posted
Perhaps it would be helpful if we first define our terms.
From wiki:
"Brainwashing (also known as thought reform or as re-education) consists of any effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person — sometimes unwelcome beliefs in conflict with the person's prior beliefs and knowledge."
From phinnweb:
"Below is a list of the usual brainwashing/mind control techniques used in schools, hospitals, army, religious cults, totalitarian states; with political prisoners and dissidents, mentally insane, some versions of psychoterapy, etc., etc. "Indoctrination" is a more slight and more subliminal form of brainwashing (e.g. commercials). However, these concepts are nothing short of controversial and open to various interpretations.
1) HYPNOSIS - Inducing a high state of suggestibility, often thinly disguised as relaxation or meditation.
a. Repetitive Music (most likely with a beat close to the human heart 45 to 72 beats per minute). Most likely used during "study sessions" as the teacher will say the music helps you relax and concentrate better!
b. Voice Roll -- A "voice roll" is a patterned, paced style used by hypnotists when inducing a trance. It is also used by many lawyers, several of whom are highly trained hypnotists, when they desire to entrench a point firmly in the minds of the jurors. A voice roll can sound as if the speaker were talking to the beat of a metronome or it may sound as though he were emphasizing every word in a monotonous, patterned style. The words will usually be delivered at the rate of 45 to 60 beats per minute, maximizing the hypnotic effect.
c. Room "Feel" - The way a room feels is essential to hypnotizing unknowing subjects. It needs special lighting, florescent lights are best because they aren't too dim, but aren't too harsh. Also, Room Temp helps a bit, usually a little cooler than normal room temperature. You need to have the unknowing subjects very relaxed, perhaps even close to falling asleep.
2) PEER GROUP PRESSURE - Suppressing doubt and resistance to new ideas by exploiting the need to belong.
3) "LOVE BOMBING" - Creating a sense of family through physical touch, thought & feeling sharing and emotional bonding.
4) REJECTION OF OLD VALUES - Accelerating acceptance of new lifestyle by constantly denouncing former beliefs and values.
5) CONFUSING DOCTRINE - Encouraging blind acceptance and rejection of logic through complex lectures on an incomprehensible doctrine.
6) METACOMMUNICATION - Implanting subliminal messages by stressing certain key words or phrases in long, confusing lectures.
7) REMOVAL OF PRIVACY - Achieving loss of ability to evaluate logically by preventing private contemplation.
8) DISINHIBITION - Encouraging child-like obedience by orchestrating child-like behaviour
9) UNCOMPROMISING RULES - Inducing regression and disorientation by soliciting agreement to seemingly simple rules which regulate mealtimes, bathroom breaks and use of medications.
10) VERBAL ABUSE - Desensitizing through bombardment with foul and abusive language. (Physical abuse, such as torture, is the more extreme form of this.)
11) SLEEP DEPRIVATION AND FATIGUE - Creating disorientation and vulnerability by prolonging mental an physical activity and withholding adequate rest and sleep.
12) DRESS CODES - Removing individuality by demanding conformity to the group dress code.
13) CHANTING OR SINGING - Eliminating non-cult ideas through group repetition of mind-narrowing chants or phrases.
14) CONFESSION - Encouraging the destruction of individual ego through confession of personal weaknesses and innermost feelings of doubt.
15) FINANCIAL COMMITMENT - Achieving increased dependence on the group by 'burning bridges' to the past, through the donation of assets.
16) FINGER POINTING - Creating a false sense of righteousness by pointing to the shortcomings of the outside world.
17) ISOLATION - Inducing loss of reality by physical separation from family, friends, society and rational references.
18) CONTROLLED APPROVAL - Maintaining vulnerability and confusion by alternately rewarding and punishing similar actions.
19) CHANGE OF DIET - Creating disorientation and increased susceptibility to emotional arousal by depriving the nervous system of necessary nutrients through the use of special diets and/or fasting. Also applying drugs for these purposes fall in this category.
20) GAMES - Inducing dependence on the group by introducing games with obscure rules.
21) NO QUESTIONS - Accomplishing automatic acceptance of beliefs by discouraging questions.
22) GUILT - Reinforcing the need for 'salvation' by exaggerating the sins of the former lifestyles.
