RoR: Forum

This quote alone is enough to make me want to buy Branden's book. Anybody ever catch "Nanny 911" on TV?

For those who have not seen it, it is a show about a group of six middle-aged English Nannies who come to stupid American parents' homes. The requirement for being chosen for a Nanny Makeover is that you have to have an untenable position in your household because of the rotten behavior of your little bastards (children).

I actually LIKE the show because, basically, the show sets up the situation--showing wuss parents afraid to discipline their kids, and, of course, the kids run roughshod over the parents, who give in, because they are morons and dont understand Branden's quote above. Then, one of the Nannies comes in and sets up structure and rules for the little bastards, who throw a temper tantrum, then adjust to the rules, and then, before you know it, actually start following the rules. Suddenly, the kids behave, get on a schedule, and Mom and Dad can sleep and enjoy their homes again.

But Im sure I know what happens the minute Nanny leaves--they stupid bastards stop enforcing the rules, and the kids probably go right back to madcap.

HOW did this generation of parents get SO clueless?

Post 1

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 4:09pm

Scotty,-

I think the message of the quote is missleading and probably wrong.

Some people like order in their lives and some don't. "Permissive" parents arn't bad parents for that, it's just that their dominent inclination is to be cool like the Fonz and expect that everybody else wants to be so easy-going too, and are surprised when this expectation is betrayed. This presents no trouble at all unless their sons and daughters turn out to be Squares.

Some kids thrive on organisation and rewards systems and get stressed and naughty without them. Some kids would prefer their parents would just leave them be and get stressed when their autonomy is compromised.

That quote alone is just about enough to make me not buy the book.

HOW did this generation of parents get SO clueless?

On ITV and BBC they talk about the curse
philosophy is useless theology is worse
history boils over there's an economics freeze
sociologists invent words that mean 'Industrial Disease'

Post 2

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 5:00pm

Re: debating "permissiveness"

Scott ["structure and rules"] and Rick ["just leave them be"], it is impossible for the two of you to have a general debate or disagreement without concretizing what specific rules you are talking about.

It's analogous to the classic logic and rhetoric textbooks's fallacy about the error of debating whether Russia is a democracy prior to agreeing on definitions: For the yes side, democracy means they vote for their authoritarian ruler. For the no side, democracy means they don't have individual rights.

( The same thing applies a bit to the Branden quote, although I would suspect that he gives context and examples for 'permissiveness' in his book. )

Phil

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 5/19, 5:07pm)

Post 3

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 7:55pm

Rick, my first comment regards Branden's book in general. It's excellent and the quote cited shouldn't dissuade you from checking it out. I disagree with the quote, but the book really isn't about that snippet at all.

My second comment regards the quote and the manner in which it was posted. It seems to be a response to the thread on Unschooling that started with Kelly Elmore's article on that topic. I realize this quote offers a scope wider than just unschooling, involving the very raising of a child and not only his 'education.' For that reason alone I think it's valuable. I also think it's excellent to bring into that discussion someone's take who is both rational and a psychologist.

JJ, if this was the intention, why didn't you put the first post up for the quote, saying something to the effect of 'Thought this was relevant to the Unschooling discussion.' That would have made it look like a dialogue was warranted. But the manner in which this was done seems sloppy at best and downright cowardly at worst. I want to be clear: no evidence I've seen would make me think you are a coward when it comes to debate and discussion; yet I have to call this particular action as I see it.

Jason

Post 4

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 8:31pm

Scott:

Nathaniel Branden's "Six Pillars of Esteem" has insightful points throughout. The first half focuses on individual self-esteem and the second half begins with a section specifically addressing child-raising. I just finished reading it and would definitely recommend it.

Philip:

Funny you should mention this because originally I had really wanted to quote a longer section of the book but it would have been too much for the quote button. I'm glad you asked and I'm producing the long version below.

Jason:

The connection was obvious. It didn't need me to point it out.

