Parenting evolution (nuts and bolts)...

[parentastic]

I think its funny. I was bashed once on here for pointing out that to raise your child based on the "newest set of rules" was a waste of time... cause if you wait a second they'll be a new list coming out. I wonder what people will think in 50 years when they read our advice?

With all due respect, I think the underlying assumption here is that science is useless because there is "a new list" coming out every X year. Isn't it a bit simplistic?

When empirical science was barely starting, the laws of physics were tentatively being discovered, including how chemistry works, various chemical reactions, atoms, neutron and protons, forces, newton... with each passing decade, it got more precise. Some got invalidated, some got reinforced, others were nuanced or understood in a larger context.
But does it mean no science is usable just because it advances with every passing decade? If so, we would not build bridges and skyscrapers today, nor would we have heart surgery or brain surgery?

Human science isn't different. When a science is young - after all, the whole science of psychology started less than 100 years ago - it's bound to be coarse and ineffective at first, then it gets refined.
So we got Erikson who discovered the psycho-social human stages of development; it's still valid today even if it now understood in a larger context. Behavioral science with Skinner is overused and ignores the deeper needs of children, yet it's still the basis for many effective therapies used by psychologist on numerous psychological disorders. Others, such as Vygotsky's scaffolding or Bowlby's attachment principles remains more than ever true since they were discovered.

Don't you think?

 

[bssage]

This is actually something that has been on my mind for the last few months. Keep in mind I have not completed the course. Its a "work in progress" and I am "thinking aloud".

As you probably know I have been taking that audio class. Its the entire year of Yale Syc 101. And it is super fascinating. I have learned much. Completely changed my view of Pavlov's dog.

The class is building chronologically. And as he travels through the different theories he builds a case for each one. The cases he builds for the specific theories all begin with what I will call a foundation of thought or theory. Which in turn is the basis for the school of thought they individually bring forth. If it helps you can just insert your name of choice i.e Watson, Skinner, Freud, ect (it goes way beyond 100 yrs.)

The problem I am having is that while it seems they leave the previous foundations of thought: intact. They tend to destroy the rest or at least most of the remaining theories that were built on those foundations.

It has been particularly bothersome for me. Because I keep having these moments of incite. Only to have the rug yanked out in the next class. Whats worse is most have little parlor trick you can do to prove your point like making an object disappear for a little toddler. So I get all fired up to show off my new found wisdom. Then: Bam What I told you yesterday was later proven wrong by (insert name here)

So while I kinda agree with what your saying. I can help but think since the computer age are our exponentially expanding wisdom. There is a lot of opportunity for what we believe today to also become obsolete.

All the Scholars of the past thought " They got it right" They were sure of it. Most invested their life into it. So while I believe we should always do the best with what we have available. I also think it is short sited to believe we have any real answers that will stand the test of time.

That is in no way to imply: we should not try.

I keep hoping at some point it will all pull together. It seems to me (thinking aloud) that he is making a case for more of a mosaic of theory rather than a single one.

 

[parentastic]

This is actually something that has been on my mind for the last few months. Keep in mind I have not completed the course. Its a "work in progress" and I am "thinking aloud".

Fair enough

As you probably know I have been taking that audio class. Its the entire year of Yale Syc 101. And it is super fascinating. I have learned much. Completely changed my view of Pavlov's dog.

This is great! I wasn't aware that you were following this course.
Psych is fascinating, and the history of it even more. Science is a journey, a huge collective tapestry of work weaved by researchers across time.
Is this the course you are following?

The problem I am having is that while it seems they leave the previous foundations of thought: intact. They tend to destroy the rest or at least most of the remaining theories that were built on those foundations.

Can you provide an example? We could discuss perhaps better around a concrete example.

It has been particularly bothersome for me. Because I keep having these moments of incite. Only to have the rug yanked out in the next class. Whats worse is most have little parlor trick you can do to prove your point like making an object disappear for a little toddler. So I get all fired up to show off my new found wisdom. Then: Bam What I told you yesterday was later proven wrong by (insert name here)

Although it has happened that some theories get completely invalidated, to my knowledge this is rarely the case. They get usually put into a larger context, or the way they are used to derive some concrete application is now changed because we have a better understanding of the whole.
Again, it would be easier to discuss with a concrete example.

Making an object disappear for a little toddler would refer, I think, to the experiments performed by Piaget on "object permanence", which (to my knowledge) is still a valid concept.

The process is roughly this:

Observations, experiments, etc ==> attempt to devise a theory (a "rule" about how human beings works under certain situations, a way to generalize from empirical data to overall situations). Since we are going from small to large, we can only "guess" how things works, until more new data allows us to refine the previous theory.
i.e.: Is theory invalidated later by new observations or other theories?
If yes, review and revise. and so on.

All the Scholars of the past thought " They got it right" They were sure of it. Most invested their life into it. So while I believe we should always do the best with what we have available. I also think it is short sited to believe we have any real answers that will stand the test of time.

I believe that human science is holistic. It's incredibly complex because it has to factor in millions of variables and each variable is inter-related to the others. Science on the other hand (especially old science, although now it's starting to change) often only looks at a small portion of reality, a small area of expertise. Only the sum of the whole is greater than the whole: the more we start looking at the whole, the more we are truly understanding human beings.

It seems to me (thinking aloud) that he is making a case for more of a mosaic of theory rather than a single one.

Absolutely. But it's not so much about having a mosaic of disconnected theories. It's more about realizing that each of these theory are shedding light on a tiny portion of the whole, and it's the big picture that we are trying to grasp.

