolers". >>
I meant to comment on this, too:
Just a little bit ago, we were talking about camping arrangements for Grand
Outlandish, a big SCA event here Memorial Day weekend. I suggested I'd just
as well have a small camp this year, just family (instead of the 25-person
extravaganzas we've had the past few years). It was pointed out to me that
we would have "the teens" anyway. That means the crowd that's usually at our
house (all but one homeschooled), and the unschoolers who are friends with my
niece in another town.
Someone said that another family (the mom I've known for 23 years; the oldest
kid is 15 or so) wanted to camp near us because they were going to have some
visiting teenaged girls.
I kind of froze inside and said, "But they're schooled kids, and it will be
different."
Creepy feeling, having boys after all my years of being a girlchild and
teenaged girl in a family of all girls!
I realize that while I trust eight to ten homeschooled kids to be responsible
and non-sexual and careful and to eventually go to bed in their own beds, I
do NOT trust the addition of several school kids (of any gender, really).
It will just change the balance.
I'm trying to tell myself it's silly, but something nags at me.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/22/2002 10:28:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
children; I think the silliness is in trusting homeschooled children of
"opposite" genders to be "non-sexual."
If they're "really clever," they will be able to rationalize sexual
"mis"conduct as just another part of "unschooling."
Am I wrong?
Kate Davis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> <<Personally, I think the silliness is not in not trusting the non-homeshooled
> At a recent hs support group meeting, the topic was "socializing w/
> non-homeschoolers". >>
>
> I meant to comment on this, too:
>
> Just a little bit ago, we were talking about camping arrangements for Grand
>
> Outlandish, a big SCA event here Memorial Day weekend. I suggested I'd
> just
> as well have a small camp this year, just family (instead of the 25-person
> extravaganzas we've had the past few years). It was pointed out to me that
>
> we would have "the teens" anyway. That means the crowd that's usually at
> our
> house (all but one homeschooled), and the unschoolers who are friends with
> my
> niece in another town.
>
> Someone said that another family (the mom I've known for 23 years; the
> oldest
> kid is 15 or so) wanted to camp near us because they were going to have
> some
> visiting teenaged girls.
>
> I kind of froze inside and said, "But they're schooled kids, and it will be
>
> different."
>
> Creepy feeling, having boys after all my years of being a girlchild and
> teenaged girl in a family of all girls!
>
> I realize that while I trust eight to ten homeschooled kids to be
> responsible
> and non-sexual and careful and to eventually go to bed in their own beds, I
>
> do NOT trust the addition of several school kids (of any gender, really).
>
> It will just change the balance.
>
> I'm trying to tell myself it's silly, but something nags at me.
>
> Sandra
>
children; I think the silliness is in trusting homeschooled children of
"opposite" genders to be "non-sexual."
If they're "really clever," they will be able to rationalize sexual
"mis"conduct as just another part of "unschooling."
Am I wrong?
Kate Davis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/22/02 8:41:30 PM, Katedavislawfirm@... writes:
<<
Personally, I think the silliness is not in not trusting the non-homeshooled
children; I think the silliness is in trusting homeschooled children of
"opposite" genders to be "non-sexual." >>
It might seem silly if the kids weren't often at my house, if I hadn't known
half of them since they were born (my sister's 17 year old, both of Carol
Rice's kids), if the boys didn't confide in me, and if they hadn't camped
together half a dozen times before already, with adults around too, but not
making them go to sleep at a certain time, if I didn't know that they
travelled in little groups and didn't pair up, and if they didn't spend a lot
of time sleeping overnight at my house.
So it's not "silliness." It's direct knowledge and confidence.
Tomorrow night four are coming from Espanola to go to a concert and stay
overnight here. Some of the locals will probably spend the night here to get
to visit them, because they all know each other.
I won't tell them where to sleep, and we won't separate boys from girls, but
there won't be any sexual activity.
<<If they're "really clever," they will be able to rationalize sexual
"mis"conduct as just another part of "unschooling."
<<Am I wrong?>>
For now, yes.
If things continue as they are now, when they have sex it will not be
misconduct. It will be a conscious, planned activity.
Of the +/- 10 boys and +/- seven girls in question, the ages range from 13 to
18, and none is yet sexually active. The average age of the females is
greater than the average male age. It's not for lack of opportunity to get
in private places. It's from a surfeit of maturity and a lack of desperation
for affection, desperation for love, or the strong desire to be grown fast
and leave home. All of them are still living at home, too.
One of the very-schooled girls the boys here know has been discussed among
them and from me and another parent. Her dad is mean to her (alternately
ignoring and blaming), and she's expected to take care of her two younger
brothers who are about 6 and 8 ALL the time. She is pretty anxious to get
the hell out of there, and she tends to "want a boyfriend," and to offer
herself to an extent the boys were REALLY uncomfortable with. They've
stopped hanging out with her at all. The first boy who will get her pregnant
will be her hero, because her dad will throw her out. She seems to be not
thinking much past that.