=====================================
From "Six Pillars of Self-Esteem":

The Need for Structure

Children's security and growth needs are in part met by the presence of an appropriate structure.

"Structure" pertains to the rules, implicit or explicit, operative in a family, rules about what is or is not acceptable and permissible, what is expected, how various kinds of behavior are dealt with, who is free to do what, how decisions affecting family members are made, and what kind of values are upheld.

A good structure is one that respects the needs, individuality, and intelligence of each family member. Open communication is highly valued. Such a structure is flexible rather than rigid, open and discussible rather than closed and authoritarian. In such a structure, parents offer explanations, not commandments. They appeal to confidence rather than fear. They encourage self-expression. They uphold the kind of values we associate with individuality and autonomy. Their standards inspire rather than intimidate.

Children do not desire unlimited "freedom". Most children feel safer and more secure in a structure that is somewhat authoritarian than in no structure at all. Children need limits and feel anxious in their absence. This is one of the reasons they test limits--to be certain they are there. They need to know that someone is flying the plane.

Overly "permissive" parents tend to produce highly anxious children. By this I mean parents who back away from any leadership role; who treat all family members as equal not only in dignity but also in knowledge and authority; and who strive to teach no values and uphold no standards for fear of "imposing" their "biases" on their children. A client once said to me, "My mother would have thought it 'undemocratic' to tell me that getting pregnant at the age of thirteen is not a good idea. Do you know how terrifying it is to grow up in a house where no one acts like they know what's true or right?"

When children are offered rational values and standards, self-esteem is nurtured. When they are not, self-esteem is starved.

Post 5

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 8:53pm

[Jason] why didn't you put the first post up for the quote, saying something to the effect of 'Thought this was relevant to the Unschooling discussion."

I think it was fine to do it the way she did: starts a new thread on nature of children/rights of children, which some on the other thread wanted anyway since it's more fundamental.

One can choose to continue a discussion, avoid one, shift one, make indirect or implicit (rather than direct) comment on one. All are valid forms of discourse, I think.

Post 6

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 9:39pm

This quote makes me think much more of the kinds of parents Scott is referring to above, rather than exemplify David and Kelly's approach.

Here is something that keeps nagging at me with regard to the "Unschooling" thread, and I would post it there, but it seems most relevant to say it here:

Why is such an approach seemingly equated with a child being encouraged to be hedonistic, whimsical, and completely irrational? As I read through the Unschooling posts, it seemed there were a large number of assumptions that Kelly and David's child could do whatever she wanted, whenever she wanted to -- that the ideals of self-discipline, discovery and a love of learning would not be imparted to Livy by her parents. The last time I checked, there was something called leading by example.

Case in point: when my nephew sees me reading, he will go get a book and sit next to me, and read aloud a story that he makes up as he goes. He cannot read yet, but he wants to learn because he wants to emulate me; whatever he sees me doing, he wants to do. Such is the behavior of children. They will be far more open to learning and experiencing such things by doing so willingly, rather than being forced. And if children are learning from rational, self-disciplined parents, why on earth would they end up as the equivalent of Tarzan, Jr.? I find the reasoning in that conclusion extremely faulty.

Post 7

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 11:56pm

Hi Jennifer,

"assumptions [on the Unschooling thread]...that the ideals of self-discipline, discovery and a love of learning would not be imparted to Livy by her parents...[or] leading by example."

I don't think anyone said that nor were we arguing about a particular set of parents but about a method of education for millions of all kinds of children with widely different kinds of parents.

(If I did, I misspoke. Do you have a quote in mind?) As for "Tarzan" being the alternative to formal well-rounded education, that would be an extreme caricature and if memory serves it was intended as a joke by someone very early in the thread.

There's a difference in degree between saying one [i.e., the vast majority of children] will tend to be better equipped for a more fulfilled or successful life if one has a classical tradition well-rounded liberal arts education, etc. and saying no one could possibly do this at home or on their own motivation without turning out to be Tarzan or a drooling idiot.

