Respect for the Aged

[Aggie]

Uniform...o.k., but rather in the sense of that we then all would possess more wisdom and so, needless suffering (due to gaining wisdom the hard way) would be minimized.

One thing I'm very concerned with is systemic suffering as opposed to individual suffering.  Yes, there are many ways a young person can fall into a life of pain, but many of these ways, and indeed most of the suffering that occurs across entire regions, nations, continents, the globe, is far beyond the scope of the individual who is suffering.  Listening to wisdom may keep an American teen from becoming addicted to heroin, but what can it do for a mother who has seen three of her children die of cholera because no clean water is available (hey - pick a country, there's plenty!)?

It also seems to me that most of the people with the money, power and influence to start making a difference in the 'big picture' suffering are QUITE content with their lives, but don't necessarily care about what is happening, In some cases, the people in power only got to and stay in power by actively promoting violence and poverty (pick a dictator...). 

On a less dramatic scale, it is often the youth that hold the ideals and the passion to actually want to change things...  from my observations and my own experience, in developed nations, with age one becomes increasingly interested in maintaining the status quo to achieve and protect the means to be content.  Contentment may be achieved by the mind, but if one doesn't have the means to give the body food, shelter and necessary medical care, the mind has a pretty tough time achieving contentment!

Good point! How about we learn/  model from parents, who do it right? The problem is also that now parents have limited powers to make their children obey their advice/ orders, yet, children need to be told what to do.
Thus, the only way to solve this dilemma would be establishing official parental guidelines and if it fails to work, the government should take over the responsibility, by reforming these difficult children in special camps (as seen on TV).

Setting guidelines solves nothing, because guidelines are never enforceable.  If guidelines work, then why do we still have physical abuse (and worse) of children?  The horrible things done to children by abusive parents (and gotten away with, even when cases have been brought to the attention of social services) also serve as evidence that there really is nothing limiting reasonable discipline of children, despite popular perception and anecdotal evidence.   

As Kanaloa points out, there is much more to be gained to teaching (especially older) children why they should or should not behave in certain ways, reaffirming to your child that you believe in their capacity to act rationally, than to simply ORDER them to behave because YOU know BETTER.  There are so many things a teenager will know how to do (esp. wrt technology) that a parent doesn't, that if your authority is based on supposed omniscience, it's on a very fragile string indeed. 

Discipline should be used to demonstrate that negative behaviours have consequences, not strictly that going against parental will brings punishment.  The first will still be relevant when the young person is away from parental authority, the second will just teach them to be sneaky.

[jjj]

As Kanaloa points out, there is much more to be gained to teaching (especially older) children why they should or should not behave in certain ways, reaffirming to your child that you believe in their capacity to act rationally, than to simply ORDER them to behave because YOU know BETTER.  There are so many things a teenager will know how to do (esp. wrt technology) that a parent doesn't, that if your authority is based on supposed omniscience, it's on a very fragile string indeed.

Discipline should be used to demonstrate that negative behaviours have consequences, not strictly that going against parental will brings punishment.  The first will still be relevant when the young person is away from parental authority, the second will just teach them to be sneaky.

Yes, these are the very type of guidelines (I meant) which should be introduced... because something has to be done to progress our society towards a better society!

[Aggie]

If you'd care to read the paragraph directly above the one you've quoted, you'll see my assertion that I don't believe guidelines would help.  Parental education programs might help, for the parents who want to do best for their children, but aren't sure how; however, the sad reality is that in many cases, people find themselves becoming parents without any desire do be so, and really don't care about their children, and there's no way this situation will be resolved with education. 

So what do we do?  Issue breeding licences, with lifetime sentences for breeding without a licence?  Mandatory sterilization of bad parents?


