hold on to kids
[2nd read 10 ish years later – reading concurrent w clean]
‘action has meaning only in relationship and w/o understanding relationship, action on any level will only breed conflict. the understanding of relationship is infinitely more important than the search for any plan of action’ – j krishnamurti
note to reader by gabor
met gordon when turned to him when thought we had problem kid (8yrs old) on our hands.. gordon showed us in short order that there was no problem w the child or with ourselves, only w our approach to our relationship w him.. few years later.. saw him again about 2nd son entering adolescence.. gordon said we had to woo this son back into a relationship w us away from his peers.. this is when i first learned of neufeld’s concept of peer orientation.. of peers having replaced parents as primary influence
gordon and i have written hold on to your kids w the radical intent of reawakening people’s natural parenting instincts..
if our book succeeds in that purpose, it will stand on its head much of what is currently perceived as wisdom about how children ought to be reared and educated.. our focus i snot on what parents should do but on who they need to be for their children.. we offer understanding of the child.. and of the impediment that today stand in the way of healthy development o our children.. spontaneous and compassionated wisdom.. as source of successful parenting
when our parenthood is secure, natural instincts are activated that dictate far more astutely than any experts how to nurture and teach the young ones under our care..
as modern parents, we have to become conscious of wha tis missing. of why and how things are not working in the parenting and educating of our children and adolescents. that awareness will prepare us for the challenge of creating a relationship w our children in which we, the caregiving adults, are *back in the lead, free from relying on coercion and artificial consequences to gain our children’s’ cooperation, *compliance and respect..
*oh my.. this is so sad to read.. (i also just looked into and added a page for gordon.. so sad to have a major piece.. but not seeing the damage still being done.. ie: thinking we need school.. teaching.. compliance.. et al.. so you’re seeing that it comes w/in parents.. but not within children?)
dr neufeld’s background and experience as psychologist and his brilliantly original work are the source of the central thesis we present and the advice we offer.. in that sense he is the sole author.. that the prep and publication .. no longer has to be deferred to some future time is my contribution..
(going back and adding this.. for some consolation of the parts i think are missing the essence)
part 1 – the phenom of peer orientation
1 – why parents matter more than ever
today’s parents love their children as much as parents ever have, but the love doesn’t always get thru. we have just as much to teach, but our capacity to get our knowledge across has, somehow, diminished..
we don not feel empowered to guid our children toward fulfilling their potential..
we struggle to live up to our image of what parenting ought to be like. not achieving the results we want, we plead w our children.. we cajole/bribe/reward/punish..
that our children do not seem to listen to us, or embrace our values as their own, would perhaps e acceptable in itself if they were truly self sufficient, self directed, and grounded in themselves.. if they had a positive sense of who they are ..
i’m so disappointed in how this is going/reading.. dang
many lack self control and are increasingly prone to alienation, drug use, violence, or just a general aimlessness.. they are less teachable and more difficult to manage than their counterparts of even a few decades a go
the state of affairs is ironic, give that *more is known about child development than ever before and that we have more access to courses and books on childrearing than any previous generation of parents
it’s ironic that you’re missing it.. ie: perhaps more is wrong
childrearing.. just sounds wrong too
even w one’s own children the natural parenting authority can become lost if the context for it becomes eroded
for a child to be open to being parented by an adults
he must be actively attaching to that adults.. be wanting contact and closeness w him.. children who lack this kind of connection w those responsible for them are very difficult to parent or often even to teach
wow.. like teaching is a natural thing.. like parenting (w authority et al) is a natural thing.. and that it’s (child rearing/managing) the focus
only the attachment relationship can provide the proper context for child rearing
dang.. so the attachment is a means to be able to child rear..
parents haven’t changed.. fundamental nature of children hasn’t change.. what has changed is the culture in which we are rearing our children.. children’s attachments to parents are no longer getting the support required form culture and society.. children are increasingly forming attachments that compete w their parents.. w the result that the proper context for parenting is less and less available to us.. it is not a lack of love or of parenting know how but the erosion of the attachment context that makes our parenting ineffective
wow.. parenting.. the parent in control.. sure seems to be the theme/objective here..
the chief and most damaging of the competing attachments that undermine parenting authority and parental love is the increasing bonding of our children w their peers
authority again.. and it precedes love.. and love is tagged w parental.. which has been tagged w authority.. dang
they are not manageable, teachable, or maturing because they no longer take their cues from adults.. instead, children are being brought up by immature person s who cannot possibly guide them to maturity. they are being brought up by each other
manageable, teachable,. ugh
the term that seems to fit more than any other for this phenom is peer orientation. it is peer orientation that has muted our parenting instinct, eroded our natural authority and caused us to paren not form the heart bur from the ad . from manuals, the advice of ‘experts’ and the confused expectations of society
wow.. peer orientation seems to be more of a cope/ing mech.. because parents aren’t/weren’t there.. weren’t listening.. were too busy authority-ing.. too busy w parental love rather than unconditional love..
crazy/insane.. this is coming off to me as a means to blame someone/thing.. ie: kids peers.. when the kids are just searching/longing for some connection (much like the whole cell phone addiction outcry – it’s not that they’re craving cell phones.. they’re craving connection)
social,, economic, and cultural trends in the past 5-6 decades has displaced the parent from his intended position as the orienting influence on the child.. the peer group has moved into their orienting void w *deplorable results
*yeah.. like parents (5-6 decades .. so would include parents.. no? – actually goes back way further that that.. but we’ll just go back far enough to talk about alive people).. having lost essential pieces.. and so not thinking for themselves/gut.. and so believing their role is authority/power.. and when that doesn’t work.. blame it on peer orientation..
what’s unnatural is not peer contact, but that children should have become the dominant influence on one another’s development
but that orientation is a natural instinct (attachment) when natural attachments are not themselves (from their own dis attachment)
an even scarier thought is that if peers have replaced adults as the ones who matter most, what is missing in those peer relationships is going to have the most profound impact.. absolutely missing in peer relationships are *unconditional love and acceptance.. the ability to extend oneself for the sake of the other, the desire to nurture, the willingness to sacrifice
*this is what’s missing from the adults as well – ie: authority ness and managing ness.. is not unconditional love
paralleling the increase of peer orientation in our society is a startling and dramatic increase in the suicide rater among children.. fourfold in last 50 yrs for 10-14 age in n america..
yeah.. that’s from loss of connection.. not peer orientation
i had always assumed that parental rejection would be the most significant precipitation factor.. that is no longer the case.. . to my shock/surprise.. the key trigger for the great majority was how they were being treated by peers, not their parents
because parental rejection has blurred out.. we don’t see it.. because it’s more subtle.. it’s not a kicking out of a kid or a yelling at a kid.. it’s a not listening to a kid.. (and again.. happened to parents as well.. so not blaming.. we just have to quit mis diagnosing this.. ie: symptoms as the deep rooted problem)
i had never expected to lose my kids to their peers.. it became more and more difficult to *bring them into line
by weakening the natural lines of attachment and responsibility, peer orientation undermines healthy development
by weakening the natural lines of attachment
and responsibility and authenticity, peer orientation parental authority undermines healthy development
we may not be able to reverse the social/cultural/econ forces driving peer orientation, but there is much we can do in our homes/classrooms to keep ourselves from being prematurely replaced
again.. the focus seems to be .. parents being replaced.. rather than kids (everyone) getting to eudaimonia..
that’s a huge roadblock.. so a huge problem
this sounds like the media today lamenting over being replaced by machines
because culture no longer leads our children in the right direction – toward genuine independence and maturity
rather.. interdependence.. and .. did it ever?
parents and other child rearing adults matter more than ever before
sounds like we’re going to ratchet up the police force.. war on drugs style.. cancer in the name of protection
adults who ground their parenting in a solid relationship w the child parent intuitively.. they do not have to resort to techniques or manuals but act from understanding and empathy.. if we know how to be w our children and who to be for them, we need much less advice on what to do.. practical approaches emerge spontaneously from our own experience once the relationship has been restored
so let’s work on that.. rather than an institute/lectures/books to teach/train/educate parents.. et al..