The laziest way to dismiss an argument is to caricature it [not you but some other people]. And that is one reason, after maybe a dozen very detailed posts and an equal number of unanswered arguments, I gave up on that thread in disgust.

I'd rather stick to the more psychological topic of -this- thread. It's more fundamental: education rests on psychology.

Post 8

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 12:09am

Mr Coates,-

Scott ["structure and rules"] and Rick ["just leave them be"], it is impossible for the two of you to have a general debate or disagreement without concretizing what specific rules you are talking about.

According to Jim Morrison, "Everyone has their own magic". I believe we should parent to the type of magic an individual child has, so you missunderstand me. I have no interest in taking a position either side of how heavy or soft every partent should be along a stricture spectrum.
Infact, I sometimes wish my children had been born by now so that I could thrash them! I can hardly wait.

Iannolo,-

Such is the behavior of children. They will be far more open to learning and experiencing such things by doing so willingly, rather than being forced.

Worthy anecdote but it illustrates to me only the mimicry behavior of children not that they necessasarily respond to autonomy. For characters dominated by a mental manifold of the analytic, accurate, organised and systematic an external framework is required for them to peg themselves into- they expect it and need it and will not flourish without it but will thrive if you give it to them.

From this personality type come Smithers (Simpsons) and Hess (Nazis) and our army of beurocrats. That's not a fair stereotype but it's illustrative.

And if children are learning from rational, self-disciplined parents, why on earth would they end up as the equivalent of Tarzan, Jr.? I find the reasoning in that conclusion extremely faulty.

In my opinion children are a cross between William Wordsworth's "trailing clouds of glory" and Golding's Lord Of The Flies. To me children are at once pure, beautiful little acorns and violent, brutish little beasts. Just poetry and opinion but I stand by that.

Why would rational self-diciplined parents sporn a Tarzan?

Suppose your child is an Alexander The Great, A Julius Cesar, A Duke Of Wellington, a Napoleon, a General Grant. They're a little tear-away, full of curiosity, creativity, adventure, imagination and vitality. Put them within walls and they'll bounce off them. Their bedrooms are a mess! Greatness is in such people.

Perfectly rational, self-diciplined parents might easily, mistakingly, present this kind of kid (the most volitile one of all) with structure and routine that will drive the child wild- especially if the parents are 'sequential-thinking' personalities. Argument from authority means nothing to kids like this, rank is meaningless and negotiating terms with them a delicate business not inherent in rationality nor dicipline. Wolverine cubs; Tazzy Devils. If the parent understands the child's needs wrongly the child will always suffer- but such children as these never suffer in silence. Ergo Tarzan.

It's like the popular book "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus", only it goes deeper than gender.

Post 9

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 7:21am

Hi Phil.

There's a difference in degree between saying one [i.e., the vast majority of children] will tend to be better equipped for a more fulfilled or successful life if one has a classical tradition well-rounded liberal arts education, etc. and saying no one could possibly do this at home or on their own motivation without turning out to be Tarzan or a drooling idiot.

I do see your point here, but have interpreted the underlying message to be much closer to the latter. In an effort to more concisely express my thoughts (and be sure I haven't missed something) I will re-read the thread (ugh) and clarify when I have more time.

Post 10

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 7:27am

Mr. Giles,

My point was not about autonomy -- it was about the learning process. Children can be led via example vs. coercion. Not all of them, certainly, but your example is as general as mine. How many Alexander the Greats do you suppose are running around?

P.S. If you are going to address me by my last name, kindly put a Miss in front of it. Otherwise it sounds as if you are addressing me from a locker room. Thanks.

Post 11

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 9:14am

Of the 180 posts on the unschooling thread, not one was made by Ms. Tuan.

Of the 180 posts on the unschooling thread, it was repeated by myself, Kelly and others that our style of parenting involves lots of interaction and guidance when necessary -- with the understanding that our example of morality and insistence on morality in our household are tantamount. (Quite the opposite of permissiveness.)

