About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 12:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason, you said
 I was not speaking as SOLO "leadership." 
I did not consider you as such. 

Hong



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 1:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I nominate Hong as the new SOLO Whining Leader!  She is already filling the role; I think she should get the title to go along.

JJ says that the connection between unschooling and this quote on permissiveness is obvious.  It isn't obvious to all the people who have posted on the value of unschooling, and she hasn't made one post to prove (or even assert) that unschooling is permissive.  Since she meant that unschooling is permissive, she should have said so.  So, like Jason said, either sloppy or cowardly.

Since this thread has gone down the toilet as far as discussing permissiveness, I started a thread on the parenting forum for any who are interested.

Kelly


Post 22

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 1:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To all highly anxious children,

Settle down, take a few deep breaths, and if you really have to say it personally, there's that little envelop to the left... use it.

num++
This post was brought to you by Panax.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 2:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kelly,

I am really confused. I went back and reread JJ's post (No. 4) just to make sure that I am not making a mistake. I'm glad I did because now I am absolutely sure.

I have yet to see JJ make a definitive condemnation on your system like what you and Dave are treating it as. Nor did I see the Branden quote doing that, so I don't see her hiding behind it for that purpose either (or even hiding at all). On the contrary, she even expanded the Branden quote in Post 4, which included the following phrase (in discussing family):
Open communication is highly valued.  Such a structure is flexible rather than rigid, open and discussible rather than closed and authoritarian.  In such a structure, parents offer explanations, not commandments.
I see this actually as very much in the ball park with what you are doing, not as hostility, sloppiness, cowardice or whatnot. And I don't see where it went down any toilet or required an apology. All I see is that permissiveness, child anxiety, leadership, knowledge and authority (all covered in the original Branden quote) are important issues in child rearing and education and apparently JJ thinks this focus is important enough to bring Objectivist literature to bear on it.

What am I missing? Where is the war?

Michael

Post 24

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 2:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Listen, no one is apologizing to anyone. Hong aint a whiner, and whoever posted this quote can do so whether they ever posted on a 180-comment thread or not. Jesus Christ in sweatsocks, are we all a little over-sensitive today?

"Of the 180 posts on the unschooling thread, it was repeated by myself, Kelly and others that our style of parenting involves lots of interaction and guidance when necessary"

See, here's the thing, I think we are trying to navigate to the same point, but we are using 2 radically different maps.

First, let's get something straight. Kids need some structure and guidance. Now, I'm not talking about needing to be controlled and compelled every second of their little lives, and Jennifer's point about kids REALLY learning alot from example is very, very important and accurate.

Im certainly not advocating a baby gulag! But I also utterly reject a household whose every detail is designed for and revolved around children.

Like Ramblin' Robert B. and myself, I'd suggest anyone who hasn't, check out Nanny 911, and let's see if ANYONE would advocate the pre-Nanny households.

Kids need rules.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 2:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David and Kelly,

"Since this thread has gone down the toilet as far as discussing permissiveness, I started a thread ..."

Starting competing threads on nearly identical subjects because you don't like the way another one started is a good way to destroy dialogue.

And sets a bad precedent for others to do the same. People won't know which thread to post to or give up in frustration at trying to follow two of them on the same topic (or -nearly- the same..please don't quibble with me). For example, I started on this thread and am awaiting responses. So I and others continue here...and you go somewhere else.

Does that seem like a real good idea? Especially if you want to discuss some of Branden's ideas, -the- major figure in Objectivist psychology?

Do you pick up your ball and go play somewhere else because One Person Offended You?

Phil

[In addition, the deeper topic is about PSYCHOLOGY, not about PARENTING ... which is where you wanted to take it.]
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 5/20, 2:50pm)


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 2:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Scott.

Maybe I am sensitive, but don't you think that JJ was attacked and insulted outright?

And that's the most important thing here as I see it.  Otherwise everyone is entitled to their own opinions and manners.


Post 27

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 2:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Open communication is highly valued. Such a structure is flexible rather than rigid, open and discussible rather than closed and authoritarian. In such a structure, parents offer explanations, not commandments."

What happens when you are on the telephone long distance, discussing your dying father with your sister, when Little Johnny decides, as your equal, that his drawing is, RIGHT THIS MINUTE, the appropriate topic of discussion?

If you have amild-mannered child, great, this never becomes a problem. But what if you do not?

Now, with "Open communication" I think you are really arguing for valuing Little Johnny's nonsensical tripe as well as his occasionally coherent conversation as equal to adult concerns. So, seriously, tell me, what do you do when the kid wont take no for an answer? We know you cannot veto him, or be 'authoritarian' as such would be terrible for his self-esteem. But dont you also want to discuss what the hell is happeneing to your father?

Let me give you an example of how I would handle it.

"Son, Daddy is on the telephone right now. Grandpa is very sick, and we will look at your picture pretty soon, ok?"

