Emotion vs Intellect
Tia Leschke
Here's something I think it might be worth bringing over from RUL. The
group has started talking about how necessary it is to deal with emotional
opposition to an idea rather than just the intellectual debate. The idea is
that we (generic) often expect people to listen to our intellectual
arguments and be convinced, but if they are stuck on it emotionally, they
won't be able to hear what we're saying. So we need to try to understand
that emotional blockage if we want to make progress in a debate. I'm
paraphrasing *very briefly* what someone wrote over there so I'm not sure if
I'm getting the idea across, but it seems like an idea that might help us to
keep the peace a little better over here. I don't think this means
coddling people and telling them that they're wonderful parents if we
disagree with what they're saying, just to try to figure out what the
emotional opposition might be and trying to address that first. Thoughts?
Tia
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
leschke@...
group has started talking about how necessary it is to deal with emotional
opposition to an idea rather than just the intellectual debate. The idea is
that we (generic) often expect people to listen to our intellectual
arguments and be convinced, but if they are stuck on it emotionally, they
won't be able to hear what we're saying. So we need to try to understand
that emotional blockage if we want to make progress in a debate. I'm
paraphrasing *very briefly* what someone wrote over there so I'm not sure if
I'm getting the idea across, but it seems like an idea that might help us to
keep the peace a little better over here. I don't think this means
coddling people and telling them that they're wonderful parents if we
disagree with what they're saying, just to try to figure out what the
emotional opposition might be and trying to address that first. Thoughts?
Tia
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
leschke@...
Nancy Liedel
What is RUL?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/25/03 9:04:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
naliedel@... writes:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
naliedel@... writes:
> What is RUL?Radical Unschooling List - another yahoo group.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Paradox
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tia Leschke" <leschke@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 4:40 PM
Subject: [Unschooling-Discussion] Emotion vs Intellect
Tia
I thought your quote was very appropriate although it may not immediately
have appeared to be.
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
Isn't this what people who are not open to debate and stick to their
emotional 'security' are doing ?
They feel more comfortable sticking with usually long-held views, or views
which don't question too much how they're living because it's more
comfortable to think that way, regardless of the rights and wrongs of it.
Sometimes you just have to accept that no matter how convincing or strong
your case, you are not going to change some people's minds.
On the other hand there is no excuse for continually bringing up your
opinions when you are not prepared to debate them reasonably.
People should have the freedom to wallow in their own little world of
self-deceit if they wish, as long as they don't try to get me to join them.
Chris Swift
HEQT - Home Education Question Time
We discuss the issues other groups don't even like mentioned.
To subscribe : HEQT-subscribe@...
Web Page: http://www.topica.com/lists/HEQT/
> Here's something I think it might be worth bringing over from RUL. The
> group has started talking about how necessary it is to deal with emotional
> opposition to an idea rather than just the intellectual debate. The idea
is
> that we (generic) often expect people to listen to our intellectual
> arguments and be convinced, but if they are stuck on it emotionally, they
> won't be able to hear what we're saying. So we need to try to understand
> that emotional blockage if we want to make progress in a debate. I'm
> paraphrasing *very briefly* what someone wrote over there so I'm not sure
if
> I'm getting the idea across, but it seems like an idea that might help us
to
> keep the peace a little better over here. I don't think this means
> coddling people and telling them that they're wonderful parents if we
> disagree with what they're saying, just to try to figure out what the
> emotional opposition might be and trying to address that first. Thoughts?
> Tia
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
> leschke@...
[email protected]
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:40:34 -0700 Tia Leschke <leschke@...> writes:
It seems to me that the people with the emotional blockages are generally
the ones who try to keep everything on an intellectual (or
pseudo-intellectual) plane. They say things like, "He has to know his
multiplication tables or he'll never get into college", but the
underlying blockage is something like, "I am terrified of screwing up as
a parent and having my child end up homeless like my uncle." In cases
where people insist on defending their actions of the past, I can't help
but wonder if their sense of self-worth is so fragile that they can't
deal with the idea that they were wrong.
I've noticed that people who are blocked generally get their hackles up
when others try to talk about the emotional ramifications of what their
doing, especially the ramifications for their children. During the recent
Defense of Spanking thing, the original poster tried to use
pseudo-intellectual reasoning about how it was necessary and the choice
was either that or her child be hit by a car, while other posters were
focusing on the emotional responses a child might have to being hit and
humiliated in public. She couldn't acknowledge that at all, she couldn't
deal with the emotional impact of what she had done so she ignored it and
pretended it didn't exist, or that it was necessary and therefore
unworthy of comment. I can't think of any way to get through to someone
in that place except getting her to acknowledge those emotions, but
acknowledging those emotions in her child would have meant admitting to
herself that she has caused them, and she wasn't willing to do that yet.