23) FEAR - Maintaining loyalty and obedience to the group by threatening soul, life or limb for the slightest 'negative' thought, word or deed.
Three Principles of Re-Education
1) REPETITION - Going through the same subject over and over again until it is known by heart.
2) ACTIVITY PEDAGOGICS - The subjects are never left alone nor give any private time of their own, they are always in activity.
3) CRITICISM AND SELF-CRITICISM - The subjects are supposed to feel uncertain; under the constant threat of being humiliated and despised."
I believe that the number one responsibility of a parent is to make sure one’s children survive to adulthood. A close second is the parent’s responsibility to prepare the child for adulthood (i.e., being able to take care of one’s self, and think for one’s self, so that one is not as vulnerable to those who would want to mislead and take advantage of you). These two responsibilities – protection and the nurturing of independence – do not have to be mutually exclusive, but sometimes they come in conflict. I think when children are young there will be a lot more direct intervention and shaping by the parent. Little children, if not given sufficient instruction and guidance are likely to behave in ways that could get them maimed or killed. As they grow, the parent can give the child more and more choices and foster expression of their individuality. The tough part of parenting is learning how to strike that balance and keep parenting age appropriate.
So, how do we avoid brainwashing our children? I have taken the list of brainwashing techniques and have made a new list of how to avoid brainwashing your children.
1) Discourage the passive acceptance of whatever messages the child is taught by teaching the child about how presentation methods manipulate the emotions and affect the likelihood of being receptive to the message. Commercials are a great teaching opportunity. You can discuss the role of the music, the announcer’s voice, the pleasing graphics, etc, plays in making the product more appealing and creating associations with pleasant feelings.
2) Reassure the child that they are still loved and belong even when they express doubt and resistance.
3) One must learn to foster independence by gradually cutting the apron strings and stopping the “hand holding”. Release the child so that they can learn to swim in the deep and ride their bike without your balancing it.
4) Encourage the objective evaluation by helping the child identify the good and bad of both sides on an issue or decision.
5) Encourage the use of logic by praising critical thinking.
6) Help child to identify both the direct message being conveyed by a speaker as well as any meta-messages also being conveyed. One might ask the child what the political ad said and then what other messages were being conveyed by what was left unsaid.
7) Encourage private contemplation. Set aside a little time each day, free of distractions, in which the child can reflect on the events of the day and what might he or she learn from them.
8) Teach child to be cautious of circumstances that decrease one’s ability to inhibit behavior, especially when there are others who might take advantage of us in that state.
9) Encourage child to question and challenge rules including your own. If you can’t defend your rules, then maybe they should not be rules. Child needs to be old enough to understand the advantage of social order in the classroom and the consequences of breaking laws.
10) Encourage the child not to tolerate verbal or physical abuse. Child needs to learn appropriate ways to stand up for her or himself and how to report abuses.
11) Help child understand the importance of getting enough sleep and exercise in helping maintain mental alertness and in decreasing vulnerability to suggestion.
12) Encourage individuality and also the value of striking a balance with conformity.
13) Encourage exposure to lots of different literature, philosophies, and religious ideas.
14) Help child develop personal boundaries and understand that it is best not to share their inner most feelings or weaknesses with people they hardly know.
15) Encourage financial independence, and a healthy skepticism of anyone wanting their money or trying to place them in a position in which they will be dependent on another.
16) Discourage judgmental attitudes.
17) Teach child to beware of those who would attempt to separate them from their support systems.
18) Help child learn to identify manipulation attempts, especially peer groups that withhold praise except for acts of conformity or obedience.
19) Teach child about how important nutrition is in helping keep one’s mind alert. Beware of drugs that loosen one’s control over one’s self.
20) Encourage child to really consider a situation before obeying.
21) Encourage child to question everything, especially authority.
22) Encourage child to be on the lookout for guilt-trips.
23) Teach child to beware of anyone who tries to instill fear in them.
A) When in a situation where repetition is unavoidable, encourage child to actively critique the message that is repeated.
B) Avoid over-scheduling the child.
C) Be consistent and respectful of the child. ________________________________________________ My blogPosts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So that means a generation of children will have to find religion on their own, probably in their teen years or early 20's, and decide for themselves if they like it or not.
Somehow I don't see that working for millions of American parents.
