Here's bonni:
"Loathe as I am to stand up for Dubya, it seems that this was deliberate. One of his most famous "dumb quotes" is the one about "misunderestimating" and it seems that this time he was using the word he coined as something of a joke. Mind you, he did use the word to begin with so...
As for how it happened, here's the best explanation I've ever seen, written many, many years prior to Dubya's ascension:
'As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.' — H. L. Mencken"
LOFF56 FOLLOW-UP ON RELATIVITY AND REALITY
HERE'S LOFF56:
"Hmmm.... Interesting...
Re: Einstein and relative experience vs. relative reality. You are correct, to a certain extent, Einstein did formulate a Reality with a capital R. But as mere humans, how can we possibly live outside of our experiences?
Einstein's absolute "T"ruth equates (I think) with my postulation about an "average reality". He indeed did say that there is an absolute "T"ruth, and he even told us what some of that is. But even Einstein still had only his relative view of the world in which to personally experience. If he felt that he was only sitting with a girl for a minute he wouldn't be able to change his feelings to abide by the universal truth that it was an hour. He would still FEEL the minute. And that was his reality (with a lower case r).
I think what I'm saying ultimately is that our relative realities are much more pragmatic constructs than a Reality (with a capital R) which is constantly in need of revision. (By the way, even some of Einstein's equations which he postulated as "T"ruth are still being modified and refined today to reflect new discoveries.) Especially when it comes to sociological issues. Physics is one thing because experimentation can (more or less) prove or disprove "T"ruths. But Sociological problems are much more complicated and can't be solved to a "T"ruth through experimentation.
Hence I still stand by my stance that everything is relative.
Also I don't think we get into arguments with other nations (or people) because both sides think that everything is a matter of opinion. I think we get into arguments because both sides think that their side is correct as a matter of FACT. It's not an opinion to a Muslim that they will be met by 17 virgins in heaven, it's a FACT to them. It's not an opinion that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior to a devout Christian, it's a FACT. We'd be a lot better off if both sides said: "you've got your opinion, I've got mine."
Overall though I see your point, and I'm not ruling out that we might both be speaking the t(T)ruth... both with a lower case "t" and a relatively uppercase "T"."
PL:
And your points are well-taken, L56. Thanks for the follow-up.
"Hmmm.... Interesting...
Re: Einstein and relative experience vs. relative reality. You are correct, to a certain extent, Einstein did formulate a Reality with a capital R. But as mere humans, how can we possibly live outside of our experiences?
Einstein's absolute "T"ruth equates (I think) with my postulation about an "average reality". He indeed did say that there is an absolute "T"ruth, and he even told us what some of that is. But even Einstein still had only his relative view of the world in which to personally experience. If he felt that he was only sitting with a girl for a minute he wouldn't be able to change his feelings to abide by the universal truth that it was an hour. He would still FEEL the minute. And that was his reality (with a lower case r).
I think what I'm saying ultimately is that our relative realities are much more pragmatic constructs than a Reality (with a capital R) which is constantly in need of revision. (By the way, even some of Einstein's equations which he postulated as "T"ruth are still being modified and refined today to reflect new discoveries.) Especially when it comes to sociological issues. Physics is one thing because experimentation can (more or less) prove or disprove "T"ruths. But Sociological problems are much more complicated and can't be solved to a "T"ruth through experimentation.
Hence I still stand by my stance that everything is relative.
Also I don't think we get into arguments with other nations (or people) because both sides think that everything is a matter of opinion. I think we get into arguments because both sides think that their side is correct as a matter of FACT. It's not an opinion to a Muslim that they will be met by 17 virgins in heaven, it's a FACT to them. It's not an opinion that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior to a devout Christian, it's a FACT. We'd be a lot better off if both sides said: "you've got your opinion, I've got mine."
Overall though I see your point, and I'm not ruling out that we might both be speaking the t(T)ruth... both with a lower case "t" and a relatively uppercase "T"."
PL:
And your points are well-taken, L56. Thanks for the follow-up.
"LOFF56 WEIGHS IN ON REALITY AND RELATIVITY
Here's LOFF56:
"Hey Pete,
I've been a long time away, but I've been following this interesting exchange between you and Rick...
Here's my two sense...
Actually I'm going to ignore the main part of the debate about licensing parents.
But I'm interested in your statement about Reality with a capital "R". In your previous entry you used gravity as an example of an unquestionable "R"eality. You also stated that "it (reality) is not all subjective or relative".
I actually strongly disagree with this.
Even with something as simple as saying gravity has only one effect (that of a person falling towards earth) is technically wrong. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein said that it's just as correct to say that the earth falls up towards you as it is to say that you fall down towards the earth. Gravity is relative. And everything in the universe is relative according to Einstein.
I believe that this applies very importantly on a human level as well. If you and I have two different opinions on a given topic, my opinion doesn't exist only in the framework of your "R"eality and your opinion doesn't exist only in the framework of my "R"eality. We could be saying two completely contradictory things, the sky is blue and the sky is red, but within the contexts of our own realities we are both correct no matter how disparate the facts are. Think about it... If for some reason, I've learned for as long as I can remember that the sky is red, how absurd would your claim be that the sky is blue? It's all relative.
This plays an important role when dealing with other people or groups of people. If a group of people believe that they will be received by 17 virgins when they die, and we simply dismiss that idea as heathen, surprise surprise, they get mad and eventually start throwing bombs at us. But the fact is we don't know anymore than they do about what happens to you (if anything) when you die. Our insistence to constantly ignore the relative nature of reality is what isolates us and causes us harm.
Now I would postulate perhaps that the collective conscious of the world does in fact have a "R"eality, an average reality if you will, but I think if any one person postulates that they are tapped in to that, I'd say that they are... well... living in their own reality.
We all have to accept our humble relative view of reality, and understand that as much as we know individually and as a whole we will never be fully aware of the absolute truth. No matter how sure we are.
600 years ago 100% of all people in the world believed that the sun revolved around the earth. And they were absolutely correct in relation to their relative understanding of their Reality (with a capital R). And not one person would have ever been deemed unenlightened based solely on that belief.
Everything is relative. Period. Ask Einstein."
PL's response:
Hey L56 - Welcome back!
What Einstein said actually about things being "relative" was that our experience of things was relative, not that Reality (capital "R") was relative.
Einstein: "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity."
Einstein also said that E=mc2 (that the energy in matter is equal to its matter times the speed of light squared), and he said he knew that this was True (capital "T"), and he would leave it to the scientists to take ten years in the laboratory to prove him right. (In fact, they just proved it last year!)
The reason we get people in other cultures so mad at us (and visa versa) is because we in fact act like everything is relative, like it's all a matter of opinion, and so it becomes a shouting or shooting match as to who's right, instead of a genuine search for the Truth together. In this galaxy, in this Universe, in this dimension, L56, the sun never revolved around the earth, no matter how many people thought so.
How do I know? Ah! That's the real issue at hand for you, I sense. How can anyone know anything for certain? Well, I refer you back to Einstein who said many things from a place of definitive knowing, including this: "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
In other words, if you are simply using your brain, your intellect, then it is true that you cannot know anything except how much change you have in your pocket, and even then you still have to count it. But if you are connected to your deeper self, to the part of you that has access to the universal truths that rule this realm of existence, you can know some things with certainty.