It takes a lot of courage, to face up to your mistakes as a parent.
I suppose there are two ways to deal with someone like that. You can be
non-confrontive, and suppport the good things they're doing, and hope
that eventually the person is able to see past their blockage. In a one
to one situation with someone who doesn't seem real ready to change, that
would seem like a good option. On a huge email list, though, where the
point of the list is to help hundreds of people get somewhere, not just
one person, I don't think it's feasible. If ideas contrary to the point
of the list are left out there, unchallenged, then it changes the point
of the list and waters it down, and that's not fair to the hundreds of
other people on the list.
I think learning about unschooling is the goal here, rather than peace.
I'd prefer to have respectful, fruitful discussions, because it's a lot
more pleasant, but if I have to chose between some strife and
"Unschooling-lite", I would chose the former...
Dar
> The idea isthey
> that we (generic) often expect people to listen to our intellectual
> arguments and be convinced, but if they are stuck on it emotionally,
> won't be able to hear what we're saying. So we need to try todebate.
> understand that emotional blockage if we want to make progress in a
It seems to me that the people with the emotional blockages are generally
the ones who try to keep everything on an intellectual (or
pseudo-intellectual) plane. They say things like, "He has to know his
multiplication tables or he'll never get into college", but the
underlying blockage is something like, "I am terrified of screwing up as
a parent and having my child end up homeless like my uncle." In cases
where people insist on defending their actions of the past, I can't help
but wonder if their sense of self-worth is so fragile that they can't
deal with the idea that they were wrong.
I've noticed that people who are blocked generally get their hackles up
when others try to talk about the emotional ramifications of what their
doing, especially the ramifications for their children. During the recent
Defense of Spanking thing, the original poster tried to use
pseudo-intellectual reasoning about how it was necessary and the choice
was either that or her child be hit by a car, while other posters were
focusing on the emotional responses a child might have to being hit and
humiliated in public. She couldn't acknowledge that at all, she couldn't
deal with the emotional impact of what she had done so she ignored it and
pretended it didn't exist, or that it was necessary and therefore
unworthy of comment. I can't think of any way to get through to someone
in that place except getting her to acknowledge those emotions, but
acknowledging those emotions in her child would have meant admitting to
herself that she has caused them, and she wasn't willing to do that yet.
It takes a lot of courage, to face up to your mistakes as a parent.
I suppose there are two ways to deal with someone like that. You can be
non-confrontive, and suppport the good things they're doing, and hope
that eventually the person is able to see past their blockage. In a one
to one situation with someone who doesn't seem real ready to change, that
would seem like a good option. On a huge email list, though, where the
point of the list is to help hundreds of people get somewhere, not just
one person, I don't think it's feasible. If ideas contrary to the point
of the list are left out there, unchallenged, then it changes the point
of the list and waters it down, and that's not fair to the hundreds of
other people on the list.
I think learning about unschooling is the goal here, rather than peace.
I'd prefer to have respectful, fruitful discussions, because it's a lot
more pleasant, but if I have to chose between some strife and
"Unschooling-lite", I would chose the former...
Dar
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/25/2003 2:21:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
freeform@... writes:
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
freeform@... writes:
> I think learning about unschooling is the goal here, rather than peace.You're right on the money, Dar!
> I'd prefer to have respectful, fruitful discussions, because it's a lot
> more pleasant, but if I have to chose between some strife and
> "Unschooling-lite", I would chose the former...
>
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Peggy
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:40:34 -0700Very interesting Tia. Maybe people don't really feel as if we've *heard*
> From: Tia Leschke <leschke@...>
>
> Here's something I think it might be worth bringing over from RUL. The
> group has started talking about how necessary it is to deal with emotional
> opposition to an idea rather than just the intellectual debate. The idea is
> that we (generic) often expect people to listen to our intellectual
> arguments and be convinced, but if they are stuck on it emotionally, they
> won't be able to hear what we're saying. So we need to try to understand
> that emotional blockage if we want to make progress in a debate. I'm
> paraphrasing *very briefly* what someone wrote over there so I'm not sure if
> I'm getting the idea across, but it seems like an idea that might help us to
> keep the peace a little better over here. I don't think this means
> coddling people and telling them that they're wonderful parents if we
> disagree with what they're saying, just to try to figure out what the
> emotional opposition might be and trying to address that first. Thoughts?