But I think a lot of behaviors in kids almost need to be brainwashed into them, like what kinds of behaviors are acceptable and unacceptable. You're trying to civilize an uncivilized human, and I think that requires a certain amount of indoctrination. I think you can do it in such a way that still protects their individuality and free thought, and their ability to do rational, critical thinking.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't avoid brainwashing by that definition.
And I wouldn't want to.
I have a set of values, beliefs, and attitudes that I feel are important in order for my son to survive and thrive. He will have to find his individuality within those restrictions.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is a difference between teaching a child your values and brainwashing techniques used against an adult, and not just because the ages of the person involved.
As parents, we all know that our children will grow up to make their own choices and develop their own values. What we try to do when they are children is provide them with a framework of belief that has worked for us and made our lives worth living. Accepting that allows them to grow into adults who can formulate their own beliefs and values.
Brainwashings' intent is to replace independant thought. Parenting is preparing a child for the rest of their life, which will be filled with independant thoughts and choices.
There is a world of difference between them. Brainwashing replaces a persons true thoughts with something that is opposite of them, while parenting allows them to develop the skills necessary to make their own choices.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I apologize for the caps. They exist in my post as a result of copying and pasting. I should have taken them out, I am sorry.
I agree that one cannot avoid brainwashing to some extent. I attempted to express that in my first paragraph after the line. And no, I do not believe that we should not teach our kids anything until they are adults. I think it is fine to teach your kid your religion. The point I am trying to make is that as they get older, see what you can do to help your child question whatever you have raised them to believe (religion, politics, etc) and expose them to many different perspectives and ideas.
Likewise, I think we all need to read info that is critical of whatever it is we currently believe. That is one reason I am posting here. By reading positions that oppose mine, I have the opportunity to catch errors in my thinking that I might not have caught otherwise.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
You'd do your children much more harm by abdicating your responsibility to teach them according to your beliefs, to help them develop positive, constructive habits, and to help them recognize that there are consequences for every choice they make. That said, you should recognize that your child is an individual and should ultimately be allowed to choose for him/herself.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not an expert on child development, but I believe it isn't until the teenage years that the brain has matured to a point where complex value judgments and deep philosophical thinking are really expressed.
Young children really aren't able to make difficult life choices effectively, no matter how much self-esteem they have or how adult they try to act.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the thoughts I had when I was not yet a teenager, I'd disagree about cmoplex value judgments and deep philosophical thinking, at least to a point.
Not that I was as good at it as I am now, of course.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I absolutely agree with what Kwea, advice for robots, and MightyCow said. I am beginning to seriously question my communication skills, as I thought I had already made those points. Perhaps you can help me, what did you all get from this paragraph:
"I believe that the number one responsibility of a parent is to make sure one’s children survive to adulthood. A close second is the parent’s responsibility to prepare the child for adulthood (i.e., being able to take care of one’s self, and think for one’s self, so that one is not as vulnerable to those who would want to mislead and take advantage of you). These two responsibilities – protection and the nurturing of independence – do not have to be mutually exclusive, but sometimes they come in conflict. I think when children are young there will be a lot more direct intervention and shaping by the parent. Little children, if not given sufficient instruction and guidance are likely to behave in ways that could get them maimed or killed. As they grow, the parent can give the child more and more choices and foster expression of their individuality. The tough part of parenting is learning how to strike that balance and keep parenting age appropriate."
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not a clear line, of course. There are different levels of decisions....deciding what time your bedtime should be is not the same as getting a credit card at 18, or sleeping wiht someone at age 15.
No one ever said parenting was easy....just that it pays crap. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dislike the term "brainwash" in this context. I think the implications are pretty insulting to anyone who is trying to raise decent kids.
I also think you are teaching your kids constantly by your example whether you mean to or not. Which means you need to keep your own act together.
I like what one parenting teacher said--parents don't raise their kids; kids raise their parents. How true, how true, how true.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
just to throw another dash of levity into an otherwise serious and valuable discussion:
tinfoil hats... those shaped like pirate or napoleonic hats are best, but cone-shaped ones may still be within spec.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
advice said: "I dislike the term "brainwash" in this context. I think the implications are pretty insulting to anyone who is trying to raise decent kids."
I am trying to understand this statement of yours. Are you saying that parents who: discourage passive acceptance of what is taught, encourage objective evaluation, discourage judgmental attitudes, encourage child to question everything, including authority, etc, are not trying to raise decent kids?
