Day care (Pre School) incorrectly portrayed

[Ashton]

So some people in the chat and Stef as well, portray day care as a negative enviroment, yet the scientific community after decades of research conclude that it is highly day care facility dependant.

 

So because you might have one bad day care, does that mean all are bad?

 

Summary of research:

 

 

My advisor in graduate school used to recite the tale of a king who summoned his wisest scientists and asked them to produce a summary of their worldly wisdom for him. After much debate and consideration, the wise counsel put before the king a thick, heavy manuscript. “This is too long,” said the king, and ordered them away to hammer out an abbreviated, more accessible version. The wise counsel returned a few months later, having distilled the contents of their manuscript into one summary sentence: ‘This too shall pass.’ “Too long,” insisted the king, and sent them back to revise and re-submit. Several months later, the counsel returned, this time with a single page containing a single word: “maybe.”

The issue of the effects of non-parental daycare belongs in that broad and often maddening category. It resembles in this way the issue of circumcision, in which extensive research has documented all manner of small, often contradictory effects that ultimately do not cohere into an acceptable scientific ‘message’ or directive, but rather leave the decision in the hands of people and culture, to depend upon parental and societal values, aspirations, temperament, judgments, and finances—the personal and subjective calculus that defines the seam between ‘social’ and ‘science.’ In other words, the inconsistent results obtained by four decades of research do not constitute a failure to find the hidden answer. They are the answer.

If nothing else, the research on the effects of daycare has demonstrated the vast complexity of the links between experience and development. Considering this complexity, it is clearly more accurate to refer to multiple daycare questions, rather than to one ‘big’ question. If the research has shown us anything, it is that how the phenomenon under study behaves will depend heavily on how both ‘phenomenon’ and ‘behavior’ are defined, measured and analyzed. Different types of children incur different types of effects in different types of settings at different times in different contexts. In certain regard, the fact that this is so in itself constitutes an answer of sorts to the big question. In other words, it implies that we definitely cannot say, “non-parental daycare is bad for children” in the same way that we can say, for example: “absence of loving human contact is bad for children” or “ingesting lead is bad for children.”

Daycare research has provided information, insights, and hints; but despite its lingering ambition, the daycare literature cannot settle the issue of whether daycare is good or bad for children; rather it trails, offering tentative and tempered admonitions, warnings, reassurances, and suggestions. Thus, the decision equation, even for the most informed consumers of the research, remains perpetually personal.

 

 

The effects of daycare: Persistent questions, elusive answers

By:Shpancer, N (Shpancer, N)

 

EARLY CHILDHOOD RESEARCH QUARTERLY

Volume: 21

Issue: 2

Pages: 227-237

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.04.006

Published: 2006

 

 

 

This article provides an overview of the current state of research on the effects of early daycare on children's attachment security and social-emotional development. The focus is on the importance of framework conditions and family factors. Depending on family background, different implications may result. If certain quality standards and framework conditions are met, early daycare can be beneficial for young children's development.

 

 

Effects of early daycare on children's attachment security and social-emotional development

By:Linkert, C (Linkert, Christine)^{[ 1 ]} ; Bauerlein, K (Baeuerlein, Kerstin)^{[ 1 ]} ; Und, ES (Und, Eva Stumpf)^{[ 1 ]} ; Schneider, W (Schneider, Wolfgang)^{[ 1 ]}

 

KINDHEIT UND ENTWICKLUNG

Volume: 22

Issue: 1

Pages: 5-13

DOI: 10.1026/0942-5403/a000093

Published: 2013

 

 

The home–daycare system has emerged in recent decades as the primary nexus of early child development in the U.S. Integrating knowledge from the various domains of this system into a coherent depiction of its whole is an urgent challenge facing early childhood ecology researchers. The literature to date suggests that the home environment tends to retain its primacy in shaping and predicting child adaptation and development, even for daycare children. Generally, high quality home environments and relationships tend to beget high quality daycare experiences––either through contextual covariance or through the carryover of adaptive skills (or both). The data also suggest that the child’s daycare experience can influence the child’s home environment. High quality daycare in particular may compensate for impoverished home situations, at least with regard to cognitive and social outcome variables. However, the evidence for daycare-to-home influences is generally weaker and less consistent than home-to-daycare effects and the specific mechanisms by which daycare-to-home influences are delivered have not been delineated convincingly.

The parent–caregiver relationship is one mechanism shaping cross-contextual commerce. A tentative link between higher levels of contact and better care has emerged in the literature. However, causal inferences are difficult to draw given the strong covariance between the home and daycare contexts and the virtual lack of longitudinal studies in this literature. Child characteristics constitute a direct link between the home and daycare contexts. While affordances, physical features, and social demands may patently vary between home and daycare, the child’s characteristics are a constant across contexts. More research is needed on how child characteristics may moderate the developmental impact of various aspects of intercontextual adaptation.