> Tia
them if we don't engage the emotion as well as the intellect?
Interesting discussion.
Peggy
"If the colleges were better, if they really had it, you would need to
get the police at the gates to keep order in the inrushing multitude.
See in college how we thwart the natural love of learning by leaving the
natural method of teaching what each wishes to learn, and insisting that
you shall learn what you have no taste or capacity for. The college,
which should be a place of delightful labor, is made odious and
unhealthy, and the young men are tempted to frivolous amusements to
rally their jaded spirits. I would have the studies elective.
Scholarship is to be created not by compulsion, but by awakening a pure
interest in knowledge. The wise instructor accomplishes this by opening
to his pupils precisely the attractions the study has for himself. The
marking is a system for schools, not for the college; for boys, not for
men; and it is an ungracious work to put on a professor."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/25/03 12:43:17 PM, durrell@... writes:
<< Very interesting Tia. Maybe people don't really feel as if we've *heard*
them if we don't engage the emotion as well as the intellect? >>
www.unschooling.com is pretty good on that sort of thing, because people can
start their own topic and put it in whatever folder they think is most likely
to attract the sort of input they want.
The new HEM lists might be great for that too.
Sandra
<< Very interesting Tia. Maybe people don't really feel as if we've *heard*
them if we don't engage the emotion as well as the intellect? >>
www.unschooling.com is pretty good on that sort of thing, because people can
start their own topic and put it in whatever folder they think is most likely
to attract the sort of input they want.
The new HEM lists might be great for that too.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/25/03 12:21:57 PM, freeform@... writes:
<< If ideas contrary to the point
of the list are left out there, unchallenged, then it changes the point
of the list and waters it down, and that's not fair to the hundreds of
other people on the list. >>
I agree.
And in the case of the bus-stop spanking story, the author turned out not to
be a homeschooler (yet, considering it), not an unschooler, and so as a story
it was fine. As advice, it wasn't. As a challenge and insult to
non-spankers, it was no good at all.
Many people are volunteering to share information for the benefit of each
other and lurker-others or those who pass by and read for an hour or a day and
keep going. Some of them might be further willing to volunteer to play
counsellor for emotionally blocked individuals, but nobody can ask us ALL to change
the focus of the list from information, experience and ideas to the mental
health of individuals.
<< if they are stuck on it emotionally,
they won't be able to hear what we're saying>>
If that's true, that is beyond the scope of the intent and purpose of the
list, isn't it?
Some people don't understand football, but nobody asks the players to play
slower and tell the onlookers what they're about to do and why.
There are boxed things to buy for people who aren't able to understand
unschooling. We have little to nothing to sell here (thought I expect that
conference is going to be pretty wonderful!!). If unschooling takes self-examination
and openness to ideas and trust, those are the things it takes. If someone
can't do it that's fine. I can't do gymnastics. I can't speak Arabic. Those
things limit my options on earth.
If what's being offered free isn't accessible to a few individuals because
they are too emotionally blocked, then they need to work on their personal
selves, not get angry with people who DO understand it and CAN discuss it and who
have it working well in their families.
Yet there are MANY people who came to unschooling and honestly tried to con
sider the ideas, and they tried the suggestions, and their families started
becoming happier and more peaceful. And many have reported that as their children
began to relax and love their lives, that the parents begin to rethink all
KINDS of things they believed were true.
Unless people are willing to try it, they can't understand it or believe it.
Lots of people every day share how they got from one point to another, with
lots of practical suggestions and reassurances.
This makes sense too:
-=-It seems to me that the people with the emotional blockages are generally
the ones who try to keep everything on an intellectual (or
pseudo-intellectual) plane. They say things like, "He has to know his
multiplication tables or he'll never get into college", but the
underlying blockage is something like, "I am terrified of screwing up as
a parent and having my child end up homeless like my uncle." -=-
So they can try it or they can decide not to try it, but to stay and just
tell us we're wrong and not nice enough for their delicate selves doesn't help
anyone.
-=-I've noticed that people who are blocked generally get their hackles up
when others try to talk about the emotional ramifications of what their
doing, especially the ramifications for their children. -=-
That happens a lot too. If it seems flashing-neon plain to half a dozen
readers that someone is NOT as relaxed as she says she is, how patient do the
volunteers need to be with a flowing tirade of "I *AM* relaxed, I SAID I am
relaxed, WHY don't you people just READ exactly what I WROTE, instead of GUESSING
with NO evidence that I'm not relaxed!???!??"