In fact, I'll even go further: even the whole science of psychology is already a limitation, because psychology doesn't look too much how an individual ties into the society and creates bounds and relationship with the environment (the other systems out there). Human science can only start to make sense, from a holistic perspective, when you add psychology to sociology and you look at the whole from a systemic perspective. But I digress as we get into my area of expertise in my own Masters

Another way to see it is to see human science as an onion.
Each time you peel a layer, you get deeper to the core. But that doesn't mean there is no core, it only means the core is difficult to reach. Yet we do get closer and closer to the core with each layer we peel off.
Freud was one of the first layer, for instance. But it didn't really describe the whole onion. Then you got Erikson, and then Skinner, and Bowlby, and Banduras, and Piaget and so many other. And even if you could reach the core of the onion, you still gotta ask yourself how this onion impacts the other onions in the field, and how the earth is changed as it grows and as other vegetables grows and there you get the systemic perspective

Why do I keep bringing attachment? Not because it's the only valid theory. But rather because (to my knowledge) with the recent finding in neuroscience, it's the deepest layer of the onion we have yet discovered and confirmed: It already encompasses all the other layers of knowledge.

Send me some more concrete examples and we can discuss them if you want

 

[bssage]

You have to understand I am only about 6 or 7 hours into it. And as I listen to more. My perception of what I had already learned changes at least a little bit.

Freud is a good example as any, of someone whose foundation is sound and still exists. But much of the theory surrounding that foundation has been torn apart. It is becoming a common story with the others (so far)

The Professor (Paul Bloom) explains that he is not teaching the history of the discipline. But to date it has been just that. I dont want to get nailed down to much on specifics at this point I will just look stupid. I have kinda backed off giving much advice while my own perceptions are in flux right now.

But in regard the the op you were originally replying to. Even though her comments were inwardly insulting to your profession (I dont think it was pointed at you). I think there is enough truth in the concept that it should not be discounted or overlooked. A lot of these experts of their day it occurs to me were so blinded by the need to be right that not only did they overlook new ideas. At times they fought against them. But in that light they appear shallow or selfish. And that I don't believe is the case. I do believe that they had so much vested in their life's work that it was their identity. And as such: opposition to their theories would be devastating.

I guess my point again is that we must use what we feel is the best most current information. But not to get locked into something to the point that we are no longer open to newer more current information. Or even older effective proven sources.

I here this repeated by people in your profession. Including Doc Bloom. And the doctors on tv ect ect ect these for words "what we know now" And especially the TV docs sometimes directly contradict the each other with "What we know now's" I should acknowledge not just in your profession. The "What we know now's" are so prevalent with Autism "Experts" it makes me want to puke.

It seems to be a better phrase to coin would be "the studies suggest" or " strong support has been demonstrated for". "What we know now" Seem to box a person into a place where they would have to admit defeat rather than embrace the evolution of Psychology. Or the privilege of being an Autism "Expert"

Because the truth IMHO is. Historically we knew and have known things that despite our best efforts were wrong. Not once: not twice: but many many times.

And it more specific to the human condition than just psychology.

 

[parentastic]

You have to understand I am only about 6 or 7 hours into it. And as I listen to more. My perception of what I had already learned changes at least a little bit.

I think it's a wonderful way to build a course: learning is change, and it's great to see how ideas are refined, explored or rejected as new knowledge comes into light. Sometimes, it's just about putting two old idea together and it shed light in a whole new way to see things. Human science is dynamic and changing, and that's how it should be, too.
But there is a paradox here: it is changing and dynamic, yet I am also saying to a certain extend, we can rely on it. So where do we draw the line? It's a very interesting reflection, and regardless of the answer we come up with, I think it's extremely healthy to have it.

Freud is a good example as any, of someone whose foundation is sound and still exists. But much of the theory surrounding that foundation has been torn apart.

Well, Freud is indeed an interesting example - and I am far from well versed with Freud's theories or history as it's less used in developmental psych, which is where I studied. But I know this: Freud created all his theories out of his patients, which means they all suffered from something in the first place. So when he drew theories out of his observations, these were flawed, because he was trying to derive ideas that could apply to everyone. In addition, he was a product of his time: marriage was the norm, homosexuality was not even considered as existent, etc. Also, at the time, being one of the only scientist in this new field, nobody was there to peer-review his work.
Nonetheless, he is the father of psychoanalysis, and the core concepts like repression, suppression, coping mechanism, denial, etc. are all massively used today. So some of his ideas were flawed or got deconstructed later, but some principles are still foundational today.

I dont want to get nailed down to much on specifics at this point I will just look stupid.

I think it says a lot about you that you decided you wanted to learn more about this in the first place. In my book that's far from stupid

But in regard the the op you were originally replying to. Even though her comments were inwardly insulting to your profession (I dont think it was pointed at you).

Well, I didn't felt personally insulted. I am just feeling sad that to some people, decades of research seem to have zero value under the excuse that it is always evolving. (sorry if this sounds like I am simplifying the OP's post or position, but it sure felt that way). Under that assumption, why educate yourself in the first place? Might as well just close your ears and eyes and pretend nothing else matter but your own way of seeing things, from your little corner of the world. It's like re-inventing the wheel each time.

The question, how can a parent truly trust research, when it's so easy to find everything and its contrary, however, is a good question. And the way you decided to get informed is a good possible answer.

I think there is enough truth in the concept that it should not be discounted or overlooked. A lot of these experts of their day it occurs to me were so blinded by the need to be right that not only did they overlook new ideas. At times they fought against them.

