Procrastination is all too familiar to most people. People delay writing up their research (so we hear!), repeatedly declare they will start their diets tomorrow, or postpone until next week doing odd jobs around the house. Yet people also sometimes attempt to control their procrastination by setting deadlines for themselves. In this article, we pose three questions: (a) Are people willing to self-impose meaningful (i.e., costly) deadlines to overcome procrastination? (b) Are self-imposed deadlines effective in improving task performance? (c) When self-imposing deadlines, do people set them optimally, for maximum performance enhancement? A set of studies examined these issues experimentally, showing that the answer is “yes” to the first two questions, and “nO'’ to the third. People have self-control problems, they recognize them, and they try to control them by self-imposing costly deadlines. These deadlines help people control procrastination, but they are not as effective as some externally imposed deadlines in improving task performance.
Same here. Lost ~44 pounds without exercising. I just take a 10-15 minute walk 3-4 times a week and removed most of the processed foods from the diet, no meat, no eggs, very low sugar, became a vegetarian. So most of the impact came from changing my diet and not merely from exercising.
I live in asia and I'm a dropout. And now after some years of reading great books I found on amazon and other courses from the teaching company, I regret gotten a bad education. In my country the quality of teachers is not very good, plus the teaching is not holistic. The books they use to teach is just plain bad. The people you hang out with or befriend also influence your attitude and worldview. I find here in my country bad schools and colleges have students with either bad attitude or worldview. They were not smart.
Also I was also stuck in a kind of catch-22, I too had a bad worldview and lived in a bad neighborhood which further got worse when I tried to hang with not so smart people. How do you change yourself when your whole neighborhood and peer group have weird beliefs and worldview, its like hanging out with people from Afghanistan/Iraq or something.
It is my firm belief that everyone should study philosophy or humanities. Just to learn critical thinking and "how to think" part of it, without it all the other STEM subjects(science, tech, engineering, math) just doesn't connect well. Checking the beliefs and assumptions you hold dear to yourself is very important. Systems thinking is very important. Every subject interconnected to each other. Plus the type of people you hang out with is very important.
• The assumption that child-rearing practices are responsible for how children
develop is a myth of modern western culture.
• Most socialization research ignores the effect of genetics and peer groups on
personality and behavior.
• Research into the results of different pa renting styles may confuse cause and effect;
do parents spank difficult kids or do kids become diffi cult because they are spanked?
• Human beings naturally form groups. They are social animals and excellent imitators.
• Children learn by identifying with a peer group and imitating its members.
• Peer groups are more influential than parents in determining children's behavior.
• Among his or her peers, a child's goal is child success – not adult success.
Negative peer influence may, for instance, undermine programs intended to fi ght
juvenile delinquency.
• The ability of parents to determine how children turn out is decidedly limited.
• The family can become the peer group that affects a child, but that‘s rare.
• Perhaps the most that parents can do to infl uence children's decisions and behavior
is to choose a community or school where the peer group refl ects parental values.
The goal of a child is not adult success, but rather childhood success. Status in a peer
group is a lynchpin factor in that success. Children do not seek to emulate their parents;
instead, they want to be like their peers. This is why children consider the prospect of
being held back in school as frightening. They lose membership in the group they know
and must take the status of being misfi ts in a group they do not know.
Group forces may be responsible for the failure of certain programs intended to combat
juvenile crime or to improve educational outcomes. It isn’t unusual, for example, for
African-American boys to consider academic success as un-African-American – or even
to scorn too-studious peers for “acting white.” Research shows that children are more
likely to smoke if their friends smoke – but whether their parents smoke makes little
difference. Some teen peer groups value criminal behavior, toughness and a willingness
to take risks. Recidivism is particularly high among juvenile delinquents who are sent to
programs where they live with other youthful offenders. This is to be expected, given the
power of group norms. Small wonder, then, that the neighborhood where a child grows
up can have a powerful determining infl uence on how it develops. A Danish study found
that children adopted by criminals were only likely to become criminals themselves
under one circumstance: growing up in a high-crime neighborhood.