How to get there is another story, but a good story, about discovering what the human being is really capable of when unblocked emotionally and decongested from conditioning and archaic belief systems.
To be continued...
"Hey Pete,
I've been a long time away, but I've been following this interesting exchange between you and Rick...
Here's my two sense...
Actually I'm going to ignore the main part of the debate about licensing parents.
But I'm interested in your statement about Reality with a capital "R". In your previous entry you used gravity as an example of an unquestionable "R"eality. You also stated that "it (reality) is not all subjective or relative".
I actually strongly disagree with this.
Even with something as simple as saying gravity has only one effect (that of a person falling towards earth) is technically wrong. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein said that it's just as correct to say that the earth falls up towards you as it is to say that you fall down towards the earth. Gravity is relative. And everything in the universe is relative according to Einstein.
I believe that this applies very importantly on a human level as well. If you and I have two different opinions on a given topic, my opinion doesn't exist only in the framework of your "R"eality and your opinion doesn't exist only in the framework of my "R"eality. We could be saying two completely contradictory things, the sky is blue and the sky is red, but within the contexts of our own realities we are both correct no matter how disparate the facts are. Think about it... If for some reason, I've learned for as long as I can remember that the sky is red, how absurd would your claim be that the sky is blue? It's all relative.
This plays an important role when dealing with other people or groups of people. If a group of people believe that they will be received by 17 virgins when they die, and we simply dismiss that idea as heathen, surprise surprise, they get mad and eventually start throwing bombs at us. But the fact is we don't know anymore than they do about what happens to you (if anything) when you die. Our insistence to constantly ignore the relative nature of reality is what isolates us and causes us harm.
Now I would postulate perhaps that the collective conscious of the world does in fact have a "R"eality, an average reality if you will, but I think if any one person postulates that they are tapped in to that, I'd say that they are... well... living in their own reality.
We all have to accept our humble relative view of reality, and understand that as much as we know individually and as a whole we will never be fully aware of the absolute truth. No matter how sure we are.
600 years ago 100% of all people in the world believed that the sun revolved around the earth. And they were absolutely correct in relation to their relative understanding of their Reality (with a capital R). And not one person would have ever been deemed unenlightened based solely on that belief.
Everything is relative. Period. Ask Einstein."
PL's response:
Hey L56 - Welcome back!
What Einstein said actually about things being "relative" was that our experience of things was relative, not that Reality (capital "R") was relative.
Einstein: "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity."
Einstein also said that E=mc2 (that the energy in matter is equal to its matter times the speed of light squared), and he said he knew that this was True (capital "T"), and he would leave it to the scientists to take ten years in the laboratory to prove him right. (In fact, they just proved it last year!)
The reason we get people in other cultures so mad at us (and visa versa) is because we in fact act like everything is relative, like it's all a matter of opinion, and so it becomes a shouting or shooting match as to who's right, instead of a genuine search for the Truth together. In this galaxy, in this Universe, in this dimension, L56, the sun never revolved around the earth, no matter how many people thought so.
How do I know? Ah! That's the real issue at hand for you, I sense. How can anyone know anything for certain? Well, I refer you back to Einstein who said many things from a place of definitive knowing, including this: "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
In other words, if you are simply using your brain, your intellect, then it is true that you cannot know anything except how much change you have in your pocket, and even then you still have to count it. But if you are connected to your deeper self, to the part of you that has access to the universal truths that rule this realm of existence, you can know some things with certainty.
How to get there is another story, but a good story, about discovering what the human being is really capable of when unblocked emotionally and decongested from conditioning and archaic belief systems.
To be continued...
RICK IS STILL ROLLING!
Here's his latest:
"Thanks for entertaining my comments. I must admit my instincts as a teacher limits me from being able to gloss over unsubstantiated comments or points. So when there is simple ranting, sometimes I don't see it as such. Forgive me.
I just read that NY times article and the only "Truth" to be found is that criminals are criminals. It in no way parallels your overgeneralizations on parenting. She makes no case as to why or how parents should be licensed, she just puts up these examples of criminal or "overtired" neglectful parents. Does that mean all parents need licenses? No. It just means all criminals, who happen to be parents, act criminally. Her case is not that all parents act criminally/neglectful.
Here is my response to your last email in the parenting strand:
PL - 'So many political and religious bloviators talk about the 'sanctity' of marriage...'
Ok, now I see your real motivation here. It wasn't as clear to me the first time. I completely disagree with the notion that the sanctity of marriage should be ignored or even minimized. If fact, in the Catholic and Episcopalian religions require couples to go through some paces, BEFORE MARRIAGE, to further examine their commitment to it. I would expect you would applaud any organization that would support couples in examioning their relationship before they make it permanent. Should people stay in an abusive marriage because of it’s sanctity? No. Should people run for the hills at the first sign of trouble? No. As usual, there needs to be a reasonable balance.
PL - '...I am making my cause here is to stop the idealization of parenthood and treat it as we do any other significant 'occupation' that impacts on the welfare of our society, and subject the rearing of children to at least the minimum amount of scrutiny we give to the water pressure in our showers!'
Agreed. There are regulations for showers that are universal so the thing works. All plumbers need the same tools + stock and they have to be trained on only certain modes of assembly or leaks will be aplenty. However, when dealing with children or even people, I believe there are basically 4 different "types". Hippocrates categorized these types and were later redefined. (I'm sure there is research that could prove more or less types and it would take too much time to explain all of these but the point being, that there are different types of people).
If you accept that there are different people, you must accept that there are different ways of "parenting", "teaching" and "counseling". I will speak to teaching. I can't teach/motivate one student the same way I teach/motivate others. Some may be visual learners, others may be auditory, others may be verbal and others may be experiential. If I taught only in one mode, 75% of my students would not learn as easily as the students who love that one method. Can the others learn? Maybe, but it requires more work. Can I write or throw a baseball with my opposite hand? Yes, but it is difficult and the results are not the same. Ditto for learning.
Back to parenting. I ask those of us who have siblings to remember if the same approach used by our parents worked equally on us all? Did our parents treat us all the same? Did different approaches produce different results? There is much research on the birth order and personality/characteristics. Some need constant + harsh rules, others only need to be told once, still others need a different approach. Each of our parents has their own "tools" and different "water leaks". At the end of the day, if the shower works, all is well. I do not see how we could "TRY" to regulate, license or control parenting. There are too many types and what is right for one child may be totally wrong for another. Conversely, not all parents can "teach" in the same mode. I like the question because there really is no true answer. There can be no Truth with the exception of the outcome – happy, balanced + loved children. whatever gets you there is the "True" way.
Thanks for the opportunity Pete! There is more to follow......."
Thank you, Rick. I do wish more people gave this much thought to all of these subjects. I'm only going to say one short thing in response. The point I'm making isn't meant to be literal or technical as far as an actual licensing process for parenting is concerned. My point is that many people enter into parenting more haphazardly and with less forethought or capability or preparedness than they do many other less crucial things in life. People too often have kids to fulfill an image in their heads, a fairy tale from childhood that cannot be realized, and the kids suffer for it. That's it.
"Thanks for entertaining my comments. I must admit my instincts as a teacher limits me from being able to gloss over unsubstantiated comments or points. So when there is simple ranting, sometimes I don't see it as such. Forgive me.