Schooled kids sometimes have cliques and groups to report to on Monday about
how dates went. What--no dates!? There is pressure to keep up there,
sometimes. There was when I was in school and I know it still exists.
The homeschoolers we know aren't dating at all. They go to movies in groups,
and they do things in pairs, but they're not "couples."
Sandra
<<
Personally, I think the silliness is not in not trusting the non-homeshooled
children; I think the silliness is in trusting homeschooled children of
"opposite" genders to be "non-sexual." >>
It might seem silly if the kids weren't often at my house, if I hadn't known
half of them since they were born (my sister's 17 year old, both of Carol
Rice's kids), if the boys didn't confide in me, and if they hadn't camped
together half a dozen times before already, with adults around too, but not
making them go to sleep at a certain time, if I didn't know that they
travelled in little groups and didn't pair up, and if they didn't spend a lot
of time sleeping overnight at my house.
So it's not "silliness." It's direct knowledge and confidence.
Tomorrow night four are coming from Espanola to go to a concert and stay
overnight here. Some of the locals will probably spend the night here to get
to visit them, because they all know each other.
I won't tell them where to sleep, and we won't separate boys from girls, but
there won't be any sexual activity.
<<If they're "really clever," they will be able to rationalize sexual
"mis"conduct as just another part of "unschooling."
<<Am I wrong?>>
For now, yes.
If things continue as they are now, when they have sex it will not be
misconduct. It will be a conscious, planned activity.
Of the +/- 10 boys and +/- seven girls in question, the ages range from 13 to
18, and none is yet sexually active. The average age of the females is
greater than the average male age. It's not for lack of opportunity to get
in private places. It's from a surfeit of maturity and a lack of desperation
for affection, desperation for love, or the strong desire to be grown fast
and leave home. All of them are still living at home, too.
One of the very-schooled girls the boys here know has been discussed among
them and from me and another parent. Her dad is mean to her (alternately
ignoring and blaming), and she's expected to take care of her two younger
brothers who are about 6 and 8 ALL the time. She is pretty anxious to get
the hell out of there, and she tends to "want a boyfriend," and to offer
herself to an extent the boys were REALLY uncomfortable with. They've
stopped hanging out with her at all. The first boy who will get her pregnant
will be her hero, because her dad will throw her out. She seems to be not
thinking much past that.
Schooled kids sometimes have cliques and groups to report to on Monday about
how dates went. What--no dates!? There is pressure to keep up there,
sometimes. There was when I was in school and I know it still exists.
The homeschoolers we know aren't dating at all. They go to movies in groups,
and they do things in pairs, but they're not "couples."
Sandra
[email protected]
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 22:38:16 EDT Katedavislawfirm@... writes:
The unschooled teens I know don't do a lot of rationalizing and being
"really clever". They're pretty up front about things. They talk through
issues a lot. They also stay up late and sleep in late and most of the
ones at our last big party didn't know how to do dishes without a
dishwasher, or so they said ;-) We cheerfully enlightened them...
I don't think it's that they're "non-sexual"; it's more that they've
always recognized that these sorts of parties are not the appropriate
places to be sexual. At the last party here, there were 13 or 14 of them
and they had the whole guest house to themselves - I don't think any of
the adults were in there more than once the whole week. Cacie was,
though, and I just asked and she said there wasn't anything like that,
"Just the regular people piles and sitting in laps and stuff".
Unschooling is all about trust...
Dar
> Personally, I think the silliness is not in not trusting thenon-homeshooled
> children; I think the silliness is in trusting homeschooled childrenYes. At least based on my experience.
> of "opposite" genders to be "non-sexual."
>
> If they're "really clever," they will be able to rationalize sexual
> "mis"conduct as just another part of "unschooling."
>
> Am I wrong?
The unschooled teens I know don't do a lot of rationalizing and being
"really clever". They're pretty up front about things. They talk through
issues a lot. They also stay up late and sleep in late and most of the
ones at our last big party didn't know how to do dishes without a
dishwasher, or so they said ;-) We cheerfully enlightened them...
I don't think it's that they're "non-sexual"; it's more that they've
always recognized that these sorts of parties are not the appropriate
places to be sexual. At the last party here, there were 13 or 14 of them
and they had the whole guest house to themselves - I don't think any of
the adults were in there more than once the whole week. Cacie was,
though, and I just asked and she said there wasn't anything like that,
"Just the regular people piles and sitting in laps and stuff".
Unschooling is all about trust...
