Ren Allen

"It is a WONDERFUL time for them, why
should they not be excited and giddy and why should we not share that
with them?"

YES!
I totally agree with Pam. Once that baby or toddler get to teen
years, you aren't parenting the same person. You've already said
many sad goodbyes, and yet, there is such joy in the next stage. I
would no more want Trevor to be a toddler again, than I would want
Jalen to suddenly grow up. (well, maybe for a day or two:)
Every stage is so interesting, and our relationship evolves to new
levels. I LOVE watching Trevor try new things, philosophize about
deep matters and talk about his own place.
He's always been fiercely independent, and he already talks about
having his own place. I lamented that maybe home wasn't so great if
he wanted his own place so badly, and he laughed and said "that's
not it Mom, I don't want to move out yet, I'm just looking forward
to having things exactly how I want them without anyone messing with
it" (a problem with younger sibs).
That's cool.
I'll be happy for him as he explores the world in new ways,
including his own house or apartment. It will be fun helping him get
started when he's good and ready, and he knows the door is always
open should he need to come home again. I hope he waits a good
while, but when he feels the need, whether he's 16 or 20 or beyond,
I will be happy for him.

Ren

queenjane555

--- In [email protected], "Ren Allen"
<starsuncloud@n...> wrote:
> "It is a WONDERFUL time for them, why
> should they not be excited and giddy and why should we not share
that
> with them?"
>
> YES!
> I totally agree with Pam. Once that baby or toddler get to teen
> years, you aren't parenting the same person.
> I'll be happy for him as he explores the world in new ways,
> including his own house or apartment. It will be fun helping him
get
> started when he's good and ready, and he knows the door is always
> open should he need to come home again. I hope he waits a good
> while, but when he feels the need, whether he's 16 or 20 or beyond,
> I will be happy for him.
>
> Ren

Maybe i'm the only one, but i got the impression the original poster
was talking about moms who are happy they don't have to "deal" with
their kids anymore "oh god i cant WAIT until they are gone and i can
have a REAL life" (whether that is when the kids are off to college,
or grade school, or full time daycare at six weeks....), not parents
who are happy to see that their kids are going to be starting the
next step in their journey into adult life. Parents that are "giddy"
for themselves, and not remotely for their children. Sure, not
everyone is cut out to be a full time/stay at home parent and those
kids are probably better off in school--and i understand pam's desire
that this list not turn into a bash-fest against these other parents
and remain a forum for unschooling. But there is a big difference in
a parent being supportive and encouraging independance when the
child/young adult is ready, and a parent kicking the child out the
door at age 18 with a good riddance.


Katherine

Kristi

I am wondering, and not in a "superior" way but instead a
philosophical one, if many unschooled children will perhaps be more
ready for independence at any age, be it 5, 18, or otherwise.

We of course are nowhere near officially schooling or unschooling in
any capacity, as Morgaine is 4.5, but I have begun to call
us "unschoolers" partly for my daughter's sake, who is being
pressured from all sides to "go to school," and partly for my sake,
as a more complete answer to those approaching the
preschool/kindergarten/homeschool question (though it's not a word I
use with everyone). That qualification made, here's the thought:

Since unschooled children are learning through day to day life,
there is so much more opportunity to gather the skills they need to
lead a safe, rich, unsupervised life. And it seems that many people
who would be unschoolers start with the attitude from a younger age
of involving their children in their day-day lives in a way that not
only helps them form healthy attachments to people but also size up
the world -- not to say these are not skills other children can't
and don't learn, only a particular tendency of unschooled children
to be actively engrossed in the parents' world rather than
segregated.

I think also when we are with our kids, learning as they do, we are
so aware of what they do and don't know; what they have discovered
vs. what they need to discover still -- it is easy to delegate
responsibility for many skills (let's say money sense as one
example) to a curriculum or public school teacher; parents assume
the necessary skills have been taught and yet often they haven't
been. A child in an unschooling home will likely have more exposure
to these skills, and a parent can easily pick up on places the
child/young adult needs more experience to lead a
safe/content/independent life and fill in. Also the child's been
schooled in life rather than in a classroom, so of course more real-
life experience follows.