I just read that NY times article and the only "Truth" to be found is that criminals are criminals. It in no way parallels your overgeneralizations on parenting. She makes no case as to why or how parents should be licensed, she just puts up these examples of criminal or "overtired" neglectful parents. Does that mean all parents need licenses? No. It just means all criminals, who happen to be parents, act criminally. Her case is not that all parents act criminally/neglectful.
Here is my response to your last email in the parenting strand:
PL - 'So many political and religious bloviators talk about the 'sanctity' of marriage...'
Ok, now I see your real motivation here. It wasn't as clear to me the first time. I completely disagree with the notion that the sanctity of marriage should be ignored or even minimized. If fact, in the Catholic and Episcopalian religions require couples to go through some paces, BEFORE MARRIAGE, to further examine their commitment to it. I would expect you would applaud any organization that would support couples in examioning their relationship before they make it permanent. Should people stay in an abusive marriage because of it’s sanctity? No. Should people run for the hills at the first sign of trouble? No. As usual, there needs to be a reasonable balance.
PL - '...I am making my cause here is to stop the idealization of parenthood and treat it as we do any other significant 'occupation' that impacts on the welfare of our society, and subject the rearing of children to at least the minimum amount of scrutiny we give to the water pressure in our showers!'
Agreed. There are regulations for showers that are universal so the thing works. All plumbers need the same tools + stock and they have to be trained on only certain modes of assembly or leaks will be aplenty. However, when dealing with children or even people, I believe there are basically 4 different "types". Hippocrates categorized these types and were later redefined. (I'm sure there is research that could prove more or less types and it would take too much time to explain all of these but the point being, that there are different types of people).
If you accept that there are different people, you must accept that there are different ways of "parenting", "teaching" and "counseling". I will speak to teaching. I can't teach/motivate one student the same way I teach/motivate others. Some may be visual learners, others may be auditory, others may be verbal and others may be experiential. If I taught only in one mode, 75% of my students would not learn as easily as the students who love that one method. Can the others learn? Maybe, but it requires more work. Can I write or throw a baseball with my opposite hand? Yes, but it is difficult and the results are not the same. Ditto for learning.
Back to parenting. I ask those of us who have siblings to remember if the same approach used by our parents worked equally on us all? Did our parents treat us all the same? Did different approaches produce different results? There is much research on the birth order and personality/characteristics. Some need constant + harsh rules, others only need to be told once, still others need a different approach. Each of our parents has their own "tools" and different "water leaks". At the end of the day, if the shower works, all is well. I do not see how we could "TRY" to regulate, license or control parenting. There are too many types and what is right for one child may be totally wrong for another. Conversely, not all parents can "teach" in the same mode. I like the question because there really is no true answer. There can be no Truth with the exception of the outcome – happy, balanced + loved children. whatever gets you there is the "True" way.
Thanks for the opportunity Pete! There is more to follow......."
Thank you, Rick. I do wish more people gave this much thought to all of these subjects. I'm only going to say one short thing in response. The point I'm making isn't meant to be literal or technical as far as an actual licensing process for parenting is concerned. My point is that many people enter into parenting more haphazardly and with less forethought or capability or preparedness than they do many other less crucial things in life. People too often have kids to fulfill an image in their heads, a fairy tale from childhood that cannot be realized, and the kids suffer for it. That's it.
YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS... BUT YOU SHOULD!!
I didn't write this, nor did I see it before I wrote my entry, "ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS GET LAID."
BUT... I just discovered that in the NY Times 2 days ago was a story entitled: "SHOULD PARENTING REQUIRE A LICENSE?" by Lisa Belkin. READ IT HERE: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/should-parenting-require-a-license/
YOU SEE HERE'S THE THING - THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE.
Some people think that I'm coming from my ego on this blog, or from some theory or philosophy. But I hate theory and philosophy. That's ego. What I seek to learn about and to talk about is the truth. So when I discover that I'm onto something that others seeking the truth are also onto, I'm not at all surprised because the truth is the Truth and is accessible to anyone who really wants to know it.
Just like I said the other day to Rick, it's not all subjective or a matter of opinion. There is such a thing as Reality with a capital "R," and there is such a thing as Truth with a capital "T."
BUT... I just discovered that in the NY Times 2 days ago was a story entitled: "SHOULD PARENTING REQUIRE A LICENSE?" by Lisa Belkin. READ IT HERE: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/should-parenting-require-a-license/
YOU SEE HERE'S THE THING - THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE.
Some people think that I'm coming from my ego on this blog, or from some theory or philosophy. But I hate theory and philosophy. That's ego. What I seek to learn about and to talk about is the truth. So when I discover that I'm onto something that others seeking the truth are also onto, I'm not at all surprised because the truth is the Truth and is accessible to anyone who really wants to know it.
Just like I said the other day to Rick, it's not all subjective or a matter of opinion. There is such a thing as Reality with a capital "R," and there is such a thing as Truth with a capital "T."
QUESTIONS FROM RICK
Here's Rick:
"I'd like to hear your take on one of your quotes, 'Politeness is the most acceptable form of hypocrisy.' - Ambrose Bierce. A few questions: 1. Do you see any value in being polite? I'm having a very difficult time connecting kindness, respect and care for the common good and anything negative. 2. What is your motivation behind posting this quote? 3. Do you not want us to be polite? If so, what is the expected outcome of such interaction?"
PL's response:
1. The sardonic point made by Ambrose Bierce (best known for his "The Devil's Dictionary," which is where that quote came from) is that we often mistakenly equate politeness with sincerity, and of greater issue is that we often use politeness to mask our own hypocrisy; 2. My motivation for using this quote is to sardonically make the point that I know that I am often not polite is slamming what I see to be others' hypocrisies; 3. While politeness is nice, I prefer rough honesty or "tough love" than politely delivered half-truths or false affection.
It's all good, Rick! We've been getting our asses kicked for so long by the crooks and liars, why can't a few good people kick a little ass, too? Polite?! Not me, not now, not anymore!
Keep 'em coming!
Pete
"I'd like to hear your take on one of your quotes, 'Politeness is the most acceptable form of hypocrisy.' - Ambrose Bierce. A few questions: 1. Do you see any value in being polite? I'm having a very difficult time connecting kindness, respect and care for the common good and anything negative. 2. What is your motivation behind posting this quote? 3. Do you not want us to be polite? If so, what is the expected outcome of such interaction?"
PL's response:
1. The sardonic point made by Ambrose Bierce (best known for his "The Devil's Dictionary," which is where that quote came from) is that we often mistakenly equate politeness with sincerity, and of greater issue is that we often use politeness to mask our own hypocrisy; 2. My motivation for using this quote is to sardonically make the point that I know that I am often not polite is slamming what I see to be others' hypocrisies; 3. While politeness is nice, I prefer rough honesty or "tough love" than politely delivered half-truths or false affection.
It's all good, Rick! We've been getting our asses kicked for so long by the crooks and liars, why can't a few good people kick a little ass, too? Polite?! Not me, not now, not anymore!
Keep 'em coming!
Pete
GLAD TO HEAR THIS!
Anonymous left this comment today after reading my posting on the "Schizoid Character Structure":
"This is me. I've been dealing with a psychologist for the past three months trying to find out what is 'wrong' with me. This blog has helped me to put things I couldn't convey into proper words. It has also helped me to understand myself and why things don't work like they should. Thanks a lot for helping me."