Dar
schuyler_waynforth
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
of >opportunity to get in private places. It's from a surfeit of
maturity >and a lack of desperation for affection, desperation for
love, or the >strong desire to be grown fast and leave home. All of
them are still >living at home, too.
mean to her >(alternately ignoring and blaming), and she's expected
to take care of >her two younger brothers who are about 6 and 8 ALL
the time. She is >pretty anxious to get the hell out of there, and
she tends to "want a >boyfriend," and to offer herself to an extent
the boys were REALLY >uncomfortable with. They've stopped hanging
out with her at all. The >first boy who will get her pregnant will
be her hero, because her dad >will throw her out. She seems to be
not thinking much past that.
---------------------------
Within life-history theory there is a basic trade-off between growth
and reproduction. Those individuals within a species who have the
least desirable environment are most likely to grow less and
reproduce earlier. If you apply that theory to homeschooling it
should predict that the homeschooled is more likely to delay sexual
activity when compared with the schooled child.
So, homeschooled teenagers should be much safer than non-
homeschooled teenagers when it comes to sexual precociousness.
Schuyler.
P.S. I hate when my son (5 yrs old) plays with one of his schooled
friends. He comes back completely wrapped up in the hierarchy of
age. Sigh I just tell I'm 33 so I must know infinitely more than
his friend does, so he should trust my opinion and age doesn't
matter. Fortunately he hasn't sussed out that paradox, yet. He
doesn't listen to me, anyhow. He just laughs.
>Of the +/- 10 boys and +/- seven girls in question, the ages rangethe >females is greater than the average male age. It's not for lack
>from 13 to 18, and none is yet sexually active. The average age of
of >opportunity to get in private places. It's from a surfeit of
maturity >and a lack of desperation for affection, desperation for
love, or the >strong desire to be grown fast and leave home. All of
them are still >living at home, too.
>discussed >among them and from me and another parent. Her dad is
>One of the very-schooled girls the boys here know has been
mean to her >(alternately ignoring and blaming), and she's expected
to take care of >her two younger brothers who are about 6 and 8 ALL
the time. She is >pretty anxious to get the hell out of there, and
she tends to "want a >boyfriend," and to offer herself to an extent
the boys were REALLY >uncomfortable with. They've stopped hanging
out with her at all. The >first boy who will get her pregnant will
be her hero, because her dad >will throw her out. She seems to be
not thinking much past that.
---------------------------
Within life-history theory there is a basic trade-off between growth
and reproduction. Those individuals within a species who have the
least desirable environment are most likely to grow less and
reproduce earlier. If you apply that theory to homeschooling it
should predict that the homeschooled is more likely to delay sexual
activity when compared with the schooled child.
So, homeschooled teenagers should be much safer than non-
homeschooled teenagers when it comes to sexual precociousness.
Schuyler.
P.S. I hate when my son (5 yrs old) plays with one of his schooled
friends. He comes back completely wrapped up in the hierarchy of
age. Sigh I just tell I'm 33 so I must know infinitely more than
his friend does, so he should trust my opinion and age doesn't
matter. Fortunately he hasn't sussed out that paradox, yet. He
doesn't listen to me, anyhow. He just laughs.
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/22/2002 7:55:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
describing. I'm sure many do have sex - but it is private and a conscious
decision. It isn't just impetuous sex based on happening to be up late in a
group with no adults around.
--pamS
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> If things continue as they are now, when they have sex it will not beIt is common for the unschooled kids to be like the ones Sandra is
> misconduct. It will be a conscious, planned activity.
describing. I'm sure many do have sex - but it is private and a conscious
decision. It isn't just impetuous sex based on happening to be up late in a
group with no adults around.
--pamS
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/23/2002 1:28:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
PSoroosh@... writes:
<< In a message dated 4/22/2002 7:55:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
describing. I'm sure many do have sex - but it is private and a conscious
decision. It isn't just impetuous sex based on happening to be up late in a
group with no adults around.
--pamS >>
Thank you all for the responses.
I now have even more, then I had before, to chew on.
I hadn't even really thought about homeschooling's effect on socialization in
this positive way. (Don't get me wrong, I believe very strongly that
homeschooling is much better for a child's socialization opportunities and
development.)
Mostly, my objection to public school has always been based upon the
educationally-stunting effects of public school methods. I also do not like
the numerous negative social episodes that occur in public schools (in the
bathrooms and elsewhere), but I had never really thought to link premature
sexual experimentation to public school.
I feel like an idiot saying that, as it seems so obvious now that I have
thought about it for a little more than three minutes.
Does anyone know if there are any formal studies on this subject?
Kate Davis
PSoroosh@... writes:
<< In a message dated 4/22/2002 7:55:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
> If things continue as they are now, when they have sex it will not beIt is common for the unschooled kids to be like the ones Sandra is
> misconduct. It will be a conscious, planned activity.
describing. I'm sure many do have sex - but it is private and a conscious
decision. It isn't just impetuous sex based on happening to be up late in a
group with no adults around.