Maybe some people need to visit self-help lists a while first to learn to be
calm and at peace with themselves and their children, and then come to
unschooling lists after they're relaxed and able to consider ideas that have to do
with parent/child relations and with trusting children.
Sandra
<< If ideas contrary to the point
of the list are left out there, unchallenged, then it changes the point
of the list and waters it down, and that's not fair to the hundreds of
other people on the list. >>
I agree.
And in the case of the bus-stop spanking story, the author turned out not to
be a homeschooler (yet, considering it), not an unschooler, and so as a story
it was fine. As advice, it wasn't. As a challenge and insult to
non-spankers, it was no good at all.
Many people are volunteering to share information for the benefit of each
other and lurker-others or those who pass by and read for an hour or a day and
keep going. Some of them might be further willing to volunteer to play
counsellor for emotionally blocked individuals, but nobody can ask us ALL to change
the focus of the list from information, experience and ideas to the mental
health of individuals.
<< if they are stuck on it emotionally,
they won't be able to hear what we're saying>>
If that's true, that is beyond the scope of the intent and purpose of the
list, isn't it?
Some people don't understand football, but nobody asks the players to play
slower and tell the onlookers what they're about to do and why.
There are boxed things to buy for people who aren't able to understand
unschooling. We have little to nothing to sell here (thought I expect that
conference is going to be pretty wonderful!!). If unschooling takes self-examination
and openness to ideas and trust, those are the things it takes. If someone
can't do it that's fine. I can't do gymnastics. I can't speak Arabic. Those
things limit my options on earth.
If what's being offered free isn't accessible to a few individuals because
they are too emotionally blocked, then they need to work on their personal
selves, not get angry with people who DO understand it and CAN discuss it and who
have it working well in their families.
Yet there are MANY people who came to unschooling and honestly tried to con
sider the ideas, and they tried the suggestions, and their families started
becoming happier and more peaceful. And many have reported that as their children
began to relax and love their lives, that the parents begin to rethink all
KINDS of things they believed were true.
Unless people are willing to try it, they can't understand it or believe it.
Lots of people every day share how they got from one point to another, with
lots of practical suggestions and reassurances.
This makes sense too:
-=-It seems to me that the people with the emotional blockages are generally
the ones who try to keep everything on an intellectual (or
pseudo-intellectual) plane. They say things like, "He has to know his
multiplication tables or he'll never get into college", but the
underlying blockage is something like, "I am terrified of screwing up as
a parent and having my child end up homeless like my uncle." -=-
So they can try it or they can decide not to try it, but to stay and just
tell us we're wrong and not nice enough for their delicate selves doesn't help
anyone.
-=-I've noticed that people who are blocked generally get their hackles up
when others try to talk about the emotional ramifications of what their
doing, especially the ramifications for their children. -=-
That happens a lot too. If it seems flashing-neon plain to half a dozen
readers that someone is NOT as relaxed as she says she is, how patient do the
volunteers need to be with a flowing tirade of "I *AM* relaxed, I SAID I am
relaxed, WHY don't you people just READ exactly what I WROTE, instead of GUESSING
with NO evidence that I'm not relaxed!???!??"
Maybe some people need to visit self-help lists a while first to learn to be
calm and at peace with themselves and their children, and then come to
unschooling lists after they're relaxed and able to consider ideas that have to do
with parent/child relations and with trusting children.
Sandra
[email protected]
> In a message dated 7/25/03 12:21:57 PM, I wrote:what
> I've noticed that people who are blocked generally get their
> hackles up when others try to talk about the emotional ramifications of
> their doing,*They're*. What they are doing. Sheesh. I started with a thought about
"their decisions", I think, and changed midstream.
Sandra:
> Maybe some people need to visit self-help lists a while first tothen come
> learn to be calm and at peace with themselves and their children, and
> to unschooling lists after they're relaxed and able to consider ideaschildren.
> that have to do with parent/child relations and with trusting
That's an important point, too. This list isn't going to fix all of your
problems, it's not here for that, although I've found that the
unschooling journey has helped me resolve some of my underlying life
issues that, on the surface at least, had nothing to do with unschooling.
Still, if most of your energy is still being used up on your own issues,
there's not much left to give to learning about unschooling your kids...
Dar
Pamela Sorooshian
On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 01:00 PM, freeform@... wrote:
TO fix.
Group B: Some of us think we do and always will have problems that
could use fixing - because we see progress as part of (maybe the
purpose of) life. Fix one, another becomes visible. For everybody.