2 – skewed attachments, subverted instincts
quite innocently but w devastating effects, children are involved in attachment affairs w each other
not quite the way you describe it.. it’s more about searching for missing holes..
maybe i should stop reading for today or a few days.. and start fresh.. the slant seems so biased to making the parent feel better.. (not to mention that it seems a parent would only feel better if the kid was eudaimonious.. not in-line/obedient/manageable.. et al)
going back to clean for a spell (which might not help as it is what drove me here.. because he’s talking about the need for parenting/training et al)
it is primarily attachment that orchestrates the instincts of a child as well as of a parent. as long as attachments are working, we can afford to simply follow our instincts – automatically and w/o thought.. when attachments are out of order, our instincts will be, too.. fortunately, we humans can compensate for skewed instincts by increasing our awareness of what has gone awry
ie: cure ios city
economics and culture today no longer provide the context for the natural attachment of children to their nurturing adults..
in a world of increasing cultural turbulence, a consciousness of attachment is probably the most important knowledge a parent could possess.. but must know it from within.. feel it in our bones
attachment is at the core of our being, but as such it is also far removed form consciousness..
we like to see ourselves as creatures w intellect.. and yet the thinking part of our brain is only a thin layer, while a much larger part of our cerebral circuitry is devoted to the psychological dynamics that serve attachment..
children are utterly incapable of orienting by themselves..
what children fear more than anything, including physical harm, is getting lost.. to them, being lost means losing contact w their compass point..
orienting voids, situations where we find nothing or no one to orient by, are absolutely intolerable to the human brain..
who becomes the compass point is a function of attachment. and attachment can be fickle.. the crucially important orienting function can be bestowed on someone ill suited for the task – a child’s peers for ie..
many parents have had the vexing experience of trying to point out reality to a teen whose world may be in shambles but who is blithely and adamantly insisting that absolutely nothing is amiss
six ways of attaching each providing clue to behavior of children:
1\ senses – physical proximity.. whether thru smell, sight sound or touch..
2\ sameness – seek to be like those feel closest to – id – to extreme nationalism/racism
3\ belonging/loyalty – lay claim to what attached to.. also loyal as in keeping secrets
shame to put those two together.. loyalty?
4\ significance – matter to someone to.. seek approval
5\ feeling – love/affection.. emotional intimacy allows for physical separation yet still close.. danger.. vulnerability of giving heart away
6\ being known – first signs usually observable by time child enters school.. closeness often defined by secrets shared.. can’t get more vulnerable that to expose oneself.. no secrets.. vulnerability of then being rejected/misunderstood.. yet no closeness can surpass sense of feeling known and still being liked, accepted, welcomed, invited to exist
if there is only one way of holding on, the clinging is likely to be intense and desperate. and that is how peer oriented children attach to each other, intensely and desperately
a child’s alienated stance toward his parents does not represent a character flaw, ingrained rudeness, or behavior problems. it is what we see when attachment instincts have become misdirected..
nothing could be more natural than distancing form stranger who come too close for comfort. yet we have all witnessed parents already chastising their infants for this alienating gesture and apologizing to other adults for their child’s rudeness.. the refusal to smile..
ugh.. smile ness
we may confuse this obsessive need for difference from the parents w the child’s quest for individuality. that would be a misreading of the situation. genuine individuation would be manifested in all relationships not just w adults..
3 – why we’ve come undone
(like p 17) economic forces and cultural trends dominant in the past several decades have dismantled the social context for the natural functioning of both the parenting instincts of adults and the attachment drives of children
although the young human is driven by a powerful genetic drive to attach, there is no archetype of parent/teacher embedded somewhere in child’s brain.. the brain is programmed only to orient/attach..
historically, no such programming was needed.. in our society, that natural order has been subverted.. from an early age we thrust our children into many situations and interactions that encourage peer orientation.
one result of econ changes since ww2 is that children are place earl, sometimes soon after birth, in situations where they spend much of the day in one another’s company..
*it is not both parents working that is so damaging. the **key problem is the lack of consideration we give attachment in making our child care arrangements
part 2 – sabotaged: how peer orientation undermines parenting
4 – the power to parent is slipping away
parenting was designed to be power assisted..
to manage children when our parenting power has been cut is likewise next to impossible..
the absent quality is power, not love or knowledge or commitment or skill..
the power we have lost is the power to command our children’s attention, to solicit their good intentions, to evoke their deference and secure their cooperation. w/o these four abilities, all we have left is coercion or bribery..
sounds like it anyway
ie: sean – no amount of reasoning could induce him to do as he was told
the parents had given up trying to gain sean’s compliance in such simple matters as sitting at the family table during supper. they had no success in getting him to do his homework.
so worn down emotionally had they become that neither parent could any long conjure up feelings of warmth or affection toward their son
melanie: now she was skipping class and couldn’t care less about hw..
sounds like the sane one
she had been ‘daddy’s girl’.. sweet and compliant
common lament: ‘the children of today don’t seem to have the respect for authority that we had when we were kids; i cannot et my child to do his hw, make his bed, do his chores, clean his room’
precisely during our children’s adolescence, just when there is more to manage than ever before, and just when our physical superiority over them begins to wane.. the power to parent slips from our hands
perhaps rather.. it’s what’s messing us up.. let go
to reclaim their children.. they had to regain their natural authority.. they had to displace and usurp the illegitimate jurisdiction of their unsuspecting and unwitting usurpers – their children’s friends..
so not liking much of this.. dang.
much of my work w families, and much of the advice i will give in this book, is intended to help parents reassume their natural position of authority
of course.. sinclair perpetuation law et al
it takes 3 ingredients to make parenting work: a dependent being in need of being taken car o f, an adult willing to assume responsibility, and a good working attachment from the child to the adult..
easier for parents to confess incompetence rather than impotence, esp when our lack of skill can be conveniently blamed on a lack of training or a lack of appropriate models in our own childhood. the result has been a mult billion dollar industry of parental advice giving.. from time outs to reward point on fridge.. et al.. the sheer volume of advice offered tends to reinforce the feelings of inadequacy and the sense of being unprepared for the job..
once we perceive parenring as a set of skills to be learned.. ti si difficult for us to see the process any other way.. meanwhile our supporting cast continues to assume we have ht power to do the job. teachers acts as if we can still get our children to do hw.. neighbors expects us to keep our children in line. our own parents chide us to take a firmer stand. the experts assume that compliance is just another skill away. the courts hold us responsible for our child’s behavior. nobody seems to get the fact that our *hold on our children is slipping
that was never a natural hold.. perhaps that’s why
i can’t believe i’m typing all this.. it’s so unsettling.. *hold on our children..? .. didn’t realize what the title meant i guess
perhaps.. no wonder gabor has the essence.. a and a.. but it hasn’t restored us.. has to go much deeper than .. doing how.. staying in line.. whatever..
the reasoning behind parenting as a set of skills seemed logical enough, but in hindsight has been a dreadful mistake. it has led to an artificial reliance on experts, robbed parents of their natural confidence, and often leaves them feeling dumb and inadequate.. the search for labels.. blame the parent/child
the medicalized labels made sean’s parents depend on experts. instead of trusting in their own intuition, .. they started to look to others for cues on how to parents.. mechanically following advice of others
labels hid the problem – peer orientation – but hat’s preventable and reversible.. to regain the power to parent we must bring our children back into full dependence on us – not just physical but psychological and emotional too, as nature has ever intended..