PL's response:
You're quite welcome, and know that if you're willing to do whatever it takes to free yourself from the confines of character structure, you can.
"This is me. I've been dealing with a psychologist for the past three months trying to find out what is 'wrong' with me. This blog has helped me to put things I couldn't convey into proper words. It has also helped me to understand myself and why things don't work like they should. Thanks a lot for helping me."
PL's response:
You're quite welcome, and know that if you're willing to do whatever it takes to free yourself from the confines of character structure, you can.
Tomorrow's Quote This Morning
Here's The Buddha:
"If a bull goes straight when the herd is crossing a road, then they will all go straight because he leads the way. The same among people. If the one who is thought to be the highest lives in goodness, the others do so too. The whole realm lives happily if the ruler lives rightly."
Here's Dick Cheney on the above:
“I think we made good decisions. I think we knew what we were doing.”
"If a bull goes straight when the herd is crossing a road, then they will all go straight because he leads the way. The same among people. If the one who is thought to be the highest lives in goodness, the others do so too. The whole realm lives happily if the ruler lives rightly."
Here's Dick Cheney on the above:
“I think we made good decisions. I think we knew what we were doing.”
ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS GET LAID!
Okay, it's a new year, so I might as well go straight out on the farthest limb I can to get things going right away, so... here I go.
To drive a car, you have to take a knowledge test and a skills test in order to get the required license, and then over time, you have to get your eyes checked to make sure you're still fit. To become a white collar professional, you usually have to have some years of higher education, at great cost, and then you still have to demonstrate your capabilities in said field to advance up the ladder, let alone become respected or revered. To become a blue-collar working person, you have to learn a demonstrable skill and you have to put in some kind of time as an apprentice. And almost everyone starts at the bottom and has to earn their way up by proving their talent and efficiency, etc., regardless of the field.
Except for parenting.
All you have to do to become a parent is get laid. That's it. Get laid, get pregnant (or get somebody pregnant) and you're instantly in the exalted role of Mommy or Daddy. You instantly get tax benefits, cheaper insurance rates, and other special financial rights, you are honored as the Head of a Family, and you are instantly idealized by unsuspecting offspring. You might be abusive, alcoholic or narcissistic, you might be barely out of your own childhood, you might not have a clue about child development, you might not have a stitch of self-awareness, you could be borderline psychotic, but you are instantly awarded a Ph.D. in parenting with all the rights and privileges awarded any other highly accomplished professional.
Except... you're not a professional. Often times, you're barely even competent, and don't even know what competent parenting is anyway. And your reasons for becoming a parent can be as inane as "I wanted to have kids," or "I got pregnant by accident and I didn't want to have an abortion."
So, we raise kids - lots and lots of kids - with less skill and training than a plumber or a truck driver. Think about it. Really.
I would like to make one of my dedications this year, and in this lifetime, the elimination of the idealization of parents. I have been a parent three times over, and I have been a social worker and therapist for thirty years, so as both my peers and as my patients, I have known many parents, and I have know many kids of parents. And I want to tell you this - the state of our economy and our infrastructure and our political system might suck, but the state of parenting really sucks! And I'm talking about the "good" parents, too, the ones who think that coddling their kids at every turn, or going through rings of fire to get their toddlers into a $30,000 pre-school, or giving up their own adult sex lives so the kids can have full-time access to their bedrooms. Those really dedicated parents who've never considered how their ego-driven, vicarious living out their lives through their kids is actually gutting their kids of independence and a sense of self.
Hey, folks, I know that for the human race to continue, we need to procreate, but what kind of world do we want to populate when we copulate? If we insist that in order to become a lawyer, you have to get two or three degrees and then earn your way up to partner by working 60-hour weeks for years, why should something as crucial to the well-being of our planet as parenting be left to rank amateurs and incompetents? Shouldn't prospective parents have to have a minimum number of years of some kind of therapy or self-work? Shouldn't parents need to know the basics about child development? Shouldn't they have to have the same drug-tests imposed on them as professional athletes do? Shouldn't they need a licensing process?
Come on, parents! Challenge me. Come back with something. Because I'm coming after you!
To drive a car, you have to take a knowledge test and a skills test in order to get the required license, and then over time, you have to get your eyes checked to make sure you're still fit. To become a white collar professional, you usually have to have some years of higher education, at great cost, and then you still have to demonstrate your capabilities in said field to advance up the ladder, let alone become respected or revered. To become a blue-collar working person, you have to learn a demonstrable skill and you have to put in some kind of time as an apprentice. And almost everyone starts at the bottom and has to earn their way up by proving their talent and efficiency, etc., regardless of the field.
Except for parenting.
All you have to do to become a parent is get laid. That's it. Get laid, get pregnant (or get somebody pregnant) and you're instantly in the exalted role of Mommy or Daddy. You instantly get tax benefits, cheaper insurance rates, and other special financial rights, you are honored as the Head of a Family, and you are instantly idealized by unsuspecting offspring. You might be abusive, alcoholic or narcissistic, you might be barely out of your own childhood, you might not have a clue about child development, you might not have a stitch of self-awareness, you could be borderline psychotic, but you are instantly awarded a Ph.D. in parenting with all the rights and privileges awarded any other highly accomplished professional.
Except... you're not a professional. Often times, you're barely even competent, and don't even know what competent parenting is anyway. And your reasons for becoming a parent can be as inane as "I wanted to have kids," or "I got pregnant by accident and I didn't want to have an abortion."
So, we raise kids - lots and lots of kids - with less skill and training than a plumber or a truck driver. Think about it. Really.
I would like to make one of my dedications this year, and in this lifetime, the elimination of the idealization of parents. I have been a parent three times over, and I have been a social worker and therapist for thirty years, so as both my peers and as my patients, I have known many parents, and I have know many kids of parents. And I want to tell you this - the state of our economy and our infrastructure and our political system might suck, but the state of parenting really sucks! And I'm talking about the "good" parents, too, the ones who think that coddling their kids at every turn, or going through rings of fire to get their toddlers into a $30,000 pre-school, or giving up their own adult sex lives so the kids can have full-time access to their bedrooms. Those really dedicated parents who've never considered how their ego-driven, vicarious living out their lives through their kids is actually gutting their kids of independence and a sense of self.
Hey, folks, I know that for the human race to continue, we need to procreate, but what kind of world do we want to populate when we copulate? If we insist that in order to become a lawyer, you have to get two or three degrees and then earn your way up to partner by working 60-hour weeks for years, why should something as crucial to the well-being of our planet as parenting be left to rank amateurs and incompetents? Shouldn't prospective parents have to have a minimum number of years of some kind of therapy or self-work? Shouldn't parents need to know the basics about child development? Shouldn't they have to have the same drug-tests imposed on them as professional athletes do? Shouldn't they need a licensing process?
Come on, parents! Challenge me. Come back with something. Because I'm coming after you!
RICK IS BACK & HE'S TAKING PL'S CHALLENGE TO PARENTS!
RICK WRITES:
"I had a snow day Wed, sorry for the verbosity!
PL writes, "Come on, parents! Challenge me. Come back with something. Because I'm coming after you!"
