Parenting

[Axl4Prez2004]

Some people are lucky enough to be able to pick their child's school, but none of us get to pick the other kids in the school.

Home schoolin' brutha!  I kid, I kid, but I do know someone that does that and he's an even more arrogant parent than Prez (sorry, man, I still like you though  ).  He goes on and on about drugs, guns, and moral depravity in schools these days... I'm like, dude, your kid's 5.

btw, I like all of you too!  Yes, I come across as arrogant, but to me it's kind of like going to a surgeon.  I want the surgeon that is confident in his or her abilities.

...btw, a very timely post Steele, as we are currently researching options for our Kindergartener.  Yes, home schooling is on the table.  Yes, I'm concerned with the absence of an "elementary school experience."  Yes, I'm concerned that a home schooling community would likely have religious zealot morons that teach their children Intelligent Design as science.  But...in our school system there doesn't seem to be a system in place to challenge kids that are well-ahead of the curve in reading and mathematics.  It's quite frustrating.  We will be doing a lot of research this month.

Fear of exposure to things like "moral depravity" "guns" "drugs" etc. doesn't even register with me.  That's crazy talk, especially for a 5 year old...I don't plan on sheltering my kids at all, in fact, I will expose them on an age-appropriate basis to thorough drug education.

[Axl4Prez2004]

He knew you were disappointed?  He's 2!

He knew he wasn't in the mall anymore with the happy music, maybe, haha.

All I am saying is that you are STILL in the very early stages of parenting.  You, like every other parent of a teen will be pulling your hair out when those years come.

You will be surprised at how much a 2 year old absorbs...seriously, absolutely amazed!
...and of course there will be challenges.  I never said there wouldn't be challenges! 

[Axl4Prez2004]

A4P, since I can't possibly quote in response, I'l reply to the red bits.

1. It was arrogant, I wasn't the only person here who thought that. It wasn't about shitty parenting, it was about your trying being right and other's trying being wrong.

Arrogant as charged!  I make no bones about it.  I'm damn good!  My wife's humility balances us out.    ...and yes, when I watch countless numbers of parents catering to children who yell at them just to pacify them, that's shitty parenting.  When I watch a parent snap and say, "I'm gonna smack yo' ass!"  That's shitty parenting.  When I see a physician at a local YMCA repeatedly smack her kid across the face because he was sticking his tongue out, that's shitty parenting.  That's not arrogance, it's fact.

2.

What do you do with the clay you are given?

You make your kids sound like a project.

The most important projects of my life!  I'm not a micro-manager, but I do my best to create the environment that's ideal for their development.

3. Of course I'll write partially because genetics is probabilistic, it isn't binary - you can't predict outcomes of genetics with certainty any more than you can predict outcomes of parenting with certainty.

The above-listed events I mentioned are all instances of shitty parenting.  That's certain.

9 times out of 10

Here's the thing, I'm pretty sure you are presenting an argument based on your personal observations and anecdotes. That don't mean shit, neither do mine neither do anyone else's here in drawing conclusions. You live in a tiny fraction of time and space. That's why I'm quoting the results of scientific studies and not my own personal observations.

It pays to be aware of one's surroundings.

And I don't think you get that some things you think are environment may be genetics - such as shouting at your kids, in fact if it's a cycle it's more likely to be genetics than environment in my opinion. Genetics certainly isn't expecting the opposite of environment, because genetics determines environment. Science doesn't believe violence is learned behaviour by the way.

I was a basketball official for many years, as well as a substitute teacher.  You're right, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.  I'd call a tech. on a kid for copping an attitude and sure as shit I'd have to throw the dad out of the gym.  Is it nature or nurture?  Good question.  I'm going to say that kid would be less shitty if the dad was a better parent.   
Let me give you a snippet from a song you may have heard..."Hatred isn't something you're born with, it gets taught."  Damn skippy it does.   

Actually I think your biggest problem with my argument is that it reduces the awesomeness of your parenting to something that may not be in your control.

...actually, a big problem I have with your argument is the crutch it provide shitty parents.  We aren't at the stage where we are altering genetics...we can alter environments, and we can make better choices as parents.

Hey TAP we may disagree on this, but at least we're on the same page with the religious crazies.   

[TAP]

actually, a big problem I have with your argument is the crutch it provide shitty parents.

I'm not sure you've really read anything I posted if that's what you got out of it. It's science, it's not an excuse it just is.

[Axl4Prez2004]

actually, a big problem I have with your argument is the crutch it provide shitty parents.

I'm not sure you've really read anything I posted if that's what you got out of it. It's science, it's not an excuse it just is.

I have read everything you've posted and if you read what I posted, you'd know I have said there is good science and there is bad science. 

