The nuture assumetion. Correct? Flawed? What?

[KickAssClown]

Alright. I don't have my books here so I'm not going to comment much. I'll just ask questions to get the thread started.

Do you think that the Parent shapes the child more than the (social) enviroment or the otherway around? How about genetics What role do they play in the growth of the child?

This is a General Discussion on Child Rearing and Child Rearing Practises.

[Buffy]

The nature vs. nurture debate has been flogged endlessly, and I've never seen too much empirical evidence that's very convincing. Your other question though is intriguing: parental nurture vs. societal nurture. Obviously if you keep your kids at home (and let me tell you, as a parent I am appalled sometimes at what goes on at my kid's school, I *really* understand the draw of home schooling), you can obviously tip the balance of influence you have as a parent artificially. But unless you keep your kid locked in a closet in a remote location--something that I'm afraid would produce a data point that would NOT show a positive influence from parental nurture--there's definitely going to be contention.

Hillary makes the point that "it takes a village" to raise a child, and I've noticed that kids naturally rebel against their parents, but have to take influence from somewhere else, and that else is the reachable "society." This process seems to happen naturally, but the biggest issue I see is that many parents do "drive away" their kids. OTOH, I see many kids who through some outside influences rebel even with positive and affirmative parenting. It unfortunately seems extremely random, and as a parent, you can only hope you get to exclaim, as Lorelai Gilmore did a few seasons back "I got the Good Kid!" You have to work at it, but it only seems to improve your chances....

Cheers,
Buffy

[KickAssClown]

Ah. Well for the Nuture Assumetion bit i would like to point you to Lloyd deMause. He's a true scientist Psycology and Psycoanalysist with Emperical Evidence and All. Nicely Done. Particularly regarding his book "The History of Child Rearing".

As A recently ejected Child that did not rebel (much) against my mom. I have to say From my perspective I didn't rebel because I respect my mom cause she respects me and trusts me to know what I need and want.

My Dad on the other hand is hyper-critical and certain I'll fail because I do not know what Life is like and what it has in store for me so I do not know what I need and want. Though Somehow he does. and he wonders why I resent him? I give respect to those who respect me. Anyway thats for another time.

Parental Warning (bit of a joke) Some seriously mature content. Highly Contraversial.
http://www.psychohistory.com/index.html
Particularly the Articles:
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/05_history.html
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln...ldrearing.html
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln05_psychogenic.html

[nemo]

KAC,
Let me start by letting you know that I didn't read everything you've referenced here - linking to three rather lengthy discourses in the same post will probably have the same effect on a number of readers. I would, however, like to point out a few things I did notice:

• Reputable science sites don't often have political propaganda on them
• Findings from a scientist whose primary resource was himself should be examined very carefully

The work you referenced contained a number of statements that were backed up with claims of hundreds of studies by the author and other unnamed individuals. A few of these quotes:

Most historical families once practiced infanticide, erotic beating and incest.

Even today, we continue to arrange the daily killing, maiming, molestation and starvation of children through our social, military and economic activities.

Having never personally seen evidence to support these claims, I would be led to believe that you have either witnessed similar activity, or are placing a substantial amount of faith in the work of a published individual who probably irritates your father to no end.

I believe that your mother loves you, but you must also understand that part of loving a child is correcting them if they are wrong. Trusting a child to know what is best - or for that matter, to correctly differentiate between needs and wants - is at best a significant risk for something as valuable as a child; at worst it negates the need for a parent. Sometimes a child does in fact need a parent, instead of a buddy.

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Your other question though is intriguing: parental nurture vs. societal nurture.

This is off the top of my head, but there is a psychological view that people go through a series of five stages of who influences them the most.

At stage 1, they listen to their parents: for example, something is wrong simply because their parents say it is wrong.

At stage 2, they listen to authority: something is wrong if the person doing it would get in trouble.

At stage 3, they listen to their peers: something is wrong or right depending upon what their friends would do.

Stage 4? Can't remember. Maybe society???

At stage 5, one listens to his/her own conscience: they are their own judge of whether something is right or wrong.

[mother engine]

nature gives wings, nurture affects how they are used. replace wings with words like 'personality' and you have it in a nut shell. seems simple but science needs to take the complicated route sometimes. i believe the evidence exists to bear my first statment out if one looks to neurology, psychology and steers clear of philosophy and a good deal of sociological rhetoric [tabula rasa theory and such].

[Gulielmus]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

Alright. I don't have my books here so I'm not going to comment much. I'll just ask questions to get the thread started.

Do you think that the Parent shapes the child more than the (social) enviroment or the otherway around? How about genetics What role do they play in the growth of the child?

This is a General Discussion on Child Rearing and Child Rearing Practises.

There are a lot of ways you can argue this: you could take the; everything is based on genetics because it is the first “programming” you get so it shapes the rest of your personality. This can be rebutted by: your original genetics can be written over.
Or: your whole life can’t be predicted by some DNA, what about free will?

As you can see this debate would spiral off of topic quite quickly. So any way there was some food for thought.

[Fishteacher73]

I feel inherently that nature and nurture work in concert with each other. Nature IMO has the dominant role, genetics. We cannot be beyond what we are made to be...form and function. Yet within this framework nature will fine tune the specific out come. Essentaill genetics set the basic range in which nurture can specifically hone a certain trait.

[KickAssClown]

Ok. Well here's what I know that makes me interested and confident in the observations of Lloyd...

I've read some about Anthropology, Current and antiquetted social trends, and good ol' observation of people.

The things is that the evidence is there. I can't rightly say where as it's not my area of expertise and I'm a doddering, forgetful, 18 year old. To bussy thinking about other intellectual problems to get up and do cold hard research and refernce material and stuff but.

In Modern China they (not all but some) practice Infanticide particularly toward female children. This is reflected in the various Census datas. There's a disporotionate ammount of Males to Female.

This tribe in some place something like Amono Indians? during the birth of a child they will take the mother into the woods and dig a hole (using water to soften the dirt) and the child will be birthed into the hole. the mother is then taken away to be taken care of and have the various things that go on after birth and all. the wise (elder?) women of the tribe then roll the child about to examine it's apparent health if it's disfigured then they simply fill in the hole otherwise they clean the child and it's taken care of.

this seems cruel but it's economically sound. If the society can't support an individual then they simply can't and can be endagered by the drain of resources...


anyway I've started rambling with grossly inaccurate and vague material. Any case look it up.

Oh and I have seen some of what lloyd talks about first hand. Not the really bad stuff but some things which agree with his deductions. Like my dad's side of the family abunch of unloving hurtful mean people who raise more hurtful and unloving people.

In day to day interactions and self inflection I can see the Projective, Ambivilent, and Empathic modes and stuff... It just seems kinda self obvious. Just me, I guess.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

My Dad on the other hand is hyper-critical and certain I'll fail because I do not know what Life is like and what it has in store for me so I do not know what I need and want. Though Somehow he does.

It would be my guess that he's had the benefit of many more years of life than you have, unless you think that experience is meaningless. Something for you to ponder, "Some of us learn from the mistakes of others; the rest of us have to be the others." Will you learn from his mistakes or do you need to live through them yourself?