--pamS >>
Thank you all for the responses.
I now have even more, then I had before, to chew on.
I hadn't even really thought about homeschooling's effect on socialization in
this positive way. (Don't get me wrong, I believe very strongly that
homeschooling is much better for a child's socialization opportunities and
development.)
Mostly, my objection to public school has always been based upon the
educationally-stunting effects of public school methods. I also do not like
the numerous negative social episodes that occur in public schools (in the
bathrooms and elsewhere), but I had never really thought to link premature
sexual experimentation to public school.
I feel like an idiot saying that, as it seems so obvious now that I have
thought about it for a little more than three minutes.
Does anyone know if there are any formal studies on this subject?
Kate Davis
rumpleteasermom
Well, here's more on this.
First back to my crusade! We need to reclaim the whole socialization
thing. Don't let ps parents bully you on it. We KNOW our kids are
getting better socialization than theirs. We need to start being
upfront and in their face about it as they have been with us for so
long.
Second, about the sexuality thing. Rachel is 17, has been on two
dates and is not showing any signs of wanting to go on another. I was
chatting with another homeschooling friend of mine about it and the
thought came up that it is because they have their own identities. In
other words, because they've been allowed to find themselves, they
aren't still searching for themselves in sex.
But, I know other homeschoolers for whom I think the whole thing is
just like it is in school. So just being homeschooled is no
guarentee. In fact I think we are back to the super-saturation thing.
The reason I think the problem is still there for the aforementioed
group is because they have been together for years and their lives
have included a lot of structured classes and other time consuming
things. It's been kind of a school away from school thing.
Bridget
First back to my crusade! We need to reclaim the whole socialization
thing. Don't let ps parents bully you on it. We KNOW our kids are
getting better socialization than theirs. We need to start being
upfront and in their face about it as they have been with us for so
long.
Second, about the sexuality thing. Rachel is 17, has been on two
dates and is not showing any signs of wanting to go on another. I was
chatting with another homeschooling friend of mine about it and the
thought came up that it is because they have their own identities. In
other words, because they've been allowed to find themselves, they
aren't still searching for themselves in sex.
But, I know other homeschoolers for whom I think the whole thing is
just like it is in school. So just being homeschooled is no
guarentee. In fact I think we are back to the super-saturation thing.
The reason I think the problem is still there for the aforementioed
group is because they have been together for years and their lives
have included a lot of structured classes and other time consuming
things. It's been kind of a school away from school thing.
Bridget
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Katedavislawfirm@a... wrote:
>
> Thank you all for the responses.
>
> I now have even more, then I had before, to chew on.
>
> I hadn't even really thought about homeschooling's effect on
socialization in
> this positive way. (Don't get me wrong, I believe very strongly
that
> homeschooling is much better for a child's socialization
opportunities and
> development.)
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/22/02 10:38:59 PM, dwaynf@... writes:
<< I just tell I'm 33 so I must know infinitely more than
his friend does, so he should trust my opinion and age doesn't
matter. >>
Sweet answer. <g>
<<Those individuals within a species who have the
least desirable environment are most likely to grow less and
reproduce earlier. If you apply that theory to homeschooling it
should predict that the homeschooled is more likely to delay sexual
activity when compared with the schooled child. >>
Thanks for the further explanation of what I'm seeing in the teen world
around me.
Sandra
<< I just tell I'm 33 so I must know infinitely more than
his friend does, so he should trust my opinion and age doesn't
matter. >>
Sweet answer. <g>
<<Those individuals within a species who have the
least desirable environment are most likely to grow less and
reproduce earlier. If you apply that theory to homeschooling it
should predict that the homeschooled is more likely to delay sexual
activity when compared with the schooled child. >>
Thanks for the further explanation of what I'm seeing in the teen world
around me.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/23/02 5:56:15 AM, Katedavislawfirm@... writes:
<< Does anyone know if there are any formal studies on this subject? >>
I'm sure there aren't. Not about unschoolers, anyway. And if there's one
that has analyzed factors in early vs. late sexual activity, I'm guessing all
their subjects would be schooled kids, AND that many of them would by lying.
There used to be surveys of students when I was in school, and when I was
teaching. I remember being evasive on the surveys, not trusting that they
weren't going to show them to parents. And when I was a teacher, I'd hear
the kids later, laughing about what they had written. Those who were
absolutely confident that the forms WERE anonymous and unconnected with
particular kids would lie to make their sex or drug use MORE (or existent
where it wasn't), and it seemed, in large part, just to goof with the people
running the survey.
Last night I read Kate's post about it being silliness (I know, she's changed
her mind some <g>) to Marty, and when I read "Am I wrong?" he said "Yes, she
is!"