[TAP]

actually, a big problem I have with your argument is the crutch it provide shitty parents.

I'm not sure you've really read anything I posted if that's what you got out of it. It's science, it's not an excuse it just is.

I have read everything you've posted and if you read what I posted, you'd know I have said there is good science and there is bad science. 

It's bad science because you have studied the methodology and found it to be flawed, or it's bad science because it's counter to your world view? There's a reason why people believe creationism even though it's been thoroughly demolished by science, it can be found in the latter half of the previous sentence.

[Axl4Prez2004]

actually, a big problem I have with your argument is the crutch it provide shitty parents.

I'm not sure you've really read anything I posted if that's what you got out of it. It's science, it's not an excuse it just is.

I have read everything you've posted and if you read what I posted, you'd know I have said there is good science and there is bad science. 

It's bad science because you have studied the methodology and found it to be flawed, or it's bad science because it's counter to your world view? There's a reason why people believe creationism even though it's been thoroughly demolished by science, it can be found in the latter half of the previous sentence.

"I thought TAP and you agreed on things."  (that's what my wife just told me )
Honestly TAP, guilty as charged.  I will have to examine that research.  For now though, I'm sticking to my guns. 
Do you agree that the examples of shitty parenting I posted earlier are examples of shitty parenting?

[JMack]

Wait now...Dr. Spock had science and scientific theory on his way of raising a child.  I think science may play a bigger role than I first thought... Even though my eldest son is at the ESPN Zone in NYC and the other 2 are in bed, I may just throw them all the fuck out in the name of experimentation.  I'll say I used your name.

[TAP]

actually, a big problem I have with your argument is the crutch it provide shitty parents.

I'm not sure you've really read anything I posted if that's what you got out of it. It's science, it's not an excuse it just is.

I have read everything you've posted and if you read what I posted, you'd know I have said there is good science and there is bad science. 

It's bad science because you have studied the methodology and found it to be flawed, or it's bad science because it's counter to your world view? There's a reason why people believe creationism even though it's been thoroughly demolished by science, it can be found in the latter half of the previous sentence.

"I thought TAP and you agreed on things."  (that's what my wife just told me )
Honestly TAP, guilty as charged.  I will have to examine that research.  For now though, I'm sticking to my guns. 
Do you agree that the examples of shitty parenting I posted earlier are examples of shitty parenting?

Yes, of course. I've said over and over again that both parenting and genes have an effect. And the genetics really comes into play with the response/reaction of the child - abused kids tend to be fucked up, nothing I've said would deny that. But some abused kids turn out fine and thrive, how does a parenting only theory explain that?

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Plenty of rich kids by me are scumbags.

Oh man, I know what you mean.

They don't even have to be rich, they're the type that complain and bitch about everything.

They must have all the latest clothes and technology, and then go on to complain about them until they go to sleep.

Not a fan of child abuse, but some kids deserve to be taken out back and be taught a lesson early on.

[Axl4Prez2004]

actually, a big problem I have with your argument is the crutch it provide shitty parents.

I'm not sure you've really read anything I posted if that's what you got out of it. It's science, it's not an excuse it just is.

I have read everything you've posted and if you read what I posted, you'd know I have said there is good science and there is bad science. 

It's bad science because you have studied the methodology and found it to be flawed, or it's bad science because it's counter to your world view? There's a reason why people believe creationism even though it's been thoroughly demolished by science, it can be found in the latter half of the previous sentence.

"I thought TAP and you agreed on things."  (that's what my wife just told me )
Honestly TAP, guilty as charged.  I will have to examine that research.  For now though, I'm sticking to my guns. 
Do you agree that the examples of shitty parenting I posted earlier are examples of shitty parenting?

Yes, of course. I've said over and over again that both parenting and genes have an effect. And the genetics really comes into play with the response/reaction of the child - abused kids tend to be fucked up, nothing I've said would deny that. But some abused kids turn out fine and thrive, how does a parenting only theory explain that?

I don't believe in a parenting-only theory...I just happen to believe that a very large percentage of the influence is environmental or what you would call a "parenting" influence.

btw, I'm willing to bet that the children of teen mothers have genetics that are pretty similar if not superior to the genetics of babies that are borne to mothers of advanced maternal age...but something tells me you are going to find a higher % of shitty kids amongst the offspring of young teen mothers.  Babies having babies.  It's really quite sad.  In my eyes, it's an excellent example of environment (parenting or lack thereof), trumping genetics.  Now of course I'm not saying all kids of teen mothers turn out to be shitty kids and/or adults, I'm saying the odds are a lot higher unfortunately.  It's a testament to irresponsible parents raising irresponsible children who turn into irresponsible adults. 