I do think this begins at a very young age on a philosophical level;
almost every person I know with 3-4 year olds feels compelled
to "teach" them or send them to preschool; few trust life to provide
enough learning opportunities. I think unschooling implies a faith
in children to learn in a way that empowers children, likely paving
the way for more independence at a younger age, esp. if they find it
a necessary skill.

Kristi

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/24/2004 12:02:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
hayes@... writes:

> I think also when we are with our kids, learning as they do, we are
> so aware of what they do and don't know; what they have discovered
> vs. what they need to discover still -- it is easy to delegate
> responsibility for many skills (let's say money sense as one
> example) to a curriculum or public school teacher; parents assume
> the necessary skills have been taught and yet often they haven't
> been. A child in an unschooling home will likely have more exposure
> to these skills,

And see them implemented every day.

I love what you wrote! Very nice!

Síocháin ar domhan,
Sang


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Danielle Conger

Kristi wrote: I am wondering, and not in a "superior" way but instead a
> philosophical one, if many unschooled children will perhaps be more
> ready for independence at any age, be it 5, 18, or otherwise.
==========================

Ready practically, I think certainly. But in a sampling of my 3 kids, desire
for independence is a very individual thing--they each have varying degrees
of independence and express it in very different ways. So from that
standpoint, I think that independence has as much to do with temperment as
circumstance.

I'm much more hoping that unschooling will make *me* ready for my children's
independence! *lol* I figure that even if I am a bit wistful when they
leave, I will have so many memories and so much time stored up that I will
be able to be giddy and happy *with* them. I have far more kid stock than
anyone who sends their kids to school 180 days a year and that counts for a
lot of things!

--Danielle

http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html

Tara

I think the independence does come a lot from temperment. I do think
that unschooling will prepare them for that independence. I went to
public school, and from personal experience I can say that naturally
I am a very independent person, but when I was ready to leave my
parents house and when I was prepared to, differed greatly because
of my inexperience with the daily life tasks that would be necessary
to be on my own. I see this in a lot of schooled adults. My thought
now is that I have a VERY independent almost four year old, and has
been from birth (like both of his parents), and am hoping I can keep
him in my house past his fifteenth birthday!! LOL! - Tara


--- In [email protected], "Danielle Conger"
<danielle.conger@c...> wrote:
> Kristi wrote: I am wondering, and not in a "superior" way but
instead a
> > philosophical one, if many unschooled children will perhaps be
more
> > ready for independence at any age, be it 5, 18, or otherwise.
> ==========================
>
> Ready practically, I think certainly. But in a sampling of my 3
kids, desire
> for independence is a very individual thing--they each have
varying degrees
> of independence and express it in very different ways. So from that
> standpoint, I think that independence has as much to do with
temperment as
> circumstance.
>
> I'm much more hoping that unschooling will make *me* ready for my
children's
> independence! *lol* I figure that even if I am a bit wistful when
they
> leave, I will have so many memories and so much time stored up
that I will
> be able to be giddy and happy *with* them. I have far more kid
stock than
> anyone who sends their kids to school 180 days a year and that
counts for a
> lot of things!
>
> --Danielle
>
> http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/25/2004 1:56:53 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
Lmanathome@... writes:
my dh pointed out to me years ago our cultural need to raise "independent"
children and wondered at the time what constitutes true independence - his point
being that the ability to depend on one another is not a hindrance and can
perhaps serve us better as human beings.
========

You have a pretty wise husband.


"Independence" is glorified these days because it makes it easy for kids to
go to school.

Sandra


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Lisa H

Kristi wrote: I think unschooling implies a faith in children to learn in a way that empowers children, likely paving the way for more independence at a younger age, esp. if they find it a necessary skill. >>

Your thoughts ring true in many ways. But think about this...my dh pointed out to me years ago our cultural need to raise "independent" children and wondered at the time what constitutes true independence - his point being that the ability to depend on one another is not a hindrance and can perhaps serve us better as human beings. So part of what is important to me in my family structure is feeling comfortable with our dependence on one another without it being judged as a failing or problem or negative in anyway.

And as pointed out by Danielle...if we are trully respectful of each our children's own individuality i think we'll see that the trait of "independence" varies from one person to another.