Those are two very very different mindsets. When someone criticizes one
of their ideas - Group B's immediately think, "Hmmm - wonder if THIS is
pointing one of those places I need to work on fixing?" They may not
see it, they may not believe it, but the possibility exists in their
minds and that allows communication and so disagreements with them
seldom erupt into nastiness.
Group A's often don't really even seem to understand what's going on -
they think they are personally under attack and they have to defend
themselves. It doesn't occur to them that it is just their idea about
something - that they can benefit, anyway, from the discussion by
working hard to clearly articulating why they don't buy the other
side's arguments. The Group B's end an argument where minds were
unchanged with - "Well, you've given me a lot to consider. Thank you."
Group A's end an argument by leaving angrily and going off and
complaining elsewhere.
On this list, Group A's are in the minority - but the others will jump
in when they think someone is being attacked who doesn't like it. I've
been defended a time or two by people who thought I was being attacked
- but didn't realize that I was THRILLED with the opportunity to
clarify and articulate my own ideas and that the other person was doing
me a favor. But to Group A people, they felt my deeply-held beliefs
were being bludgeoned with logic - well, yeah - how cool is that?
of COURSE it is more complex than two groups - some are in group A when
it comes to some issues and group B for others - we can never keep them
sorted out.
The question is how do we let the Group B stuff happen without the
Group A people getting upset?
-pam
> This list isn't going to fix all of yourGroup A: People coming here don't necessarily think they have problems
> problems, it's not here for that
TO fix.
Group B: Some of us think we do and always will have problems that
could use fixing - because we see progress as part of (maybe the
purpose of) life. Fix one, another becomes visible. For everybody.
Those are two very very different mindsets. When someone criticizes one
of their ideas - Group B's immediately think, "Hmmm - wonder if THIS is
pointing one of those places I need to work on fixing?" They may not
see it, they may not believe it, but the possibility exists in their
minds and that allows communication and so disagreements with them
seldom erupt into nastiness.
Group A's often don't really even seem to understand what's going on -
they think they are personally under attack and they have to defend
themselves. It doesn't occur to them that it is just their idea about
something - that they can benefit, anyway, from the discussion by
working hard to clearly articulating why they don't buy the other
side's arguments. The Group B's end an argument where minds were
unchanged with - "Well, you've given me a lot to consider. Thank you."
Group A's end an argument by leaving angrily and going off and
complaining elsewhere.
On this list, Group A's are in the minority - but the others will jump
in when they think someone is being attacked who doesn't like it. I've
been defended a time or two by people who thought I was being attacked
- but didn't realize that I was THRILLED with the opportunity to
clarify and articulate my own ideas and that the other person was doing
me a favor. But to Group A people, they felt my deeply-held beliefs
were being bludgeoned with logic - well, yeah - how cool is that?
of COURSE it is more complex than two groups - some are in group A when
it comes to some issues and group B for others - we can never keep them
sorted out.
The question is how do we let the Group B stuff happen without the
Group A people getting upset?
-pam
Pamela Sorooshian
I wanted to add one more thing -- it would be very helpful if people
simply didn't post anything that is essentially reiterating what they
already said, unless they think they've come up with a brilliant new
way to explain it. Even those who love to have their ideas challenged
get cross when they read the same argument 20 times - I know that if it
didn't make sense to me the first time or two I'm not likely to get it
the 19th time and certainly no more likely the 20th time.
I know for sure that I suffer from the misperception that if I just say
it again that someone will "get it" this time.
I have an excuse - I teach college and studies show that in a lecture
situation you really only have 20 percent of your students paying close
attention at any one time - so repetition catches new people. (And I
flatter myself to think that I'm keeping the attention of way more than
20 percent - but I may be deluding myself, too <G>.)
The repeating thing does feel like an attack - I try to remember that
there are hundreds of extremely competent people on the list and that
if I do NOT say it 'again' that they might step in and say it
differently and better for the person I'm talking to.
-pam
simply didn't post anything that is essentially reiterating what they
already said, unless they think they've come up with a brilliant new
way to explain it. Even those who love to have their ideas challenged
get cross when they read the same argument 20 times - I know that if it
didn't make sense to me the first time or two I'm not likely to get it
the 19th time and certainly no more likely the 20th time.
I know for sure that I suffer from the misperception that if I just say
it again that someone will "get it" this time.
I have an excuse - I teach college and studies show that in a lecture
situation you really only have 20 percent of your students paying close
attention at any one time - so repetition catches new people. (And I
flatter myself to think that I'm keeping the attention of way more than
20 percent - but I may be deluding myself, too <G>.)
