Warning: Don’t raise kids that like you too much

Guess how we are screwing up our kids now? At The Atlantic, therapist Lori Gottlieb writes that many parents are being too nice, too attentive and too encouraging to their children and it's screwing up the kids.

Happiness as a byproduct of living your life is a great thing,” Barry Schwartz, a professor of social theory at Swarthmore College, told me. “But happiness as a goal is a recipe for disaster.” It’s precisely this goal, though, that many modern parents focus on obsessively—only to see it backfire. Observing this phenomenon, my colleagues and I began to wonder: Could it be that by protecting our kids from unhappiness as children, we’re depriving them of happiness as adults? Paul Bohn, a psychiatrist at UCLA who came to speak at my clinic, says the answer may be yes. Based on what he sees in his practice, Bohn believes many parents will do anything to avoid having their kids experience even mild discomfort, anxiety, or disappointment—“anything less than pleasant,” as he puts it—with the result that when, as adults, they experience the normal frustrations of life, they think something must be terribly wrong.
Child psychologist Dan Kindlon describes this as our “discomfort with discomfort.” He compares childhood emotional health to the immune system: “You have to be exposed to pathogens, or your body won’t know how to respond to an attack." Psychologist Wendy Mogel describes these fragile children as teacups, because they easily crack and crumble in the real world--because that is the way they were raised by their over-eager and over-protective parents. Kindlen suggest that long-working hours of parents exacerbate the problem, because the parents don't want to "ruin" their kids by being hard on them during the limited time they get to spend with their kids. What about the "need" for self-esteem? [caption id="attachment_18394" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image by KGTOG at Dreamstime.com (with permission)"][/caption]
According to [psychologist Jean Twenge], indicators of self-esteem have risen consistently since the 1980s among middle-school, high-school, and college students. But, she says, what starts off as healthy self-esteem can quickly morph into an inflated view of oneself—a self-absorption and sense of entitlement that looks a lot like narcissism. In fact, rates of narcissism among college students have increased right along with self-esteem.
Check out the entire well-written and thoughtful article. As you might suspect, I am highly sympathetic with many of these findings/arguments. Reading them, I am reminded of my favorite critic of helicopter parenting: Lenore Skenazy. And see here.

Continue ReadingWarning: Don’t raise kids that like you too much

AT&T’s absurd attacks on consumers

I just received this email from Free Press:

After tens of thousands of Free Press activists told the FCC to oppose AT&T's takeover of T-Mobile, one of the company's top lobbyists had the gall to tell the media that our opinions don't matter. Can you believe it? Nine out of every 10 people commenting to the FCC are against the mega-merger, and the higher prices and lack of choices it would force upon us. You have been so successful in protesting this bad deal that now AT&T is attacking you . . . AT&T has become so desperate to spin this merger as good for Americans that it's resorting to lies, bribery and deception: 1. When pressed about the overwhelming public opposition to the merger, AT&T lobbyist Bob Quinn said, "It's not a public opinion poll," and that our comments don't matter! 2. AT&T has pressured not-for-profit groups that collectively receive $62 million in funding from the company to sign form letters in support of the merger, despite strong opposition from their members. 3. When Free Press confronted AT&T with indisputable evidence that the gobbling up of a competitor will result in fewer choices, not more, AT&T doubled down on its lie, claiming that we were "long on rhetoric and short on substance." It's clear that AT&T can't win approval of this deal by telling the truth. That's why it spent more than $200 million on lobbyists and campaign contributions over the years — to get Washington to look the other way and do whatever AT&T says. This deception has to stop. I urge you to donate $50.00 to support our newest push to expose AT&T's lies and educate more people about the harms of this mega-merger. Timothy Karr Campaign Director Free Press Action Fund

Continue ReadingAT&T’s absurd attacks on consumers

Stock market astrology

At Huffpo, Dan Solin warns us about those who claim they can predict the stock market.  Many of them have their own publications, for which they charge you money.  How have they fared?

There is no evidence anyone has the ability to predict the future of the markets. There is significant data to the contrary. One study looked at 15,000 predictions by 237 market timing newsletters over a 12.5 year period. 94.5% of the newsletters studied went out of business. The average length of operations was only four years. The authors of the study found no evidence the newsletters were able to time the market.

Continue ReadingStock market astrology

Conservative science and liberal science

At American Prospect, Chris Mooney has a lot to say about the diverse ways liberals and conservatives react to expertise and science.   It's a good, thoughtful read, that includes this discussion of linguist George Lakoff's explanation:

[T]he Berkeley cognitive linguist George Lakoff, views this as a central factor in our fights over science and expertise. In an interview for this article, Lakoff suggested that left-right divides over science have their roots in the cognitive structures and metaphors that, he argues, drive our political schisms in general. Conservatives don’t dislike science or expertise inherently, Lakoff says--but for them, these are not the chief source of authority. Instead, conservatives have a moral system based on a “strict father” model of the family, which is then exported to various other realms of society--the market, the government. All are meant to be governed in a ruggedly individualistic, free-market way--where you either succeed or you don’t, based on your own mettle. In this context, science and expertise can be very good for supporting some views--the science of drilling, the science of nuclear power--but they can also be an unruly guest at the party. Scientific evidence “has a possible effect over the market, foreign policy, religion, all kinds of things,” Lakoff says. “So they can’t have that.”

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingConservative science and liberal science