The above quote was placed as an allusion to our alleged "permissiveness" without Ms. Tuan giving any rationale for her belief in our permissiveness or any other context -- as if it is just "understood" that we are being permissive. She threw it out there like a rotten piece garbage tossed into the street. (And Phil's implicit agreement with the permissiveness idea has blinded him and got him eating the garbage and pronouncing it tasty.)

Cowardly, indeed, Ms. Tuan. Jason was right.

I won't post any further on this thread, unless Ms. Tuan apologizes and encapsulates her thoughts. I'll be personally starting threads on "coercion" and "children's rights" and other fundamental issues on this subject and welcome others to do the same either before or after I do.

Post 12

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 9:40am

Jennifer,

My point was not about autonomy -- it was about the learning process. Children can be led via example vs. coercion.

Autonomy by any other name?
Your assertion that children are more open to learning by example than learning by dicipline is what I quoted and was addressing and refuting.

but your example is as general as mine. How many Alexander the Greats do you suppose are running around?

I think, on reconsideration, you'll agree that the lives of Alexander, Wellington, Grant etc are unequal to the generality of your example, no matter how rich a psudo reading session might be.

I actually think there are alot of these personality types about. I think the children are busy wasting their powers fighting their parents or social workers, the adults are busy fighting the criminal justice system or trying to fit into ordinary life and failing at it badly. There's a very pertinent Mary Wollstonecraft quote that sums this up totally- and I've forgotten it. Someone might know.

Consider Alexander and Napoleon who had mothers recognising their greatness, and encouraging it, and what resulted. Or Wellington and Grant, who were great failures in early life but blossomed when circumstances called them to release their ambition in times of crisis. I think that such people are always amoung us, even in kindergarten, but that they are mostly suppressed by 'the system' and only come to the surface in times of crisis. There's a good Barry Crump story about this sort of thing.

These people are the Atlases of our civilisation btw.

Post 13

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 10:29am

Hate to add a note of "empiricism" here, but just curious: How many of the folks waxing eloquently on this topic are themselves parents?

I found the process of actually raising a child to be a wonderful antidote to rationalistic theories about child-rearing.

And from that experience, in retrospect I heartily endorse the approach of those new TV "nannies," who go into anarchic households and impose structure and discipline. The results, televised each week, speak for themselves.

Post 14

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 10:38am

Since when one has to be chastised for not posting on a particular thread at SOLO? Or in a particular way that certain people dictated?

Since when one are now attacked for not responding to particular posts that are not even addressed to him/her at SOLO?

Since when one cannot cite a quote without lengthy elaboration at SOLO?

Is it SOLO leadership�s intention that the forum should go down the militant way as such?

I would appreciate a clarification.

Post 15

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 11:00am

Hong, make no mistake. I was not speaking as SOLO "leadership." I was speaking as a user.

And as a user, I can chastise anyone I damn well please and so can you. If I consider something to be in bad form I'm not going to hesitate to say so.

I'm not making any sort of claim that everything should be done a certain way, but I do consider it better form to use quotes as a springboard or crystallization of your own thoughts rather than a substitute for original statements.

JJ stated that she thought the connection was obvious. And I agree that it was. However, the concern I had - and apparently David had also - is that this was the first she had chosen to enter the discussion and she didn't do it with a single word of her own.

By all means, conduct yourself on this forum in any way you damn well please. But don't be surprised when you're called out for something. That's the way open forums work.

Jason

Post 16

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 11:08am

I'll be personally starting threads on "coercion" and "children's rights" and other fundamental issues on this subject and welcome others to do the same either before or after I do.

David, the threads you plan to start are certainly needed in this discussion. It's a credit to this forum that things got down to fundamentals so quickly (and I mean a credit to both sides of the discussion), but I've personally seen the need for a discussion of fundamentals sooner than it's happened.