Ellen D.'s Breath, unfortunately, those spoiled kids are that way because of the way they were raised.  By the time you're ready to "teach them a lesson," they've been taught hundreds of times by that age that what they want is what they'll get...shitty parenting my friend.  By that time I hazard to say it would be damn near impossible to "untrain" them.

Don't confuse infants and toddlers though.  A crying infant cries for a reason and has needs that need to be met 24/7.  Don't get me started on parents that let infants "cry it out."  Grrrrr.  That makes Axl4Prez very angry. 

[TAP]

btw, I'm willing to bet that the children of teen mothers have genetics that are pretty similar if not superior to the genetics of babies that are borne to mothers of advanced maternal age...but something tells me you are going to find a higher % of shitty kids amongst the offspring of young teen mothers.  Babies having babies.  It's really quite sad.  In my eyes, it's an excellent example of environment (parenting or lack thereof), trumping genetics.  Now of course I'm not saying all kids of teen mothers turn out to be shitty kids and/or adults, I'm saying the odds are a lot higher unfortunately.  It's a testament to irresponsible parents raising irresponsible children who turn into irresponsible adults. 

You're on kind of dangerous ground with superior genetics, but I don't want to Godwin this thread.

Your examples aren't really very good as far as the discussion goes because environment/parenting and genes would tend to predict the same bad outcome -

irresponsible parents raising irresponsible children who turn into irresponsible adults. 

- for example.

In another direction, do you think parenting alone affects the behaviour of an autistic child? Does parenting cause homosexuality? Extreme examples perhaps, but from a dispassionate point of view no more extreme than domestic violence. Genetics is certainly thought/known to have an effect on all of the above. Why is violence 'learned' and autism/homosexuality not 'learned' or do you think they are all learned? Does being a liberal democrat in a modern western democracy affect one's attitude towards these questions - maybe that's the learned behaviour?

Personally I would argue that non-violence is more of a learned behaviour than violence.

[Axl4Prez2004]

TAP, nice post...yeah, "superior genetics" would surely get a rise out of some folks, but truth is the truth hurts, don't you agree?     Sorry.   

Here's the nice entry that sparked some thoughts for me: 
Quote
irresponsible parents raising irresponsible children who turn into irresponsible adults. 

- for example.

In another direction, do you think parenting alone affects the behaviour of an autistic child? Does parenting cause homosexuality? Extreme examples perhaps, but from a dispassionate point of view no more extreme than domestic violence. Genetics is certainly thought/known to have an effect on all of the above. Why is violence 'learned' and autism/homosexuality not 'learned' or do you think they are all learned? Does being a liberal democrat in a modern western democracy affect one's attitude towards these questions - maybe that's the learned behaviour?

Personally I would argue that non-violence is more of a learned behaviour than violence.


1st, I never said "parenting alone" is the only effect on the behavior of anybody.  You bring up a great point with autism though.  It's a bit of a mysterious condition...one in which I lean toward the genetics trumping environment. 

Homosexuality is not caused by parenting.  I think that's certain based on several factors.  One, if homosexuality was more a result of environment/parenting, you'd see higher rates of homosexuals raised by homosexual couples...and that's absolutely not the case.  Two, what accounts for the "younger brother" factor?  With boys, the younger son is much more likely to be gay.  The rate of homosexuality increases with the 2nd son, even more with the 3rd, more with the 4th, etc.  I guess an argument could be put forth, the youngest of the boys gets treated differently...but again, I do think genetics plays the biggest role in sexual orientation. 

Also, perhaps the word "aggressive" would be a better word to use than "violent" when talking about behaviors.  With my 2 kids, raised very similarly (but of course not 100% similarly because that's impossible), there are clearly genetic differences.  Much about their personalities are genetically based.  When I think about it, I do agree that my % drifts closer to the 50-50 split than I stated earlier. (nice work TAP!) I think the reason I emphasize the parenting/environmental component so much is that it's the variable that can be controlled.  I still believe it takes a skilled tactician to set up an environment that can best utilize the talents and work on the inherent weaknesses of any child.  (not "moldable clay!" think of a farmer providing the soil, the sun, and the water to allow the proper growth, and yes sometimes a scarecrow or 2 to ward off pests)

[TAP]

I think the reason I emphasize the parenting/environmental component so much is that it's the variable that can be controlled.

Definitely. I freely admit I'm a douche when I get into arguments/discussions but I don't think I've either questioned your parenting or this point in general. I really got into at first because I think parents who are doing the right things feel a lot of guilt if the kid ends up doing something 'wrong', and I'm not talking about extremes like becoming a violent criminal, but stuff like tantrums in little kids, or truanting or smoking pot or something like that.....even putting aside genetics you can't control the whole environment, and the likelihood that kids care more about their peers opinion than their parents'.

