Yea, right. Every time I was influenced by my peers to do something stupid, I used the acid test, "Will my father kill me?" He's gone now, but I still use that test. That's influence.
I agree. Furthermore, I don't think Asian teachers necessarily have a special knack for controlling kids. I behaved well in class (I'm Asian, btw) because I knew my mother would beat the shit out of me if she heard anything bad from my teachers about me.
actually it was worse (in a good way) for me.. My mother used to work in my school (as a maths teacher). And she was in charge of timetable duty every year... And lo behold she was my maths teachers every year.
Certainly made sure she had an eye on me at all times. Damn!
Probably more than anything else in the world. I wouldn't be close to where I am, or who I am, without mine, and that's an observation that I can extend to pretty much everyone I know well.
I am pretty sure I would be a different person, perhaps even better, but my character, as I understand it, has been shaped by my parents. Part of that comes from them staying out of my way when it came to certain decisions that would impact the rest of my life (in India parents can get very pushy about going into certain field) and allowing us to have our disagreements (and we have many).
I don't need to argue for my observations. I experienced them and quite enjoyed growing up with them.
You don't need to argue, but if you want to find the truth of the matter, then it might help to argue. Through arguing, but not through asserting, we can sometimes learn that we have mistaken ideas and change our minds.
Don't disagree there, but you cannot explain evening spent talking, Sunday mornings watching birds, Friday evenings in the library, walks explaining why leaves are green and the beauty of mathematics. In other words, how do you distill 20 years into an argument, when no one else was there to experience a second of it? I can't.
You've now described your experiences. I'm perfectly willing to accept that it seems to you that that's what happened. But did it happen that way?
Once upon a time I talked to this guy, and he runs a group of Objectivists, and says he's a huge fan of Ayn Rand, and how much her books influenced him. And he talked a bit about his life. And you know what? He had lived it roughly in the opposite way to what one of Rand's heros would have done. He played it safe, didn't stand up for his values, settled for less, cared what others thought of him, didn't have the drive to pursue difficult goals, etc
He thought he was strongly influenced by something, and lived his life by it, and he'd failed to notice how little he acted on that influence.
Such stories are common. I have no idea if your interpretation of what influenced you is correct or not, but I do know that people often are mistaken about these things.
Suppose you were genetically programmed, and part of that programming made you think your parents were important. Couldn't that account for your experiences too? (I think it could not, but only due to some philosophical arguments. I think your experiences don't contradict the genetic theory.)
Can you extend that observation to the adopted kids you know? The adopted children I know are far less like their parents than the biological children I know. Granted, the adopted children I know were not implanted in their adopted mothers' wombs, so it's not a perfect comparison, but I definitely think it's worth thinking about. Observation about parents and children who are biologically related doesn't seem to me to be particularly informative when thinking about nature and nurture.
The article does not state that parents do not matter at all, just that, when all the evidence available from studies conducted is considered, they matter less than what is normally assumed.
Well, the article said look how influential peers are. But whether peers are influential is controlled by the parents. Some parenting techniques allow peer influence, and others simply don't. When they say peers are influential, they mean peers are influential in the context of certain common parenting techniques, but not others. Which kind of defeats their claim that parenting doesn't matter so much.
Certain types of (non-violent) parenting suppress the influence of peers completely, but no types of (non-violent) peers could suppress the influence of that sort of parenting at all.
"Certain types of (non-violent) parenting suppress the influence of peers completely, but no types of (non-violent) peers could suppress the influence of that sort of parenting at all."
Wow, I guess she must have completely missed the studies showing this. From the article:
"Despite the reduction in physical punishment, today’s adults are no less aggressive than their grandparents were. Despite the increase in praise and physical affection, they are not happier or more self-confident or in better mental health. It’s an interesting way to test a theory of child development: persuade millions of parents to rear their children in accordance with the theory, and then sit back and watch the results come in. Well, the results are in and they don’t support the theory!"
It's not a matter of studies, it's a matter of parents having full control over who young children meet or do not meet, whether the children leave the house or not, etc
I had to do some research for a paper a few years ago that reminds me of this - I learned that juvenile delinquency statistics could not be correlated across income level, race, or geography. However, once family situation was taken into account (stable two parent households vs. other situations), a correlation was found.
I definitely believe parents matter.
And, as an aside, some parents have no choice but to raise children single, and they do a great job. It just isn't the ideal situation, according to research.
Our parents form the basis for all other attachments we are able to form with people. Our parents form the basis of how humans are able to interact with others.