As illustrated in Fig. 1, the main themes outlined in this review, taken together, comprise the continuity dimension of the home–daycare system. Unfortunately, research on home–daycare continuity has been scarce. Future research should focus on identifying what are the specific dimensions of environment and experience, and the specific levels of analysis as pertaining to each of these dimensions for which continuity data are most closely linked to relevant specific developmental outcome domains. Finally, the findings that variables in both the home and daycare contexts are linked to developmental outcome support one of the basic predictions of the ecological framework and lead, in turn, to the prediction that the intervention efforts incorporating both contexts will be most likely to succeed (see Futterweit & Ruff, 1993). Evidence supporting this prediction has been accumulating (see Wasik, Ramey, Bryant, & Sparling, 1990; Whitehurst et al., 1994).

Within these general parameters, the literature suggests that the child’s environment—and experience—are multilayered and that different individual and environmental characteristics may predict and affect different aspects of the child’s overall experience and adaptation across contexts and time. Which variables prove efficacious in predicting developmental outcome would depend on the specific outcome considered, and on how and when it is measured. While research has delineated in some detail the multiple links between home and daycare, it has not yet produced satisfying accounts of the functional relations between aspects of the two environments. The crucial task facing home–daycare ecology researchers is hence two-fold: to answer the “what” question by generating empirical “custom-made” rather than “one size fits all” developmental predictions, and to answer the “how” question by developing specific theoretical models accounting for the multiple dimensions of children’s intercontextual commerce.

 

The home-daycare link: mapping children's new world order

By:Shpancer, N (Shpancer, N)

 

EARLY CHILDHOOD RESEARCH QUARTERLY

Volume: 17

Issue: 3

Pages: 374-392

Article Number: PII S0885-2006(02)00170-9

DOI: 10.1016/S0885-2006(02)00170-9

Published: 2002

 

 

 

This pilot study investigates the effect on parent-child attachment relationships of same-age versus mixed-age grouping in daycare centers in the Netherlands. For 45 children in the age range of 2 to 6 years, parent-child attachment relationships were assessed by means of the Attachment Q-Sort. It was found that attachment security did not differ significantly for children who had been in mixed-age or in same-age grouping, or who had experienced a change of daycare center.

 

The effect of same-age and mixed-age grouping in day care on parent-child attachment security

By:Pool, MM (Pool, MM); Bijleveld, CCJH (Bijleveld, CCJH); Tavecchio, LWC (Tavecchio, LWC)

 

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY

Volume: 28

Issue: 6

Pages: 595-602

DOI: 10.2224/sbp.2000.28.6.595

Published: 2000

[jpahmad]

circumcision? contradictory effects?

[NGardner]

 I believe the scientific research to be largely missing an important context. Perhaps their is no damage done by daycare because home life is not so great. If however, we consider a parent who has embodied the responsibilities and high expectations of this conversation(FDR). Then daycare is not a good choice. When the initial interest and interactions with a child are low by the parents, daycare may be null choice. A 1:1 or 1:3 parent to child relationship with full interest and engagement cannot possibly be replicated in a 1:10 or 1:12 daycare setting of caretaker to child. What I am saying is that the science would be reporting on the average, we are the top end outlying data points. In any social study the conclusions will largely not address the outlying data points. The people in this conversation are different. What works for the majority will not work for us. 

[Liberty Bill]

 I believe the scientific research to be largely missing an important context. Perhaps their is no damage done by daycare because home life is not so great. If however, we consider a parent who has embodied the responsibilities and high expectations of this conversation(FDR). Then daycare is not a good choice. When the initial interest and interactions with a child are low by the parents, daycare may be null choice. A 1:1 or 1:3 parent to child relationship with full interest and engagement cannot possibly be replicated in a 1:10 or 1:12 daycare setting of caretaker to child. What I am saying is that the science would be reporting on the average, we are the top end outlying data points. In any social study the conclusions will largely not address the outlying data points. The people in this conversation are different. What works for the majority will not work for us. 

 

This is a good point that also applies to the negative data for spanking.  If spanking is done in accordance with the NAP (namely only in response to the child initating aggression) and the Principle of Proportionality, it cannot be considered of a kind with spanking that is too frequent, too hard, too early, too late, too unrelated to the initiation of aggression, etc.  Basically the difference between use and abuse.

[NGardner]

I think NAP dictates no spanking period. 