Yes, absolutely. This is very, very true.
In fact it's one of the thing I was responding to Tad when we were arguing about some of his references. There are still pure behaviorist today, holding prestigious chairs in university, who advocate spanking or conditioning. Even if at this point it's borderline unethical to do so, they continue, because all their lives, 30, sometimes 40+ years is there and nowhere else. It's a reality one has to take into account.

But in that light they appear shallow or selfish. And that I don't believe is the case. I do believe that they had so much vested in their life's work that it was their identity. And as such: opposition to their theories would be devastating.

Exactly.

I guess my point again is that we must use what we feel is the best most current information.

Yes. And family life educators are mandated to help parents with that. They aren't PhD researchers, but they are very linked to the practical day to day knowledge of what can be used where and how to help normal people improve their family. (as opposed to clinical psychologist who are primary there to treat mental pathologies).

But not to get locked into something to the point that we are no longer open to newer more current information. Or even older effective proven sources.

I couldn't agree more! We are perfectly in agreement.

I here this repeated by people in your profession. Including Doc Bloom. And the doctors on tv ect ect ect these for words "what we know now" And especially the TV docs sometimes directly contradict the each other with "What we know now's" I should acknowledge not just in your profession. The "What we know now's" are so prevalent with Autism "Experts" it makes me want to puke.

Yeah, I can understand that. I hear ya!
And I agree that it's a shortcut; it's a world full of "experts" and each of them - no matter how old their knowledge is - are convinced they have the truth. Infuriating! From a parent perspective, what would make me, for instance, any more valid? I guess the only answer I can provide is that so far, I have a pretty good track record when I help people here. But besides that, I do get your point totally.

In the parenting workshop I designed, in the last session, I spend a bit of time to go across this question: how do you decide if a parenting book, a method, a theory or an expert is "good" ? I try to teach parents to be autonomous by giving them a few pointers on the various school of thoughts, which came before which or after, sort of a quick and dirty history with some core principles, so they can decide what they want and how to recognize it. In the end, that's what I am here for: providing tools, not answers. I'd rather each parent get their own answers.
Sorry if I am rambling, these questions are at the center of a lot of my involvement and work

It seems to be a better phrase to coin would be "the studies suggest" or " strong support has been demonstrated for".

Yes, definitely
Although that's far from what the OP was suggesting, and why I was calling her on it. I am all for caution and nuances. But I am also trying to transmit the idea that we aren't at the same point we where during the medieval times. (here is the 'we' again!). Drawing the limit is of course at the crux of the problem.

 

[parentastic]

Bryan, I want to add also some information about how I proceed to help a parent, usually. You have probably seen me answer to quite a few of them in the past years here, but I don't know if I ever shared this.
I think this might help to discuss the difference between a dogmatic approach and a systemic approach.

First, I listen to the parent and I try to get a picture of every member of the family: is the parent single? married? Separated? Is the family reconstituted (step mother/father, new half siblings, etc)? I look at each possible dyad: What kind of relationship has the child to each family member? Warm or cold? Abusive or not? Controlling or laissez-faire? How good is the communication in the family? What about babysitter? Grandparents? Teachers? I draw the genogram, mentally.

Second, I look at the context outside the family. What's the family socio-economic context? How is the child at school? How is the education level in the family? Does the child have friends? How close are the friends? Has something changed in the background recently, at the same time the child had these symptoms? Has it happened for a long time or was it a recent change?

Third, I look at the symptoms and I compare them to the child's development. How old is the child? What usually happens at that age, typically? Is the child late in his development? In advance? To evaluate this, I look at the psycho-social stages such as toddlers counter-dependencies, etc (Erikson) adolescent's symptoms (Elkind), etc. I look at how the child's symptoms matches possible repressions, may hide a possible trauma, how it can be a coping mechanism (Freud), etc.
I also look if the child is late in developing his life skills: is he autonomous for his age? If not, how so? What steps were missing to teach the child? Is the child in the zone of proximal development (Wygotsky)?

Fourth, I try to evaluate if the child's needs are fully met (Maslow). Is the child rested and well fed? Feeling secured? Feeling loved? Can he develop his need for curiosity and brain development? Can he develop his self identity? How is his self esteem? If I think a need is not met, what would be his possible reactions? Does it meet the problem described by the parent? Can I see this happening in the context of the above information about the family?

Fifth, I evaluate the child's typical kind of attachment (Bowlby) with each care provider. It tells me how the brain may have been over developed or under developed in which hemisphere (Siegel), and what the typical reaction may be. I match that with the info in my first, second, third and fourth above.

Sixth, I look at parent's habits and reactions. What's their parenting style? (Beamrind) How are they usually responding to these issues before? What kind of discipline do they use? What's their emotional intelligence? (Goldman) Are they stifling a need through their choices? Can that explain the behavior? What kind of pattern is there? What kind of spiraling dynamic are they triggering? Are their choices leading to more behavior, which then leads them to react more that way and so on? How can the cycle be broken? Are they reinforcing the child's behavior or their own reaction (Skinner)?

Seventh, I look at the parent's perspective. What are they living? What's their emotional state of mind? Stress level? Is it more important to help the child directly now, or is it more important to help the parent so that they are at a better place to help their child after? Do they have a support network?

