Am I requesting for a kind of an impossible-to-find asset?
I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.
In terms of long-term parenting philosophies, though, I'd strongly suggest reading Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids by Bryan Caplan: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004OA64Q6/
It's a book length treatment of the fact that twin studies have demonstrated extremely convincingly that as long as you meet a pretty low bar for decent parenting (you aren't such an obviously bad parent that you would get rejected by adoption agencies) the impact of your parenting on your kids' lives is minimal at best. You won't make them smarter, you won't change their personality to be more adventurous or cautious, you won't succeed in molding them with all the life lessons you've learned, and you won't put them on a path to happiness (or unhappiness) when they grow up.
This may sound somewhat bleak if you're hoping to tiger-mom your children to Harvard. But it's also freeing--you can stop worrying, enjoy the ride more, and maybe most importantly, give your kids a fun childhood they'll look back on with pleasure.
That's assuming an upbringing in regular society, though, yes? I'm curious whether there'd be much larger effect-sizes on these interventions for children who are brought up in isolation, knowing only their families (e.g. this girl: https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/invisible-girl/).
If that's true—if there is a larger effect-size—then it suggests that "the real problem" isn't so much that nothing works, as that your society has a much larger effect in shaping you (toward the mean, usually) than your parents could ever have; and that, perhaps, part of the plan for raising children well should be to immigrate to a country with the sort of culture that you would want to rub off on them. Or, at least, emigrate away from your own country—to anywhere else—if you severely disagree with your culture's beliefs, because your kids are likely to pick up some of those beliefs no matter what you do.
And if a larger effect-size isn't there, then it would suggest everything about people is a lot more genetically determined than we think, and that you should translate any impulse you have to raise kids to be a certain way, into an impulse to select mates with good genes (and maybe to adopt if your own genes won't produce the kids you want.)
It's not that its a healthy thing for society to form these monocultural blocks of opinions, but after thinking about what values I were taught in school and how long it took me to unlearn the most damaging ones, i'd favor having the option to go somewhere else more sensible to me.
But yeah, not worrying overmuch about the outcomes does allow parents to enjoy the ride and help their kids feel the love, attention, and structure that facilitates them growing into themselves.
I would guess that tiger moms probably influence their children's lives much more through heritability of personality attributes (like persistence, ambition, intelligence, etc.) than through their parenting style.
Been a while since I read it but he covered the obvious counterpoints from what I remember.
For every child that was pushed into an Ivy by a ruthless parent, there are probably many others who were left only with an unhappy childhood and a lingering lack of self-esteem.
In the case of tiger moms, the confounding factor is that along with their overbearing parenting they probably passed along some highly effective genes, though the kids probably would have been just as effective (maybe even more-so) with a more relaxed upbringing.
Also, you probably don't need books. Be an attentive parent and get to know your child. They are a person. Invest a lot of time in finding a good pediatrician, and listen to them, too.
Give your kids loads of love, in whatever way feels right to you and your family.
I did kind of a poor job at this at first, and it resulted in me getting completely burned out from trying to maintain work, side projects, community engagement (ie. the user group/meetup I had started), etc etc etc ... once I re-evaluated my priorities, I realized that for the next few years I had to cut back on that other stuff a bit to focus on my family (and work of course, gotta bring home that bacon after all ;) ). Resulted in a significant QoL improvement for me ... and the kids eventually got older, which opened up more time for "stuff" again :)
As long as you bear in mind what they are - just individuals' ideas - not advice, the right answer, gospel, etc.
Talking to babies more helps them learn language faster.
Reading to children helps them become stronger readers.
spanking children makes them more likely to have problems with aggression. Later in life it's a risk factor for criminality and problems with mental health.
I don't spank, but up until 30 or 40 years ago, spanking was a perfectly acceptable form of punishment, and probably most kids were spanked at one time or another. And it wasn't like society was significantly more aggressive than it is now. So I don't know how you can make that sweeping generalization -- at least post links to some studies.
Here is one study that found that the link between spanking and aggression is greatly determined by the context in which the spanking occurs: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED415019.pdf
Yes it was. Much, Much, Much more.
Murder and violence, domestic violence. Society 40 years ago was radically different than it is now, and most of the 20th C. was a very violent time.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/01/03/how-lead-c...
It isnt merely accidental. Of course it isnt the explanation for WW2, or the 1970s murder rate. Neither is lead.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/30/5-facts-abou...
Violent crime rates both in America and within the developed world at large are way down. This is usually overlooked because we've now become hypersensitized to remaining acts of violence - a "mass shooter" that kills nobody but themselves is now all over the Internet in real time, while when I was a kid in the 80s, everyday violence within large swathes of American society would just be a "just another homicide in a blighted urban area, don't go there". But by the statistics, America today is a lot safer than 30 years ago.