I think parents who are not doing those things at age appropriate times are doing that which should have a little negative stigma. I think it is dangerous and irresponsible to raise kids that substitute someone else's judgment for their own, that have certain leaders that they never question, that are too trusting of authority, that obey without a moment's hesitation, etc. If parents aren't raising kids that way, then they are not brainwashing their kids, at least in the context of this thread.
I think brainwashing is appropriately descriptive of the parents who do it, and doesn't apply to those who don't. Look at the list of 23 things. Those things apply to the families in Warren Jeffs' Colorado City. If people like that are insulted because I use the term brainwashing, I think it is appropriate.
Most parents could do better. That is why I made the list of things we can do to help counter that natural tendency to be dogmatic, controlling, and rigid.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those things apply to the families in Warren Jeffs' Colorado City.
They also apply to a lot of good parents who are teaching their children values that you may not agree with, but that are not harmful.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that these things (to raise kids that substitute someone else's judgment for their own, that have certain leaders that they never question, that are too trusting of authority, that obey without a moment's hesitation, etc) are harmful no matter what is being taught, even if what is being taught is something I agree with.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't know how a parent can not convince a kid to not go along completely with what that parent believes other than by being a crappy parent that gets no respect. In my own life my parents views have been unquestionable statements of truth, and I tend to believe what they say because I have tremendous respect for my parents. Lately I've been wanting proof when they make obtuse anti-foreign statements just because they're rather close-minded, and just getting fed up with irrationality from them. So I think it's natural that if you raise your kids with some degree of self esteem they will eventually come to question things around them and come to their own conclusions.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by enochville: advice said: "I dislike the term "brainwash" in this context. I think the implications are pretty insulting to anyone who is trying to raise decent kids."
I am trying to understand this statement of yours. Are you saying that parents who: discourage passive acceptance of what is taught, encourage objective evaluation, discourage judgmental attitudes, encourage child to question everything, including authority, etc, are not trying to raise decent kids?
I think parents who are not doing those things at age appropriate times are doing that which should have a little negative stigma. I think it is dangerous and irresponsible to raise kids that substitute someone else's judgment for their own, that have certain leaders that they never question, that are too trusting of authority, that obey without a moment's hesitation, etc. If parents aren't raising kids that way, then they are not brainwashing their kids, at least in the context of this thread.
I think brainwashing is appropriately descriptive of the parents who do it, and doesn't apply to those who don't. Look at the list of 23 things. Those things apply to the families in Warren Jeffs' Colorado City. If people like that are insulted because I use the term brainwashing, I think it is appropriate.
Most parents could do better. That is why I made the list of things we can do to help counter that natural tendency to be dogmatic, controlling, and rigid.
I'm saying nothing of the sort about parents who encourage active questioning and non-judgmental attitudes. I'm sure they're genuinely trying to raise decent kids, too.
I am objecting to the implication that if you don't explicitly encourage your children to question everything you've taught them, and all authority figures, and anything else, you're brainwashing them.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
enochville, I support most of your statements in this thread. I think however, that the way you've defined brainwashing reveals a contempt for Christianity, as most of the criteria you've listed are methods that churches use to indoctrinate children. What you may not be observing is that some of things youve pointed out as brainwashing, are used as helpfull tools of instruction.
you've set off some peoples defense mechanisms as well I think. When parents think that if they don't indoctrinate their children into their religion, especially some Christian parents, that the children will spend eternity in hell. What they fail to realize is that, just because you open your heart to God, doesn't mean you have to close your eyes to reality. You should teach your children to eventually question everything, unless you think them stupid or spiritually inept.
Christ was no conformist to any church. And though it is wonderful when people gather to worship, you should definitely question, actively, your sermon leader, your church leaders, and anyone else who is taking the responsibility of leading people they should love. You would be doing them a favor. People are as scared to think independently as they are to trust.
At some point your children probably are going to question everything you've taught them any way, you might as well give them some practice, unless you don't have faith in their ability to come to the right choice. Which you probably think you know, so your going to save them the trouble. That's just not how thought works.
IF you are a Christian you should know that all you have to do is convince them to be open to the idea of God, and to seek the truth as best they can.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
advice said: "I am objecting to the implication that if you don't explicitly encourage your children to question everything you've taught them, and all authority figures, and anything else, you're brainwashing them."