5 – from help to hindrance: when attachment works against us
7 wasy attachment sufpports effective parenting.. useful to refer back to this list as take on task of reaffirmign connection w children
i thought it was instinctual.. this isn’t 2nd list.. no?
1\ attachment arranges the parent and child hierarchically
the chief havoc caused by peer orientation is that it flattens the natural parent child hierarchy. parents lose the respect and authority that, in the natural order of things, properly belong to their dominant role
natural/proper order of things..?
a peer oriented child has no inner sense of order or rank, no desire for the parent to be bigger than one or above one.. on the contrary, any such posturing in the parent strikes the peer oriented child as contrived and unnatural as if the parent is trying to lord it over the child or trying to put him down
? yeah.. sounds right.. say you’re above.. w authority.. that would be lording it over someone.. putting them down.. unnatural.. contrived..
as attachment w parents had weakened.. the *hierarchical arrangement meant to facilitate parenting had collapsed
dang.. *not natural
melanie was treating her parents as if they were equals who had no business bossing her around and trying to run her life. instinctively, *melanie’s father was trying to put her in her place. unfortunately, that’s not something a parent can do w/o the assistance of attachment..
*holy cow.. how did i miss this first time thru.. how was i not repulsed/saddened then?
2\ attachment evokes the parenting instincts makes the child more endearing, and increases parental tolerance
this wording just causes my heart to cringe
when our children express by actions/words a desire to attach to us, it makes them sweeter and easier to take
it makes them ..easier to take?
there are 100s of little gestures and expressions, all unconscious, that serve to soften us up and draw us near. we are not being manipulated by the child, we are being worked on by the forces of attachment, and for very good reason. parenting involves hardship and we need something to make the burden a little bit easier to bear
?.. manipulated.. by the child?.. make the burden easier to bear..?
3\ attachment commands the child’s attention
it is immensely frustrating to manage a child who does not pay attention to us.. getting a child to look at us and to listen to us is foundational to all parenting.. one telltale signs of a child who isn’t paying attention is a parent having continually to raise his voice or repeat things..
peer orientation creates deficits in the child’s attention to adults because adults are not top priority in the attention hierarchy of peer oriented children.. it is no accident that attention deficit disorder was initially considered a school problem.. a child’s failing to pay attention to the teacher.. it is also no accident that the explosion in number of diagnosed cases of add has paralleled the evolution of peer orientation in our society and is worse where peer orientation is more predominant.. urban centers and inner city schools.. if attachment is disorder, attention will also be disordered
missing pieces.. that’s all.. not missing attention.. just missing a and a..
4\ attachment keeps the child close to the parent
attachment serves as an invisible leash
5\ attachment creates a model out of the parent
closeness not learning is the underlying motivation.. so relatively little effort.. not labored or forced
6\ attachment designates the parent as the primary cue giver
it doesn’t matter how wise or clean spoken if we are not the ones the child is looking ot for cues..
7\ attachment makes the child want to e good for the parent
the child’s eagerness to comply give the parent formidable power.. the desire to be good is one of the first things i look for in a child whose parents are encountering trouble in their parenting..
for purposes of child rearing, the crowning achievement of a working attachment is to instill in a child the desire to be good
if a child is bad.. it’s the relationship we need to correct, not the child
an alarm innate in the child.. it warns her against conduct that would trigger the parents’ disfavor.. protects against a rift w the parent
anything the child does that could possibly upset the parent, push the parent away, or alienate the parent will evoke anxiety in the child. the attachment conscience will keep the child’s behavior w/in the boundaries set by parental expectations
parental values such as studying, working toward a goal, the pursuit of excellence, respect for society, the realization of potential the development of talent, the pursuit of passion, the appreciation of culture are often replaced w peer values that are much more immediate and short term
wow.. most of those sound pretty shallow/contrived for a human being
appearance, entertainment, peer loyalty, spending time together, fitting into the subculture, and getting along w each other will be prized above education and the realization of personal potential
wow.. those overall.. sound better..
external motivator for behavior such as rewards/punishments may destroy the precious internal motivation..
as an investment in easy parenting, trusting in a child’s desire to be good for us is on e of the best
how about.. as an investment in your child/relationship..
even if a child was never able to measure up to our expectation or realize his own intentions, it would still be important to trust in his desire to be good for us..
? to be good for us..? what does that even mean.. to obey? stay in line?
to withdraw that trust is to take the wind out of his sails and to hurt him deeply
to make him think his purpose is to be good .. to be good for you.. is killer
if the desire to be good for us is not treasured and nurtured, the child will lose his motivation to keep trying to measure up.. it is children’s desire to be good for us that warrants our trust, not their ability to perform to our expectations
6 – counterwill : why children become disobedient
counterwlll is an instinctive, automatic resistance to any sense of being forced. it is triggered whenever a person feels controlled or pressured to do someone else’s bidding..
otto rank dubbed term .. noted that dealing w counterwill was parent’s most daunting challenge.. nothing abnormal about it.. but can become abnormally magnified under peer orientation
instinctive resistance to being forced
what we label behavioral disorder in individual children are really sign of a societal dysfunction
figuring out what we want has to begin w having the freedom to not want.. ..
by keeping out the parent’s expectations and demands, counterwill helps make room for the growth and the child’s on self generated motivations and inclinations
for most well attached children, coutnerwill remain a repeated but fleeting experience. it will be limited to situations when the force that the adults is applying to bring the child into line is greater than the attachment power the adult possesses in that given situation
? bring the child into line? attachment power?
the wise and intuitive parent will keep them to the necessary min.. if not.. we may cross that line inadvertently even when there is no call to do so
we may believe for ie, that our child is stubborn or willful and that we have to break him of his defiant ways..
the child’s oppositionality is not an expression of will.. wha tit denotes is the absence of will, which allows a person only to react, butt not to act form a free and conscious process of choosing..
it is common to mistake counterwill for strength on the part of the child.. as child’s purposeful attempt to get his own way. wha tis strong ins the defensive reaction, not the child. the weaker the will, the more powerful the counterwill. i f the child was indeed strong in her own self, she would not be so threatened by the parent.. brazenness not from genuine *independence but from lack of it
unoffendable ness (adults too – as most all of this relates to simply people with or w/o missing pieces)
counterwill happens to the child rather than being instigated by her.. the best reason for children to experience counterwill is when it arises not as automatic oppositionality, but as a healthy drive for independence.. the child will resist the ‘shoulds’ of the parent in order to discover her own preferences
should the parent have shoulds in the first place? to me.. that means the parent isn’t listening to the child.. isn’t curious about the child.. isn’t thinking he/she could learn anything form the child’s perspective
the shift toward genuine *independence can happen only when a child is absolutely secure in his attachment to the adults in his life
again.. rather *interdependence
may seem to parent that child is blatantly contrary or trying to be difficult. in reality, the child’s brain is simply blocking out any ideas or thoughts that have not originated w/in him ..anything that is alien to him is resisted in order to make room for him to come up with his own ideas.. the final content will most likely be the same – the sky is blue – but when it comes to being one’s own person, originality is what counts..
