5 ms·

> I’ll even give that in some cases there is just some condition that makes a kid incredibly out of despite actual loving supporting parents, but I would wager

by slibhb 5y ago

> I’ll even give that in some cases there is just some condition that makes a kid incredibly out of despite actual loving supporting parents, but I would wager you can find environmental causes in most cases. It seems wrong to single out environmental causes as dominant. There are parents with multiple children who all did fine except one. Anyway, we know it's a complicated mix of genetics and environment and either factor can be decisive. > Parents are sacrosanct in this country and there is no actual community to give much in terms of help. Peoples suburban homes are their castle and nobody knows how much neglect or abuse is going on behind closed doors until the kid shows up at school with a “behavior disorder”. Simply put: people who are completely incompetent to care for another human being much less an immature one’s emotional or physical or developmental needs get full legal protection. I think this is underappreciated in society since everyone who is a parent experienced many difficulties and they imagine all the ways things could go wrong. They are usually being charitable to the other parents though - the bar at which a child develops a secure emotional attachment is not that high. Parents are much less sacrosanct in the US/UK than anywhere else. No one actually knows how to raise children. We have decided to let parents experiment on their children and this seems correct to me. The more we mandate certain parenting techniques, the more it will become clear that the "science" behind child-rearing is not reliable. We'll be screwing up children uniformly instead of haphazardly. I think it's better to let parents do their best. This leaves us with some children who were over-disciplined and some who were under-disciplined and this is a better outcome than everyone being screwed up in the same way.

taurath 5y ago
> Parents are much less sacrosanct in the US/UK than anywhere else. By what measure? Cultural relevance or actual legal authority? > No one actually knows how to raise children. We have a much better idea now about how to meet the developmental needs of children than ever before, I think almost anyone would argue. We have studies on the outcomes of things like corporal punishment. We have the ACE study and it’s effects. So many other foundational developmental science has been done in the last 30 years. > I think it's better to let parents do their best. This leaves us with some children who were over-disciplined and some who were under-disciplined and this is a better outcome than everyone being screwed up in the same way. I certainly won’t argue against that but I would argue that having people have at least a cursory education on child rearing might be something that would help. As a survivor of abuse it’s very difficult to allow for the idea that nothing further could be done for kids in similar positions.
- slibhb 5y ago
  > By what measure? Cultural relevance or actual legal authority? Both. Wales made corporeal punishment illegal recently. That would be unthinkable in most of the world. In most Asian cultures, children have a lifelong obligation to their parents. In the US, once you're an adult, you're on your own and it's not uncommon to have limited contact with your parents. > We have a much better idea now about how to meet the developmental needs of children than ever before, I think almost anyone would argue. We have studies on the outcomes of things like corporal punishment. We have the ACE study and it’s effects. So many other foundational developmental science has been done in the last 30 years. We might know more than we used to but we know very little. I suspect the vast majority of these studies have no predictive power. > I certainly won’t argue against that but I would argue that having people have at least a cursory education on child rearing might be something that would help. As a survivor of abuse it’s very difficult to allow for the idea that nothing further could be done for kids in similar positions. I think your experience ("survivor of abuse") probably informs your views more than supposed advances in science of child development. And the same is true for me: the fact that my parents were/are wonderful and my father hit me occasionally explains my views here. There is such a thing as abuse, it should be illegal, and it's a serious problem. But we're in danger of demonizing discipline and reasonable physical punishment. My experience is that discipline and love aren't opposites, they should coexist and when you don't have one, you're going to have trouble.
  - taurath 5y ago
    > Both. Wales made corporeal punishment illegal recently. That would be unthinkable in most of the world. In most Asian cultures, children have a lifelong obligation to their parents. In the US, once you're an adult, you're on your own and it's not uncommon to have limited contact with your parents. Isn’t this the parents rather than the kids? Parents who expect their children to take care of them even in Asia may tend to treat their children better. > We might know more than we used to but we know very little. I suspect the vast majority of these studies have no predictive power. Look up the outcomes of the ACE study, it’s one of the most predictive statistical studies ever created when it comes to many outcomes, including premature death, substance abuse, imprisonment and even bodily health outcomes. It’s extremely important. > And the same is true for me: the fact that my parents were/are wonderful and my father hit me occasionally explains my views here. Studies have shown that hitting children either is neutral or harmful. That it was neutral doesn’t mean on measure it’s not tending towards harmful. The more a child is hit the more developmental problems arise. Nearly any cohort controlling for other factors, striking a child has worse outcomes. There is data to back this up. > But we're in danger of demonizing discipline and reasonable physical punishment. Let’s not conflate the two. A time out is not the same as teaching a child they will be hit if they don’t obey. Parental authority is not infallible. > My experience is that discipline and love aren't opposites, they should coexist and when you don't have one, you're going to have trouble. I agree with this point and am not arguing for no discipline. The context of this thread is being labeled a troubled teen and being forced to go to a “discipline” prison.
hef19898 5y ago
>> There are parents with multiple children who all did fine except one. Isn't that highly subjective? I know of cases in which children literally broke with their parents. Two siblings turned out "fine" (social and parents definition), the one that broke with them didn't (parents' definition again). turned out the "troubled" one finished school on top of class (not that I would take that a true measure so) after leaving home aged 16, that kid actually did turned out more then fine IMHO. Working and helping kids with similar, and even harder, backgrounds is tough and valuable work. The terms "troubled" and "fine" are highly subjective. And shouldn't be basis for any abusive measures. Unless they are illegal, in which case there are laws (which have to be revisited every once in a while. Also prisons seem to be better places then some of those tough love programs).
- slibhb 5y ago
  It's not subjective to say drug addicts, criminals, or people who died in drunk driving accidents didn't turn out well. I think parents should implement "tough love" themselves as necessary and sending your child to one of these programs is, in general, a failure of parenting.