[Liberty Bill]

I think NAP dictates no spanking period. 

Can a child initate aggression?

[J. D. Stembal]

I would characterize any environment where you don't have direct contact with your children younger than age six to be a negative situation. Constantly paying other people to watch your kids for you is how your children's morals get corrupted, When the parent-child bond is completely eroded by abuse, you no longer have any of their respect and they don't value your input. Do some research about the effects of child abandonment on children when they become teenagers and young adults.. Children suffering from abandonment issues are more likely to be drug abusers, rapists, drop outs, and murderers by large margins. Look at this case study of Robert Hawkins, https://www.itsallaboutabandonment.com/.

[Ashton]

I would characterize any environment where you don't have direct contact with your children younger than age six to be a negative situation. Constantly paying other people to watch your kids for you is how your children's morals get corrupted, When the parent-child bond is completely eroded by abuse, you no longer have any of their respect and they don't value your input. Do some research about the effects of child abandonment on children when they become teenagers and young adults.. Children suffering from abandonment issues are more likely to be drug abusers, rapists, drop outs, and murderers by large margins. Look at this case study of Robert Hawkins, https://www.itsallaboutabandonment.com/.

So do you have any scientific evidence to back this up? Just a case study?You seem to have skipped over the evidence i have presented. The overall consensus i got from them was that there is positives and negatives. A bad nursery in a good household will only negatively effect the child, where as a good nursery and good/bad parenthood will result in positive effects.Toxicity isn't a 1 shot bullet, its more of a glass you fill up. Just because your child played with a kid who was spanked, doesn't automatically make them morally compromised.

[Jer]

You seem to have skipped over the evidence i have presented. The overall consensus i got from them was that there is positives and negatives. A bad nursery in a good household will only negatively effect the child, where as a good nursery and good/bad parenthood will result in positive effects.

 

Depending on family background, different implications may result. If certain quality standards and framework conditions are met, early daycare can be beneficial for young children's development.

It seems like you're presenting a false dichotomy here. Obviously, a good daycare can be better than an abusive home. A kid I was in elementary school with got like 20 detentions every month. I asked a teacher how that could happen and he said "sometimes detention is better than home". The fact that some kids prefer prison to home with their parents doesn't speak to the virtue of prison...

 

circumcision? contradictory effects?

You forgot to respond to this ashton.

Can a child initate aggression?

are you suggesting that you are spanking in self defense? I can't imagine a scenario where spanking is not aggression.

[J. D. Stembal]

So do you have any scientific evidence to back this up? Just a case study?You seem to have skipped over the evidence i have presented. The overall consensus i got from them was that there is positives and negatives. A bad nursery in a good household will only negatively effect the child, where as a good nursery and good/bad parenthood will result in positive effects.Toxicity isn't a 1 shot bullet, its more of a glass you fill up. Just because your child played with a kid who was spanked, doesn't automatically make them morally compromised.

 

Molyneux has discussed the problems associated with maternal abandonment in several of this "myth of the working mom" and "the bomb in the brain" episodes. I was raised largely deprived of my mother and father's presence and attention for most of my childhood. I have addictions (smoking, alcoholism, and dependency on illicit substances), violent tendencies and sexual proclivity (over 50 sexual partners, and a former pornography addiction). I'm not shattering any records here, obviously, but I feel like I wouldn't have tripped over so many of these obstacles in life if my parents had played larger roles in my early development. My own life is all the experience I require to make an affirmative case for myself. If that's not suitable evidence for you, then listen to some of Molyneux's work.

 

[Liberty Bill]

are you suggesting that you are spanking in self defense? I can't imagine a scenario where spanking is not aggression.

Self defense is an application of the NAP and has nothing to do with the core principle, which deals only with the initiation of violence.  You can punish for such initiations even if they do not involve self-defense, such as in cases of theft.  If a child initiates aggression, for example a 4-year old hitting a 3-year old, then strictly speaking, the NAP would not disallow a spanking in response*.  IMO, avoiding spanking entirely isn't observing the NAP but is actually more of a pacifist view.

 

* as ever, the response must be in accordance with the Principle of Proportionality to be just

[Brentb]

Self defense is an application of the NAP and has nothing to do with the core principle, which deals only with the initiation of violence.  You can punish for such initiations even if they do not involve self-defense, such as in cases of theft.  If a child initiates aggression, for example a 4-year old hitting a 3-year old, then strictly speaking, the NAP would not disallow a spanking in response*.  IMO, avoiding spanking entirely isn't observing the NAP but is actually more of a pacifist view.