The repeating thing does feel like an attack - I try to remember that
there are hundreds of extremely competent people on the list and that
if I do NOT say it 'again' that they might step in and say it
differently and better for the person I'm talking to.
-pam
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/25/2003 4:26:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
pamsoroosh@... writes:
Just KIDDING! Jeez!
~Kelly <g>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pamsoroosh@... writes:
> The question is how do we let the Group B stuff happen without theBan all of Group A.
> Group A people getting upset?
Just KIDDING! Jeez!
~Kelly <g>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pamela Sorooshian
This was posted on the new NoSpanking list and I couldn't resist
passing it along to all of you. I'm not a sticker fan - but as an
alternative to spanking? Heck yeah!
*******************
"Spanking... increases the rate of street entries by children", wrote
Dr. Dennis Embry in a letter to Children Magazine .
Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project designed
to counteract pedestrian accidents to preschool-aged children.
(Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is about the third leading cause
of death to young children in the United States.)
Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking,
scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries
by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way
to gain parents' attention.
Now there is a promising new educational intervention program, called
Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are simple:
1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. 'Safe players play on the
grass or sidewalk.'
2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than playing
dangerously.
3. Praise your child for safe play.
These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing
safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a
day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment
the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children
stopped going into the street.
Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D.
University of Kansas
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
passing it along to all of you. I'm not a sticker fan - but as an
alternative to spanking? Heck yeah!
*******************
"Spanking... increases the rate of street entries by children", wrote
Dr. Dennis Embry in a letter to Children Magazine .
Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project designed
to counteract pedestrian accidents to preschool-aged children.
(Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is about the third leading cause
of death to young children in the United States.)
Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking,
scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries
by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way
to gain parents' attention.
Now there is a promising new educational intervention program, called
Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are simple:
1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. 'Safe players play on the
grass or sidewalk.'
2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than playing
dangerously.
3. Praise your child for safe play.
These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing
safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a
day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment
the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children
stopped going into the street.
Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D.
University of Kansas
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
glad2bmadly
I can't wait for your math talk at the conference! This was so logical and made sets so practical. <g> I am right that you are the math professor and are giving the talk? I hope?
I agree wholeheartedly that once it gets to the point the spanking impasse came to (well, it was thankfully a discussion for some, part of the time) that the unbudging party is not going to accept any kind of emotional theories being thrown her way (even ever so gently) because this would mean taking respionsibility for her actions and if it has been so difficult after days of people attempting to show her, she isn't going to get it without more personal probing and patient feedback than I can imagine this list being able to handle. Sorry about the run-on-sentence. I am glad to have finally vented a little about the frustration I was feeling lurking on and off this past week, seeing the people who are helping me to make such huge changes being so wrongly attacked! Second run-on of the night...
I would also ask, how can the group B people not get upset by Group A stuff? I know all my buttons were pushed by the Jeva stuff and wished I could just let it go more.
Madeline
Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
Group A's often don't really even seem to understand what's going on -
they think they are personally under attack and they have to defend
themselves. It doesn't occur to them that it is just their idea about
something - that they can benefit, anyway, from the discussion by
working hard to clearly articulating why they don't buy the other
side's arguments. The Group B's end an argument where minds were
unchanged with - "Well, you've given me a lot to consider. Thank you."
Group A's end an argument by leaving angrily and going off and
complaining elsewhere.
On this list, Group A's are in the minority - but the others will jump
in when they think someone is being attacked who doesn't like it. I've
been defended a time or two by people who thought I was being attacked
- but didn't realize that I was THRILLED with the opportunity to
clarify and articulate my own ideas and that the other person was doing
me a favor. But to Group A people, they felt my deeply-held beliefs
were being bludgeoned with logic - well, yeah - how cool is that?
of COURSE it is more complex than two groups - some are in group A when
it comes to some issues and group B for others - we can never keep them
sorted out.
The question is how do we let the Group B stuff happen without the
Group A people getting upset?