I certainly disagree with "So if you want to improve the way children behave in school—for instance, by making them more diligent and less disruptive in the classroom", I think most people can see a correlation between poor quality parenting and badly behaved children. Inside or outside the home. This certainly proves it's point when the average family of University (or College) child age is shown demographically. (Assuming that you exclude financial issues).
Parents have far too great an influence over their children to not matter. This research certainly hinges on undermining the whole of attachment theory, and Freud's work on personality types. If parents did not support certain behaviours then they wouldn't develop. I think that this research on it's own represents a narrow minded view of later development, not something which explains how parents shape their children.
Parents do matter because they create who we are today.
There is a good book about why parents matter, that addresses Harris's ideas: Hold on to Your Kids by Gordon Neufeld, a clinical psychologist. See: http://www.gordonneufeld.com/book.php
If we take evolution as our the model for our species then parents and parenthood are vitally important to the survival of the species.
At certain times peers might play a bigger role in forming who we are but to say that consistently peers are more important than parents, I think, is incorrect.
Some studies of the most closely related primates suggest that peers may be more important for them than parents are, as well as for humans.
How many people posting here are parents? I have four children. Since I have had my second child, I have cherished the saying I learned from another parent: "Parents of one child believe in nurture, and parents of two or more children believe in nature."
Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. I'm not seeing any.
Here's a quick counterpoint that speaks to the "norm": Almost to a man, every sports icon I can think of cites the influence of parents in their lives. (I'm talking real icons here, not T.O. types that happen to be gifted.)
I'm not ready to accept this theory without significant evidence.
She is certainly not presenting extraordinary evidence. For example she claims that modern child rearing methods have no effect because there are still the same number of violent people in society - as if everybody is being raised according to the latest child rearing methods! I live in a rural area with a lot of poverty and trust me - what I see in the playground as far as parent-kid interaction is not what Dr Sears has in mind.
She is also terribly inconsistent. She says "The belief that parents have a great deal of power to determine how their children will turn out is actually a rather new idea" and then goes on to say in the old days, kids used to be beaten not praised. Well I have news for her - parents used to beat kids because they though they were affecting the way the kids would turn out! It was the same idea, just different methods. The idea that the parent (or whichever adult is in loco parentis - culturally not always the biological parent) goes back millenenia. Why were Spartan children taken away from their mothers, if their mothers were not thought to have influence on their upbringing?
As to the issue of adopted children not being "like" their parents - maybe not in personality, but I am willing to bet that a child adopted out of a primitive tribe by a pair of geeks will learn how to use a computer pretty damn fast. Is that of no effect on the child's life?
Obviously by now it is generally accepted that children come out the way they do through a combination of pre-desposition (genetics), adult influence (eg. parenting and teaching) and peer/social influence. But saying parents don't matter at all seems to be a step backwards.
Her two books, "The Nurture Assumption" and "No Two Alike", make eminently clear _exactly_ what she means and doesn't mean. Then she analyzes previous studies, really digging into the statistics. Her writings are excellent demonstrations of proper and improper use of statistics.
Reading her books, I was astonished to see some of psychology's long-cherished ideas so thoroughly disproven.
They are at the top of their game. The effect of years of passion, skill and above all, hard work. Pretty much exactly like an entrepreneur. One would think that along the way they have been able to surmise and account for many of the things that got them there.
I've yet to see one that doesn't have extremely dedicated and supportive parents, notably fathers.
The point of the article is kind of subtle. The research is pointing out that excluding genetic factors, parents don't really matter. So parents do matter in the sense that they are the gene providers but not in the sense that they are the jean providers.
I've recently come to the same conclusion, at least with my daughter. My wife and I seem to be able to exercise greater influence over my sons, but it's become clear that my daughter's peers exert vastly more influence over her than we can -- and she has unfortunately chosen a set of friends who have a very negative influence. By "negative" I don't mean "funny hairstyles", I mean hanging around with them, or even just talking to them over the phone or via computer, has pushed her into depression, self-injury, complete disregard for school, etc. Ultimately it lead to a suicide attempt, at which point we shifted from trying to be influential, supporting parents to unabashedly controlling her life. She's 13.
We're attempting to intervene with medication and professional counseling to help with the depression and injury. We're also attempting to remove the negative peers from her life by removing her from school (homeschooling) and controlling who she's allowed to spend time with.
It's helping, but modern technology has created some challenges. Like most geek homes, mine is filled with technology, and my kids are adept in its use. I've had to block Facebook and all of the free e-mail services on the kids' computers, but short of intensively supervising her computer usage there's effectively no way to cut off that avenue of communication with her negative friends.