Yes, that is what I am implying, and I respect that you feel differently. I'd like to discourage indoctrinating behaviors. I understand that one cannot help but indoctrinate children when they are very young. They accept everything you say as rigid truth. But, I do feel that it is a parent's responsibility to eventually help a child to learn to think for him or herself. That doesn't mean indoctrinating the child to make them think that they have thought for themselves when they are really just echoing the party line.
I believe parents do they children wrong when they tell the child to think for him or herself, while at the same time strongly communicating that the only correct thought the child can have is the one his or her parent's want him or her to have. They do this by ostricizing their kids if they come to a different conclusion than their parents. This is quite common when a child rejects the faith of his parents. That is awfully manipulating and controlling and wrong in my opinion and should be discouraged.
If you feel your way is the best way, then you should be able to make a strong rational case for it. Using one's love as a tool to try to force others to accept your beliefs is a downright dirty technique and should be labeled as such. Now, I have kind of gone off on a tangent.
But, Christians should teach their children at an age appropriate time to question whether the Bible really is the word of God and whether there is any evidence that might suggest that it is not what it is thought to be. Mormons should teach their kids to question whether relying on spiritual experiences to identify what is true might lead to incorrect conclusions and if it might be more reliable to lean on physical evidence and more appropriate to be skeptical of what they are spoon-fed at church. Muslims should teach their kids to challenge the assumption that the Quran is God's word and that Muhammed was God's prophet. Is there any evidence to suggest that maybe he wasn't? Scientists should teach their children to question whether parsimony is an appropriate convention and could it lead us to be blind to or ignore true possibilities? Is there some disadvantage to skepticism or advantage to faith that we are overlooking?
Believers should have nothing to fear from honest questioning and skepticism. If they have good arguments and evidence that theirs is the best belief system, then honest inquiry will lead their children to that conclusion. However, if they don't have a strong position, then maybe it is best to reject that position in search of one with better support. Look, there is some reason why the believer believes and the believer thinks that reason is pretty good. Make sure that your child hears and understands that. Then encourage the child to internally challenge it and question every assumption - pass that reason through the refiner's fire. If it has merit, your child will be all the more convinced. If it doesn't have merit based on their best judgment, then encourage them to move on in search of what does have merit.
Most parents encourage some questioning, but they usually have some premises that it are taboo to question. Those are the ones that need to be examined and challenged most, in my opinion. And I think one is brainwashing their kids if they try to prevent their kids from questioning those things.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by enochville: But, Christians should teach their children at an age appropriate time to question whether the Bible really is the word of God and whether there is any evidence that might suggest that it is not what it is thought to be. Mormons should teach their kids to question whether relying on spiritual experiences to identify what is true might lead to incorrect conclusions and if it might be more reliable to lean on physical evidence and more appropriate to be skeptical of what they are spoon-fed at church. Muslims should teach their kids to challenge the assumption that the Quran is God's word and that Muhammed was God's prophet. Is there any evidence to suggest that maybe he wasn't? Scientists should teach their children to question whether parsimony is an appropriate convention and could it lead us to be blind to or ignore true possibilities? Is there some disadvantage to skepticism or advantage to faith that we are overlooking?
I believe that parents should be supportive of their kids questioning whatever the kids choose to question -- nothing is "off-limits." But what you're describing here is not letting the kids question on their own, it's telling them what questions they should have. That's not teaching kids to think for themselves.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was at a religious convention many years ago (long story, and boring, so skip it) and listened to a remarkable woman talk.
She was an ex-Nun, who spent many years teaching children, studying children, and getting all her degrees, then when she left the convent, married and had children of her own.
I don't recall her name but I do remember some things she had to say.
Those children we as parents find most agreeable, those who listen, obey, do not bother us with questions, and in all ways are the ones pointed out to others as examples of good behavior, are the ones statistaclly speaking, most likely to succumb to peer pressure and end up taking drugs, getting pregnant, or getting into trouble in so many different ways.
Why?
Because we have trained them to rely on others for definitions of codes of conduct. They believe that others in authority, not themselves, know what is right and what is wrong and why. They do not trust their own ability to determine what is true since truth has always been handed to them.