Now, I have no idea whether this is because of spanking or not, and drawing a causal connection is much harder in the face of all the conflating changes within society since then. But it's factually incorrect to say that "society wasn't significantly more aggressive than it is now", because it was.
Except they're still higher than they were in 1960 (and kids raised in the 1930s and 1940s certainly got spanked).
https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/americas-faulty-perceptio...
There's a wider context, though, where violent crime during 1940-1960 was abnormally low compared to the earlier part of the century (which had violent crime rates similar to today), and then it shot up in the 1970s. And the 1900s in general has been quite low to historical homicide rates in colonial times.
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/docu...
All of this fits my point that you can't really draw conclusions one way or another from the crime rate.
From the Wiki
> Proponents of the lead-crime hypothesis argue that the removal of lead additives from motor fuel, and the consequent decline in children's lead exposure, explains the fall in crime rates in the United States beginning in the 1990s. This hypothesis also offers an explanation of the rise in crime in the preceding decades as the result of increased lead exposure throughout the mid-20th century.
The Abortion hypothesis: kids who would've otherwise turned out to be violent criminals were aborted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_e...
The Broken Windows hypothesis, that cracking down on minor petty crime reduces major violent crime:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
The Economic Development hypothesis, that tough times create crime:
https://www.citylab.com/life/2013/09/puzzling-relationship-b...
And probably a bunch that I haven't heard of.
Really, I doubt we'll ever figure out what causes an increase or decrease in the crime rate, because there's likely more than one cause. Because of that, I don't think it's good evidence on either side for a debate on spanking. (Which, BTW, has just validated the point everyone's been making that any collaboratively-built parenting encyclopedia is likely to generate more heat than light.)
[EDIT: I went back and realized the original ask wasn't just about newborns, but about parenting all different age levels. I'm not sure that changes much of my opinion, but I do think it makes a collaborative project more interesting/useful]
People say this all the time even though it ignores the fact that virtually anyone has parents even if they don't have kids. Having a kid doesn't make you better at parenting. At best, it forces you to think about parenting but there was nothing stopping you from doing that before.
Holy cow, this is so untrue. Having a kid is pretty much the _only_ way to get better at parenting, saving maybe babysitting someone else's kids for long periods of time.
Given that no one even came close to saying this, this comment seems very disingenuous.
Speak to them. Listen to them. Read to them. Play with them. Don't try to over manage things. Don't over protect them. Let them fail. Let them fall. Don't be too pushy with things you want them to like.
They are not mini you, they are them :)
E.g. what does "over protect" mean? Is it ok to let your 2yo climb on the climbing things at the playground, even if they are for bigger kids? Is hovering to catch him/her in case of fall overprotecting? What about climbing on trees? And Fences? At what age exactly is it ok to let your kids go to school or come back on their own?
Or, "read to them". Is one story at evening enough? one booklet per kid maybe? 2 each seems better, but then, probably it's better to read them something in the morning too etc.
Going back to the original proposition, most likely it won't matter too much if you read 1 book a week or ten stories a day to your kid, s/he will love you anyway, and as long as you are not abusive and keep them fed and clean, you'll be a good enough parent, which is the best one can hope for.
Some suggestions:
The Gardener and the Carpenter
Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war...
The Well-Behaved Child: Discipline That Really Works!
How to Talk So Kids Will Listen
Raising An Emotionally Intelligent Child
And Baby Makes Three
The Rational Male - Positive Masculinity
Parenting With Love And Logic
I'd also like to add Janet Lansbury [1] as a great resource
You're probably better off asking for collaborative documentation on the relative benefits of Democratic and Republican polices.
While there would be flame wars, you might get some good ideas from people outside your network.
1. Treat them with love. 2. No hitting that damages them. 3. Appreciate them like you appreciate an adult. 4. Dont lie, ever, even if it was a joke or making them fooled. (Like saying ill buy you candies if you stop crying, yet you didnt actually buy the candies). 5. Be there, and listen. 6. Never argue with your spouse in front of them, or in front of anybody. 7. Dont lecture them in public. 8. They are smart, dont let them do the mistakes that you once did. 9. What they eat shapes them. 10. Help them fix their mistakes, no need to blame them. (Broke the glass? Help them fix it. 11. If you have multiple children, if you buy a present, buy for all of them.
To the best of my knowledge, all violence hurts children, even if it doesn't damage them physically. There's a wide variety of studies I've seen over the years that suggest negative outcomes for kids due to corporal punishment.
Here's one such meta analysis from a quick search, but there's plenty more out there: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3768154/
Agreed with the remainder of your points. Though what's actually is difficult is the execution of all that, in my opinion.
hoo. what? No. Hitting is a hardline. I understand that it is popular in some cultures but I have yet to see any studies that confirm its usefulness. If anything, it was morally damaging for me.