Lisa H.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Lisa H

Sandra wrote: <<You have a pretty wise husband>>

Yes I do - I am fortunate and thanks for reminding me. I credit him with pointing me (20 plus years ago) towards the path of parenting the way I do today - not to say that i may not have found it without him in my life...but his wisdom back then certainly turned me or guided me toward where i am today.

Interestingly, since he has left his alternative-minded business 5 yrs ago and is now daily in a mainstream environment he's not as "wise" as he used to be <g> I don't know if his anxiety about "schoolish" stuff would be as prevalent as it is had he remained in his old profession. What we do and who we are with on a daily basis can be so important in terms of how we are and what we think. Not that the new career hasn't served him (or us) well in many ways - it's just that he is not as patient with our unschooling journey as he was when dd's were young and he was around folks who supported the family-style choice we live on a daily basis.

Your email reply has prompted me to give him a big hug and kiss and spawned a rather interesting conversation between the two of us acknowledging the changes in him (not the first time this has been discussed), as well as recognizing that I still very much seek his insights to human nature.

I am fortunate and always learning...
Lisa H.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/25/2004 3:56:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Lmanathome@... writes:

> But think about this...my dh pointed out to me years ago our cultural need
> to raise "independent" children and wondered at the time what constitutes
> true independence

To me, raising my children to be independent is more along the lines of
thought... Able to think for themselves, to stand up for what they believe is
right, to be emotionally strong enough to live one's life without relying on
outside influence to validate their choices, to be strong and wise enough to ask for
help if they should need it, and finally, to do what's right, even when its
not popular.

Síocháin ar domhan,
Sang


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Marjorie Kirk

In a message dated 4/25/2004 3:56:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Lmanathome@... writes:

> But think about this...my dh pointed out to me years ago our cultural
> need to raise "independent" children and wondered at the time what
> constitutes true independence



One of the first La leche League Leaders I ever met had a sign on her wall
that read "Independence is the courage to walk away, not the strength to
endure being left." I've always loved it. It seems appropriate whether
you're talking about toddlers or kids going off to college. I don't know
the author.

Marjorie

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/28/04 6:33:47 AM, mkirk@... writes:

<< One of the first La leche League Leaders I ever met had a sign on her wall
that read "Independence is the courage to walk away, not the strength to
endure being left." >>

That is WONDERFUL.

I hadn't seen those words. I'd seen the practice, at LLL playgroups, and the
idea that if you wait until a child WANTS to stand up and walk away from mom,
and if you're there for him to come back to, he will eventually be able to go
all the way across the park, happily, and come back happily. Altogether
happy. <g>

I love the quote, though.

Sandra

[email protected]

Sanguinegirl83@... writes:


> To me, raising my children to be independent is more along the lines of
> thought... Able to think for themselves, to stand up for what they believe
> is
> right, to be emotionally strong enough to live one's life without relying on
>
> outside influence to validate their choices, to be strong and wise enough to
> ask for
> help if they should need it, and finally, to do what's right, even when its
> not popular.
>
>


To do that -- to raise your children to do that -- you may need to
help them understand and overcome some pretty strange things about human nature
and response in various situations. It's not all nature, but not all nurture
either.

I'm reading a new book called "Opening Skinner's Box" by Lauren
Slater. It is written as literature rather than a scientific text, to tell the Power
of Story in the most famous and controversial psychological experiments of
the 20th century.

The first is Milgram's 1961 obedience to authority experiments, in
which 70% of the ordinary people tested gave escalating electrical shocks to
strangers, up to and past the point of hearing their screams. I heard about this,
but hadn't known that the subjects' upbringing (how they were parented) and
life experiences (such as military service) were studied and analyzed, and some
surprising conclusions drawn about who was more likely to stand up to
authority, "to be strong and wise enough to ask for help," et cetera.

Then there was Kitty Genovese, stabbed in the streets for nearly an
hour while which 38 witnesses refused to help, or even *call for* help from the
safety of their dark NYC apartments. The public assumed they must be wicked,
heartless city folk, but the experiment seemed to find otherwise -- that lack
of action is inevitable in a situation of such "diffuse responsibility" (maybe
like schools spreading the accountability among too many programs and
professionals for any one to get the job done?)