when counterwill is serving the quest for autonomy, it operates much like a psychological immune system, reacting defensively to anything that does not originate w/in the child..
if development unfolds optimally.. and child makes headway in becoming own person, the need for attachment wanes.. as i t does, the maturing child will be even more sensitive to coercion and even less amenable to being bossed around.. counterwill is serving the purpose of protecting the child against becoming an extension of anyone else.. even the parent. it helps to deliver an autonomous, emergent, *independent being, full of **vitality and able to function outside of attachments..
again.. rather *interdependence
ultimately the truly mature person w a genuine will of his own need not mount an automatic opposition to the will of another.. he can afford to heed the other when it makes senses to do so , or to go his own way when it does not
when counterwill is the result of skewed attachments, the liberty that the child strives for is not the liberty to be his true self but the opportunity to conform to his peers. to do so, he will suppress his own feelings and camouflage his own opinions, should they differ from those of his peers.. he is unable to assert himself in the face of peer expectations..
even babies can be seen to have all the power: to control one’s schedules, to sabotage one’s plans, to rob one’s sleep, to rule the roost.. the problem w seeing our children as having power is that we miss how much he truly needs us.. eve if a child is trying to control us, he is doing so out of a need/dependence on us to make things work.. if he was truly powerful, he would have no need to get us to do his bidding..
as our power to parent decreases, our preoccupation w leverage increases.. bribes are called rewards, incentives, positive reinforcement; threats and punishment .. (for setting the table.. doing hw..)
attachment is natural and arises from within; leverage is contrived and imposed from without.. in any other realm, we would see the use of leverage as manipulation.. in parenting such means of getting a chid to follow our will have become embraced by many as normal and appropriated..
all attempt to use leverage to motivate a child involve the use of psychological force.. we apply force whenever we trade on a child’s likes or when we exploit a child’s dislikes and insecurities in order to get her to do our will.. we resort to leverage when we have nothing else to work with.. no intrinsic motivation to tap, no attachment for us to lean on. such tactics, if they are ever to be employed, should be a last resort
7 – the flatlining of culture
(on ie: of messenger exchange.. hey.. sup?).. sup as replacement for ‘how are you’.. w no invitation to share info of genuine significance .. such convos can and do go on at great length w/o anything more meaningful being said
that’s what we do with how are you..
although we have lulled ourselves into believing that this trivialization of youth is an innocuous process, it is a historically new phenom w a disruptive influence on social life. it underlies the frustration many parents feel at their inability to pass on their traditions to their children..
? wow.. traditions like empty greeting.. hi how are you.. a few more words.. but so similar
in the separate tribe many of our children have joined, the transmission of values and culture flows horizontally, form one unlearned and immature person to another
? i totally agree with the attachment piece .. (at least as i grokked it way back when) .. but this all seems so anti humane.. ie: who’s to say what learned is.. who’s really mature..? sounds more like adults wanting kids to follow their lead/ideas/thinking/whatever and then too.. it’s ok to be offended and picking apart the kids’ actions.. calling them ‘unprecedented’ et al..
this process, which can be though of as the flatlining of culture, is, under our very eyes, eroding one of the underpinnings of civilized social activity
perhaps civilized (civilization) ness needs to be eroded..
young people can have fee self expression w/o forgetting or disrespecting universal values handed down vertically, form one generation to the next. that is not what we ware seeing today
transmission of culture assure the survival of the particular forms given to our existence and expression as human beings
and if it does.. who’s to say.. the pheno/geno gap is already so huge in us (from indigenous ness).. ie: most people are not themselves.. a huge part do to all the supposed to’s handed down.. ‘gestures, language, the way we adorn ourselves, greetings, et al’
according to howard gardner: more is spontaneously absorbed from the parents in the first four years of life than during all the rest of a person’s formal ed put together
key word – spontaneous.. none of this so far sounds .. hard to pass on (and/or model) spontaneity when most of us are afraid of it.. no?
if the child is helped to attain genuine individuality and a mature independence of mind, the passing down of culture from one gen to another is/was not a process of mindless imitation or blind obedience.. culture is a vehicle for true self expression. the flowering of individual creativity takes place in the context of culture..
hmm.. what happens when said culture is cancerous.. because previous gen’s didn’t ‘attain genuine individuality’ or whatever.. and the process was ‘mindless imitation and blind obedience’..
the language of attack on youth is making me ill here
they, the young, wield the spending power that determines the profits of the culture industry, even if it is the parents’ incomes that are being disposed of in the process
the adults who cater to the expectations of peer oriented youth may control the market and profit form it, but as agents of cultural transmission they are simply pandering to the debased cultural tastes of children disconnected form healthy adult contact
maybe that’s because we’re lacking healthy adults
dang w the language..’debased cultural tastes’.. who’s defining debased..?
for reasons i will explain in part 3 – peer orientation breeds aggression and an unhealthy, precocious sexuality..
like we’re seeing amongst adults today..? and a gen ago.. and a gen before that.. et al..?
the first obvious and dramatic manifestation of a culture generated by peer orientation was the hippie counterculture of the 60s and 70s.. mcluhan called it ‘the new tribalism of the electric age’.. what defined it more than anything was its glorification of the peer attachment that gave rise to it.. friends took precedence over family.. physical contact and connection w peers were pursued; ‘don’t trust anyone over thirty’ .. wood stock nation.. became the by word of youth who went far beyond a healthy critique of their elders to a militant rejection of tradition
funny you’d use the word militant..
wondering who’s crazy and who’s wise.. in all this
the degeneration of that culture into alienation and drug use, on the one hand , and its cooptation for commercial purposes by the very mainstream institutions it was rebelling against were almost predictable..
the wisdom of well seasoned cultures has accumulated over hundreds and sometimes thousands of years
has it.. or has it rna’d us to death.. iterating on a cancer
healthy cultures also contain ritual and customs and ways of doing things that protect us from ourselves and safeguard valued important to human life
not sure if that’s every happened..
we could try it now.. we have the means to try it now.. but i don’t see that anywhere in history
even when we are not conscious of what such values are
an evolved culture needs to have some art and music that one can grow into,
most important of all, a culture must protect its essence and its ability to *reproduce itself – the attachment of children to their parents.. the culture generated by peer orientation contains no wisdom, does not protect its members from themselves, creates only fleeting fads, and worships idols hollow of value or meaning.. for all its self delusion and smug isolation from the adult world. the woodstock ‘tribe’ still embraced universal values of peace, freedom and brotherhood.. today’s mass musical gathering are about little more than style, ego, tribal exuberance and dollars
wow.. you really can’t hear youth today .. can you..? just defending your gen of growing up..