-pam
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
var lrec_target="_top";var lrec_URL = new Array();lrec_URL[1] = "http://rd.yahoo.com/M=256694.3632754.4898347.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705081972:HM/A=1683996/R=0/id=flashurl/SIG=11if1rb57/*http://webevents.yahoo.com/universal/seabiscuit/";var link="javascript:LRECopenWindow(1)";var lrec_flashfile = 'http://webevents.yahoo.com/universal/seabiscuit/lrec/AdVision_lrec.swf?clickTAG='+link+'';var lrec_altURL = "http://rd.yahoo.com/M=256694.3632754.4898347.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705081972:HM/A=1683996/R=1/id=altimgurl/SIG=11if1rb57/*http://webevents.yahoo.com/universal/seabiscuit/";var lrec_altimg = "http://webevents.yahoo.com/universal/seabiscuit/lrec/noflash.gif";var lrec_width = 300;var lrec_height = 250;
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I agree wholeheartedly that once it gets to the point the spanking impasse came to (well, it was thankfully a discussion for some, part of the time) that the unbudging party is not going to accept any kind of emotional theories being thrown her way (even ever so gently) because this would mean taking respionsibility for her actions and if it has been so difficult after days of people attempting to show her, she isn't going to get it without more personal probing and patient feedback than I can imagine this list being able to handle. Sorry about the run-on-sentence. I am glad to have finally vented a little about the frustration I was feeling lurking on and off this past week, seeing the people who are helping me to make such huge changes being so wrongly attacked! Second run-on of the night...
I would also ask, how can the group B people not get upset by Group A stuff? I know all my buttons were pushed by the Jeva stuff and wished I could just let it go more.
Madeline
Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
Group A's often don't really even seem to understand what's going on -
they think they are personally under attack and they have to defend
themselves. It doesn't occur to them that it is just their idea about
something - that they can benefit, anyway, from the discussion by
working hard to clearly articulating why they don't buy the other
side's arguments. The Group B's end an argument where minds were
unchanged with - "Well, you've given me a lot to consider. Thank you."
Group A's end an argument by leaving angrily and going off and
complaining elsewhere.
On this list, Group A's are in the minority - but the others will jump
in when they think someone is being attacked who doesn't like it. I've
been defended a time or two by people who thought I was being attacked
- but didn't realize that I was THRILLED with the opportunity to
clarify and articulate my own ideas and that the other person was doing
me a favor. But to Group A people, they felt my deeply-held beliefs
were being bludgeoned with logic - well, yeah - how cool is that?
of COURSE it is more complex than two groups - some are in group A when
it comes to some issues and group B for others - we can never keep them
sorted out.
The question is how do we let the Group B stuff happen without the
Group A people getting upset?
-pam
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
var lrec_target="_top";var lrec_URL = new Array();lrec_URL[1] = "http://rd.yahoo.com/M=256694.3632754.4898347.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705081972:HM/A=1683996/R=0/id=flashurl/SIG=11if1rb57/*http://webevents.yahoo.com/universal/seabiscuit/";var link="javascript:LRECopenWindow(1)";var lrec_flashfile = 'http://webevents.yahoo.com/universal/seabiscuit/lrec/AdVision_lrec.swf?clickTAG='+link+'';var lrec_altURL = "http://rd.yahoo.com/M=256694.3632754.4898347.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705081972:HM/A=1683996/R=1/id=altimgurl/SIG=11if1rb57/*http://webevents.yahoo.com/universal/seabiscuit/";var lrec_altimg = "http://webevents.yahoo.com/universal/seabiscuit/lrec/noflash.gif";var lrec_width = 300;var lrec_height = 250;
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/25/03 8:13:37 PM, glad2bmadly@... writes:
<< I would also ask, how can the group B people not get upset by Group A
stuff? I know all my buttons were pushed by the Jeva stuff and wished I could
just let it go more. >>
If you're building a sand castle and someone walks through the middle of it,
it's hard not to be upset.
We build and rebuild this all the time, but it's WAY more fun to have someone
come and help than to have someone come and drone on about how we don't do it
right.
Sandra
<< I would also ask, how can the group B people not get upset by Group A
stuff? I know all my buttons were pushed by the Jeva stuff and wished I could
just let it go more. >>
If you're building a sand castle and someone walks through the middle of it,
it's hard not to be upset.
We build and rebuild this all the time, but it's WAY more fun to have someone
come and help than to have someone come and drone on about how we don't do it
right.
Sandra
Pamela Sorooshian
On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 07:13 PM, glad2bmadly wrote:
conference in Sacramento and then the very next weekend at the Live and
Learn Conference in South Carolina. I am THRILLED to be going to South
Carolina and getting to meet so many unschoolers from the other side of
the country.
-pam
> I can't wait for your math talk at the conference! This was soThank you. Yes - I'll be talking about joyful math at both the HSC
> logical and made sets so practical. <g> I am right that you are the
> math professor and are giving the talk? I hope?
conference in Sacramento and then the very next weekend at the Live and
Learn Conference in South Carolina. I am THRILLED to be going to South
Carolina and getting to meet so many unschoolers from the other side of
the country.