And now I'm reading the part about how individuals respond to cries
for help when they believe no one is in charge (similar to, but also different
from Milgram, in which a single authority was right on the spot and calmly in
control of everything.)

In other words, the emerging theory is that the situation can matter
much more than we'd like to admit. I suspect this could be big news as
scientific support for independent unschooling, btw, as an optimal situation.

But it also probably means that we can't use unschooling as some kind
of magic that inoculates our own children against their own deepest instincts
and responses. The best we can do, I'm thinking, is to help them learn to
understand themselves and others and the world we all live in, and deal with it
all. JJ


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

pam sorooshian

On Apr 28, 2004, at 6:54 AM, jrossedd@... wrote:

> The first is Milgram's 1961 obedience to authority experiments,
> in
> which 70% of the ordinary people tested gave escalating electrical
> shocks to
> strangers, up to and past the point of hearing their screams. I heard
> about this,
> but hadn't known that the subjects' upbringing (how they were
> parented) and
> life experiences (such as military service) were studied and analyzed,
> and some
> surprising conclusions drawn about who was more likely to stand up to
> authority, "to be strong and wise enough to ask for help," et cetera.

Do tell!

-pam
National Home Education Network
<www.NHEN.org>
Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
through information, networking and public relations.

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/28/2004 10:12:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jrossedd@... writes:
The first is Milgram's 1961 obedience to authority experiments, in
which 70% of the ordinary people tested gave escalating electrical shocks to
strangers, up to and past the point of hearing their screams. I heard about
this,
but hadn't known that the subjects' upbringing (how they were parented) and
life experiences (such as military service) were studied and analyzed, and
some
surprising conclusions drawn about who was more likely to stand up to
authority, "to be strong and wise enough to ask for help," et cetera.

Then there was Kitty Genovese, stabbed in the streets for nearly an
hour while which 38 witnesses refused to help, or even *call for* help from
the
safety of their dark NYC apartments. The public assumed they must be wicked,
heartless city folk, but the experiment seemed to find otherwise -- that lack
of action is inevitable in a situation of such "diffuse responsibility"
(maybe
like schools spreading the accountability among too many programs and
professionals for any one to get the job done?)

And now I'm reading the part about how individuals respond to cries
for help when they believe no one is in charge (similar to, but also
different
from Milgram, in which a single authority was right on the spot and calmly in
control of everything.)

In other words, the emerging theory is that the situation can matter
much more than we'd like to admit. I suspect this could be big news as
scientific support for independent unschooling, btw, as an optimal situation.
<<<<<<

Both of these were brought up at that Sociology class Cameron and I attended.

In considering Milgram's experiment, I had to add my two cents worth: I'm
guessing that ALL of the subjects had been schooled. So ALL of the subjects were
used to being told what to do by someone in authority (in the white lab coat)
and were used to following orders, no matter how inane. It was also done
during the Cold War when folks were rigidly following stupid orders.

I think that----no, I KNOW that---I would have followed the instructions and
just done as I was told when I was in my teens and early twenties. Now that
wouldn't happen. I question more and am skeptical of a lot. I would think this
through a lot more and not be as swayed by the "lab coat" and the rules.

I think that my sons----even at their young ages----would not follow the
rules like a blind rat just because someone says so. They question gentle things
*I* say! <G>

I brought this up in class (surrounded by thirty college students who had
just spent 12-15 years in school! <G>), and the professor had never really
thought about that. That our Prussian attitude towards following rules, no matter
what, will win out in such situations.


>>>>>But it also probably means that we can't use unschooling as some kind
of magic that inoculates our own children against their own deepest instincts
and responses. The best we can do, I'm thinking, is to help them learn to
understand themselves and others and the world we all live in, and deal with
it
all. JJ<<<<<<<<


I don't know about that. I'd love to see that experiment done on people who
haven't been raised in that environment. I think our deepest instincts and
responses are to DO something. I think that school rubs it out with all its rules
and "follow-what-I-say-no-matter-what" orders.