Finally, can I intervene? What can I say that will be effective? Can this problem be solved without an actual professional counselor? If not (possible trauma, etc) I refer a professional. If I need more info, I ask for it. No point offering advices if I am not confident I know what I am talking about. What advice can I give that remains within the parent's realm of possibilities to do, within their capacity for change? Can I offer a true double loop or even triple loop learning (Argyris) or am I better to offer a single loop advice? What's my relationship to the parent? Am I trusted?

The reason I am telling you all this is to show how, IMO, a child-care professional should use ALL the tools out there, except for those who are fully inapplicable. The true work here is to balance all the knowledge in your head, all the theories from the WHOLE body of human science and lifespan developmental psych - NOT to apply it as a dogma - but to truly understand what's going on in the child's mind and in the child's brain, and to break the patterns, meet the child's needs and restore the empathy and the quality of the link in broken families, so they can heal on their own.

For the record, I am not convinced many psychologists follow a systemic approach. Many are dogmatic, and fully attached to their single method they researched all their lives. As far as I am concerned, none of the above things mean much when you look at it alone. It's the wholeness of the system that allows a true solution to emerge.

 

[stjohnjulie]

Sometimes you guys make me feel so simple! But seriously, thanks for the read. I see some good points to be taken. I spent my college years in family studies and it seems that a lot of what I learned simply went out the window when I had a family of my own. To me, a lot of it was much better in theory than it was in practice. Families are complex to say the least.

 

[singledad]

I suppose everyone knows I'm always up for this kind of discussion but today I want to add something else.

When I think back to when I just joined this site, I barely recognize myself in my early posts - I signed up here because I was feeling totally and completely overwhelmed at the thought of being a single parent. I had no idea what to do. Some of the first advice I received here was to simply follow my instincts, and to love my daughter.

In the little over three years I've been here, I've learned a lot - about parenting styles and about child development and psychology. I've tried a lot of things, discarded some and kept others. From what I've read here and elsewhere, and from my pre-existing interest in psychology, I've even formed (and changed) a few of my own opinions .

And then something happens that brings me straight back to the beginning, and I just realize - sometimes we get so caught up in the science and the research that we forget about the single most important thing a parent can do for a child - to love her, whole-heatedly, unconditionally, and unwaveringly. Just that - love. We can read as much as we want, we can spend our lives studying the science of psychology and childhood development, and we will still screw up. One - we are human. Two - the science is incomplete, and always will be. That is the nature of science - as parentastic said, scientists are continually learning, finding out more, refining our theories.

But the most important thing I have figured out is that it will all be ok in the end, as long as we remember love.

Perhaps, one day, my daughter will be sitting on a psychiatrist's couch, telling the good doctor about all the things I did wrong. And you know what? It would be ok, as long as her conversation includes the words - <I>at least he loved me - I never doubted that. He did his best. </I>

Does that mean I will stop reading and learning? Hell no. I wouldn't want to give her unnecessary things to tell that psychologist. But I think I'll stop beating myself up about every tiny little mistake. Parenting is not about getting everything right. It's about doing your best, and about love.

It's about giving yourself to your children, heart and soul, to the best of your abilities...

And that's about all I want to add today. Perhaps I'll rejoin the conversation later and discuss the science of it. I just wanted to remind everyone to never, ever forget the basics.

 

[bssage]

StJohn. Thats what I am finding. In my case its been acute. The theory sounds good today. But in practice later today its not really effective. Thats why I kinda paused to try and implement some of my new knowledge. Until I get the whole picture.

PSTC its kinda ironic that you spent so much time talking about the systemic value of parenting. If you look in my post about Chloe's latest IEP I mention in my notes in the agenda. That the University of MO is currently working on an emerging resource for Autism called Systemic Therapy. Yes its ABA based. But it also combines some of the softer more individualized ABA's like floor time or pivotal response. I personally am kinda excited about it. It requires training for everyone involved I.E parents, caregivers, teachers ect.. But I am going to be following its progress.

SD one of the things I think non-parents have a difficult time understanding is that even with the best of intentions, The most current knowledge at our disposal. Parents make blunders. I know mine did. I know I have. Sometimes we do have "to go with our gut" And if the kids end up in therapy because we made the go to school with mismatched socks one day: so be it. As long as "I know they loved me" is in that mix I am OK with that.

 

[Mom2all]

Since you started this with a question to me, I'll put in my 2 cents.
First.. let me say that I was not bashing your scientific community. I get that the research that is done is important in the over all scheme of things. I'm not taking away from that. And although I have taken a few psychology courses and found them interesting, I am not an expert and can not even begin to quote or dissect the things your talking about on here.

I refer back to the fact I have raised and am raising my own, was raised by my parents who raised me based off what Grandma and Grandpa's did before them. Schools and doctors have changed the way we do things through the years... everything dealing with children changes Dependant on some new study or loved ones so called expertise on the subject. Sometimes.. the advice is good and makes needed changes. Sometimes.. its bologna.

As a parent, its your job to look at and decide what works best for you and let go of the rest without worry. There is a good chance somewhere down the line it'll be proved false anyway.

I don't say that to start another argument with you. I'm not saying the work you or others do are completely ridiculous. BUT sometimes.. the findings can be wrong.

I agree with Single Dad and Bssage in that the love you have for your child and the effort to do your best is what counts. Following your heart does more than following a book of rules.

 

[stjohnjulie]

Ok, I've been thinking about this some more... I guess for me, it sometimes seems like I can learn different theories, techniques, etc. but when I try to apply many of them it's like playing a game when I am the only one who knows the rules. And I feel like it would be SO MUCH EASIER if everyone knew the rules! Does that make sense?