So when the leader of the group, the boy she has put her faith in, or the friend who seems to have all the information, tells them that something which she thinks is wrong, is really right, they will do it.
I know that many believe that years of telling children what is right will out weigh hours of their friends conniving. You, however, being human, will have been wrong sometime in those years. Their friends, being new, have yet to be proven wrong.
It is the kids who are wild, questioning, who insist on wearing clothes that don't match, or socks of two different colors, or who jump in mud puddles when you tell them not to, who are best equipped to "Just say No" or ask "Why?"
Not "Why does God make Evil if God is all loving." but "Why do you think stealing salt shakers from McDonalds is cool?" or "Why will you just die if we don't go all the way tonight?" or "Why are you getting drunk before school?"
This speaker once asked a class of first graders why they should put on their coats before going out to recess. The majority answered, "Because we were told to." One answered, "Because my Mommy is cold."
She then produced two peices of steak. One was raw. One was frozen. She showed them what would happen if you went out in the cold. She then offered to let any child who wanted to play without their coats on, to go on out with out them.
Very few volunteered to go coatless after that demonstration.
Those that did go coatless put their coats on within minutes of going outside.
She had very few problems getting the kids to put their coats on from that time forward.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a cute story, but my desire to question authority makes me wonder about whether nuns, no matter their intentions, are qualified to make quantitative statements about the likelihood of various children to become involved in drugs.
My equally valid personal anecdote is that the "good kids", who respected authority and weren't out to cause needless trouble were the ones who silently questioned in their heads, and were smart enough not do to drugs.
In my story, the troublemakers, those who wore mismatched clothes and otherwise rebelled for the sake of rebellion were the more likely to rebel by taking drugs or performing minor acts of theft and vandalism in a further desire to "express their individuality."
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have totally been the "Mommy is Cold" kid. And as I have sometimes mentioned, I got into a lot of trouble as a teen because I was highly influencible. But so what? I'm 37 now. I'm sometimes bummed that I never perservered in doing anything the society rewards as being worthwhile. See? Even my evaluation of where I am as an adult references society. (actually, I was going to say "anything worthwhile" but I consider marriage and having children worthwhile).
So anyway, I think I'm a pretty happy person. Maybe I'm just deluded.
It's interesting because the "Mormon" church actually has guidelines for what sort of activities are suspect in personal development groups. When I first started getting involved in 12 step recovery I worried a lot whether it qualified as such a group. I eventually came to realize that, you know, I was too uptight about stuff and I was making myself miserable. I think with religion, as in so many other things, I have a right to "if it feels good, do it."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MC, she had a doctorate in Child PSychology, and did the appropriate research.
Or so she said. I didn't look up her credentials, though the church organization that brought her to the meeting said they did.
Further, this is hearsay since you are hearing it from me and I have nothing to back it up but my own faulty memory.
So you have all the logical reasons you could desire to say I'm full of stuffing and show promote your own ancedotes.
Yet, if you are truly a person who obeys authority as an overriding virtue, then you should believe my story, since it is written down and we all know that if it is in writing, it must be true.
So if you believe my story, then you know its okay to be rebellious and to question authority since that is the path to free virtue. So go ahead and question my story.
"So I clearly cannot take the cup that is in front of you."
"You have a dizzying intellect."
"I haven't even started..."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Those children we as parents find most agreeable, those who listen, obey, do not bother us with questions, and in all ways are the ones pointed out to others as examples of good behavior, are the ones statistaclly speaking, most likely to succumb to peer pressure and end up taking drugs, getting pregnant, or getting into trouble in so many different ways.
I'd like to see those statistics.
quote: Because we have trained them to rely on others for definitions of codes of conduct. They believe that others in authority, not themselves, know what is right and what is wrong and why. They do not trust their own ability to determine what is true since truth has always been handed to them.
So children who have never had limits set on them, have never had anyone tell them right from wrong are more capable of judging what is right or wrong?
quote: It is the kids who are wild, questioning, who insist on wearing clothes that don't match, or socks of two different colors, or who jump in mud puddles when you tell them not to, who are best equipped to "Just say No" or ask "Why?"