~Kelly


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

Quotes from book:

"Not long after the initial experiments, Milgram and Elms went on a
hunt for personality traits that correlate with obedient or defiant behavior.
They did follow-up studies of their subjects, scrutinizing their lives and
psyches for clues as to who did what as why. This, understand, is a no-no in the
field of social psychology . . . so [two-thirds were obedient and the others
defied the experimenter and the situation] Why? WHY? This is a question no social
psychologist can answer. It is at this critical juncture where social
psychology breaks down . . .

****************

"In the mid-60s, Milgram and Elms called subjects back into the lab
and administered a series of personality tests. . . extensive one-on-one
interviewing, asking obedient and defiant subjects about their childhoods, their
relationships with their mothers and fathers . . .

'Catholics were more obedient than Jews. We did find that,' said Elms.
'And the longer one's military experience, the more obedient.' . . . They did
find that obedient subjects reported being less close to their fathers during
childhood than defiants did. As children, they found that obedients received
either spankings or very little punishment, whereas defiants had been punished
by severe beatings or some kind of deprivation -- dinner, perhaps . . . Most
obedients in the military admitted to shooting at men; defiants denied it.

When you look at this information what do you get? Not a whole lot. .
. . either the scale is wrong or the defiant and obedient have so many strands
in them we cannot cleanly sort it out."


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

mamaaj2000

They all were young white American males in the 1950s, right? One of
the frustrating things about psychology--that a small subset of the
world's population reacts one way and it's "universal". I've always
wondered what women, what other races, what other nationalities would
do. Has this experiment ever been tried again?

--aj

--- In [email protected], jrossedd@a... wrote:
> 'Catholics were more obedient than Jews. We did find that,'
said Elms.
> 'And the longer one's military experience, the more
obedient.' . . . They did
> find that obedient subjects reported being less close to their
fathers during
> childhood than defiants did. As children, they found that obedients
received
> either spankings or very little punishment, whereas defiants had
been punished
> by severe beatings or some kind of deprivation -- dinner,
perhaps . . . Most
> obedients in the military admitted to shooting at men; defiants
denied it.

Tara

I would also like to see that. I had also studied those experiments
in college. I always found them very interesting. I would like to
read the book. I also think that it is not only the schools that
teach children to blindly follow orders. In our society that is what
a "good" child should do. Parents also play a big part in it, with
their attitudes of "because I said so" and so on. I was all ready to
teach my son to question authority, but even at four I can see I
don't need to. I would really like to see a study on people, who
were brought up the way we are raising our children as well. I do
think some of it is temperment, and some people are naturally more
questioning (and more skeptical) than others. Should've known I
would have a son that questions everything! LOL! I love it! - Tara



--- In [email protected], kbcdlovejo@a... wrote:

> I don't know about that. I'd love to see that experiment done on
people who
> haven't been raised in that environment. I think our deepest
instincts and
> responses are to DO something. I think that school rubs it out
with all its rules
> and "follow-what-I-say-no-matter-what" orders.
>
> ~Kelly
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tara

Correct me if I am wrong, it has been a while, but didn't this set a
precedent for psychological ethics. I don't believe they have tried
this again, a lot of the people who were in the experiment were
really disturbed by their belief that they had hurt another person.
I do believe women were involved in it, but I could be wrong. - Tara


--- In [email protected], "mamaaj2000"
<mamaaj2000@y...> wrote:
> They all were young white American males in the 1950s, right? One
of
> the frustrating things about psychology--that a small subset of
the
> world's population reacts one way and it's "universal". I've
always
> wondered what women, what other races, what other nationalities
would
> do. Has this experiment ever been tried again?
>
> --aj
>
> --- In [email protected], jrossedd@a... wrote:
> > 'Catholics were more obedient than Jews. We did find
that,'
> said Elms.
> > 'And the longer one's military experience, the more
> obedient.' . . . They did
> > find that obedient subjects reported being less close to their
> fathers during
> > childhood than defiants did. As children, they found that
obedients
> received
> > either spankings or very little punishment, whereas defiants had
> been punished
> > by severe beatings or some kind of deprivation -- dinner,
> perhaps . . . Most
> > obedients in the military admitted to shooting at men; defiants
> denied it.