Regarding camps to reform difficult children...  we have these already, generally referred to as juvenile detention centres, for youth involved in criminal activity.  If we go beyond simple criminal activity to such horrible behaviour such as disrespect to parents, bad attitude and socially unacceptable dress, I'm afraid we'd have to lock up the entire adolescent population!  Nearly all teenagers, even 'GOOD' ones, go through tremendous emotional turmoil at times, and they do act out on occasion.  I find this line of thinking distasteful.


 
I'm having trouble rationalizing the major disconnect you show between promoting the contentment of the individual (which seems to emphasize emotional stability above societal approval) and promoting the progression of society (including using emotionally crippling methods to bring individuals in line with societal approval). 

I do not personally believe that EITHER objective can be achieved by providing uniform guidance to all individuals, and I strongly believe that heavy enforcement of guidelines would produce the exact opposite... emotional damage to the individual and increased societal chaos due to this damage (i.e. terrorist act, domestic violence, increased substance abuse). 

[Opsa]

I think you're right there, Aggie.

The basic problem with most psychological studies is that they tend to assume things about people as groups instead of treating people as individuals. If a person is doing this, he may only see "Teenager" and not "Troubled Teenager", "Troubled teenaged girl", "Troubled and abused teenege girl" or "Troubled and abused pregnant teenaged girl who wants to do better for her unborn child".

Each person is an individual, and we do not react to everything the same way. What worked for Grandpa may not work for me, and if he thinks it ought to, he's ignoring that I'm a different person and it is a different time. I appreciate his advice, but he should not assume his way is the magic key that will transform my life. There are too many variables.

[Alpaca]

jjj, if I understand your posts correctly, you appear to think that children ought to obey their parents, as a rule.

I strongly disagree.

First, define "children." When does childhood end, in your opinion? Was I no longer a child when I entered puberty? What about when I turned sixteen and could drive? Or will I no longer be a child when I turn eighteen? 21? People change and develop throughout their lives. I agree that very young people need very much guidance, and that sometimes the guidance needs to be instilled forcefully - experience is not a good way to learn not to play in traffic.

But now I'm sixteen years old. According to the government, I'm still a child. Should I be obeying my parents unconditionally and without question? Let's say that I'm no longer a child when I turn eighteen. What "clicks" within me between October 8th and October 9th 2008 that suddenly makes me capable of independence that I ought not have had before?

Putting that line of reasoning aside, I simply disagree in principle to unconditional obedience. (Call me a rebellious teenager, if you will.) I have no psychological studies at my side, but I believe that independence is key to successful development. Relative to most people in my grade at school, I am a relatively subservient son. I always tell my parents where I'm going, what I'm doing, I call if plans change, afterwards I tell them what I've done, how it was, I discuss if they disapprove instead of storming off melodramatically, and if they say "no," I accept their judgment although I may disagree.

I am allowed less freedom than most of my peers and often find myself less deft than them when I have to deal with a new situation.

Because I have not fought for independence, I have less, and when I move away to college in about one year, I will have more learning to do than my peers, and will be at a disadvantage.

Rebellion leads to development, in my opinion, is natural, and is good. I don't think I belong in a camp for that.

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

Thus, the only way to solve this dilemma would be establishing official parental guidelines and if they fail to work, the government should take over the responsibility, by reforming these difficult children in special camps (as seen on TV).

There are no "official parental guidelines". Every person is different, which means that every child is different. What I want to say is, every child needs a different approach. That's why, no official guidelines should be there, to tell parents what to do. Especially, if you don't want a "uniform" society (as you've put it), because if you tell the people how to raise their children, isn't that what can bring to a "uniform society"...

"Reforming difficult children in special camps"? I'm sorry that's just too much for me. Why not fill them up with pills to calm them down, lock them up and raise only the "good" kids, nobody will notice. How woudl we determine what a difficult child is? The child that has been stealing candy? Every child does that... Just because a child is not good with authority of its parents (which is the majority of kids, as far as I know), why lock the up in special camps. That won't help. It will just make them hate their parents (for locking them up), hate the government, hate the world...