Challenge you? Well, I could get my Italian up, but, as I tell my students, if you want to argue, I bat 1000 and win every time. However, if you want to discuss something, both of us will win. Regardless, before I respond as a parent, I can't help notice that although we have entered a New Year, your attacking and belittling of others continues. Mr. Therapy of over 30 yrs, what is it about your own character that manifests itself in these putdowns? You wrote earlier that punching a pillow or screaming out loud might pacify one a bit, but it doesn't resolve the real issues. If your take on displaced aggression has any merit, what are your real problems? I would recommend punching a pillow and screaming for 5 minutes, before you begin writing. Maybe then, the value of all of those years of experience can be shared with us all as opposed to just slapping us around.
Back to PL’s “parents’ challenge”
Unfortunately, PL you have brought a knife to a gun fight. I hope other parents/patients do not sit back and just drink the Kool-Aid you’re mixing.
There are licensed teachers, plumbers, lawyers and doctors who have taken the necessary courses, have all the required certifications and still are horrible and immoral. There are parents who have taken the necessary courses, gone to therapy for, or have abundantly read on such topics as health, home safety, how to raise a child, be a good spouse/lover/parent etc. Unless we always try to be diligent in our responsibilities, and try to give of ourselves to others and try to do the right thing, you will see a leak in your pipes, a gauze left in your body after surgery and children who hate you. To be good at anything, it takes constant evaluation of what we do and a willingness to accept responsibility for our actions and admit we are wrong.
If you looked at my resume, one might think I am a more than well-qualified high school teacher. The problem is that I could just show up and play DVD’s or just be an ogre and keep the kids in line(I must admit, many an administrator judge a teacher’s worth on how well the students behave instead of what they actually learn). Is this good teaching? I have taught with some poor teachers who had much better “qualifications” than me. I have also taught with some better teachers than me, who have never taken an education course.
My brother is not a licensed plumber or mechanic but he has done excellent work in both fields. Look at all the licensed drivers out there? What makes one good or bad? They all have the same “qualifications”. The analogy loses credibility as soon as it is generally applied.
If the stork arrived on our door step, then I might agree that, “All you have to do to become a parent is get laid”. However, there is an education to be had and the lessons keep coming every day. If the father lives with the mother, there is a learning that takes place during the gestational period. There is more info than I care to think of on how to nurture the unborn and how to help the mother carry your child. If you want it, there is a preliminary license to be had during this phase.
Next opportunity for licensure? The birth. Those of us who have been intimately involved with or have even gone through the labor and delivery process, get an education in humility, irrational rage, intense love + emotion and complete dedication and sacrifice to something else (i.e. ego control). Some people are blessed with easy and supportive deliveries. For others, it can be lonely, terrifying and demoralizing. In either case, lessons about who we are and how to be a good parents are all around us. (I admit this needs to be flushed out more but I hope you can understand my point)
Next phase of licensing? It is the choice of the parents to be lifelong learners and continue to hone their skills as solid caregivers, nurturers and parents.
Look no further than our children’s faces, bodies and attitudes for learning opportunities. It is up to us to determine when our methods are helpful or hurtful. Sure they may get mad when we say no to staying out late, not get their way or make them eat Brussel sprouts. But at the end of the day, if we are reasonable, they realize we are parenting and not abusing/controlling/neglecting. There is support and lessons for us parents, we just have to find it and admit that we can make mistakes. Learning from those very mistakes us better parents + people, and garners us the elusive respect of our children (I guess they have to love us as PL declares). Ignoring our mistakes or trying to justify them or excuse them keeps us shackled.
PL wrote, “So, we raise kids - lots and lots of kids - with less skill and training than a plumber or a truck driver. Think about it. Really.”
Well, I have thought about it, really, and have come to the conclusion that very little in life is black + white and just because someone has the experience or the license, it isn’t a necessary indicator to one’s effectiveness in that field.
For those parents PL hates and wants to eliminate, lessons are all around. I thought the New Year would bring some of those lessons to this blog. If the writer can figure out why he feels compelled to write with such rage and anger, maybe all of those years as a therapist might mean something. If this tone is representative of his approach to therapy, it appears the license he has is just as bogus as the label he claims we parents have.
Buon Anno!
"I had a snow day Wed, sorry for the verbosity!
PL writes, "Come on, parents! Challenge me. Come back with something. Because I'm coming after you!"
Challenge you? Well, I could get my Italian up, but, as I tell my students, if you want to argue, I bat 1000 and win every time. However, if you want to discuss something, both of us will win. Regardless, before I respond as a parent, I can't help notice that although we have entered a New Year, your attacking and belittling of others continues. Mr. Therapy of over 30 yrs, what is it about your own character that manifests itself in these putdowns? You wrote earlier that punching a pillow or screaming out loud might pacify one a bit, but it doesn't resolve the real issues. If your take on displaced aggression has any merit, what are your real problems? I would recommend punching a pillow and screaming for 5 minutes, before you begin writing. Maybe then, the value of all of those years of experience can be shared with us all as opposed to just slapping us around.
Back to PL’s “parents’ challenge”
Unfortunately, PL you have brought a knife to a gun fight. I hope other parents/patients do not sit back and just drink the Kool-Aid you’re mixing.
There are licensed teachers, plumbers, lawyers and doctors who have taken the necessary courses, have all the required certifications and still are horrible and immoral. There are parents who have taken the necessary courses, gone to therapy for, or have abundantly read on such topics as health, home safety, how to raise a child, be a good spouse/lover/parent etc. Unless we always try to be diligent in our responsibilities, and try to give of ourselves to others and try to do the right thing, you will see a leak in your pipes, a gauze left in your body after surgery and children who hate you. To be good at anything, it takes constant evaluation of what we do and a willingness to accept responsibility for our actions and admit we are wrong.
If you looked at my resume, one might think I am a more than well-qualified high school teacher. The problem is that I could just show up and play DVD’s or just be an ogre and keep the kids in line(I must admit, many an administrator judge a teacher’s worth on how well the students behave instead of what they actually learn). Is this good teaching? I have taught with some poor teachers who had much better “qualifications” than me. I have also taught with some better teachers than me, who have never taken an education course.
My brother is not a licensed plumber or mechanic but he has done excellent work in both fields. Look at all the licensed drivers out there? What makes one good or bad? They all have the same “qualifications”. The analogy loses credibility as soon as it is generally applied.
If the stork arrived on our door step, then I might agree that, “All you have to do to become a parent is get laid”. However, there is an education to be had and the lessons keep coming every day. If the father lives with the mother, there is a learning that takes place during the gestational period. There is more info than I care to think of on how to nurture the unborn and how to help the mother carry your child. If you want it, there is a preliminary license to be had during this phase.
Next opportunity for licensure? The birth. Those of us who have been intimately involved with or have even gone through the labor and delivery process, get an education in humility, irrational rage, intense love + emotion and complete dedication and sacrifice to something else (i.e. ego control). Some people are blessed with easy and supportive deliveries. For others, it can be lonely, terrifying and demoralizing. In either case, lessons about who we are and how to be a good parents are all around us. (I admit this needs to be flushed out more but I hope you can understand my point)
Next phase of licensing? It is the choice of the parents to be lifelong learners and continue to hone their skills as solid caregivers, nurturers and parents.