it’s not about *reproducing the same.. esp if the same we’re seeking to reproduce is sick
there are very few third gen hippies.. whatever its nostalgic appeal, that culture did not have much staying power.. in one sense it is fortunate that peer culture cannot be passed on to future gens, since its only redeeming aspect is that it is *fresh every decade it does not edify or nurture or ever remotely evoke the best in us or in our children
wow – speaking w such authority and in such extreme language.. counter to how you describe ‘maturity’
the best in us is that we change.. not even every *decade.. everyday..
only adults can help children grow up in this way.. only in such relationships can they fully develop their own capacities for free and individual and fresh cultural expressions
free/fresh.. as long as they follow adult guidelines/assumptions/curiosities..
so.. not free.. not fresh
part 3 – stuck in immaturity: how peer orientation stunts healthy development
8 – the dangerous flight from feeling
invulnerability is a camouflage they adopt to blend in w the crowd.. thees are not the kids i’m most concerned about, although i certainly do have concern about the impact an atmosphere of invulnerability will have on their learning and development.. in such an environ genuine curiosity cannot thrive, questions cannot be freely asked, naive enthusiasm for learning cannot be expressed
you just described almost all (if not all if we’re being truly hones) of schooling
as long as the child is not attached to those who belittle him.. there is relatively little damage done
this book so far.. is belittling to youth
attachment protects the child from the outside world
as long as it’s authentic attachment.. and not a coerced relationship
there is a flip side.. if he, the parent, belittle him, shamed him, poured contempt on him, braden would be devastated.. attachment to parent renders a highly vulnerable relationships
9 – stuck in immaturity
not sticking to skate lessons.. hw.. chores..
the only ones, of course, who have the developmental ‘right’ to act like preschoolers are preschoolers.. in an older child/adult such *lack of integration indicates an immaturity that is out of phase w age
dang.. school (since you’re calling it preschooler syndrome) is the problem.. we all need a chance to be 5 again
*sounds like cancer – integration that is – (integration: blending, meshing, homogenization, homogenizing)
robert bly in his book ‘the sibling society’.. exposes immaturity as being endemic in our society ‘people don’t both er to grow up , and we are all fish swimming in a tank of half adults’..
go deeper man.. we’re whales in sea world..
among the several reason why maturity is less and less prevalent today, peer orientation is probably the main culprit..
dang gabor.. this is like saying alcohol is the culprit for trauma
it’s a cope\ing mech.. no? a symptom.. not the cause
being untempered – unable to tolerate mixed feelings at the same time – is the hallmark of the immature
too immature to hold onto a goal beyond immediate satisfaction
immature? or wrong goal?
once the individual cells have separated sufficiently so that they are not in danger of fusing, the focus of development become the interaction between them
maté trump law – and the need for that ongoingly.. every day.. anew.. starting from and listening to within first
w child – the better differentiated she becomes the more she is able to mix w others w/o losing her sense of self
more fundamentally, a sense of self first needs to separate from inner experience.. a capacity entirely absent in the young child. the child has to be able to know that she is not identical w whatever feeling happens to be active in her at any particular moment. she can feel something w/o her actions being necessarily dominated by that feeling. she can be aware of other, conflicting feelings, or of thoughts, values, commitments that might run counter to the feeling of the moment.. she can choose
lacked a relationship w selves because the prereq division had not yet occurred. they were not give to reflection on their inner experience, agreeing/disagreeing w selves, approving/disapproving of what they saw within. because their feelings/thoughts were not differentiated enough to withstand mixing, they were capable of only one feeling/pulse at time.. unable to say ‘part of me feels this way and part of met that way… ‘neither had ‘on the other hand’ kind of experiences.. .. w/o the capacity for reflection, they were defined by inner experience of the moment..
ongoingly need to have this space.. ie: rp ness.. for self-talk as data et al.. (on this privacy/space – it’s not an ownership thing – of the space.. you just use it.. you’d give it up if someone needed it.. but no one needs it/yours.. because all would have their own)
she also had a wonderful venturing forth kind of energy – a curiosity about things she was not familiar with or attached to..an eagerness to explore the unknown, and a fascination w anything new or novel.. she engaged in solitary play that was imaginative, creative and completely self satisfying.. patience was what was called for
maturation is spontaneous but not inevitable
how to get a child like peter unstuck..what activities produce maturation
perhaps it’s letting go of activity/productivity.. and listening.. deep enough
although parents/teachers are forever telling children to ‘grow up’ maturation cannot be commanded.. one cannot teach a child to be an individual or train a child to be his own person
we can nurture the process, provide the right conditions, remove the impediments, but we can no more make a children grow up than we can order the plants in our garden to grow
dealing w immature children, we may need to show then how to act, draw the boundaries of what is acceptable, and articulate what our expectations are.. but such scripted behavior mustn’t be confused w the real thing.. one cannot be anymore mature than one truly is, only act that way when appropriately cued.. to take turns because it is right to do so is certainly civil, but to take turns out of a genuine sense of fairness can only come from maturity
there is no substitute for genuine maturation, no shortcut to getting there behavior can be prescribed or imposed, but maturity comes form the heart and mind.. the real challenge for parents is to help kids grow up, not simply to look like grown ups
if discipline ins no cure for immaturity and if scripting is helpful but insufficient..
when is scripting helpful?
for years, developmentalists puzzled over the conditions that activate maturation. the breakthru came only when researchers discovered the fundamental importance of attachment
surprising as it may be to say, the story of maturation is quite straight forward and self evident. like so much else in child development, it begins w attachment.. attachment is the first priority of living things.. for children, the ultimate agenda of becoming viable as a separate being can take over only when their needs are met for attachments, for nurturing contact and for being able to depend on the relationship unconditionally
few parents, and even fewer experts, understand this intuitively..
we help a child let go by providing more contact and connection that he himself is seeking. when he asks for a hug, we give him a warmer one than he is giving us. we liberate children not by making them work for our love but by letting them rest in it.. .. dependence and attachment foster independence and genuine separation..
attachment is the womb of maturation..
humans never outgrow their need to connect w others, nor should they, but mature, truly individual people are not controlled by these needs..
we need to release a child from preoccupation w attachments so he can pursue the natural agenda of independent maturation. the secret to doing so is to make sure that the child does not need to work to get his needs met for contact and closeness.. to find his bearings, to orient.. children need to have their attachment needs satiated; only then is the child freed to venture forward..
carl roger: ‘i care.. not i care for you if you behave thus and so..’ unconditional positive regard
unconditional parental love is the indispensable nutrient for the child’s healthy emotional growth.. the first task is to create space in the child’s heart for the certainty that she is precisely the person the parents want and love.. she does not have to do anything or be any diff to ear that love, in fact, she cannot do anything, since that love cannot be won or lost.. it is not conditional
sounds so diff from the book up until now.. thank god
people freshly in love experience a renewal of interests and curiosity an acute sense of uniqueness and individuality, and an awakening of a spirit of discovery.. it doesn’t come form someone pushing us to be mature and independent but from being deeply fulfilled and satisfied in our attachment needs..