In my opinion, if the child doesn't listen, let it learn the hard way (unless it gets too dangerous, like suggested above, playing in the traffic). I've been told a hundred times not to come close to the oven, when my mother was baking. I didn't listen. I burned myself a little, and never went close to the oven when my mother was doing something there. A combination of education and personal experience is needes in the education of a child.

[Aggie]

In my opinion, if the child doesn't listen, let it learn the hard way (unless it gets too dangerous, like suggested above, playing in the traffic). I've been told a hundred times not to come close to the oven, when my mother was baking. I didn't listen. I burned myself a little, and never went close to the oven when my mother was doing something there. A combination of education and personal experience is needes in the education of a child.

Heh, one of my opinions on child discipline is that the one time that appropriate physical punishment is to be used is when the consequences of misbehaving are physical.  A slapped hand beats a burn from touching a hot stove, and a smacked bottom is better than being run over by a car.  Incidentally, I don't think I was ever given more than three quick smacks on the bottom from my mom (when very little, and the shock hurt more than the pain), and my dad NEVER actually hit me...  a raised hand was enough!

I don't support physical punishment for 'annoying' behaviour, or simple disobedience. 

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

Heh, one of my opinions on child discipline is that the one time that appropriate physical punishment is to be used is when the consequences of misbehaving are physical.  A slapped hand beats a burn from touching a hot stove, and a smacked bottom is better than being run over by a car.  Incidentally, I don't think I was ever given more than three quick smacks on the bottom from my mom (when very little, and the shock hurt more than the pain), and my dad NEVER actually hit me...  a raised hand was enough!

I don't support physical punishment for 'annoying' behaviour, or simple disobedience.

Physical punishment is good on some occasions. I've been beaten like an animal when I was a child (a little exagerating, and my mother says that she hasn't been beating me enough anyway...), but that never kept me away from the hot stove... It was just too appealing...

I think a good smacking is necessary from time to time. I don't think a good beating should be considered as bad parenting (as it is by many people...).

[The Meromorph]

When I was raising my own kids, apart from early on disatrous consequences for biting people (bottom swatting and displayed outrage), and absolute refusal for any attempt to play off one parent against the other (we talk), we pretty much never forbade anything. There were two notable exceptions, one when my eldest (and his friends) rented a snuff video, I said "Absolutely not!' and they unprotestingly took it nback (and didn't get their money back. They didn't complain...
Another time my youngest and his girlfriend bought expensive tickets for a rap-concert. When I heard about it, (the Rappers were well known for violence at there concerts and it was open seating [another recipe for violence]) I again forbade it, and explained why. They, too, uncomplainingly didn't go (they did sell the tickets).
My point is that, because I didn't forbid much (I did offer advice on probable consequences a few times, and let them make their own decisions), when I did, they took it as "Oh! Tthis must be real, not just old fart complaining stuff..."

[Griffin]

There is so much in life that can only be learnt through direct personal experience. Many things I was told "for my own good" when young I simply didn't believe or didn't have the experience to actually take on board the issues. Guidelines have to make sense and they can't if there's not enough understanding to back them up. Like Kiyo's example, every child has to learn what hot actually is and they are only going to find out by experiencing hot.

I'm still learning from experience and I expect to go on doing so. I'll listen to what other people say, but then I'll make my own mind up and I may use a variety of ways of achieving that. This was as true of me as a child as it is today. I don't think young people and children are any different to adults in this respect.

[jjj]

Each person is an individual, and we do not react to everything the same way. What worked for Grandpa may not work for me.

Every individual inherited divers 'true needs' and thus, I agree to that context, yet that doesn't mean the pattern of personal development is not transferable.

...you appear to think that children ought to obey their parents, as a rule. I strongly disagree.

Yes, young children should indeed obey the advice of their parents, for it is the duty of parents to guide and protect their kids. Thus, I strongly disagree to the contrary alternatives.

People change and develop throughout their lives.