-pam
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/25/2003 11:56:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,
leschke@... writes:
although I tend to withdraw and watch the "wars" from the sidelines). Problem is,
just like you described, people get an emotional (and stubborn) attachment to
the way they believe, and will not budge no matter what tone someone tried to
point it out with and not matter how much sense those opposed are making. At
least that's what I see.
Nancy B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
leschke@... writes:
> So we need to try to understandI think it makes sense and would work with a lot of us (myself included,
> that emotional blockage if we want to make progress in a debate. I'm
> paraphrasing *very briefly* what someone wrote over there so I'm not sure if
> I'm getting the idea across, but it seems like an idea that might help us to
> keep the peace a little better over here.
although I tend to withdraw and watch the "wars" from the sidelines). Problem is,
just like you described, people get an emotional (and stubborn) attachment to
the way they believe, and will not budge no matter what tone someone tried to
point it out with and not matter how much sense those opposed are making. At
least that's what I see.
Nancy B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/25/2003 2:21:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,
freeform@... writes:
to me, is the same as agreeing with it. Think of all the newbies who have
not been here long enough to know the passion people feel for attachment
parenting, child led unschooling, peaceful parenting. It would be very misleading to
them, and wouldn't let them truly know what sort of list they are "getting
into."
Nancy B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
freeform@... writes:
> On a huge email list, though, where theAbsolutely. Letting something go that is contrary to what the list is about,
> point of the list is to help hundreds of people get somewhere, not just
> one person, I don't think it's feasible. If ideas contrary to the point
> of the list are left out there, unchallenged, then it changes the point
> of the list and waters it down, and that's not fair to the hundreds of
> other people on the list.
>
to me, is the same as agreeing with it. Think of all the newbies who have
not been here long enough to know the passion people feel for attachment
parenting, child led unschooling, peaceful parenting. It would be very misleading to
them, and wouldn't let them truly know what sort of list they are "getting
into."
Nancy B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tia Leschke
>them.
> Sometimes you just have to accept that no matter how convincing or strong
> your case, you are not going to change some people's minds.
>
> On the other hand there is no excuse for continually bringing up your
> opinions when you are not prepared to debate them reasonably.
>
> People should have the freedom to wallow in their own little world of
> self-deceit if they wish, as long as they don't try to get me to join
But if they do bring it up, I'm going to debate them, not to change their
minds, which are essentially closed, but to influence someone else that
might be listening. But I do still wonder if there are things we can do
that would make it easier for some of these people, without diluting the
list. I'm thinkin' on it. <g>
Tia
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
leschke@...
Betsy
**But if they do bring it up, I'm going to debate them, not to change their
minds, which are essentially closed, but to influence someone else that
might be listening.**
In the circumstances you (Tia) are describing, I think I'd be tempted to
use an all-purpose disclaimer
"You don't want to hear this, but..."
Betsy
minds, which are essentially closed, but to influence someone else that
might be listening.**
In the circumstances you (Tia) are describing, I think I'd be tempted to
use an all-purpose disclaimer
"You don't want to hear this, but..."
Betsy
Julie Solich
Absolutely. Letting something go that is contrary to what the list is
about, to me, is the same as agreeing with it. Think of all the newbies
who have not been here long enough to know the passion people feel for
attachment
parenting, child led unschooling, peaceful parenting. It would be very
misleading to them, and wouldn't let them truly know what sort of list they
are "getting into."
Nancy B.
I know when the spanking 'argument' happened last time or was it the time
before that? <g> that it was the passion and the strength of everyone's
argument that made it impossible for me to not take it seriously. The end
result being major changes in my parenting. So I know it's frustrating for
an argument to go on and on and on but good stuff can come out of it even if
the person you're trying to convince can't be!
Julie
Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
about, to me, is the same as agreeing with it. Think of all the newbies
who have not been here long enough to know the passion people feel for
attachment
parenting, child led unschooling, peaceful parenting. It would be very
misleading to them, and wouldn't let them truly know what sort of list they
are "getting into."
Nancy B.
I know when the spanking 'argument' happened last time or was it the time
before that? <g> that it was the passion and the strength of everyone's
argument that made it impossible for me to not take it seriously. The end
result being major changes in my parenting. So I know it's frustrating for
an argument to go on and on and on but good stuff can come out of it even if
the person you're trying to convince can't be!
Julie
>the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner,
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
>
> If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email
Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
>email to:
> To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>