But yes, of course you should do the best you can with the things you can control.

Aggression: Again I think that is 'natural' and genetically based. Natural selection would have been likely to choose aggressive behaviour for  survival/competition/deterrence reasons. The introduction of aggression-damping social mechanisms such as government/police/criminal justice is the learned behaviour. In your context, physical punishment/aggression on kids has most likely been the norm throughout culture/history and it's probably been removed/reduced only recently by thinking/intellectual classes......which side of that is the 'learned' side?

[Axl4Prez2004]

I think the reason I emphasize the parenting/environmental component so much is that it's the variable that can be controlled.

Definitely. I freely admit I'm a douche when I get into arguments/discussions but I don't think I've either questioned your parenting or this point in general. I really got into at first because I think parents who are doing the right things feel a lot of guilt if the kid ends up doing something 'wrong', and I'm not talking about extremes like becoming a violent criminal, but stuff like tantrums in little kids, or truanting or smoking pot or something like that.....even putting aside genetics you can't control the whole environment, and the likelihood that kids care more about their peers opinion than their parents'.

But yes, of course you should do the best you can with the things you can control.

Aggression: Again I think that is 'natural' and genetically based. Natural selection would have been likely to choose aggressive behaviour for  survival/competition/deterrence reasons. The introduction of aggression-damping social mechanisms such as government/police/criminal justice is the learned behaviour. In your context, physical punishment/aggression on kids has most likely been the norm throughout culture/history and it's probably been removed/reduced only recently by thinking/intellectual classes......which side of that is the 'learned' side?

Great post, and yeah, sometimes even when people agree on 95% of things, they argue.    Yes, there are definitely examples of parents doing everything right, and still ending up with shitty kids...and vice-versa.  I just see so many examples of piss-poor parenting that result in shitty kids.

The last paragraph is definitely twisting my mind right now.  There's so much there to think about.  I need one of those IBM peda-flop computers to run through all the scenarios!   

All this agreeing is making me antsy...let me get back to being a judgmental prick!    Hey you, all of you parents who feed your kids nutritionally-void crap!  who let them stay up to all hours of the night!  who don't give positive reinforcement!  who spoil your kids!  who hit their kids!  who don't read with their kids every day!  yeah you people!  I've got some problems with ya'll!!!      Ahh, there, that makes me feel better now.   

[TAP]

Here's one for you: Would you hit your kids if studies definitively showed it worked - I'll let you self-define 'worked' in terms of what you would consider to be successful outcomes for your kids.

[sandman]

I am a "pending Mom" of a baby boy coming in August so any and all advice is appreciated!

my advice is to ignore all the advice you get (cause you're gonna get plenty).

just follow your instincts.

[TAP]

I am a "pending Mom" of a baby boy coming in August so any and all advice is appreciated!

my advice is to ignore all the advice you get (cause you're gonna get plenty).

If she follows your advice, she should ignore it and if she ignores it then she's following it....we're all going to implode in a space-time paradox.

[Axl4Prez2004]

Here's one for you: Would you hit your kids if studies definitively showed it worked - I'll let you self-define 'worked' in terms of what you would consider to be successful outcomes for your kids.

Hmm, I guess the answer is yes...but...and that's a big but...every study I've seen on corporal punsihment shows corporal punishment to be a very poor parenting tool.

It's kind of like saying, "If feeding your baby McDonalds every day was definitively proven to produce successful outcomes for your kids..."  we all know it doesn't.  The same holds for having to smack your kid.

With Bandita, of course she should follow her instincts Sandman...but it's incredibly important to read as much as possible before taking on the most important job she'll ever have.  My 1st bit of advice for Bandita...don't have a kid in August!  You'll be sweating your balls off in June/July and August before the time comes!   

[TAP]

Here's one for you: Would you hit your kids if studies definitively showed it worked - I'll let you self-define 'worked' in terms of what you would consider to be successful outcomes for your kids.

Hmm, I guess the answer is yes...but...and that's a big but...every study I've seen on corporal punsihment shows corporal punishment to be a very poor parenting tool.

It's kind of like saying, "If feeding your baby McDonalds every day was definitively proven to produce successful outcomes for your kids..."  we all know it doesn't.  The same holds for having to smack your kid.

I don't think it's anything like that, but really the point is - in a battle between what you think is morally correct behaviour (in general) against what is provably good parenting, which would you choose. Personally, I wouldn't hit my daughter even in the face of overwhelming evidence, because I don't hit big people who I don't care about. Not making a judgement here, I don't think there is a correct answer.

edit:Put another way.... I would imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're not a violent person in general, which partly makes not hitting your kids a natural decision.