Look no further than our children’s faces, bodies and attitudes for learning opportunities. It is up to us to determine when our methods are helpful or hurtful. Sure they may get mad when we say no to staying out late, not get their way or make them eat Brussel sprouts. But at the end of the day, if we are reasonable, they realize we are parenting and not abusing/controlling/neglecting. There is support and lessons for us parents, we just have to find it and admit that we can make mistakes. Learning from those very mistakes us better parents + people, and garners us the elusive respect of our children (I guess they have to love us as PL declares). Ignoring our mistakes or trying to justify them or excuse them keeps us shackled.
PL wrote, “So, we raise kids - lots and lots of kids - with less skill and training than a plumber or a truck driver. Think about it. Really.”
Well, I have thought about it, really, and have come to the conclusion that very little in life is black + white and just because someone has the experience or the license, it isn’t a necessary indicator to one’s effectiveness in that field.
For those parents PL hates and wants to eliminate, lessons are all around. I thought the New Year would bring some of those lessons to this blog. If the writer can figure out why he feels compelled to write with such rage and anger, maybe all of those years as a therapist might mean something. If this tone is representative of his approach to therapy, it appears the license he has is just as bogus as the label he claims we parents have.
Buon Anno!
PL's RESPONSE TO RICK's CHALLENGE
Happy New Year to you, Rick! Glad to have your excoriating responses to kick off this year with me.
As is often the case regarding your responses to something I've written, my first response is - yes, yes, yes, I agree with much of what you say. But here's the thing - while, of course, it true that there are great people in every field, including parenting, who've had no formal training, and there are lousy people in every field who've had a lot of training, my point is that in terms of our priorities as a society, we are much more concerned about how good our lawyers and plumbers are than how good our parents are. Nothing is a panacea, and neither therapy nor education nor even experience guarantees enlightenment by itself, but couldn't we at least make an effort?
So many political and religious bloviators talk about the "sanctity" of marriage and the family, but what is that sanctity based on beyond the most base of animalistic instincts to copulate and procreate? I've been working in the human services field for a long time - 30 years as you often remind me - and I've seen kids kept in horrendous situations by our courts and institutions simply because the biological parents have the most highly valued and protected rights by virtue of nothing more than... their biology!
If you read carefully what I wrote, Rick, what I am making my cause here is to stop the idealization of parenthood and treat it as we do any other significant "occupation" that impacts on the welfare of our society, and subject the rearing of children to at least the minimum amount of scrutiny we give to the water pressure in our showers!
Finally, since you regularly bring it up, I don't know where you get your ideas about what constitutes being a good therapist, though it sounds kind of like the archaic "blank screen" approach to psychoanalysis that never did Woody Allen any good, but I definitely see healthy anger and ass-kicking as part of my tool box when it comes to guiding people on their paths. My aggression isn't "displaced" - it's meant for the people I'm directing it at, and calling someone who's acting like a fool a "fool" isn't "attacking," it's making an accurate assessment. I'm not serving any Kool-Aide here, and I challenge you to identify what you think my "dogma" is.
From my vantage point, there is such a thing as Reality with a capital "R." It's not all subjective or relative. No matter what anyone's opinion is, on this planet, there's gravity. If you jump out a window, regardless of your beliefs, you're going down. And so on.
As is often the case regarding your responses to something I've written, my first response is - yes, yes, yes, I agree with much of what you say. But here's the thing - while, of course, it true that there are great people in every field, including parenting, who've had no formal training, and there are lousy people in every field who've had a lot of training, my point is that in terms of our priorities as a society, we are much more concerned about how good our lawyers and plumbers are than how good our parents are. Nothing is a panacea, and neither therapy nor education nor even experience guarantees enlightenment by itself, but couldn't we at least make an effort?
So many political and religious bloviators talk about the "sanctity" of marriage and the family, but what is that sanctity based on beyond the most base of animalistic instincts to copulate and procreate? I've been working in the human services field for a long time - 30 years as you often remind me - and I've seen kids kept in horrendous situations by our courts and institutions simply because the biological parents have the most highly valued and protected rights by virtue of nothing more than... their biology!
If you read carefully what I wrote, Rick, what I am making my cause here is to stop the idealization of parenthood and treat it as we do any other significant "occupation" that impacts on the welfare of our society, and subject the rearing of children to at least the minimum amount of scrutiny we give to the water pressure in our showers!
Finally, since you regularly bring it up, I don't know where you get your ideas about what constitutes being a good therapist, though it sounds kind of like the archaic "blank screen" approach to psychoanalysis that never did Woody Allen any good, but I definitely see healthy anger and ass-kicking as part of my tool box when it comes to guiding people on their paths. My aggression isn't "displaced" - it's meant for the people I'm directing it at, and calling someone who's acting like a fool a "fool" isn't "attacking," it's making an accurate assessment. I'm not serving any Kool-Aide here, and I challenge you to identify what you think my "dogma" is.
From my vantage point, there is such a thing as Reality with a capital "R." It's not all subjective or relative. No matter what anyone's opinion is, on this planet, there's gravity. If you jump out a window, regardless of your beliefs, you're going down. And so on.
Today's Quote
The most important thing that parents can teach their children is how to get along without them.
Frank A. Clark
Frank A. Clark
"lNEELY" on "I Love My Work But Hate My Profession!"
"The problem I have with so many self-proclaimed 'experts' is that they fail to take into account the real world, and the real and potential consequences of the actions they propose you take. In simplest terms, tantrums have more negative than positive effect, at least as I've experienced, so her claim seemed like rubbish from the moment I read the headline. Thanks for your input on this. Glad I'm not the only one who smells something fishy about it."
"INEELY's" COMMENT ON "HOW MANY MORE GEORGE BUSHES ARE ON THE WAY?"
"Everybody's a winner!" What brilliant marketing!
I'm glad to see that past generations are realizing this plight as well. That's not meant as an insult, but I see from your photo that you're an older gentleman.
Millenials are an enigmatic group. Quick learners, technologically savvy, multi-talented, and many are accustomed to being rewarded for nothing in the holy name of the "self esteem" cult. In competitive sports for children, trophies are handed out to everybody. In public schools, even in universities to a certain degree, it's all but impossible to fail a course. The indoctrination that self-esteem is more important than excellence has become a monster, and it's not only parents who are to blame.
What makes me most curious is, will it be the workplace that must adapt to take advantage of the skills of Millenials, or will it be the Millenials who must adjust to the workplace? IMHO, a little compromise on both sides never hurt anybody -- a more laid back professional setting (within reason) tends to improve morale and productivity for everyone, and ensuring that most of the company's workers are content is generally good -- but I think we'll eventually realize as a generation that the self-esteem cult is garbage, and opt for a more moderate and rational world view.
I'm glad to see that past generations are realizing this plight as well. That's not meant as an insult, but I see from your photo that you're an older gentleman.
Millenials are an enigmatic group. Quick learners, technologically savvy, multi-talented, and many are accustomed to being rewarded for nothing in the holy name of the "self esteem" cult. In competitive sports for children, trophies are handed out to everybody. In public schools, even in universities to a certain degree, it's all but impossible to fail a course. The indoctrination that self-esteem is more important than excellence has become a monster, and it's not only parents who are to blame.
What makes me most curious is, will it be the workplace that must adapt to take advantage of the skills of Millenials, or will it be the Millenials who must adjust to the workplace? IMHO, a little compromise on both sides never hurt anybody -- a more laid back professional setting (within reason) tends to improve morale and productivity for everyone, and ensuring that most of the company's workers are content is generally good -- but I think we'll eventually realize as a generation that the self-esteem cult is garbage, and opt for a more moderate and rational world view.