I finally resorted to writing a script that notifies me whenever she logs in, and then hacking the GNOME remote desktop tool so that it doesn't display a notification when I remotely connect to her desktop. Oh, we've used the low-tech solution of putting the computer in a public area of the house and paying attention, but that just means she has to pick the right moment. Knowing that I may be virtually looking over her shoulder at any moment, and there's no way she can know when that's happening, seems to have closed off that avenue. Finally. When she's at home.
However, phones have proven much more difficult. We've taken her cellphone away, and the home phone has no long distance service (her problem friends happen to be outside the local calling area; she had to cast a wide net to find a group this bad), but my home office line does, and there are three other cellphones around the house, not to mention that all of her local friends and cousins have cellphones.
Short of keeping all of our phones locked up and not allowing her out of the house, there's effectively no way we can keep her from getting in touch with her friends. And these friends are so important to her that there seems to be no punishment, no bribe, no consequence that will keep her from contacting them.
Without modern communications technology, it's unlikely that she ever would have found this group of negative peers, and it's certain that we as her parents would be able isolate her from them. As it is, as long as she's willing to sneak behind our backs, it is effectively impossible for us to control her access to them. We can limit it significantly, of course, but unless we could watch her every minute of every day, as soon as our backs are turned she'll find a way to contact them.
So far, reducing her communication with them seems to be limiting their effect on her. The anti-depressants are having an effect as well, and the therapy seems also to be helping her to understand herself and her value a little better. However, as you can imagine, the constant close supervision and tight control is also basically destroying our relationship with her, and reducing our ability to directly influence her thinking to zero. She sees us as the enemy.
That saddens us greatly, but we don't see any other option. She was in a downward spiral last year and we intervened aggressively and she pulled out of it. Then she convinced us that she could handle herself if we relaxed the grip. We did, and within three months she attempted suicide (which her peers think is cool).
So, this has been long and rambling, but the point is that my anecdotal experience with my daughter supports this researcher's claims. Our influence over our daughter's behavior and thinking is minimal at best, and I'm questioning whether it was ever as great as we thought it was. Our influence over her environment is substantial and we're working that influence for all it's worth. I guess we'll know in a few years if that approach worked. Well, sort of. We'll only know the results of what we do. There's no way to know what might have happened if we'd acted differently.
That, of course, is the hard part of being a parent. You can only do what you think is best, and there's really no way to know if you're doing the right things, or how much what you're doing even matters. Still, you have to do the best you can.
To correct something I said, I was thinking it's better if someone else than you to send her the books, because your relationship is so bad at this point she won't trust it to be a good thing and not care to read.
You're doing it wrong. I am surprised that what you are doing is even legal, not to mention you are giving homeschooling a very bad name.
We only imprison a suicidal person to make death impossible for her, having in mind that the person's life is her own and that if the person could think rationally she would want to live. This is never to be done at home, though. It's done in a hospital or clinic, because it's a place that will be hated and where the person rightly won't want to return to.
I remember being in a mental hospital ward as a young adult and thoughts going from "I hate the world and I wish I was dead" to "If only I could go out in the sun and get some ice cream." This hospital had a beautiful garden outside which you could see from the barred windows and a quiosk where they sold ice cream. Man, did I enjoy that ice cream once I was allowed to go out for it! When was I finally released from the hospital (on the condition of doing therapy, which I quit soon I could, because it was humilliating) my family took me out to the cinema, to buy videogames and I had no restrictions on Internet and going out with my friends (I was not a minor anymore, so I guess it was easier for them to respect me.)
The experience was undignifying and I still have a grudge against my parents for it, since they got the necessary documents to forcefully sign me into hospital. I still love them and we talk but I prefer to live in another country. I also never completely got rid of my suicidal thoughts up to this day (over a decade after) nor did the experience scared me out to try suicide a second time. Still, it might have solved the immediate emergency then. I don't know.
The most terrible thing about hospitalization is the forced medication, which is brain damaging and useless. The mind is not ill, just wrong.
So I'm sure there is a better way to help. But whatever you do, have this in mind:
One's home should always be one's home. It should be a person's private space. It should be a welcoming place where the person longs to be in. Your daugher should have her own room, her own computer, her own things, her own friends and her freedom back. She should not be spyed upon by her own family. That will just make her paranoid. If her own family is out to get her, who isn't?
Understand that a person is motivated to live when they can be free, when they can have a good life by their own standards. So help her get a life she wants to live. listen to her. What does she like? Get her more of that.
Also, get her some Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand is great because she gets to the roots of the self-esteem problem. Teenagers that read Ayn Rand love life, and behave like they are invincible. I wish I had read her then. Your daughter is more likely to not be influenced by bad friends when she learns why she shouldn't care for what others think. The Virtue of Selfishness is brilliant. Get that one or Anthem for a starter.