To influence behavior and development, social programs should address groups rather
than individual children or their parents. Groups transmit language, culture and values
to children. It is noteworthy that historically black colleges produce the majority of
prominent black intellectuals, and that girls seem to do better in science and math in all-
girl schools than in co-ed schools. In a school with an all-black or all-female population,
academic achievement is not defined as nonblack or unfeminine. Group norms do not
discourage excellence.
Clearly, parents have a limited ability to influence children’s development. Socialization
researchers have not demonstrated that such factors as birth order, spanking or
parental education are responsible for how children develop. Genes and environment
matter. However, in the long run, it is not the parental environment, but the peer group
environment that really counts.
Parents can affect the development of children most directly through the influence they
exercise over establishing a child’s peer group. Parents pick the neighborhood where the
family will live, and often choose their children’s schools. All things considered, it is
obviously better to select a neighborhood and a school where peer pressures are likelier
to push your child in a good direction. Seek a school where students consider academic
achievement desirable and admirable – and where members of the child’s ethnic group
do not value academic failure. If possible, choose a vicinity where juvenile crime is
rare or nonexistent. Of course, almost every neighborhood has its share of delinquency,
and kids who are bent on defi ning themselves as delinquents will somehow manage to
fi nd peers. However, degrees of delinquency differ from neighborhood to neighborhood,
so it is important to recognize that choosing a neighborhood is a decisive step toward
choosing a peer group.
Parents can help children do better within their groups, and this is crucial. Selecting a
child’s name can be key. Parents who pick bizarre names can sentence children to ridicule
and perhaps even victimization. If your child has skin problems, go to a dermatologist.
If the child has crooked teeth, get them straightened. If the child has an obesity problem,
address it. Group status matters deeply to children, and their self-esteem grows from
group acceptance. Of course, group status also matters to adults. Many child-rearing and
child-development fashions have spread only because groups defined them as desirable.
In the natural order of things, dominance happens. Parents are supposed to be the
dominant members of families. They aren’t entertainers or playmates. Their job is to
be in charge. In many societies, older siblings also have a dominant and caretaking role.
Consider that the arrival of a young brother or sister displaces the older sibling as a center
of attention. The middle-class American insistence on treating children equally means
that the older sibling does not receive the perquisite that could soften the blow of this
displacement – a degree of authority and responsibility. Sibling rivalry does not seem
to happen in societies that allow older siblings to take their “rightful” place as bosses
of younger siblings. Indeed, children tend to develop close alliances in such societies.
Brotherhood and sisterhood really mean something.
The nurture assumption has been responsible for plenty of parental anxiety and distress.
When children turn out badly, the nurture assumption says that it is the parents’ fault.
But no evidence supports the nurture assumption. It’s a myth. So, parents should stop
worrying and do the best job they can. However, this job includes recognizing their
limits, and acknowledging the power and importance of peer groups. Children live and
learn in groups. They adopt group norms. They try hard to be good members of their
groups, to achieve status and recognition by the group’s standards. They learn, through
the group, to be members of society. So, the most important contribution that parents
can make to a child’s development may very well be the influence they wield in making
certain groups available – or unavailable – for the child to join.
This is extremely important information, and every parent should read the wall of text, but I have a few quibbles.
* It mentions but sort of underplays the importance of finding a good neighborhood/school.
* It underplays the role of parents in the pre-school years where parents are the child's primary social world.
* It underplays the role of teaching children how to successfully achieve peace and happiness in the home-- though I agree this may be tangential to the child's later success in life. It is key to parental happiness, though.
* It emphasizes that peers teach kids their attitudes. But adults teach kids much of their skills and strategies. Peers with skills may model and communicate those strategies better, but those peers can be hard to find.
There is a similar report by Harrison Group which surveyed 3,000 pentamillionaires ($5 million net worth) and found that almost all pentamillionaires made their fortunes in a big lump sum after a period of years.
https://sivers.org/ml