"Johnny, Daddy is on the phone. Knock it off and go sit down, ok?"

"Sis, please hold on for a moment, ok? Johnny, that's is, you go sit on the couch RIGHT NOW!"

"Sis, hold on. Johnny, I am going to spank your little ass if you don't stop screaming and crawling on my leg."

And, finally, "Sis hold on. WHACK! Now get your ass in your bedroom."

Is this so bastardly and evil that it is beyond comprehension? It is harmful, hurtful and wrong? How? Will I be raising a mass-murderer if I let my kid know that he can have adult respect when he has adult responsibilities? And that there are limits to his relevance to the rest of the world? Or should I let him grow up thinking that his whims are the focus of all creation?

Im sorry, two of my sisters' kids were such little bastards that this 'equal communication' nonsense is a prescription for insanity. As soon as Little Johnny starts bringing home the bacon, cleaning the house, and providing food, clothing, shelter and entertainment, then he gets an equal vote in the conversation topic wars. Until then, he will be vetoed when appropriate, as gently as possible, but as needed thereafter. If you cannot accept that, I would suggest a visit from Nanny 911 for you.



Post 28

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 2:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Hate to add a note of "empiricism" here, but just curious: How many of the folks waxing eloquently on this topic are themselves parents?"

Robert this is more fundamentally a discussion about education and psychology than about child-rearing. Teachers are qualified to discuss this. As are people who have studied psychology or introspected or been students, which is a whole lot of people.

Or have been children and have insights to offer about how they were raised, educated, etc.!

It's the quality of the reasoning or contributions the focus should be on, not whether one is qualified to know it.

Please rethink your 'credentialitis' on this.

Empiricism can come from a wide range of experiences, including introspection. This is not a "technical" thread like a discussion of chemical engineering or relativity.

By the way, Branden didn't have any children (nor did Rand). Would you dismiss his longer quote and anything he might have to say on the topics we are discussing?

--Phil

Post 29

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 2:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And I feel that I need to contradict myself. I would like to apologize to Robert Bidinotto. I do not know the fine fellow personally, but I am a fan of his writing and thought. However, it would seem that I simplt CANNOT fight my new compulsions to call him "Ramblin' Robert Bidinotto."

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 3:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,

First of all, the quotation at the head of this thread is about parenting and permissiveness, not education and psychology, broadly conceived. My very brief post was on topic.

Second, though Dr. Branden's authority is not as a father, he's certainly knowledgeable as one who deals with countless parents (and their products) in his professional counseling, so he speaks from that kind of experience and wisdom.

Third, raising kids in a home just ain't the same thing as teaching kids seated in a classroom. And no, I do NOT believe that reading a lot of books on the psychology of parenting is the same thing as raising your own kids, and dealing with all their personal issues night and day. Not even close. Nor is the fact that "we were all children once" sufficient qualification for good parenting: If it were, there would be no bad parents.

As a former child myself (!) who was very well read on psychology, I went into parenting with smug confidence, buttressed with all kinds of preconceived notions and theories. But reality has a wonderful tendency to sort through theories and let you know which ones are worth a damn. Many of mine weren't.

Another reason I posted my brief query is to stress to readers here the interesting fact that Objectivists, statistically speaking, are much less likely to become parents than are most other people. This has been largely a movement of singles. And given my life experiences as a parent, I have to smile at those who theorize about one of the world's most complicated matters with such knowing certainty, when so many of them have zero direct experience with such matters.

I'm not arguing that we have to have direct and detailed experience about every topic we address. But while lack of experience doesn't necessarily disqualify an opinion, it certainly doesn't inspire my confidence. Parenting is a very complex subset of the dauntingly complex field of human relationships, and I would prefer to see expressed a little less bravado and certainty...especially from those who haven't gone through the often difficult, bewildering and educational process of child-raising themselves.


Post 31

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 4:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As a very recent newcomer to SOLOHQ I'm surprised at how quickly a discussion has degenerated to personal insults. This one's a coward, that one's a whiner. I guess I've been lucky. Most of what I've read on SOLOHQ has been heated, engaging and respectful. Have I been reading the wrong threads?

I've seen name-calling and the like destroy what were once terrific web forums. It's like a poison that seeps in and ruins everything it touches. I'd hate to see that happen to an important place like this. Calling someone on what they've posted (or haven't) is constructive, but reducing it to insults and ultimatums creates an uninviting climate for constructive debate.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 4:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've just quickly skimmed this thread, having been asked to take a look at it on account of the heat it was generating.

First, I see nothing wrong with posting a quote germane to a discussion that's going on (even if the poster hasn't participated in that discussion himself/herself). As someone observes above, it used to happen to me frequently—I'd see a quote go up that was clearly directed (usually critically!) at something I'd said in a discussion or written in an article. Didn't bother me, & I don't think it should have. So I don't think JJ has anything to apologise for.