Backstrom kelli

It was around this time that people started to question ethics with regard to human research subjects. After studies like this and the one done of a mock prison setting and a first or second grade classroom setting in the 70s when things started to become more stringent. Today in order to use human subjects in any sort of research you have to be approved by an institutional review board and have to jump through hoops in proving that there is more benefits than risks. Kelli

Tara <tarasamja@...> wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, it has been a while, but didn't this set a
precedent for psychological ethics. I don't believe they have tried
this again, a lot of the people who were in the experiment were
really disturbed by their belief that they had hurt another person.
I do believe women were involved in it, but I could be wrong. - Tara


--- In [email protected], "mamaaj2000"
<mamaaj2000@y...> wrote:
> They all were young white American males in the 1950s, right? One
of
> the frustrating things about psychology--that a small subset of
the
> world's population reacts one way and it's "universal". I've
always
> wondered what women, what other races, what other nationalities
would
> do. Has this experiment ever been tried again?
>
> --aj
>
> --- In [email protected], jrossedd@a... wrote:
> > 'Catholics were more obedient than Jews. We did find
that,'
> said Elms.
> > 'And the longer one's military experience, the more
> obedient.' . . . They did
> > find that obedient subjects reported being less close to their
> fathers during
> > childhood than defiants did. As children, they found that
obedients
> received
> > either spankings or very little punishment, whereas defiants had
> been punished
> > by severe beatings or some kind of deprivation -- dinner,
> perhaps . . . Most
> > obedients in the military admitted to shooting at men; defiants
> denied it.




"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.

Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UnschoolingDiscussion/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 04/28/2004 11:41:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
kbcdlovejo@... writes:


> >>>>>But it also probably means that we can't use unschooling as some kind
> of magic that inoculates our own children against their own deepest
> instincts
> and responses. The best we can do, I'm thinking, is to help them learn to
> understand themselves and others and the world we all live in, and deal with
>
> it
> all. JJ<<<<<<<<
>
>
> I don't know about that. I'd love to see that experiment done on people who
> haven't been raised in that environment. I think our deepest instincts and
> responses are to DO something. I think that school rubs it out with all its
> rules
> and "follow-what-I-say-no-matter-what" orders.
>
>


Interesting. To the extent that "school" is an elaborate social system
all its own and a whole web of social "cueing" I think that's a really good
point. OTOH, if you're correct that everyone was schooled, how to explain the
defiance of fully one-third of the subjects? Certainly it raises lots more
questions to think about! :) JJ


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

tarasamja@... writes:


> didn't this set a
> precedent for psychological ethics. I don't believe they have tried
> this again, a lot of the people who were in the experiment were
> really disturbed by their belief that they had hurt another person.
>


Yes! Another good point. I heard the author interviewed before I
bought the book, and she said this outright, that ALL of the experiments in the
book along with probably most human psychological experimentation would not pass
ethical muster today. But all this did for me was make me wonder if "school"
as experimentation on children will be recognized with equal horror in a few
decades to the way we now look back at Milgram et al. JJ.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/28/2004 1:47:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jrossedd@... writes:
Interesting. To the extent that "school" is an elaborate social system
all its own and a whole web of social "cueing" I think that's a really good
point. OTOH, if you're correct that everyone was schooled, how to explain the
defiance of fully one-third of the subjects? Certainly it raises lots more
questions to think about! :) JJ<<<<<


My *guess* is that they may have been older. One or two years can make a HUGE
difference in how we deal with things.

I know that I would have followed the rules as a 24 year old. I also know
that I would have stopped them from doing any more "harm" by the time I was 31.
By 40, I doubt I would have agreed to participate at all! <BWG> Screw 'em! <g>

Some of us mature earlier than others as well. I believe Cameron, at 16,
would stay, "stop" sooner. My mother, at 69 would be a lemming. Follow the rules
and the crowd.

Maturity *level*? Not age, but maturity.

~Kelly


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/28/2004 1:53:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jrossedd@... writes:
But all this did for me was make me wonder if "school"
as experimentation on children will be recognized with equal horror in a few
decades to the way we now look back at Milgram et al. JJ<<<<

We can only hope!

~Kelly


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

This exchange really highlights that there are two ways to think about
this: one is as social situation differences, and the other is as differences
between individuals.