I Love My Work But Hate My Profession!
Here's one reason why: the existence of Judi James, a psychologist and self-proclaimed body language expert on a ridiculous reality show called "Big Brother." Judi has a blurb on the Huffington Post entitled: "FEELING STRESSED? THROW A TEMPER TANTRUM!"
The piece is as inane as it is misleading.
What, you say? Yes, many of you know, in therapy sessions with me, you may be asked at times to hit pillows or "have a tantrum" on a mattress, so what gives, Peter?
Well, first of all, releasing surface anger left over from your day by screaming or having tantrums or hitting or breaking things or kick-boxing or whatever has almost no therapeutic value whatsoever. Literally almost none. I say "almost," because that superficial discharge can provide a moment of relief afterwards, but it has no effect on the stockpile of rage and pain long-held inside oneself that is the real cause of so many of our problems - emotionally, mentally and physically.
To truly have a healing release of pent-up emotion, a safe, supportive and reflective relationship with another person is required while screaming and hitting the pillows, so that the deeper, festering feelings can be accessed with support and guidance that allows for integration and understanding. "Letting off steam" is exactly that... and nothing more.
Judi James is part of an epidemic in the psychotherapy profession. Whether from laziness - rooted in the fear of their own inner lives, or from psychopathic greed - trying to make a fast buck by offering quick fixes to desperate people in pain, or from gigantic egos - wanting to appear magical to the needy child in their patients, far too many therapists offer gimmick-based therapies, or even worse... drug-based therapies.
DRUGS!
Oh, how I hate the use of drugs by psychotherapists!
Of all the abuses a helping professional can inflict on a patient, it's the prescribing of a drug to solve an emotional problem that I find the most despicable. It's really simple, folks. It's not complicated at all. Almost all emotional problems are caused by the suppression of feelings, and almost all mental problems are caused by the repression of thoughts. Not hard to figure out that freeing up those feelings and thoughts should provide a healing if done with care and professional know-how, right? Right.
Drugs, on the other hand, offer false relief by actually aiding in the process of suppression and repression, ultimately deepening the problem. How insidious - and financially lucrative - is that?! These days, everyone knows a story about someone who is taking a psychotropic medication and is now on an endless train ride of more and more medications, and yet, is still getting worse over time. Sometimes, that "worse" even means suicidal.
People, be in charge of your healing process. Don't ever let a supposed "professional" kid you into believing in magic potions or "chemical imbalances" or RESTLESS LEG SYNDROME!! Drug companies and their M.D. shills make up those terms to rid you of your cash, not of your symptoms.
Ugh! I need to go have a tantrum!
The piece is as inane as it is misleading.
What, you say? Yes, many of you know, in therapy sessions with me, you may be asked at times to hit pillows or "have a tantrum" on a mattress, so what gives, Peter?
Well, first of all, releasing surface anger left over from your day by screaming or having tantrums or hitting or breaking things or kick-boxing or whatever has almost no therapeutic value whatsoever. Literally almost none. I say "almost," because that superficial discharge can provide a moment of relief afterwards, but it has no effect on the stockpile of rage and pain long-held inside oneself that is the real cause of so many of our problems - emotionally, mentally and physically.
To truly have a healing release of pent-up emotion, a safe, supportive and reflective relationship with another person is required while screaming and hitting the pillows, so that the deeper, festering feelings can be accessed with support and guidance that allows for integration and understanding. "Letting off steam" is exactly that... and nothing more.
Judi James is part of an epidemic in the psychotherapy profession. Whether from laziness - rooted in the fear of their own inner lives, or from psychopathic greed - trying to make a fast buck by offering quick fixes to desperate people in pain, or from gigantic egos - wanting to appear magical to the needy child in their patients, far too many therapists offer gimmick-based therapies, or even worse... drug-based therapies.
DRUGS!
Oh, how I hate the use of drugs by psychotherapists!
Of all the abuses a helping professional can inflict on a patient, it's the prescribing of a drug to solve an emotional problem that I find the most despicable. It's really simple, folks. It's not complicated at all. Almost all emotional problems are caused by the suppression of feelings, and almost all mental problems are caused by the repression of thoughts. Not hard to figure out that freeing up those feelings and thoughts should provide a healing if done with care and professional know-how, right? Right.
Drugs, on the other hand, offer false relief by actually aiding in the process of suppression and repression, ultimately deepening the problem. How insidious - and financially lucrative - is that?! These days, everyone knows a story about someone who is taking a psychotropic medication and is now on an endless train ride of more and more medications, and yet, is still getting worse over time. Sometimes, that "worse" even means suicidal.
People, be in charge of your healing process. Don't ever let a supposed "professional" kid you into believing in magic potions or "chemical imbalances" or RESTLESS LEG SYNDROME!! Drug companies and their M.D. shills make up those terms to rid you of your cash, not of your symptoms.
Ugh! I need to go have a tantrum!
HOW MANY MORE GEORGE BUSHES ARE ON THE WAY? ASK AN OVERINDULGENT PARENT!
People have given me a lot of lip over the last couple of years because I have given them a lot of lip. In one area in particular, I have taken a strong and harsh position that many people haven't liked - towards over-indulgent parents. I have frequently decried the "generation of narcissists" that said parents are creating, and warned that these seemingly innocuous kids who are used to being the center of the universe are going to do some harm someday. I'm not the only one aware of the real and potential damage. Frank Rich, in this morning's Times, wrote about the enormous damage George W. Bush has wreaked on our country by virtue of his narcissism.
Frank Rich:
"The man who emerges is a narcissist with no self-awareness whatsoever. It’s that arrogance that allowed him to tune out even the most calamitous of realities, freeing him to compound them without missing a step."
Here's a posting from my blog that I put up last May. It that followed a "SIXTY MINUTES" show on the effects of "over-parenting."
Was anybody home last night to watch the "60 Minutes" story" on the new generation of "kids" that have recently arrived to "adulthood?" Man, I've been writing and ranting about this age group and the one coming after them for years now, and getting no small amount of flack for it. I've been begging parents to consider the consequences for the narcissists they're creating, and for the world at large, and admonishing those same parents for their own ego-driven, vicarious motivations that are gutting our kids.
Well, it's hitting the mainstream media now. Here's Morley Safer from last night's show:
"There are about 80 million of them, born between 1980 and 1995, and they're rapidly taking over from the Baby Boomers who are now pushing 60. They were raised by doting parents who told them they are special, played in little leagues with no winners or losers, or all winners. They are laden with trophies just for participating and they think your business-as-usual ethic is for the birds, and you can take your job and shove it. They are a generation that only takes 'yes' for an answer. And their priorities are simple: they come first."
Now, many who know me or read this blog have heard me talk about the "Joy of Quitting," or the "End of the Job," and "Full Permission Working." I am a staunch advocate of not wasting your life doing things that you don't find fulfilling. And I certainly see the 9-to-5 (now 8-to-8) corporate cog work-life as demeaning and spirit-crushing. But by no means do I advocate remaining a child. I absolutely know that fulfillment in life includes the capacity to be creative and productive in the world, and attaining what Erik Erikson called "generativity," the desire to give back.