5 reasons why peer orientation robs children of he capacity to become satiated
dang.. here we go back to the (ego) parent side
1\ parental nurturance cannot get thru
like many parents in their situation, found it difficult to maintain love in the absence of any kind of *reciprocity from their son.. even more daunting when he actively rejected their overtures..
wow.. not unconditional then .. no? this is so important.. that it be unconditional.. *reciprocity has nothing to do with unconditional.. rather.. i guess it does.. it’s cancerous to it..
you cannot feed someone who is not sitting at your table
wtf? that’s so wrong
2\ peer attachments, being insecure, cannot bring a child to rest
3\ peer oriented children are unable to feel fulfilled
not vulnerable enough..(guard up).. then get addicted to shallow and demand more and more.. the more demanding the child is, the more he is indicating a runaway obsession..
4\ peer oriented children cannot let go
only when the futility registers deep within the emotional brain will he urgency relax and the *clinging end.. on the other hand, if the futility fails to sink in, the child will remain gripped by obsessive attachment needs and will persist in pursuing the unattainable
let go of the things you have to *cling to
futility must sink in for the shift in energy to occur.. the shift that leads to acceptance, from frustration to a sense of peace w how things are.. it is not enough to register it intellectually, it must be felt deeply and vulnerably, in the very heart of the limbic system, at the core of the brain’s emotional circuitry..
the inability to go from frustration to futility, from mad to sad. is a major source of aggression and violence..
in children, one of the most obvious signs of futility sinking in is the eyes watering.. there is a little organ in the brain that orchestrates this tell tale sign.. we often learn to hide our tears as adults, but the impulse to cry is hardwired to feelings of utility..
the tears of futility are set off by diff neurological circuitry and are psychologically unique. they feel diff on our cheeks. they are accompanied by a shift in energy: a healthy sadness, a backing off from trying to change things.. tears of futility actually bring a release, a sense that something has come to an end.. they signal that the brain truly apprehends that something is not working and must be let go of..
the worse things are in their peer relationships.. the more entrenched becomes their unconscious resistance to accepting futility of things.. when we stop crying.. it’s as if the brain’s capacity to process emotions – normally quite flexible and responsive – becomes rigid.. it loses its plasticity, its ability to develop..
5\ peer orientation crushes individuality
individuality is the fruit of the process of becoming a psychologically separate being that culminates in the full flowering of one’s uniqueness.. psychologists call this differentiation or individuation.. .. to have one’s own meanings/ideas/boundaries.. to value ones own preferences..intentions.. perspective.. it is to stand in a place occupied by no other..
individualism is the philosophy that puts the rights and interest of a person ahead of the rights and interest of the community.
individuality on the other hand, is the foundation of true community because only authentically mature individuals can fully cooperate in a way that respects and celebrates the uniqueness of others..
only highly mature person can brave the reactions of those who do not recognize or value independence of thought, being and action (wonder, exploring, curiosity)
children .. are too driven by attachment to honor individuality.. that dividing the world into mine and not mine is not antisocial but the necessary beginning of individuation
wanting to be the author of one’s work and the originator of one’s ideas is the way to becoming one’s own person
children do not care about such things in one another
yeah.. we need to learn from them in this
it takes an adult to recognize the seeds of maturity, to make room for individuality, and to value the early signs of independence.
if only problem was child’s inability to encourage and celebrate one another’s individuality..
it isn’t.. they do it better than us
unfortunately the problem is much worse.. immature people tend to trample on any individuality that does show itself
that is true.. the thing is.. it’s often the older (more trained/learned) people that are doing the trampling
in a child’s world it is not immaturity but rather than maturing processes that are suspect and a source of shame.. the emergent child – the child who is self motivated and not drive by needs for peer contact – seems like an anomaly, irregular, a little off the beaten track. the words that peer oriented kids use for such a child are highly critical, words like weird, stupid, retarded, freak and geek..
and the words adults use are more scientific.. (so more subtle and more damaging).. ie: (insert here the kajillion labels we’ve created .. mostly to use on kids that don’t fit into the school system – which prefers rule followers.. et al)
higashida autism law et al
immature children do not understand why these emergent maturing others are trying so hard to get along, why they seek solitude sometimes instead of company, why the can be curious and interested about things that don’t involve others, why they ask question s in class
wow – adults too.. no? .. which again.. is really most of us.. so why pin it on kids
when attachment to peers is the primary concern, individuality must be sacrificed..
to the immature child this sacrifice seems only right. editing her personality, diminishing her true self expression, and suppressing any conflicting opinions or values seem like the natural course of action..
creating whales in sea world..
she must not allow her individuality to come between herself and her peers
uniqueness and individuality become impediments to success in the peer culture
ok.. so that’s all of society today.. again – most of us are not us – wilde not us law
we have to give your children what they cannot give to one another: the freedom to be themselves in the context of loving acceptance – an acceptance that immature peers are unable to offer but one that we adults can and must provide
higashida autism law et al
10 – a legacy of aggression
can’t effect change, adapt, see alts to aggression
no matter how upsetting and alienation the problem, we cannot afford to make aggression the central focus.. rather.. the underlying issue of our children’s misdirected attachments
11 – the making of bullies and victims
lord of flies.. left to own devices.. spontaneously divide into bullies and bullied to point of murder.. the interpretation many have put on the golding novel is that children harbor an untamed savagery underneath a thin veneer of civilization and that only the force of authority can keep their innate brutalizing impulse in check. this impression is reinforced by the proliferation of media reports of kids victimizing other kids.. although it is true that the non presence of adults in children’s lives is a major cause of bullying, the real dynamic involves not missing adult authority but the dearth of adult attachments..
in both of these cases we see that bullying among animals followed the destruction of the natural generational hierarchy.. among human children as well, the bullying phenom is a direct product o ff the subversion of natural hierarchy, following on the loss of adults relationships
so .. is it relationships or hierarchy? because i think hierarchy compromises relationships..
in lord of the flies the children are left to their own devices in the wake of a plane crash that none of their caregiving adults survive.
pretty sure the kids.. and the ‘caregiving adults’ – were already pretty entrenched in voluntary compliance (or whatever we want to call it).. ie: not themselves.. not natural.. w lord of flies.. and most of society today.. you’re really looking at whales in sea world – at best
the underlying problem is not the behavior itself but the loss of the natural attachment *hierarchy w adults in charge..
great sentence till you added *this.. you seem obsessed w making sure this is added/understood/accepted/followed.. which is ironic seeing as how that phrase compromises attachment/relationships
when youngsters can no longer look to parents to orient by, they are reduced to instinct and impulse
and as (i thought you even said earlier – i guess maybe you only referred to it as parents’ instinct..?).. if truly left free to instinct.. we would take care of selves/others.. because it is already w/in each one of us
what’s esp grabbing our attention is the epidemic of bullying in our schools
domination w/o caring
how is domination ever caring?
the first item of business in any attachment relationship is to establish a working hierarchy… under normal circumstances the attachment *brain assigns the child to a dependent mode while the adult takes a dominant role.. however.. the instinct to assume either a dominant/dependent position can be activated in any attachment relationship.. even if both parties are immature an neither is in position to look after the other’s *needs..
maybe *that ‘s the diff.. and why you seem bent (ie: making it sound natural – *brain assigns..?) on hierarchy/dominance ness..
if we drill it down to our very basic needs (a&a) .. there is no hierarchy.. it’s a dance.. a people dance.. ie: are you human?.. that’s it.. no need for labels (esp binary ones) such as adult/teacher student/child immature/mature dominant/dependent.. et al..
if we’re all alive inside.. and free to be.. then those binary roles you keep asserting.. blur.. we’re all learning/modeling/whatever from/to each other.. ongoingly.. as we all change/emerge.. ongoingly
between children and adults, the appropriate division of roles is obvious, or ought to be..
says who? defined by who?
the result of peer orientation is that powerful attachment urges force immature kids who should be on equal terms w one another into an unnatural hierarchy of dominance and submission
yeah.. exactly that.. for your adult/child hierarchy..
are you human
lower in the pecking order
bullying arises when the attachment driven need to dominate one’s peers
who said attachment begs domination.. that’s messed up man
is combined w a hardening against the feelings of caring and responsibility that should accompany a dominant role..
take off the dominance and the responsibility.. and the should.. all killers
it’s no wonder that bullying has burgeoned in the world of our children
rather.. in the world of all humans.. no?
if parents are too needy/passive/uncertain to assert their dominance
if parents think they need to assert dominance.. they are too needy/passive/uncertain
12 – a sexual turn
nearly always, in one form or another, sex is about attachment. in the lives of our adolescents, it is, most often, an expression of unfulfilled attachment needs..