Second, equally there's nothing wrong with someone voicing his objection to the practice, even if he's the SOLOHQ editor—the editor doesn't forfeit his rights to enter discussions just because he's editor, any more than I do just because I'm Founder & Principal or any other staffer does. I emphatically disagree with Jason that the practice is "cowardly & sloppy" or even "bad form," but he's perfectly entitled to hold that view. I'm sure he realised he was likely to be called on it, & he was. So it goes.

Third, there's something to be said for developing a thick skin ... at least a thicker one than some folk are displaying here. Discussions on certain topics are *always* likely to get heated. Best to make a mental note in advance not to get overly sensitive as to what might be said in the rough-&-tumble. Imposing unrealistic standards of genteelness is simply not going to work.

Fourth, re the content of the debate itself, I may have missed something in my quick skim but it struck me that the argument was being miscast as a war between rabid authoritarians on one side & raving permissivists on the other. I doubt that any participant falls seriously into either category. As one who believes all children should be drowned at birth & their parents horsewhipped for being so careless as to spawn them, I can view this matter with optimal objectivity, & I thought the two sides were talking past each other.

I don't see any need for anyone to get huffy & flounce off to another thread or whatever. Carry on!

Linz

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 4:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Two very interesting quotes:

Scott:
And, finally, "Sis hold on. WHACK! Now get your ass in your bedroom."

Linz:
... all children should be drowned at birth & their parents horsewhipped for being so careless as to spawn them...
I think there is a third front opening up on the child issue that is sounding a solemn chord in my soul - a dichotomy mutating into a sacred trichotomy.

Bless you both...

(Hear that Tina and Sean?)

//;-)

Michael


Post 34

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 4:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As one who believes all children should be drowned at birth & their parents horsewhipped for being so careless as to spawn them, I can view this matter with optimal objectivity...
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!


Post 35

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 4:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz,
Thanks for your clarification of position. It is well balanced.

Perhaps you think that the attack on JJ in this thread is OK? If so, then I have to disagree.  

Hong


Post 36

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 6:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
They cancelled 'Nanny 911'!!!!!!!!!! is there a conspiracy here?


Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 7:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong, MSK, Philip, Scott, Angela, Linz,

Thanks for your thoughtful posts.  I very much appreciate your support.  I find it both ridiculous and disconcerting to be attacked and insulted for nothing more than putting up a quote, and a good quote at that.  And it's interesting how one side resorted to throwing insults so quickly.   It seems they can't argue against the quote, so they have to argue against how it was presented.  Nice distraction.

And I don't apologize for anybody's insecurities.  If anything, they owe me an apology.

At the end of the day, it's nice to know that there is plenty of sanity on Solo. People like you really make me glad to be part of Solo.

JJ

 


Post 38

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 8:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks to Linz for injecting a note of sanity.

Phil
Especially the elegant and refined drowning at birth part :-) Because if we do that then we don't need to have this discussion. No children = no parenting = no developmental psychology issues

Post 39

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 8:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> the head of this thread is about parenting and permissiveness, not education and psychology. [Robert #30]

The discussion involves or should involve all of these: I encourage everyone to jump in and not worry about "whoops, so and so knows more about this than I do". If that's true it will come out in the give and take of debate.

> while lack of experience doesn't necessarily disqualify an opinion, it certainly doesn't inspire my confidence.

Again, while what you say is sometimes true, why not just look at the ideas themselves and judge them solely on their merits? Your confidence (or lack of it) on something I or Kelly or Joe or Laure say should be based on a close reading of WHAT IS ACTUALLY ARGUED and ON WHAT EVIDENCE.

Otherwise you impose another filter between yourself and paying full attention to what might be a good idea or a powerful question: Someone can make a post which points out a contradiction, for example. Can't a teacher or even a bachelor bystander point out an error in a parent's reasoning?

You can always say: How do you know that, isn't that something that only a parent would know on those *specific* points which merit it.

Sometimes the person farthest away from something and with less (or more indirect) experience can, for example, ask the most naive but penetrating question. I find lots of really great insights coming from Solo posters on all kinds of subjects which they may or may not have direct experience with.

And some of the worst ideas coming from the smug 'experts' (here or in the past at ARI or at TOC or in business or in the universities who simply can't think their way out of a wet paper bag.)

So don't imply that only one type is -the- expert or should be paid attention to first. It's not an either-or situation.

> raising kids in a home just ain't the same thing as teaching kids seated in a classroom.

Who said it was? A parent can have certain insights. A teacher sees other aspects of kids from 8 to 3. A child psychologist can have other insights.

You are missing the crucial point that a teacher sees *many more* children than a parent.

Hundreds in fact, and so on that level has both -less- experience in one respect(not directly rearing one if not a parent) and -more- experience (being able to see patterns, adjust for unique cases, contrast and compare).

Phil
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 5/20, 8:51pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.