Marian Salzman was on the show. She's an ad agency executive who has been managing and tracking "Millennials" since they entered the workforce. "You do have to speak to them a little bit like a therapist on television might speak to a patient," Salzman says, laughing. "You can't be harsh. You cannot tell them you're disappointed in them. These young people will tell you what time their yoga class is and that the day's work will be organized around the fact that they have that commitment. How wonderful it is to be young and have your priorities so clear. Flipside of it is how awful it is to be managing the extension, sort of, of the teenage babysitting pool," Salzman tells Safer.
Her words, folks, not mine -an "extension" of "the teenage babysitting pool." Exactly. One of the questions I've often put to parents is "Who's going to continue coddling your kids when they reach adulthood? Who's going to hire them? And who in their right mind would ever want to marry someone who needs an eternal source of narcissistic supply from their partner?"
Mary Crane offers crash courses for Millennials, trying to prepare them for actual work. She said this on 60 Minutes: "You now have a generation coming into the workplace that has grown up with the expectation that they will automatically win, and they'll always be rewarded, even for just showing up," Crane says.
In psychological terms, by the way, that's called "Primary Narcissism."
Morley was onto it.
"So who's to blame for the narcissistic praise hounds now taking over the office?" Safer asks.
Wall Street Journal columnist Jeffrey Zaslow blames...Mr. Rogers! "You have got a guy like Fred Rogers on TV. He was telling his preschoolers, 'You're special. You're special.' And he meant well. But we, as parents, ran with it. And we said, 'You, Junior, are special, and you're special and you're special and you're special.' And for doing what? We didn't really explain that," Zaslow says.
Furthermore, he says that the coddling virus continues to eat away even when junior goes off to college.
"I heard from several professors who said, a student will come up after class and say, 'I don't like my grade, and my mom wants to talk to you, here's the phone," Zaslow says. "And the students think it's like a service. 'I deserve an A because I'm paying for it. What are you giving me a C for?"
Now, here's where the pathology really starts to manifest from this upbringing without autonomy:
"Today," Morley Safer says, "more than half of college seniors move home after graduation. It's a safety net, or safety diaper, that allows many kids to quickly opt out of a job they don't like."
Does that give anyone a chill: "SAFETY DIAPER?!"
"There once was, if not shame, a little certain uneasiness about being seen to be living at home in your mid 20s, yes?" Safer asks Mary Crane.
"Not only is there no shame with it, but this is thought to be a very smart, wise, economic decision," Crane says.
Finally, here's where it gets really sad. This is a young man in his twenties, talking about his upbringing, interviewed on the show:
"Our parents really took from us that opportunity to fall down on our face and learn how to stand up," says Jason Dorsey.
You can find the whole transcript of the SIXTY MINUTES show here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/08/60minutes/main3475200.shtml
To find more of my writings on the subject of narcissism, go here: http://fullpermissionliving.blogspot.com/search?q=narcissism
Frank Rich:
"The man who emerges is a narcissist with no self-awareness whatsoever. It’s that arrogance that allowed him to tune out even the most calamitous of realities, freeing him to compound them without missing a step."
Here's a posting from my blog that I put up last May. It that followed a "SIXTY MINUTES" show on the effects of "over-parenting."
Was anybody home last night to watch the "60 Minutes" story" on the new generation of "kids" that have recently arrived to "adulthood?" Man, I've been writing and ranting about this age group and the one coming after them for years now, and getting no small amount of flack for it. I've been begging parents to consider the consequences for the narcissists they're creating, and for the world at large, and admonishing those same parents for their own ego-driven, vicarious motivations that are gutting our kids.
Well, it's hitting the mainstream media now. Here's Morley Safer from last night's show:
"There are about 80 million of them, born between 1980 and 1995, and they're rapidly taking over from the Baby Boomers who are now pushing 60. They were raised by doting parents who told them they are special, played in little leagues with no winners or losers, or all winners. They are laden with trophies just for participating and they think your business-as-usual ethic is for the birds, and you can take your job and shove it. They are a generation that only takes 'yes' for an answer. And their priorities are simple: they come first."
Now, many who know me or read this blog have heard me talk about the "Joy of Quitting," or the "End of the Job," and "Full Permission Working." I am a staunch advocate of not wasting your life doing things that you don't find fulfilling. And I certainly see the 9-to-5 (now 8-to-8) corporate cog work-life as demeaning and spirit-crushing. But by no means do I advocate remaining a child. I absolutely know that fulfillment in life includes the capacity to be creative and productive in the world, and attaining what Erik Erikson called "generativity," the desire to give back.
Marian Salzman was on the show. She's an ad agency executive who has been managing and tracking "Millennials" since they entered the workforce. "You do have to speak to them a little bit like a therapist on television might speak to a patient," Salzman says, laughing. "You can't be harsh. You cannot tell them you're disappointed in them. These young people will tell you what time their yoga class is and that the day's work will be organized around the fact that they have that commitment. How wonderful it is to be young and have your priorities so clear. Flipside of it is how awful it is to be managing the extension, sort of, of the teenage babysitting pool," Salzman tells Safer.
Her words, folks, not mine -an "extension" of "the teenage babysitting pool." Exactly. One of the questions I've often put to parents is "Who's going to continue coddling your kids when they reach adulthood? Who's going to hire them? And who in their right mind would ever want to marry someone who needs an eternal source of narcissistic supply from their partner?"
Mary Crane offers crash courses for Millennials, trying to prepare them for actual work. She said this on 60 Minutes: "You now have a generation coming into the workplace that has grown up with the expectation that they will automatically win, and they'll always be rewarded, even for just showing up," Crane says.
In psychological terms, by the way, that's called "Primary Narcissism."
Morley was onto it.
"So who's to blame for the narcissistic praise hounds now taking over the office?" Safer asks.
Wall Street Journal columnist Jeffrey Zaslow blames...Mr. Rogers! "You have got a guy like Fred Rogers on TV. He was telling his preschoolers, 'You're special. You're special.' And he meant well. But we, as parents, ran with it. And we said, 'You, Junior, are special, and you're special and you're special and you're special.' And for doing what? We didn't really explain that," Zaslow says.
Furthermore, he says that the coddling virus continues to eat away even when junior goes off to college.
"I heard from several professors who said, a student will come up after class and say, 'I don't like my grade, and my mom wants to talk to you, here's the phone," Zaslow says. "And the students think it's like a service. 'I deserve an A because I'm paying for it. What are you giving me a C for?"
Now, here's where the pathology really starts to manifest from this upbringing without autonomy:
"Today," Morley Safer says, "more than half of college seniors move home after graduation. It's a safety net, or safety diaper, that allows many kids to quickly opt out of a job they don't like."
Does that give anyone a chill: "SAFETY DIAPER?!"
"There once was, if not shame, a little certain uneasiness about being seen to be living at home in your mid 20s, yes?" Safer asks Mary Crane.
"Not only is there no shame with it, but this is thought to be a very smart, wise, economic decision," Crane says.
Finally, here's where it gets really sad. This is a young man in his twenties, talking about his upbringing, interviewed on the show:
"Our parents really took from us that opportunity to fall down on our face and learn how to stand up," says Jason Dorsey.
You can find the whole transcript of the SIXTY MINUTES show here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/08/60minutes/main3475200.shtml
To find more of my writings on the subject of narcissism, go here: http://fullpermissionliving.blogspot.com/search?q=narcissism
Today's Monster Quote
“Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge”
Horace Mann
Horace Mann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