So children who don't listen or are wild or do whatever they want are more likely to be the ones who make the 'right' choices?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read a book on developing morality in children that promoted development in 6 areas. Autonomy was one, conversability another. I can't really remember the others, but those reflect the two extremes that we are discussing. I guess there was empathy and... three others. But a child who only obeys and never shows any autonomy has only to be placed in a different environment to go wild.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Its not Children who have never had limits make the right choices, children who run wild make the wrong choices.
Its "Children who are taught how to make choices make the right choices. Children who are not taught how to make choices make the wrong ones."
Children who have no limits, are always told they are right, never punished for their actions are not being taught how to make choices. But then neither are children who are told what to do and driven by a strict hierarchy that does not allow for the child to make a choice does not learn either.
Allowing your children to pick which clothes they are to wear is teaching them to make choices. Always providing them with the daily uniform is not. Neither is allowing your children to go to school without clothes.
If your children clothes that make them look inappropriate, it is the parents job to make them change. If they choose clothes that are just unpleasant, it is the parents job to make sure that the child suffers all the consequences of that decision, so that next time they will make the right descision--especially when it involves something more important than clothes.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That (what the nun said) reminds me of something I read that said that children should feel comfortable telling their parents "No!" because that shows they know how to set boundaries and won't be taken advantage of later in life.
I guess those kids would probably do really well in prison, but still...
Not that I don't understand what she's getting at. Kids with a wild streak probably are tougher and less able to be taken advantage of. It doesn't mean that well-behaved kids will follow whatever crap comes down the pike.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When my daughter tells me no I stick her in her playpen, she usually shakes the bars until she finds her Elmo, then either settles down or throws it at me.
She is to young to understand alot of logic, being 18 months old, but telling her that her food is hot works alot better than telling her not to eat it.
Sometimes she points at dog food and makes a face and says EEEWWWWWW. She figured that one out without my help. Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "people only join organized religions because they're scared, tired, and insecure, or were brainwashed as kids" notions expressed in this thread do not match the experiences I had as a missionary.
Is that what you really think? That the only people who would do such a thing either didn't think about it much, or just absorbed their conclusions from others?
That's not only untrue, it's more than a bit bigoted.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by enochville: Mormons should teach their kids to question whether relying on spiritual experiences to identify what is true might lead to incorrect conclusions and if it might be more reliable to lean on physical evidence and more appropriate to be skeptical of what they are spoon-fed at church.
I object strongly to the term "spoon-fed" in this context. If I thought that was what was happening at church, I wouldn't want my kids there either. I realize you are bitter. I must say it's definitely coming out in what you are saying.
First, the teaching that is done at church is a supplement to what is done at home. Parents give their kids a foundation from which they can judge what they come across outside the home. Including, as for members of the LDS church, a foundation in beliefs and faith, among everything else they teach their children.
At church, there are a variety of people doing the teaching and "leading," from all over the spectrum of personalities. It isn't some uniformly domineering factory where everyone sits blank-faced, ingesting some religious soup served up by some fascist talking head. You know that. It's a community affair. People take from it what they choose to take. Everyone is encouraged by everyone else to study it themselves, find out what it means to them, see how it works in their lives.
At the foundation of the church is the idea of free agency, and I'd say it's alive and well in everything that goes on in the church. Church members acknowledge it and value it very highly.
If I taught my kids everything that is valuable and precious to me, hoping that they would also find it valuable in their lives, I wouldn't up and throw it all into doubt telling them, "Now, everything I've taught you may or may not be true. Try to prove it isn't, and if you still believe it, then it must be true." What a waste of time. I can't imagine them trusting me one bit if I kept telling them that. No, I would tell them all along that I know it is true, it has brought me great blessings in my life, and that they can try it in their lives and find out for themselves. I would warn them that they need to find out for themselves in order for it to be valuable to them. Of course they are free to make their own choices and to use what I have given them according to their own conscience. Who would I be to try to take that away from them? It's very insulting to have it implied that I am just indoctrinating them and turning them into automatons. Do you have kids? I have three, and they are not blank-faced robots who say "Of course, Daddy" to everything I tell them. Face it--you simply don't want anybody teaching these things to their kids, because you yourself have turned away from those beliefs. That's what this boils down to.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
advice says, "Face it--you simply don't want anybody teaching these things to their kids, because you yourself have turned away from those beliefs. That's what this boils down to."
Nice dismissal. It's too bad that you have completely missed the point. How about focusing on the content of the posts instead of taking personal shots?