I have also found that if I just trust in myself, believe in my decisions, it makes things a lot easier. I have a therapist that tells me, "you need to stop worrying about the decisions others make. You cannot change these people. You will make the decision that is right for you when it is time." Much of my anxiety is because I think too far out in the future and basically imagine what is going to happen instead of making the decisions that need to be made for today. I'm working on it, but it isn't easy!

I am going to be putting some more thought into a game plan. I know what my issues are, the problems that we run into as a family, and I think having a set plan of how we can deal with them when they arise will help me make the decisions that I need to in a more timely fashion. parentastic, your outlined approach will help me, so thanks for sharing.

 

[cybele]

I don't think anyone is going to deny that science will always be changing and evolving, whether that be physical health, mental health, emotional health and so on. Always will change.

I refer back to the fact I have raised and am raising my own, was raised by my parents who raised me based off what Grandma and Grandpa's did before them. Schools and doctors have changed the way we do things through the years... everything dealing with children changes Dependant on some new study or loved ones so called expertise on the subject. Sometimes.. the advice is good and makes needed changes. Sometimes.. its bologna.

This, I think is a big part of it though. What I took from Mom2all's comment about the list always changing was simply that, it is always changing and sometimes you hear, not necessarily new "advice" rather new "criticisms" and have to just shake your head and leave it be.

What has caused me to notice it most (and I wonder if M2M and Shaun can shed any light on this too, because I assume that would have similar experiences) is having children with quite "spread apart" ages.

I can group my kids into three categories:
Mid-90's
Early 00's (technically Sunny was born towards the very end of the 90's, but I still class her here)
Late 00's

The advice I received from midwives, maternal health nurses, issues in parenting "groups" ect, varies greatly between the three. It's not just emotional wellbeing of the child, it's also their physical wellbeing (which is actually what the majority of that article I posted which intially triggered this was about, it was mostly about feeding).

Attitudes to breastfeeding was a big one, and yes, we all know the saying, "breast is best" however, like it or not, there are some women who have much difficulty. Fortunately we have formula and no longer have to rely on wetnurses. When I had to supplement Dita and Azriel with formula, because I wasn't producing enough breastmilk, the attitude was "Hey awesome, nutrition! Yay! Babies not being underweight!" with Sasha it was magic lactation cookies (which are bull, ate them, did nothing, don't change the fact that I am an adult woman who wears a training bra) and guilt. I really don't see how that is moving forward.

I can provide many examples. With Sunny and Lux a big one was saying "no" to ANYTHING, ever was bad. Just the existence of the word was enough to have the children in therapy their entire adult lives. To me, that was silly, but it was very much accepted in parenting circles at the time.

Very new one, which I read in the paper on Tuesday:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/obesity-a-threat-from-babys-first-bite/story-fncynkc6-1226529240228[/url]

Apparently rice cereal and fruit will make children fat (love that they also mentioned french fries in the article, but no, stay away from the fruit and rice :err: )

There was also one in the paper yesterday about report cards and why they don't count for anything and how teacher's opinions of your child's education was pretty worthless which I am not even going to bother looking for because I didn't make it the full way through the article because it was just nonsense.





So it becomes this matter of being bombarded with all this advice, and choosing firstly, what makes sense to you (as an example, if I found out I was pregnant right now, would I feed my child fruit and rice cereal as part of their first foods? Will I believe that article and assume that they will be fighting obesity related illness for their entire lives because of it, or will I look at my 5 children, who all ate mashed fruit and rice cereal and think "Well, they are all within the healthy weight range for their ages, so I think I'm doing something right with their diets") and secondly, what will work for you ("Yes, I understand that extended breastfeeding is wonderful, but my body cannot cope with that")

Same goes for mental health, there are things I read and go "Yeah, that makes sense" there are other things I read that make me laugh honestly. Picking and choosing.

And yes, the list is always changing, that's why many parents don't jump up with glee with every "new scientific breakthrough" .

 

[bssage]

And as a little piggy back on what cybele is saying.

If you look closely (sometimes you have to look very closely) you will find much of the New Information has backing from some vested third party. So while the information may seem relevant: and supporting materials may appear science based. The vested parties we know have ways of skewing the information in ways that point us toward where their interest lay.

 

[Mom2all]

My children were born form 1990-1997. In just that time frame things changed so drastically in every way. By the time my nephew and niece came along in the early 00's, I was practically giving advice that seemed liked it stemmed from the caveman days.

Some of the things that changed over the last 20 years that crosses my mind first...

My Mom and Grandma argued with me on the first 2 that I needed to rotate them from stomach, to side, to back when they were sleeping as new borns to "shape their head". I dutifully followed the pediatrician advice and bought "sids pillows' because studies showed they were less likely to die from SIDS if they slept on their sides. By 1998, studies show that sleeping on their side was dangerous and I was told my new born had to sleep on his back. I understand from my friend who had a baby this year.. we're back to the side again.

As infants.. the oldest were feed rice cereal to help them sleep better at night, by the youngest.. feeding him rice cereal could cause SIDS so don't do it... oh and it takes away needed nutrition that only the milk could bring.

When I breast feed my older kids, I covered up with a blanket or went to a bathroom out in public. By 1998, they had breast feeding rooms and ps by the way, covering their head or feeding them in a nasty bathroom was akin to child abuse.

Holding them spoils them. Not holding them causes insecurities.

Feed them on a schedule. Don't feed on a schedule.