Sandra
<< Does anyone know if there are any formal studies on this subject? >>
I'm sure there aren't. Not about unschoolers, anyway. And if there's one
that has analyzed factors in early vs. late sexual activity, I'm guessing all
their subjects would be schooled kids, AND that many of them would by lying.
There used to be surveys of students when I was in school, and when I was
teaching. I remember being evasive on the surveys, not trusting that they
weren't going to show them to parents. And when I was a teacher, I'd hear
the kids later, laughing about what they had written. Those who were
absolutely confident that the forms WERE anonymous and unconnected with
particular kids would lie to make their sex or drug use MORE (or existent
where it wasn't), and it seemed, in large part, just to goof with the people
running the survey.
Last night I read Kate's post about it being silliness (I know, she's changed
her mind some <g>) to Marty, and when I read "Am I wrong?" he said "Yes, she
is!"
Sandra
schuyler_waynforth
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Katedavislawfirm@a... wrote:
general. Homeschoolers are considered a self-selected population
and due to that setting up causality becomes incredibly
problematic. So, interpreting whether or not children who have been
homeschooled are less sexually precocious due to the amount of
parental investment given or due to some other common denominator
among homeschooled children is considered to difficult to be
tenable.
However, there are a number of studies on the direct care of
children and the effect that has on age at first sexual
experience. "Risk factors and life processes associated with
teenage pregnancy: Results of a prospective study from birth to 20
years", Woodward L, Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ. JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE
AND THE FAMILY v. 63(#4) pp. 1170-1184 NOV 2001. This study found
that those girls who were raised in a "family environment
characterized by parental instability" were more likely to have had
a teenage pregnancy. "Sex differences in disposition towards kin,
security of adult attachment, and sociosexuality as a function of
parental divorce", Barber N. EVOLUTION AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR v. 19(#2)
pp. 125-132 MAR 1998. Barber found that parental divorce - which he
predicted to be associated with lower levels of parental care - was
associated with a higher sociosexuality index (a survey produced by
Steve Gangestad and Jeffrey Simpson to measure willingness to be
sexually active), a lower willingness to help others, and lower
GPAs. Of course another study done in Australia
("What distinguishes women with unusually high numbers of sex
partners?", Mikach SM, Bailey JM. EVOLUTION AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR v. 20
(#3) pp. 141-150 MAY 1999) found no recalled family adversity linked
with a higher level of sociosexuality. In fact the only link found
was: "[o]n several measures related to masculinity, women with many
sex partners were elevated compared with other women." Bailey,
however, is heavily invested in attachment theory and later
suggested that the Sociosexuality Index while affective in measuring
male sexuality missed in measuring female sexuality as evidenced by
the findings he made in this study. Barber has done another study
("The role of reproductive strategies in academic attainment", SEX
ROLES v. 38(#3-4) pp. 313-323 FEB 1998) that found an association
between parental divorce and higher sociosexuality and lower GPA.
Actually, it is hard to do this kind of search. Figuring out what
the keywords would be is really tricky.
Anyhow. There are a few bodies of theory about early ages at first
sexual experience and family dynamics. Draper and Harpending (both
anthropologists, but oddly using evolutionary psychology to examine
early age at first menstruation) found an association between father
absence and earlier ages at menarche (first menstruation). They
hypothesized that this was due to the environment of their
upbringing. That is, due to the absence of their father these girls
were being brought up in an environment that taught them that men
were unstable and that they should get all they can from men. So
they become sexually active early in order to coerce resources from
potential mates for a longer period of time. This is all done
biologically and not consciously. The problem with this theory IMO
is that they are speaking of an evolved mechanism that seems fairly
rigid. That is if the environment changes before menarche is
reached--for example their mothers move into a more stable
relationship--than the systems are already in place and they reach
menarche early and they become sexual active in a way not predicted
for by their current environment. And given that a number of
studies have recently found that the time of greatest effect of
father absence on likelihood of children to enter college is in the
high school years, we seem to be fairly sensitive to our
environment. Also, these findings have not been replicated outside
of modern populations. Among Mayans and Ache (a population of
hunter-gatherers living in Paraguay) my dh found that father absence
was associated with later ages at first reproduction in men(he was
looking at male sexuality). There is also a recent, non-published
study by Sara Grainger looking at 415 women in Liverpool that could
not replicate the findings of Draper and Harpending, of Belsky and
of Ellis and of others. She argues that there may be type 1 errors
in the sampling and statistical methods used by the researchers, as
well as confounding variables that may have produced findings that
would not have been found otherwise.