I'm having trouble myself with all of the chains of reasoning that go into the distinctions being made in the child-raising and unschooling discussion. I do not think that children are "little adults" but neither do I think you can lay the foundation for development of autonomy by squashing a child's free will at every turn except for a few meaningless and innocuous situations. I see reality as a child's best "teacher," but am struggling over the issue of bad parents.

So, in sum, I look forward to the discussion that those upcoming threads generate; thanks for the heads-up that you haven't overlooked the need for a discussion of fundamentals.

Jason

Post 17

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 11:26am

Jason,

JJ, if this was the intention, why didn't you put the first post up for the quote, saying something to the effect of 'Thought this was relevant to the Unschooling discussion.' That would have made it look like a dialogue was warranted. But the manner in which this was done seems sloppy at best and downright cowardly at worst.

Whazzat? Sloppy or cowardly?

Wait a minute. Woah theah hossy!

I agree with Hong.

One of the charming things about Solo is that you can post quotes that deal with a topic going on in another thread for the discussion to reach a larger audience. This has happened countless times. Hell, I have even done it myself with non-sloppy and non-cowardly intentions or results. I have yet to hear an accusation of such - and bring it on if you must, anyone out there. It is obvious to me that a person who is following a thread will hold an opinion on a subject and will find quotes to reflect that opinion. I see absolutely nothing at all wrong with this.

Please think about it as editor, Jason. (btw - How many times was this done "against" Linz? His posture, which I admire tremendously, has been to maintain a free exchange of ideas until personality or policy clashes have exceeded well defined limits - even and especially when he does not agree. That takes a big man and you have it in you to fill his shoes.)

Dave, I don't want to disagree with you this strongly, but most emphatically no apology at all is warranted or due. This is a free Objectivist forum of ideas and the quote is from one of the founders of Objectivism. You don't have to like the context or agree. If you feel that your ideas are not strong enough to stand by themselves and be defended in the context of this entire forum, I'm sorry. I actually think that your ideas are stronger than your own behavior right now.

I certainly cannot agree with anything that smacks of taking a quote from Nathanial Branden as a personal insult.

btw - JJ, that was a wonderful find. I especially appreciated the fact that you posted it without any commentary at all so as to open the way for discussion by those who may not be following the other thread. I just sanctioned it. It should have been producing interesting ideas, not personality clashes.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 5/20, 11:30am)

Post 18

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 11:53am

Please think about it as editor, Jason. (btw - How many times was this done "against" Linz? His posture, which I admire tremendously, has been to maintain a free exchange of ideas until personality or policy clashes have exceeded well defined limits - even and especially when he does not agree. That takes a big man and you have it in you to fill his shoes.)

Spare me! If assuming editorship is going to preclude me from participating in the forums - and particularly from giving my opinions on things - then screw it. Of course, it certainly doesn't do that, so spare me any "you have a responsibility to conduct yourself this way" speeches. I wasn't saying "you must do this," I was saying "Why did you do it this way? I don't think that was good form." And if you'd read my reply to Hong you'd realize I was speaking as a user of this forum.

I certainly cannot agree with anything that smacks of taking a quote from Nathanial Branden as a personal insult.

I COMMENDED JJ, for Heaven's sake, on introducing the views of a rational psychologist into the discussion! I have great respect for Branden and I've expressed that here and elsewhere. And there was nothing even bordering on the mention of a "personal insult" in MY post.

And as far as THIS tripe,

If you feel that your ideas are not strong enough to stand by themselves and be defended in the context of this entire forum, I'm sorry

It's interesting that my point is just that: that a quote posted with no commentary which appears to be a response - but not a direct response - to a conversation being held elsewhere, seems to be a case of someone being afraid their own opinions aren't strong enough to stand by themselves.

If I haven't been clear enough, I'll say it yet again: using a quote to crystallize or springboard one's own statements can be useful and valuable. Using it in lieu of, however, is neither.

Jason

Post 19

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 12:12pm