The overall interpretation of all the experiments (as the author
describes it at least) is that individual differences like schooling or maturity or
confidence or compassion don't make nearly as much difference as we might
expect or want to believe. The book seems to show that situation differences need
more weight and thought than we tend to give them -- and to me, this might be
especially true for unschoolers, who focus on independence, self-reliance,
courage, swimming against the mainstream, et cetera.

That's why I brought it up here, to see if we as unschooler
non-conformist types can consider these social-situation variables *along with* personal
development variables, and maybe reach a higher level of understanding about
how they fit together (if they do fit-- I'm still thinking and I haven't even
finished the book yet! <grin>) JJ




> In a message dated 4/28/2004 1:47:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jrossedd@... writes:
> Interesting. To the extent that "school" is an elaborate social system
> all its own and a whole web of social "cueing" I think that's a really
> good
> point. OTOH, if you're correct that everyone was schooled, how to explain
> the
> defiance of fully one-third of the subjects? Certainly it raises lots more
> questions to think about! :) JJ<<<<<
>
>
> My *guess* is that they may have been older. One or two years can make a
> HUGE
> difference in how we deal with things.
>
> I know that I would have followed the rules as a 24 year old. I also know
> that I would have stopped them from doing any more "harm" by the time I was
> 31.
> By 40, I doubt I would have agreed to participate at all! <BWG> Screw 'em! <
> g>
>
> Some of us mature earlier than others as well. I believe Cameron, at 16,
> would stay, "stop" sooner. My mother, at 69 would be a lemming. Follow the
> rules
> and the crowd.
>
> Maturity *level*? Not age, but maturity.
>
> ~Kelly
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/28/2004 12:00:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jrossedd@... writes:

> They did
> find that obedient subjects reported being less close to their fathers
> during
> childhood than defiants did.

Well... this is the only one that fits. I was quite the defiant, but only
after 13 or so years of blissfully obeying authority. Maybe being "daddy's little
girl" is the reason it took me over 13 years to become that rebel... Hmmmm...
:~)

Sang


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/29/04 2:42:35 AM, Sanguinegirl83@... writes:

<< > They did
> find that obedient subjects reported being less close to their fathers
> during
> childhood than defiants did.

<<Well... this is the only one that fits. I was quite the defiant, but only
after 13 or so years of blissfully obeying authority. Maybe being "daddy's
little
girl" is the reason it took me over 13 years to become that rebel... Hmmmm...
:~) >>

It fits me and my sister.
There are other factors too, but if someone were JUST testing for that
factor, my sister and I would be supporting evidence.

Sandra

the_clevengers

--- In [email protected], "Lisa H"
<Lmanathome@m...> wrote:

> Your thoughts ring true in many ways. But think about this...my dh
>pointed out to me years ago our cultural need to raise "independent"
>children and wondered at the time what constitutes true
>independence - his point being that the ability to depend on one
>another is not a hindrance and can perhaps serve us better as human
>beings.

I think that's a very wide way of looking at independence. This
reminds me of a scene from a movie I've been watching this week -
28 Days Later. In the movie, a killer virus wipes out most of the
population of England, and one of the themes among the survivors is
how much they need each other. One of the survivors dreams that he
wakes up and the other survivors have left him alone. You can see in
his panic just how much we need other humans for survival. Almost
none of us is truly "independent".

As for my kids, I hope they achieve the level of independence that
they need at any given time, and that it's true independence and not
reactionary independence. I began moving out of my parent's home at
age 16, and declared myself independent from them for financial and
other reasons. At times, I lived on the street rather than ask them
for money or assistance. That's what I mean by reactionary
independence, and I don't think that's healthy. It was more of
a "I'll show them I don't need them" kind of a thing. I'd like to
think that if my kids every really *need* us, they'll come to us for
help. And that when they don't need us, they'll be happy taking care
of themselves at whatever age that is. I like that at the ages they
are now, they're around us so much that they're learning many of the
skills you really need to be independent (how to cook, shop, make
phone calls, interact with people in the general public) just by
being in the real world in the daytime instead of sequestered away in
an artificial environment. I had to learn most of that stuff by trial
and error when I was already on my own.

Blue Skies,
-Robin-