Give them sugar free candy.. sugar free= cancer

The oldest.. expert advice was to use time out and be stern.
Now.. being stern, showing disappointment, using time-out is damaging to their self esteem.

Some of the things that as the time I bucked the system on that came back making me appear brilliant...

I was told by the school that by not making my child learn site words and teaching him instead to sound out words I was causing him to be behind the other children. He did struggle to pass in the early years at school but I refused to teach him to memorize 200 words and instead focused on teaching him to read any word. By middle school, (the end of 6th grade) he had read more books than any one in 6-8th. Now.. studies are showing the old way of teaching phonics may be the better path and I understand they are trying to transition back over.

Southern USA. We teach our children "manners" that include greeting almost everyone they know with a hug. I was actually told that my children weren't as loving as others because I had taught them it was their body... they could hug whomever they wanted. Nervous butterflies in the belly meant they could stand behind me and I'd stop said customary hug. I never wanted my children to feel uncomfortable with someone and be made to accept hugs. Now.. studies show us that its important to teach children about about bad feelings when adults touch them. In our area.. I was the pioneer... that everyone thought was raising unloving children.

In my area, we were the first to invite other races over so my children could learn all people are the same. This one caused, oh I can't tell you all, the animosity among the people in the area. I was teaching them lack of self respect.. people are equal but need to be separate you see. I can only say that at one point.. my family became divided when the oldest were just toddlers over my lack of ability to see things their way. Now.. my whole family is gathered together and excited to be helping my daughter in her planning of her wedding.. his family and ours... all gathered here like the ebony and ivory of a piano and no one seems to remember that we're not supposed to play the same song.


The list really could go on forever. Good meaning advice.. from family and professionals that regardless of the evidence they provide to the contrary.. as a parent you have to go with your heart and do what you think is best.

 

[parentastic]

Since you started this with a question to me, I'll put in my 2 cents.

And I welcome these!

First.. let me say that I was not bashing your scientific community.

It's okay, I didn't perceive that way either.
Simply, I felt there was a lack of subtleties, and either/or mentality where science was (it felt to me) rejected as a whole as being unreliable and useless for practical uses. I wanted to nuance this.

... everything dealing with children changes Dependant on some new study or loved ones so called expertise on the subject. Sometimes.. the advice is good and makes needed changes. Sometimes.. its bologna.

Yes. I'd like to make a critical distinction here, however.
What's out there on newspapers and medias; what's spread by loved ones "expertise" and so on, it's not really science.

What happens, often, is that someone somewhere publishes a study on one tiny specific aspect of human science, in our case, some tiny specific aspect about children development. It can be an interesting statistical observation (like how children regularly spanked seem to have loss an average 5IQ points compared to a control group, or so many others found every day in the news papers).

However, the author of the study rarely claim that, therefore, children should be raised in THIS or THAT way. They rarely claim an all-encompassing rule about what should or should not be done.
What happens... is that the medias and the journalist, who after all are trying to sell a paper, THEY are the one who push it one notch further and do this last huge step, falling into binary thinking.

Note that I am not saying no professional do this; some do too. It's what I was trying to convey when I was explaining the dogmatic vs systemic approach. But most good professional never rely on any single study. Studies aren't supposed to drive the wind and pull the boat in a direction. Otherwise, of course, you keep moving in circle since each and every article will take a different approach and comes from a biased school of thought! It's only through the <I>synthesis</I> of the body of research in human science and child development, <I>over several decades</I>, that a consensus <I>emerges</I> about what's generally helpful or harmful.

99% of the examples on this thread, for instance, are all anecdotal stories based on newspaper articles, which were written about studies often taken out of context, which themselves where possibly studied from a tiny aspect without any larger conclusion.

As a parent, its your job to look at and decide what works best for you and let go of the rest without worry.

That part of your sentence, I agree with whole heatedly...

...There is a good chance somewhere down the line it'll be proved false anyway.

...and that part, I disagree totally. If you based yourself on the idea that "why should I care about science, it will all be proven false at some point anyway", you miss the whole idea of the rich and powerful and deeply useful knowledge that exist today about children development.

It's like there is huge really useful and rich diamond, but you can only use it if you are patient enough to recognize it for what it is and polish it first. Otherwise, it's just carbon.
I can't even begin to tell you how deeply useful child developmental psychology is, unless you see for yourself: from helping professional find patterns and negative dynamics and help parents in their day to day parenting job, all the way to help arrange serious traumatic events in a child past, from helping children learn better, to helping them get motivated, to helping them become flourishing adults; the help it can provide is huge. As huge as its potential for misuse when it is followed dogmatically or when it attempts to substitute against a parent's natural instincts, which are usually (but not always) quite good, IF the parent has been raised in a fully healthy and secure way themselves....

I don't say that to start another argument with you. I'm not saying the work you or others do are completely ridiculous. BUT sometimes.. the findings can be wrong.

Sometimes, they can be wrong.
99% of the time, they aren't wrong: they are, however, wrongly interpreted or used in the wrong context.

I agree with Single Dad and Bssage in that the love you have for your child and the effort to do your best is what counts. Following your heart does more than following a book of rules.

As a general rule, yes, I agree with all of you on this.
But I have met parents who are abusing or neglecting their children and they are absolutely convinced, 100% certain that they are following their heart and that they are loving their children and are doing what they do for their own good. So that argument can go both ways...

Bottom line: it's not about following a book of rules.
It's about understanding the principles <U>under</U> these books (assuming they are good ones, that's another related topic!), and then choosing a set of principles that are coherent and solidly backed, and taking a purposeful stance in your day to day parenting.