The main problem with this hypothesis is evolution. Under the
rubric of evolution those creatures that can produce the greatest
number of offspring will have the greatest number of genetic
representatives in future generations. Reaching menarche earlier, if
there is no subsequent cost, should be associated with greater
offspring number. And greater offspring number (Kaplan, etal--don't
remember the year) has been associated with greater grandchildren
number. So, why would humans have evolved so that the most
advantaged (i.e., those with two parent households) have the fewest
number of offspring. One, we may have historically, and
prehistorically, suffered greater mortality when one parent was
absent. Although Hill and Hurtado, 1996, found that parental
divorce had no effect on child mortality among the Ache it did
strongly effect the risk of child homicide. Two, we may have evolved
to have sex not to have children (Perusse, again, can't remember the
year). This doesn't seem to be supported given the variation in
Sociosexuality Index, but having just done the search on Social
Science, I haven't really thought about it long enough. The third
possibility is that the association is not at all to do with father
absence, but do to with poverty and the foods associated with
poverty. There is a process called twinning in sheep. Sheep are
kept at 3/4 rations for some proportion of the year prior to going
into heat. And then, immediately before they do go into heat, the
ranchers will up their food rations to double what they need.
Because of the flush environment they produce twins instead of
having singleton births. For the poor in many industrialized
populations the food is high in fat and calories and may be driving
the age of menarche lower and lower. Father absence is heavily
associated with poverty. And diet has been clearly linked with
earlier ages at menarche. And poverty has been clearly linked with
obesity. It is an on-the-fly causal path model, I haven't put a lot
of thought into it.
There are other models. Hillard Kaplan has a modified the economics
human capital model. His theory is that people will invest in
themselves so that they may better be able to invest in their
offspring. Within a market economy he has found that there seems to
be no end to the returns of investing in one's self. That is for
hunter-gatherer's and other subsistence level populations there is a
point at which investing in the skills of hunting peccararies or of
gathering palm hearts is finite. The skills will never get any
greater. But for those within market-based economies there is no
point when your skills are unimprovable. So, you choose. You
choose between quality of offspring or quantity of offspring. And
that would be expressed in earlier ages of first sexual experience
and earlier ages of first reproduction. The decision, Hilly argues,
is based upon the individuals ability to parlay time invested in
themselves into true skills. So, if you are really capable of
learning and have had high levels of parental investment (he is
talking about monetary investment, and not time) than you should
continue to invest in your own "growth" rather than into
reproduction. It ends up being an evolved mechanism gone awry in
the current generalized environment. Unfortunately there is no data
to back this up.
Basic life-history theory argues that we have finite energy to be
split up in three arenas: growth, reproduction, and soma, otherwise
known as maintenance. I recognize that these catagories may
overlap, but when modeling it is easier to lay them out as
individual groups. The division of energy is largely genetically
based. However, within any species there is always variation.
There was a wonderful study of two groups of American possum who
live in Virginia. One group live on an island where there are no
cars. The other on the mainland and they suffer huge mortality
costs due to cars. The island population are less precocious. They
grow more slowly, they reach reproduction later and have on average
three litters. The mainland population is characterized by early
age at first reproduction, smaller body size, larger litter size,
and earlier age at mortality. There is no genetic difference. The
two populations have different life-histories due to differences in
the risk of dying. Those individuals on the mainland who continued
to delay reproduction so that they could grow were more likely to be
hit by cars before they had babies who would also be more likely to
delay reproduction. So, within our species what makes for a switch
between growth to reproduction? Girls stop growing when they reach
menarche. Being small often leads to smaller offspring size. As
well as a higher risk of death during childbirth. Smaller babies
have a harder time surviving to sexual maturity. And there is a
recent bout of literature suggesting that smaller babies have lower
IQs.
When I was decided to homeschool I did a bit of research to arm
myself for the debates with my family. There is a body of research
that argues that preschool is better than keeping children at home.
It states that children are more precocious when they are put in
preschool. I have concluded that precociousness is overrated.
Precocious individuals are individuals for whom growth is being
stopped so that they may reproduce before they die an early death.
Anyhow. I'm sorry if this was a bit technical. I really enjoyed
writing it. I don't get a lot of opportunity to talk about life-
history theory in my day to day.
Schuyler
> Does anyone know if there are any formal studies on this subject?As far as I know there are very few studies on homeschoolers in
>
> Kate Davis
general. Homeschoolers are considered a self-selected population
and due to that setting up causality becomes incredibly
problematic. So, interpreting whether or not children who have been
homeschooled are less sexually precocious due to the amount of
parental investment given or due to some other common denominator
among homeschooled children is considered to difficult to be
tenable.