Yes, they do for as long as they still are unable to come to terms with their legacy. I had that problem, too! Yet, once they discovered, developed and fulfill their true needs things turn amazingly stable.

I simply disagree in principle to unconditional obedience.

Me too! Ideally, every parental advice should be accompanied with detailed explanations, yet in most situations there's neither time nor opportunity for both for it. Young people simply lack vital insight to understand why their parents chose to guide them in this way. With increasing age teenagers learn to trust/ distrust parental advice. It's a horrible time for both!!  The only alternative for rebellious teenagers  is to  earn this insight the hard way, by suffering negative consequences of their illogical actions. End of problem!

I believe that independence is key to successful development.

Independence under supervision/ guidance (i.e. some elder helping you to verify your reasoning) helps you to achieve far more; easier!  That's why I enjoyed supervision of 'big gun OPA' (grandpa) when I was young. I told him my plan and he only objected when my reasoning went 'bananas'... That way I learned to help myself.

There are no "official parental guidelines". 

Well, call it a 'new concept, designed to improve flaws in child upbringing. The very problems indicate that something needs to be done to remedy them or we just continue suffering the same problems over and over.

A combination of education and personal experience is needs in the education of a child.

See... that's a  'new guidelines' or 'concept' I'm on about! Indeed personal development is a mix of acquiring insight the easy (guided) or hard (self-taught) way. It's unwise to settle for less.

[Alpaca]

i accept your principle: young children ought to obey their parents because parents can correctly guide those children.

Perhaps the issues I raised in my previous post would be resolved if you would answer these two questions for me:

1. When is a person no longer a "young child?"

2. Are you not assuming that, if the parents are to be obeyed because they are right, they actually have to always be right?

[Bruder Cuzzen]

The parents that I have seen with the best behaved children are the ones who are more moderate.

Good point! How about we learn/  model from parents, who do it right? The problem is also that now parents have limited powers to make their children obey their advice/ orders, yet, children need to be told what to do.
Thus, the only way to solve this dilemma would be establishing official parental guidelines and if they fail to work, the government should take over the responsibility, by reforming these difficult children in special camps (as seen on TV).

The mention of "special camps" sends shivers up many a spine , if not operated infallibly children could be worse off . I imagine legendary type "boys towns" do exist but are likely few and far between .

I don't know of any offhand , i imagine the most successful would have  complete family involvement ( can't say why , just sounds right) .

I don't know all the reasons kids turn out the way they do , so many factors to consider , I think to children... it is best to be their guardian provider , educator , nurturing and loving...when they get to their teens... be their best friend .

[jjj]

1. When is a person no longer a "young child?"

Since growing up and personal development is a continues process, there are no clear cuts/ barriers. With increasing child's age and maturity both parties (child & parents) have to adjust their accordingly. The object is to instill practice in reasoning.

2. Are you not assuming that, if the parents are to be obeyed because they are right, they actually have to always be right?

Not necessarily. Some parents parents are to young or inexperienced to offer proper guidance to their offspring and teenager are going to notice it. Even wise parents aren't infallible, yet desperately trying to do their best to advice and protect their kids.

The mention of "special camps" sends shivers up many a spine...

Yes, I know what you mean, but  no... I didn't have concentration camps in mind?   
Only this week I saw (here in Australia) a documentary of such a camp in USA, where difficult youngsters are rehabilitated. Both, the kids and parents were very happy with the outcome. It a farm, where the kids learn to interact and carry out responsible chores. The one's failing to obey are send to a stone circle, where they have to stay isolated for some time etc. After some time they meet their parents and speak out etc. Quite an interesting, commendable concept.

[ivor]

Yes, I know what you mean, but  no... I didn't have concentration camps in mind?   

Is that a little Freudian slip there, the question mark I mean?

The tone of your discussion disturbs me.  It just would not surprise me if you started touting Lebensborn and Eugenics.  I wouldn't let the government walk my dog and I sure don't think they should be involved with children at any level.