 

[cybele]

I was told by the school that by not making my child learn site words and teaching him instead to sound out words I was causing him to be behind the other children.

Wait, sounding out words is bad now?

*throws hands in the air and walks off*

 

[parentastic]

I dutifully followed the pediatrician advice and bought "sids pillows' because studies showed they were less likely to die from SIDS if they slept on their sides. By 1998, studies show that sleeping on their side was dangerous and I was told my new born had to sleep on his back. I understand from my friend who had a baby this year.. we're back to the side again.

In the area of SIDS, the reason it's going back and forth is that, as off my knowledge (I could be wrong!) the scientific community has really NO fraking idea what cause SIDS. SIDS means "Sudden Infant Death Syndrom", which is a fancy name to say "We have no idea why it's happening so we are giving it a generic name that means nothing".
As research is still going on about this, each and every answer you get is a tiny piece of an incomplete puzzle. In my courses I had learned that they think it's mostly related to sleep smothering because of pillows or co-sleeping, since the breath is shallow and they don't have the strength to move around much in their sleep when they are so little. But again, that's not really proven, to my knowledge.

As infants.. the oldest were feed rice cereal to help them sleep better at night, by the youngest.. feeding him rice cereal could cause SIDS so don't do it... oh and it takes away needed nutrition that only the milk could bring.

First time I hear SIDS could be associated with nutrition.
As for breast milk vs formula, the <I>consensus</I> is that both are useful, depending on context. This being said, my field of experience is with parents, not with babies. So I might be completely off.

When I breast feed my older kids, I covered up with a blanket or went to a bathroom out in public. By 1998, they had breast feeding rooms and ps by the way, covering their head or feeding them in a nasty bathroom was akin to child abuse.

I think the idea here is more that the men and the institution who are trying to force you to cover up your child with a blanket or have the child eat his dinner in a toilet are the one who are acting like abusers. It's a natural and beautiful thing, why should it be seen as a taboo or anything shameful? This, however, is a discussion that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics and society...

Holding them spoils them.

A concept that was launched onto the medias several decades ago by people with absolutely NO credible background and backed by absolutely no fact or no science, and which stuck into our society.
As an educator I am constantly fighting this ridiculous notion. A fruit can spoil. A child is not a fruit. You cannot spoil a child by holding them! Which does not mean, of course, that they shouldn't eventually learn to walk...

Not holding them causes insecurities.

It's actually proven that mammals who are not held DIE, even if they are fed. Several well known experiment have shown the deep importance of the physical bond between child and caregiver. Insecurities is only part of it. That one is solidly documented and the consensus is very clear within the professional community, but old ideas die hard.
I think there is also a counter-logic idea here in appearance, because people often think that to help a child become independent you have to train them to be alone. And it's all wrong, it's actually the contrary: a secure child will naturally want to explore the world and become independent; the clingy children are the one who are not fully secured.

Feed them on a schedule. Don't feed on a schedule.

Can't say for that one. Although the principles of attachment would tell you that the human body is wonderful and that there is no-one better than the infant to know when she is hungry, so you should respond to her needs on her own schedule, to meet her needs in security. Of course, this is in context of the parent's own limitations and challenges, whenever possible.

Give them sugar free candy.. sugar free= cancer

There is no doubt that refined sugar is bad for health.
The big food industries know this and they came up with artificial sugar as a replacement. There are not many studies on these, as the industry isn't very interested to fund them - so who knows if the stuff isn't worst than natural refined sugar? (I am no nutritionist though, so maybe this has been proved? I don't know).
In doubt, I'd go with natural sugar, and reasonable quantities, IMO...

The oldest.. expert advice was to use time out and be stern.

Actually, older than that was that "being stern" meant to beat the shit of them using whips and belts etc. Which was absolutely NOT scientific. It really was just a way of controlling through fear and power.
Timeout was the latest "alternative" from behaviorist to continue trying to change children's behavior (without even wondering about their deeper issues) while not hitting. It's using psychological manipulation instead of physical threats, but it's just the same thing.

What's striking (no pun intended), again, is the simplistic "advice". Be stern and use time out?!? What expert will ever advice that? No context? No questions? No inquiery as to what's going on with the child?

My point is: the scientific community may have found that, for instance, the use of timeout tend to have as much compliance on short term and tend to have better results (read: less measurable negative effects) than spanking. It's the media and the society that steal these studies and then come up with those huge generalizing advices such as "Be stern and use timeout!".

Now.. being stern, showing disappointment, using time-out is damaging to their self esteem.

Or rather, it has always been damaging to self esteem, only other studies over a decade or two has constructed a solid consensus about how important self-esteem is to a child's development.
This being said - AGAIN! the studies may show how important self-esteem is, or how the use of time out or punishment without addressing the deeper issue is related to several negative effects. But the so called "advice" not to use or to use them, that's not the same... especially when a suitable alternative is not provided.

Some of the things that as the time I bucked the system on that came back making me appear brilliant...

But you are brilliant No surprise there!

Southern USA. We teach our children "manners" that include greeting almost everyone they know with a hug.

...which stems from the idea that children are inferior beings who must be all quiet and well mannered and submit to adults. Which is not a scientific idea, but a society-based idea. No proof whatsoever.
Only with the work of Carl Rogers and his school of thought are we starting to see new idea emerges about self-respect and boundaries and mutual respect with children.