Hey, I am an equal opportunity encourager of asking the hard questions. Notice I gave an example of questioning parsimony, etc, which is something I believe in.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there needs to be moderation in parenting. I wouldn't want my kids to be dead-end conformists that can't make decisions, but I don't think letting them run COMPLETELY wild with no boundaries is good when raising them.
Perhaps the best way to put it is......rules are good things when they are backed by substance and you can explain to your child why the rule's in place. More parents today need to communicate to their children about the reasoning behind rules and boundaries, I think. Rebellious children are probably bred in environments where no one ever told them why they shouldn't do something; just that they shouldn't do it. Of course there are probably many adults who upon realizing a rule has no good reason, would not be willing to change their mind. :/
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Saephon: I think there needs to be moderation in parenting. I wouldn't want my kids to be dead-end conformists that can't make decisions, but I don't think letting them run COMPLETELY wild with no boundaries is good when raising them.
Perhaps the best way to put it is......rules are good things when they are backed by substance and you can explain to your child why the rule's in place. More parents today need to communicate to their children about the reasoning behind rules and boundaries, I think. Rebellious children are probably bred in environments where no one ever told them why they shouldn't do something; just that they shouldn't do it. Of course there are probably many adults who upon realizing a rule has no good reason, would not be willing to change their mind. :/
quote:Originally posted by Saephon: I think there needs to be moderation in parenting. I wouldn't want my kids to be dead-end conformists that can't make decisions, but I don't think letting them run COMPLETELY wild with no boundaries is good when raising them.
Perhaps the best way to put it is......rules are good things when they are backed by substance and you can explain to your child why the rule's in place. More parents today need to communicate to their children about the reasoning behind rules and boundaries, I think. Rebellious children are probably bred in environments where no one ever told them why they shouldn't do something; just that they shouldn't do it. Of course there are probably many adults who upon realizing a rule has no good reason, would not be willing to change their mind. :/
I completely agree and I think a careful reading of my post would show that this has been my position. It seems that some posters have been thinking that I was pushing for letting children run wild with no boundaries. They will not find support for that claim in my posts.
Here are just two quotes from my writing: "8) Teach child to be cautious of circumstances that decrease one’s ability to inhibit behavior, especially when there are others who might take advantage of us in that state.
9) Encourage child to question and challenge rules including your own. If you can’t defend your rules, then maybe they should not be rules. Child needs to be old enough to understand the advantage of social order in the classroom and the consequences of breaking laws...
12) Encourage individuality and also the value of striking a balance with conformity."
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a book I read once on how people resisted brainwashing; can't remember the title. It wasn't a scientific survey; just what someone observed from stories about brainwashing situations, especially from North Korean prison camps. These were the things that went with resistance to brainwashing the most:
* Refusal to consider the merits of the brainwasher's ideas. This makes sense to me. There's plenty of time to consider whether the American system is imperfect when nobody's beating and starving me * Religious faith. This makes sense to me too. If I already believe in something firmly, I'm less likely to be swayed by someone demanding that I adopt a new belief system. Also, God's known for helping his martyrs keep faith.
I think I would be pretty resistant to brainwashing because I was tormented and brainwashed by my mother when I was very young, so I'm very familiar with it and know there's no point in arguing, no point in considering; information from the torturer is to be ignored. But I know I can be swayed by rhetoric like anyone else, and must guard against it sometimes.
I don't think that there's anything we can do (that wouldn't be horribly cruel) to make the general public more resistant to brainwashing. It's part of human nature. Encouraging individuality has led to such silliness as Dr. Pepper's "Join the original crowd!" ad campaign, and it's a major part of our culture to look like a rebel and not really be one. Encouraging questioning of authority -- ditto: it's too easy for this to mean questioning *other* people's authority (as when the Chinese Communists told their people to stand up and be strong against the deposed Emporer or the shrunken British Empire!), or simply being contrary for no particular reason.
That said, most of the proposed things to do for children sound like great ideas. I think we just need to also believe this: we aren't rational beings who sometimes act illogically, but we're nonrational beings who somehow, miraculously, think logically despite ourselves. It's natural to fall back into following a strong leader, overlooking his bald-faced lies, and ignoring antyhing that doesn't fit our preconceptions. We have to be vigilant in order to stay rational. A worthy goal.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