So no, please. Don't your child, or any other kid. Or anyone for that matter (excluding self defense)
I mostly avoid shouting or speaking loudly, so the best way for me to get their attention is usually by “hitting” them.
No hitting that damages them includes moral damage, but then again its hard to measure.
It's likely wrong things will be said and mistakes made in the midst of an argument. When this happens, debriefing with the kid later can be a useful exercise in admitting your own faults, while also showing that life isnt always perfect.
I think there are MANY pieces of parenting wisdom that are VERY accepted. For instance:
- giving kids 'structure' i.e. repetition, nighttime routines, bedtime to ensure they sleep well, etc
- consequences for negative actions <--- big one
- creating spaces and norms for activities, i.e. reading, eating, etc
- playing in certain ways including imaginative games, etc, that are age-appropriate
- ensuring lots of exercise and play that encourages dexterity, use of all body muscles, etc
anyway, i could go on and on.
And probably more important, rewards for positive actions. Positive reinforcement is pretty powerful in general.
Rewards for positive actions have a few side-effects that I have observed though:
1) Individuals start expecting positive reinforcement for everything they do. Doing it for the external reward instead of finding the intrinsic reward for doing the right thing on their own. This is probably extensively researched already, although i don't have sources handy right now.
2) Along time, positive reinforcements behave in accordance with the "law of diminishing returns". i.e. If you always reward positive actions with some standard reward, it will lose effect over time. With the danger of the positive action not feeling worthwhile anymore.
I thus became a great believer in the importance of negative consequences for bad behavior. I mostly apply (within reason) Shame and Restriction of freedoms to punish my kids for bad behavior (reserving the occasional physical slap for very serious offenses). Shame is a motivator that interests me a lot as a parent. I think it is an essential motivator in society in general, but the most delicate one. Too much Shame can also make you socially inept.
In the end I think its always about the right balance...
In my experience, you should rather focus on building character by developing the intrinsic rewards for good behavior: we do the right thing because it is the right thing, even if it is a more difficult path. No amount of shame and punishment can get a child to do that; it has to come from something deeper and more positive.
I've read a book some time ago that mentioned something to this effect - motivating people with external rewards greatly lowers or straight out erases the intrinsic rewards from those tasks. To the point where people stop enjoying tasks they used to if you pay them for it.
This was based on a scientific study, if I recall - so well done on spotting this effect on your own.
I believe the book I got this from is "Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us" by Daniel H. Pink.
Or how and why parents and adults should really stop trying to control their children.
There are so many fads in parenting and they change all the time. Fads are, IMHO, dangerous and kids are not something you want to experiment on (too much). Finding someone who has raised happy children into the sort of people you'd like your kids to be would be the best way to go. Might be tricky to do in the modern world but if you can find a community of like minded people you'd be surprised how many people love to pass on their wisdom to a younger generation.
If only things were that simple. All children are different, what works well with one is a complete disaster with another.
Ultimately, I think you just have to wing it and do the best you can. You'll get it wrong most of the time and get it right not enough. But there you go. Best advice I have read is the poem:
This Be The Verse
By Philip Larkin
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another’s throats.
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself.
My Mom and Dad were great parents, but I have to raise Lauren differently. It isn't that my Mom and Dad raised my sister and I wrong, it's just that my sister and I were our own little people with our own personalities.
If you ever want a wonderful guide to this (in real time), you should come experience bath time at the Hluska household. It's something else...
Thats such an Indian stereotype :D. Source: me.
My take: there’s no such thing as universal “good parenting” advice. Kids are different, and what works well for one can wreck another for the rest of her life.
Full disclosure: I’m a father of a “difficult” 15 year old.
You may be dealing with toxic friends, failed perfectionism (can't meet a possibly self-imposed standard so just give up entirely), social rejection due to cluelessness, depression, an inability to picture a future self and work toward satisfying the needs of that future self...
The kid has also had 15 years to learn how to manipulate you.
Give it your best shot, but be prepared to let go. Besides the possibilities of "not your fault" and "you were awful", there is the "ordinary imperfection". At some point, sooner or later, you have to kick them out the door and hope they manage.
"Founded by an evolutionary anthropologist, this parenting resource is for critical thinkers -- people who want to understand child development from the perspectives of psychology, anthropology, evolution, and cognitive neuroscience.
I’ve got opinions. But who cares? You might be a scientist, physician, or teacher. Maybe you're an educated, skeptical layperson who loves science. Whatever the case, you don't need a sermon. You need evidence. You can draw your own conclusions.
So here it is: No folk theories. No preachy advice. No authoritarian pronouncements or pseudoscientific political dogma. Instead, you’ll find my analysis of the research, fully-referenced so you know where to go if you want to dig deeper yourself."