I was actually told that my children weren't as loving as others because I had taught them it was their body... they could hug whomever they wanted. Nervous butterflies in the belly meant they could stand behind me and I'd stop said customary hug. I never wanted my children to feel uncomfortable with someone and be made to accept hugs.

Yeah, but who told you that? A child care professional? Doubtful... (although their are bad ones everywhere! People are after all, a product of their time). I'd like to see a study that pretends to measure "love" by looking at hugging habits...

Now.. studies show us that its important to teach children about about bad feelings when adults touch them. In our area.. I was the pioneer... that everyone thought was raising unloving children.

That would be more social studies, rather than studies on the child development, but yes. And yes, you were brilliant Or, you listened to your instinct, and decided children shouldn't have to do what we know in our gut would not be okay for adults to do (like being forced to hug everyone).

In my area, we were the first to invite other races over so my children could learn all people are the same.

Cybele, we may not always agree on everything, but you have all my respect for this and I mean it when I say you are a person right by my heart.

This one caused, oh I can't tell you all, the animosity among the people in the area. I was teaching them lack of self respect..

I can imagine the reaction in your area about this...
But again, this is not scientific.
A key here is to make the difference between "expert" advice (which can still be wrong, mind you, but are based on science) and popular or social advices, which are based on culture, habits, taboos and other pressure...

 

[Mom2all]

I agree with you on so many things. I also agree that what we hear and what is truth is sometimes misconstrued. Unless your in the field thats studying it.. normal everyday parents only know what they read in articles or in books written based off those studies. And like you pointed out, sometimes those articles are written based on someones opinion of a study. AND everyone out there writing them professes to be an expert. SO read it... gather what you will.. and go with your gut.

About the punishment.. I should have made clear that by oldest.. I meant when my oldest were born. Time out was the "new" thing. I heard on a daily basis that my decision to use it was wrong.. "spare the rod, spoil the child" is a pretty big thing in the bible belt.

I also decided that I couldn't spoil mine. I held them enough that they really did want to get down. I rocked them all to sleep because I wanted too. I loved holding them. So.. I ignored the advice. And as it would turn out, none of my children were ever "cry babies". My Grandma tells me its because they were in my arms 24/7 so we'll never know if they would have had a reason to cry. I call it hogwash though because by 5 or 6 months when they woke up, they'd play for up to an hour in their crib. It never occurred to them they needed to cry for my attention because they'd learned I was coming for them without it. So.. here is my expert opinion.. you CANNOT SPOIL A CHILD WITH LOVE.

I also don't believe there is a cookie cutter way to raise all children. The human mind is not something that can be just one way. The heart and soul of a person is not so cut and dry that it fits into a group that works for everyone. What works for one child may not work for another. You have to adapt to that child. They all learn differently.


Yes Cybele.. they changed learning to read by teaching them to memorize 200 words a year. Now.. My oldest daughter learned the old way and was reading Dr Zeus books alone at 4. So when the youngest got to school and I was told he couldn't read.. I was shocked. I get there for our first conference and show them he could read 75% of the words on the whole list of 200 words, (the other kids had only learned the first few sets of words) they told me that he him sounding them out would never do.. he had to know them like flash cards.. 2 seconds to guess them or it was a fail. He "failed" for several years and I'd fight them to make them pass him at the end of the year. Now.. he's ahead of his entire school for reading. He's been out of "grade level" books for years and actually.. he's reading all of mine and his older sister's collections now.

Another instance of professional advice getting me no where was with my son. The oldest had asthma. The doctors kept putting him on steroids and prescribing daily medications to no avail. We were still making 10 hospital trips a year and staying for a week a time several times a year. I researched on my own. ( Asthma research center nurse in Georgia gets a lot of credit here) Half of the things they prescribed I threw in the garbage. Instead..we got rid of our carpet, blinds, fuzzy blankets, stuffed animals, perfume, certain foods, plants... and I started giving him alternative things.. like honey and lemon instead of a cough suppressant. Or a cup of coffee instead of a puff off the inhaler first. His trips to the hospital dropped to a few a year and no over nights that first year. Then I had his tonsils removed. He's not been to the doctor for breathing since. His pediatrician at first was blasting me... but 6 months into taking a stand against the traditional treatment.. he started working with me.

I told you all of that to say this.. sometimes.. a mother knows what books do not. Sometimes the professionals have to see whats working from someone who loves their child enough to buck their system.

 

[bssage]

I agree with most of what everyone has been saying. I want to add this little story.

At one point in my young working life and had a direct supervisor that was a complete moron (we all had this boss). I was talking with my dad about problem. I almost could not tolerate listening to the man and was having a difficult time doing my job without giving him an earful. My dad said this to me: "Even the biggest dumbass in the world can cough up some nugget of wisdom from time to time" I took that advice to heart and made it my own. I tell new co workers that while I may not always agree. I will always listen. This attitude has paid countless dividends over the years. And its effects on me are profound when dealing with the "Autism Experts" It completely changed my view from watching their lips move while I mentally repeat the words "dumbass, dumbass, dumbass" to a mental scavenger hunt for that nugget of wisdom that I know is buried within their babbling.

 

[Jerseyknox]

The advantage of natural bodybuilding could be a slower however steadier increase in muscle mass instead of the peaks and lows of these on steroids.

I am sure many of you have seen or heard of the effects on a bodybuilder who stops using steroids - Rapid loss of muscle bulk and strength. The effects of steroids are fairly short-lived and can result in some dramatic changes to both physique and health of a bodybuilder.

https://jbhnews.com/supplements-to-get-ripped-beginners-guide/23676/