by slibhb 5y ago

taurath 5y ago

> Parents are much less sacrosanct in the US/UK than anywhere else. By what measure? Cultural relevance or actual legal authority? > No one actually knows how to raise children. We have a much better idea now about how to meet the developmental needs of children than ever before, I think almost anyone would argue. We have studies on the outcomes of things like corporal punishment. We have the ACE study and it’s effects. So many other foundational developmental science has been done in the last 30 years. > I think it's better to let parents do their best. This leaves us with some children who were over-disciplined and some who were under-disciplined and this is a better outcome than everyone being screwed up in the same way. I certainly won’t argue against that but I would argue that having people have at least a cursory education on child rearing might be something that would help. As a survivor of abuse it’s very difficult to allow for the idea that nothing further could be done for kids in similar positions.

slibhb 5y ago
> By what measure? Cultural relevance or actual legal authority? Both. Wales made corporeal punishment illegal recently. That would be unthinkable in most of the world. In most Asian cultures, children have a lifelong obligation to their parents. In the US, once you're an adult, you're on your own and it's not uncommon to have limited contact with your parents. > We have a much better idea now about how to meet the developmental needs of children than ever before, I think almost anyone would argue. We have studies on the outcomes of things like corporal punishment. We have the ACE study and it’s effects. So many other foundational developmental science has been done in the last 30 years. We might know more than we used to but we know very little. I suspect the vast majority of these studies have no predictive power. > I certainly won’t argue against that but I would argue that having people have at least a cursory education on child rearing might be something that would help. As a survivor of abuse it’s very difficult to allow for the idea that nothing further could be done for kids in similar positions. I think your experience ("survivor of abuse") probably informs your views more than supposed advances in science of child development. And the same is true for me: the fact that my parents were/are wonderful and my father hit me occasionally explains my views here. There is such a thing as abuse, it should be illegal, and it's a serious problem. But we're in danger of demonizing discipline and reasonable physical punishment. My experience is that discipline and love aren't opposites, they should coexist and when you don't have one, you're going to have trouble.
- taurath 5y ago
  > Both. Wales made corporeal punishment illegal recently. That would be unthinkable in most of the world. In most Asian cultures, children have a lifelong obligation to their parents. In the US, once you're an adult, you're on your own and it's not uncommon to have limited contact with your parents. Isn’t this the parents rather than the kids? Parents who expect their children to take care of them even in Asia may tend to treat their children better. > We might know more than we used to but we know very little. I suspect the vast majority of these studies have no predictive power. Look up the outcomes of the ACE study, it’s one of the most predictive statistical studies ever created when it comes to many outcomes, including premature death, substance abuse, imprisonment and even bodily health outcomes. It’s extremely important. > And the same is true for me: the fact that my parents were/are wonderful and my father hit me occasionally explains my views here. Studies have shown that hitting children either is neutral or harmful. That it was neutral doesn’t mean on measure it’s not tending towards harmful. The more a child is hit the more developmental problems arise. Nearly any cohort controlling for other factors, striking a child has worse outcomes. There is data to back this up. > But we're in danger of demonizing discipline and reasonable physical punishment. Let’s not conflate the two. A time out is not the same as teaching a child they will be hit if they don’t obey. Parental authority is not infallible. > My experience is that discipline and love aren't opposites, they should coexist and when you don't have one, you're going to have trouble. I agree with this point and am not arguing for no discipline. The context of this thread is being labeled a troubled teen and being forced to go to a “discipline” prison.

hef19898 5y ago

>> There are parents with multiple children who all did fine except one. Isn't that highly subjective? I know of cases in which children literally broke with their parents. Two siblings turned out "fine" (social and parents definition), the one that broke with them didn't (parents' definition again). turned out the "troubled" one finished school on top of class (not that I would take that a true measure so) after leaving home aged 16, that kid actually did turned out more then fine IMHO. Working and helping kids with similar, and even harder, backgrounds is tough and valuable work. The terms "troubled" and "fine" are highly subjective. And shouldn't be basis for any abusive measures. Unless they are illegal, in which case there are laws (which have to be revisited every once in a while. Also prisons seem to be better places then some of those tough love programs).

slibhb 5y ago
It's not subjective to say drug addicts, criminals, or people who died in drunk driving accidents didn't turn out well. I think parents should implement "tough love" themselves as necessary and sending your child to one of these programs is, in general, a failure of parenting.