However, there are a number of studies on the direct care of
children and the effect that has on age at first sexual
experience. "Risk factors and life processes associated with
teenage pregnancy: Results of a prospective study from birth to 20
years", Woodward L, Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ. JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE
AND THE FAMILY v. 63(#4) pp. 1170-1184 NOV 2001. This study found
that those girls who were raised in a "family environment
characterized by parental instability" were more likely to have had
a teenage pregnancy. "Sex differences in disposition towards kin,
security of adult attachment, and sociosexuality as a function of
parental divorce", Barber N. EVOLUTION AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR v. 19(#2)
pp. 125-132 MAR 1998. Barber found that parental divorce - which he
predicted to be associated with lower levels of parental care - was
associated with a higher sociosexuality index (a survey produced by
Steve Gangestad and Jeffrey Simpson to measure willingness to be
sexually active), a lower willingness to help others, and lower
GPAs. Of course another study done in Australia
("What distinguishes women with unusually high numbers of sex
partners?", Mikach SM, Bailey JM. EVOLUTION AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR v. 20
(#3) pp. 141-150 MAY 1999) found no recalled family adversity linked
with a higher level of sociosexuality. In fact the only link found
was: "[o]n several measures related to masculinity, women with many
sex partners were elevated compared with other women." Bailey,
however, is heavily invested in attachment theory and later
suggested that the Sociosexuality Index while affective in measuring
male sexuality missed in measuring female sexuality as evidenced by
the findings he made in this study. Barber has done another study
("The role of reproductive strategies in academic attainment", SEX
ROLES v. 38(#3-4) pp. 313-323 FEB 1998) that found an association
between parental divorce and higher sociosexuality and lower GPA.
Actually, it is hard to do this kind of search. Figuring out what
the keywords would be is really tricky.
Anyhow. There are a few bodies of theory about early ages at first
sexual experience and family dynamics. Draper and Harpending (both
anthropologists, but oddly using evolutionary psychology to examine
early age at first menstruation) found an association between father
absence and earlier ages at menarche (first menstruation). They
hypothesized that this was due to the environment of their
upbringing. That is, due to the absence of their father these girls
were being brought up in an environment that taught them that men
were unstable and that they should get all they can from men. So
they become sexually active early in order to coerce resources from
potential mates for a longer period of time. This is all done
biologically and not consciously. The problem with this theory IMO
is that they are speaking of an evolved mechanism that seems fairly
rigid. That is if the environment changes before menarche is
reached--for example their mothers move into a more stable
relationship--than the systems are already in place and they reach
menarche early and they become sexual active in a way not predicted
for by their current environment. And given that a number of
studies have recently found that the time of greatest effect of
father absence on likelihood of children to enter college is in the
high school years, we seem to be fairly sensitive to our
environment. Also, these findings have not been replicated outside
of modern populations. Among Mayans and Ache (a population of
hunter-gatherers living in Paraguay) my dh found that father absence
was associated with later ages at first reproduction in men(he was
looking at male sexuality). There is also a recent, non-published
study by Sara Grainger looking at 415 women in Liverpool that could
not replicate the findings of Draper and Harpending, of Belsky and
of Ellis and of others. She argues that there may be type 1 errors
in the sampling and statistical methods used by the researchers, as
well as confounding variables that may have produced findings that
would not have been found otherwise.
The main problem with this hypothesis is evolution. Under the
rubric of evolution those creatures that can produce the greatest
number of offspring will have the greatest number of genetic
representatives in future generations. Reaching menarche earlier, if
there is no subsequent cost, should be associated with greater
offspring number. And greater offspring number (Kaplan, etal--don't
remember the year) has been associated with greater grandchildren
number. So, why would humans have evolved so that the most
advantaged (i.e., those with two parent households) have the fewest
number of offspring. One, we may have historically, and
prehistorically, suffered greater mortality when one parent was
absent. Although Hill and Hurtado, 1996, found that parental
divorce had no effect on child mortality among the Ache it did
strongly effect the risk of child homicide. Two, we may have evolved
to have sex not to have children (Perusse, again, can't remember the
year). This doesn't seem to be supported given the variation in
Sociosexuality Index, but having just done the search on Social
Science, I haven't really thought about it long enough. The third
possibility is that the association is not at all to do with father
absence, but do to with poverty and the foods associated with
poverty. There is a process called twinning in sheep. Sheep are
kept at 3/4 rations for some proportion of the year prior to going
into heat. And then, immediately before they do go into heat, the
ranchers will up their food rations to double what they need.
Because of the flush environment they produce twins instead of
having singleton births. For the poor in many industrialized
populations the food is high in fat and calories and may be driving
the age of menarche lower and lower. Father absence is heavily
associated with poverty. And diet has been clearly linked with
earlier ages at menarche. And poverty has been clearly linked with
obesity. It is an on-the-fly causal path model, I haven't put a lot
of thought into it.