I don't know of any such resource. I know there are a lot of "mommy groups" on Facebook where they pass around articles and stuff, but those groups tend to have a bias towards one type of parenting or another.
But at the end of the day, there is no "right way" or "best way", there is only "your way". It's kind of like product management -- you do a bunch of research, choose a path, then gather data as to the outcomes, and change tack if necessary.
However, as you've mentioned, it would be awesome to have a resource putting different opinions together.
As per in one of the comments below suggested, I've created this repo: https://github.com/davidpelayo/awesome-parenting so I'll be tracking all the info posted here and others findings.
Thanks for reading.
You may find that successful parents who balance two or more kids with full-time jobs and some measure of sanity will not have the interest or energy to put into such a project. The more enlightened among them may also hold their tongues, having realized that what works for their kids is not universal.
Favorite books:
How to Talk so Kids Will Listen. And Listen So Kids Will Talk.
Smart But Scattered
Why not make an "awesome-parenting" GitHub repo? :)
Feel free to add stuff. Really, I'm just asking this to get different opinions from people worldwide.
Rule of thumb, if it looks like extreme it likely is. If it makes you insecure or is a lot of tiring work to your family then it is bad advice.
In my experience, pediatricians often have good advice on relevant books and topics.
I’m a father of a newborn. And I agree with people who say that universal advice doesn’t work. You find what works for you, and as long as it’s safe you roll with it.
I also agree that generalized non studied consensus is not useful if you want at the truth. It’s a fallacy: just because many people believe it, doesn’t make it true.
Besides, advice from non parents/people without skin in the game is “taken under advisement”. Unless you’re there all night dealing with baby, your sleep advice can suck it.
I think the best thing you can do is keep in mind that you are raising future adults. That detail seems to frequently be overlooked. I found it a very valuable metric by which to measure my parenting decisions.
Best.
For example I've heard kids can go to school when they can reach the ear on the opposite side by reaching their arm over the head. Also at some age they start to understand non-literal meaning i.e. sarcasm but until then they are oblivious. This would be very useful knowledge to concentrate into a wiki.
If anyone wants to raise a PR fixing english errors (non-native speaker here) I'd be much appreciated (https://github.com/davidpelayo/awesome-parenting).
I'll also add a spanish version soon.
I'm building a site to collaboratively document topics like this. I just created a "Good Parenting" topic in case you and others in this thread would like to pool their knowledge into something concise and useful.
Try to practice evidence-based parenting.
Instead of having arguments about parenting, try to understand what the science says, and if the science doesn't say anything conclusive, critically evaluate the anecdotes you receive from other parents.
http://store.doverpublications.com/0486284697.html
Spoiler: It's a terrible parenting book by modern standards, but good for cheering up the parents after the kids are in bed.
The one piece of (still opinionated) advice I give is to keep in mind your goal - it is not to raise "good children". It is to raise 'good' adults, capable of living their own lives, with success, and adapting to all life may throw at them.
Other than that - it's a fundamentally political question.
All I can tell you is what has worked for me:
* Lose the goo-goo talk and chat with them like people from day one. They will learn to hold a conversation a lot earlier and talk circles around their classmates. If possible, expose them to a second language early - they will pick up other languages later in life with ease. It also helps them to think in different ways.
* Hitting and aggressive behavior scares and confuses a child so much that the lesson you are trying to teach them is often lost. There are other forms of discipline which are more effective in the long term (isolation, taking away something they like). But most important what you want to do is foster a sense of understanding about right vs wrong. This is why kids favorite question is "why?" We often take what we know for granted and expect this new mind to pick things up the way we did, even though that's not how it works. Be firm and don't roll over every time, but also be flexible and pick your battles. Not every hill is worth dying on.
* Empathy is your greatest tool and most important lesson. Use it often. Even when you are angry, resist the urge to scream till you are red in the face. Take a deep breath and get down to their level, eye-to-eye. Find out what's upsetting them and vocalize how it affects you as well. Show by example what it means to feel what others are feeling.
* Use positive reinforcment. Reward them when they do well. Shower them with affirmation and praise, especially in the early years as it shapes emotional health. Inspiring them to do well is far more effective than scaring them into it.
* Socialize them early. Regular trips to the parks, play dates.. whatever it takes. The sooner they learn to be around other kids the faster they will gain the social skills that will aid their success later in life.
* Make time for them. Feeding, clothing, sheltering them are just the beginning. They need to play, talk, explore and there is no greater gift you can give a child (or anyone) than your time. All too often bad behavior is their way of turning your head, because any attention is better than no attention.
There's probably more but those are the basics which work for both of my kids, who have very different temperaments. Good luck!
Thank you!
A less scientific approach is a reference book called The Pocket Parent.