13 – unteachable students
the shift in the attachment patterns of our children has had profoundly negative implications for education
(after saying 4 essentials in determining a child’s teachability: a natural curiosity, integrate mind, ability to benefit from correction and a relationship w the teacher): curiosity is not an inherent part of a child’s personality
wtf? it’s blocked if we force them into structures/schools.. but it is the natural thing
for teachers who value curiosity, invite questions, and give the child’s interest the lead, emergent learners are a delight to teach..
hard to do any of this in a classroom.. so much pretense there.. no one can really/truly think about innate curiosity
curiosity is a luxury, developmentally speaking. attachment is what matter most
wow.. so messed up here.. curiosity is a means (already in each one of us) to getting/maintaining attachments.. they feed off each other.. they dance together.. the luxury is when your prescribed/mandated curriculum matches natural curiosities.. (rarely happens.. and when it does.. natural curiosities change more often/quickly than the pkg deal of the curriculum… so .. doesn’t last)
[need another break.. i knew this bit on ed would fire me up.. ie: p 168.. how do you talk/think about a natural child when you’re assuming school is a good thing.. ie: talking about a child not wanting to do hw.. not able to get up early to go to school.. not being able to keep their attention at school.. as a bad thing.. something we need to fix.. wtf]
for self motivation it helps to have an integrative mind.. a mind capable of processing contradictory impulses/thoughts.. in a child w a well developed integrative capacity, not wanting to go to school evokes concerns about missing school, not wanting to get up in the morning triggers apprehension about being late. lack of interest in paying attention to the the teacher is tempered by an interest in doing well, resistance to doing what one is told mitigated by awareness that disobedience has unpleasant consequences
for the presence of the tempering element – the component that would counteract impulses that undermine learning – the child also needs to be attached appropriately. she must be able to feel deeply and vulnerably. ie: a child needs to be attached enough to care what adults – his parents/teachers – think, to care about their expectations, to care about not upsetting or alienating them
a student needs to be emotionally invested in learning, to be excited about figuring something out
invested in ‘learning/figuring-out’ something other people decide they should ‘learn/figure-out’.. is a whole other story.. a cancerous one
not being vulnerable – not caring – paralyzes learning and destroys teachability
your defn of vulnerable and caring (ie: blind obedience) is harmful..no?.. and your focus on kids being teachable is dangerous/selfish/inhumane.. goes back to first of book where you’re lamenting the increasing difficulty of teaching.. (which to me makes this all read as your underlying motive – to make kids teachable so you can go on teaching.. ie: sinclair perpetuation law.. et al)
again.. peer oriented student are often too defended against vulnerability to become mindful of their mistakes or to take responsibility for their failures
sounds like adults/educators .. ongoingly assuming school as a given.. just thinking that in our guts we know there has to be a better way.. a nother way
if the mark on a test is too poor for such a student to tolerate, he will blame the failure on something – or someone – else..
great ie of the huge mistakes we are making.. our ie’s are inundated w school work/obedience/acceptance
registering futility is the essence of adaptive learning.. when our emotions are too hardened to permit sadness about something that didn’t succeed.. we respond not by learning from our mistakes but by **venting frustration.. the external target will be the ‘boring’ assignments.. the ‘idiotic’ teacher.. or ‘i’m so stupid’.. either way the mad doesn’t turn to sad, the emotion associated w *truly experienced futility does not rise to he surface. work habits are not changed, learning strategies are not modified, and handicaps are not overcome.
this is so inhumane
the awareness of *futility is actually rising to the surface (the futility of teaching, hw, follow orders, ..ie: supposed to’s.. of school/work) for kids in school.. it’s just the actual futility.. and so we.. being blinded by that (because we’re whales in sea world).. **vent our frustration by labeling/suspending/punishing kids as ie: disabled/rebelling/unteachable learners.. whatever
in my practice i see increasing numbers of children who do the same things over and over and over again, despite repeated failure..
attachment is by far the most powerful process in learning and is certainly sufficient for the task, even w/o the help of curiosity
if there’s no curiosity.. i’d say you’re attachment is illegit
attachment based learners are highly motivated in ways other students may not be. ie: they are more predisposed to learn via imitation, modeling, memorizing and cue taking..
attachment based students also want to measure up and will be motivated to work for approval and for recognition and status
formal ed is not intrinsically valued by the young.. it takes some *maturity to realize that ed can open minds and doors and that ti can humanize and civilize
what students need is to value those who value ed
of course.. that makes for obedient followers
a dangerous ed myth has arisen that children learn best from their peers
actually.. (in our case).. it was that they learn the rules of the game in order to suffocate less from the day.. aka: helping each other jump thru the inhumane hoops..
not even going into the whole.. ie: teacher has hard time teaching skill to beginner because they don’t remember the beginnings of learning said skill (which is still a compulsory skill not a curiosity so not really going to take) .. other peers are closer to that initial connection
more and more teachers it would seem are taking their cues from their students, thus putting the students in the lead and compromising the very spirit of pedagogy (pedagogue is ‘leader’ of children)
to encounter chronic resistance isa sure recipe for burning out. teaching harder is not the answer. getting into the *attachment business is the only way teaching can be made easier
*enlightening phraseology.. and how use of attachment (in this book) has been compromised..
part 4 – how to hold on to our kids (or how to reclaim them)
14 – collecting our children
so far in this book we have shown that our society is out of touch w its parenting instincts
unfortunately.. book is out of touch as well?
the ultimate gift is to make a child feel invited to exist in our presence exactly as he is, to express our delight in his very being.. needs to be genuine and unconditional
damaging when separation from the parent is used punitively against the child.. to engage in that oft advised but damaging technique is to say, in effect, that the child is invited to exist in our presence only when he/she measures up to our values and expectations – in other words, that our relationship w them is conditional.
good.. but you countered this earlier.. no? saying we do the attachment so that the child wants our expectations/values.. ie: 115, 118, 141, …
the real spoiling of children is not in the indulging of demands or the giving of gifts but in the ignoring of their genuine needs.. ie: holding baby so long ‘you will spoiling her’ .. on contrary.. spoiling would be in the denial of closeness..
the conundrum is that attention given at the request of the child is never satisfactory: it leaves an uncertainty that the parent is only responding to demands, not voluntarily given of himself to the child.. the solution is to seize the moment, to invite contact exactly when the child is not demanding it..
a child cannot hold on to praise because it is subject to cancellation w every failure.. even if he could hold on to the praise, eh wouldn’t be holding on to the praise giver, but the achievement that produced it..
the child’s self image should not rest on who well/poorly she succeeds in gaining our approval by means of achievements or compliant behaviors.. the foundation of a child’s true self esteem is the essence of being accepted, loved, and enjoyed by the parens exactly as he, the child is
i think this is a lot of my frustration.. it seems he’s saying both things.. it’s unconditional and it’s conditional.. confusing .. on an issue that can’t be..