There are other models. Hillard Kaplan has a modified the economics
human capital model. His theory is that people will invest in
themselves so that they may better be able to invest in their
offspring. Within a market economy he has found that there seems to
be no end to the returns of investing in one's self. That is for
hunter-gatherer's and other subsistence level populations there is a
point at which investing in the skills of hunting peccararies or of
gathering palm hearts is finite. The skills will never get any
greater. But for those within market-based economies there is no
point when your skills are unimprovable. So, you choose. You
choose between quality of offspring or quantity of offspring. And
that would be expressed in earlier ages of first sexual experience
and earlier ages of first reproduction. The decision, Hilly argues,
is based upon the individuals ability to parlay time invested in
themselves into true skills. So, if you are really capable of
learning and have had high levels of parental investment (he is
talking about monetary investment, and not time) than you should
continue to invest in your own "growth" rather than into
reproduction. It ends up being an evolved mechanism gone awry in
the current generalized environment. Unfortunately there is no data
to back this up.
Basic life-history theory argues that we have finite energy to be
split up in three arenas: growth, reproduction, and soma, otherwise
known as maintenance. I recognize that these catagories may
overlap, but when modeling it is easier to lay them out as
individual groups. The division of energy is largely genetically
based. However, within any species there is always variation.
There was a wonderful study of two groups of American possum who
live in Virginia. One group live on an island where there are no
cars. The other on the mainland and they suffer huge mortality
costs due to cars. The island population are less precocious. They
grow more slowly, they reach reproduction later and have on average
three litters. The mainland population is characterized by early
age at first reproduction, smaller body size, larger litter size,
and earlier age at mortality. There is no genetic difference. The
two populations have different life-histories due to differences in
the risk of dying. Those individuals on the mainland who continued
to delay reproduction so that they could grow were more likely to be
hit by cars before they had babies who would also be more likely to
delay reproduction. So, within our species what makes for a switch
between growth to reproduction? Girls stop growing when they reach
menarche. Being small often leads to smaller offspring size. As
well as a higher risk of death during childbirth. Smaller babies
have a harder time surviving to sexual maturity. And there is a
recent bout of literature suggesting that smaller babies have lower
IQs.
When I was decided to homeschool I did a bit of research to arm
myself for the debates with my family. There is a body of research
that argues that preschool is better than keeping children at home.
It states that children are more precocious when they are put in
preschool. I have concluded that precociousness is overrated.
Precocious individuals are individuals for whom growth is being
stopped so that they may reproduce before they die an early death.
Anyhow. I'm sorry if this was a bit technical. I really enjoyed
writing it. I don't get a lot of opportunity to talk about life-
history theory in my day to day.
Schuyler
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/23/02 10:48:07 AM, dwaynf@... writes:
<< As far as I know there are very few studies on homeschoolers in
general. Homeschoolers are considered a self-selected population
and due to that setting up causality becomes incredibly
problematic. >>
And finding a group of homeschoolers and trying to make that itself a factor
will need to take into account whether the kids used to be in school.
For example, about studying reading in unschooled kids--if that child EVER
went to school or had reading lessons, they're no longer good for measuring
how long it will take without being taught. There aren't that many who are
a "clean catch," untainted by other factors.
"Confounding variables" are all over the damned place!!
Sandra
<< As far as I know there are very few studies on homeschoolers in
general. Homeschoolers are considered a self-selected population
and due to that setting up causality becomes incredibly
problematic. >>
And finding a group of homeschoolers and trying to make that itself a factor
will need to take into account whether the kids used to be in school.
For example, about studying reading in unschooled kids--if that child EVER
went to school or had reading lessons, they're no longer good for measuring
how long it will take without being taught. There aren't that many who are
a "clean catch," untainted by other factors.
"Confounding variables" are all over the damned place!!
Sandra
schuyler_waynforth
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
daughter went to school briefly (daughter's choice, mothers'
frustration) and in that moment learned to read. Now whenever they
talk about school derisively the daughter says "But I learned how to
read there." No matter that the time in prior to that is how she
really learned to read. Sigh... So much schooling invading the
purity of our unschooled little darlings.
Schuyler
>itself a factor
> And finding a group of homeschoolers and trying to make that
> will need to take into account whether the kids used to be inschool.
>child EVER
> For example, about studying reading in unschooled kids--if that
> went to school or had reading lessons, they're no longer good formeasuring
> how long it will take without being taught. There aren't thatmany who are
> a "clean catch," untainted by other factors.I met a woman the other day who is unschooling her daughter. Her
>
> "Confounding variables" are all over the damned place!!
>
> Sandra
daughter went to school briefly (daughter's choice, mothers'
frustration) and in that moment learned to read. Now whenever they
talk about school derisively the daughter says "But I learned how to
read there." No matter that the time in prior to that is how she
really learned to read. Sigh... So much schooling invading the
purity of our unschooled little darlings.
Schuyler