15 – preserve the ties that empower
one must not parent a child from a book.. not even this one
god i hope not
16 – discipline that does not divide
when it comes to children, we use the term discipline not in the narrow sense of punishment but in its deeper meanings of training, bringing under control, imposing order on.. there is no question that children require discipline..
says who.. such authority here
discipline: the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience.
healthy children.. healthy/eudaimonious people.. don’t need that.. no train
discipline should not and need not be adversarial. it is not our children’s fault that they are born uncivilized, immature
that their impulses rule them or that they fall short of our expectations
wow.. what happened to unconditional.. again..?
it is amazing how differently things occur to us when we have found our way to the child’s side..
have you? should there even be sides.. ? i think not
7 principles of natural discipline: 1\ use connection not ie: time outs 2\ work the relationship not the incident 3\ draw out tears instead of trying to teach less about correct thinking than adaptability.. the key to adaptation is for futility to sink in 4\ solicit good intentions over good behavior 5\ draw out mixed feelings instead of trying to stop behavior
the key to self control is not willpower, as we once thought, but mixed feelings..
6\ script desired behavior instead of demanding maturity
both are cancerous
to preserve our relationship w a child not yet capable of *mature functioning, we have to jettison **unrealistic demand/expectations
depends how you define *that
we have to jettison **any/all demands/expectations.. unconditional.. remember..?
7\ when unable to change the child.. try changing the child’s world.. see what child is reacting to
the use of structure an routine isa powerful way of imposing order on a child’s world, and thus on the child’s behavior.. structures create the predictable.. ritual/routine
structures need to be created for meals, bedtimes, hygiene, chores, family interaction/closeness, practice, hw, emergent self directed play, creative solitude
let’s just go with a simple structure.. that only imposes one agenda – eudaimoniative surplus..
most important, structures decrease the need for bossing and coercion on the part of adults, prevent in needless conflict
if there is a need for bossing/coercion.. your traveling the supposed to route
structure like you’re talking.. are coercion and bossing.. just in a more subversive/violent way.. causing children to blindly follow your allegiance.. ie: voluntary compliance
part 5 – preventing peer orientation
17 – don’t court the competition
(ch is inundated w the assumption that school achievement is a mark of success)
we need to ground children’s experience of schooling in adult attachments
shyness is an attachment force, designed to shut the child down socially.. much of sociability of peer oriented children is the result of a loss of shyness.. it’s not the shyness we ought to be so concerned about but the lack of shyness
stress of daycare.. more time spent.. more likely to manifest aggression and disobedience both at home and in kindergarten
day care and preschool do not have to be risky, but to reduce the risk we need to be aware of attachment
natural order of human development.. attachment and individuation are necessary for maturation, and maturation is necessary for genuine socialization.. true social integration requires not only a mixing w others by a mixing w/o losing one’s separateness or id
the child must first be able to hold on to herself when interacting w others and to perceive the others as separate beings..
mixing indiscriminately and prematurely, w/o adults being involved as the primary attachment figures, will lead either to conflict, as each child seeks to dominate the other or has to resist being dominated or to cloning as a child suppresses his sense of himself for the sake of acceptance by others..
parents/adults can dominate too.. keeping us from listening to our own heart et al.. begs an infrastructure that focuses on that self-talk .. at the beginning of the day.. everyday.. ie: 2 convers as infra
wha tis praised as getting along in children would, in adult life, be called compromising oneself or selling oneself short or not being true to oneself..
if we were truly in harmony w the developmental blueprint, we would not be so concerned about children getting along w one another. we would place a higher value on children becoming able to hod on to themselves when interacting w others.. all the socializing in the world could never bring a child to this point
i don’t think that’s right.. i think it’s right for kids/whales in school/sea-world.. so we assume it’s human nature..
but if we were all truly free.. in the city.. as the day.. (which we’ve not yet given a shot) .. i think they’d dance nicely together.. feed off each other.. i think that’s what an undisturbed ecosystem could be
a person must gain the capacity to reflect on her thoughts and feelings, a capacity that, again, is a fruit of maturation.. when someone has a relationship a herself, she can like her own company, agree/disagree w self, approve/disapprove of self and so on.. often, relationship w others preempt a relationship w self ..
true cause of boredom.. when attachment instincts are not sufficiently engaged and when sense of self does not emerge to fill this void.. it is like being in neutral, on hold, waiting for life to begin..
we need to be set free via daily curiosity [The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity. -unknown]
in other words, the hoe that is usually experienced as boredom is the result of a double void of *attachment and of emergence.. the child is not w someone w whom he can attach and feel comfortable and on the other hand he lacks sufficient curiosity and imagination to spend time creatively on his own..
rather *attachment and authenticity
ie: child in school.. both attachment to teach and emergence of self motiviated wonder and curiosity are missing..
ideally such a void comes to be filled w the child’s emergent self: initiative, interests, creative solitude and play, original ideas imagination reflection, independent momentum..
if we really understood the roots of boredom, it would be a sign for us that our children were not ready to interact w others.. the more prone to boredom they are the more they need us and the more of their own selves need s to emerge.. the more bored they are the less prepared they are for peer interaction.. for such a child it is not peer interaction we should facil but connections w adults or time for herself..
*children who are seriously attached to each other experience life as very dull when not w each other..
*all of us
when and under what circumstance should we encourage or allow children to be around one another? it is *only to be expected that children will be around each other in day care, in kindergarten, on the playground, in school..
and what type of play? i would discourage reliance on tech when it comes to ply, because it preempts originality and creativity
like school and all the other supposed to’s do?
what is regrettable is that we as adults should dignify this homogenizing dynamic by honoring it and deferring to it
the ultimate issue in self esteem is not how good one feels about oneself, but the independence of self evaluations from the judgments of others.. the challenge is to value one’s existence when it’s not valued by others.. we live in a culture that indoctrinates an idea of self esteem based on how we look to others.. but it’s rather.. ie: i am worthwhile .. whether i can do this, that or the other
the more praise/popular/competition one receives, the hungrier for praise/et-al one becomes.. our challenge is to break dependence on popularity/appearance grades/achievement for the way they think and feel about elves
so.. why keep sending them to school.. ?
only the unconditional loving acceptance that adults can offer is able to free a child from obsessing over sign of liking and belonging..
under no circumstances is it in the child’s best interests to focus on making him likable to his peers..
the play that children need for healthy development is emergent play, not social play.. emergent play (or creative solitude) does not involve interacting w others.. if playmates are involved, they stem from the child’s imagination..
because of the strong emphasis on peer socialization, emergent play – play arising form the child’s creativity, imagination, and curiosity about the world – has become endangered..
we need to leave much more room for the self to emerge
and ongoingly emerge.. and ..for all of us..
18 – re create the attachment village
hold on to them until they can hold on to themselves