 

* as ever, the response must be in accordance with the Principle of Proportionality to be just

 

 

 

Thus the initiation of force does not violate the nonaggression principle if the following conditions are met:

• It is an unforeseeable crisis
• The initiation of force is the only possible remedy
• The ‘victim' would almost certainly give his consent in the moment if it were possible
• The victim gives his consent after the fact

The reason for these standards is fairly simple - morality is universal, and thus is independent of time, and so it is irrelevant whether an aggressive action is approved of before or after the event. Everyone who perpetrates aggressive actions is in a sense gambling on the reaction of the victim, because if the victim likes the aggression, the perpetrator will not face any legal retaliation for his actions.

From: Does Spanking Violate the Non-Aggression Principle

[Jer]

Self defense is an application of the NAP and has nothing to do with the core principle, which deals only with the initiation of violence.  You can punish for such initiations even if they do not involve self-defense, such as in cases of theft.  If a child initiates aggression, for example a 4-year old hitting a 3-year old, then strictly speaking, the NAP would not disallow a spanking in response*.  IMO, avoiding spanking entirely isn't observing the NAP but is actually more of a pacifist view.

 

* as ever, the response must be in accordance with the Principle of Proportionality to be just

Why do you want to hit 4 year olds? There's quite a lot of evidence (plenty linked ITT) that it does lasting harm.

[Liberty Bill]

From: Does Spanking Violate the Non-Aggression Principle

The quote does not apply to my argument.  This is an argument for possible scenarios in which one might initate force.  I am talking about a situation in which the child has initiated force.  According to the NAP and the POP, if the child initiates force then a proportional punishment is legitimate.

Why do you want to hit 4 year olds? There's quite a lot of evidence (plenty linked ITT) that it does lasting harm.

Aggregate data that includes scenarios in which the child is spanked in violation of the NAP and/or POP are not valid in regards to an individual who spanks in strict accordance with them.  I believe it important for a child to understand that if they initiate force they will be stopped and punished, whereas my understanding of pacifist peaceful parenting is that a child who initiates force will not be punished for this.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Jer]

Aggregate data that includes scenarios in which the child is spanked in violation of the NAP and/or POP are not valid in regards to an individual who spanks in strict accordance with them.  I believe it important for a child to understand that if they initiate force they will be stopped and punished, whereas my understanding of pacifist peaceful parenting is that a child who initiates force will not be punished for this.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

Why isn't it enough to stop the child's aggression and explain why it's wrong? If the kid you so badly want to hit can't understand your reasoning, what makes you think they will understand why you are intentionally inflicting pain? Are you going to tell the kid "It's wrong to hit" right before you hit him?

 

Why do you want to hit 4 year olds?

[regevdl]

I wouldn't put absolute words in anyone's mouths.  The times I have heard him speak about daycare he also paints a picture (that commonly occurs) of spanking, high child to teacher ratios etc, being there for 10+ hours, etc.  Those are the biggest factors.  I personally am not against daycare but I am against poorly structured daycares and keeping children in there for long, extended hours. I'm against those without sufficient teaching methods, those with high child to teacher ratios, poor discipline methods (spanking/time out/shouting etc).  

 

When classes are small (less than 10 children) and with 2 or more teachers/care providers who actually care about child development then I think it can be a wonderful supplement and learning environment for the children.  My son stayed home with me the first years of life and I taught him a LOT and loved every minute of it.  After a year I put him part time (daily but not more than 6 hours/day) in a really good daycare and he thrived and loved being around other children.  Giving me time to focus on my work which quality improved and my parenting improved with a little 'help'.  As they say it takes a village to raise a child.... but I would stress that not all daycares are created equal.  even private ones.  My children also went to Montessori which was all the rage in our area at the time but not ALL were created equal.  you really have to know what you want for your child and make sure you research carefully.  Don't let high prices and 'waiting lists' confuse you with quality.  In our experience it was quite the opposite.  Bottom line, research and organizing your life to maximize the child's experience without using it as a complete crutch to replace your involvement in their lives.

[Ashton]

It seems like you're presenting a false dichotomy here. Obviously, a good daycare can be better than an abusive home. A kid I was in elementary school with got like 20 detentions every month. I asked a teacher how that could happen and he said "sometimes detention is better than home". The fact that some kids prefer prison to home with their parents doesn't speak to the virtue of prison...

So are you implying that because my son enjoy's his pre school, that his family life is poor? 

You forgot to respond to this ashton.

Well there is no need for me to respond about it. I don't believe in it, nor do i practice circumcision. The study was talking about it.

Molyneux has discussed the problems associated with maternal abandonment in several of this "myth of the working mom" and "the bomb in the brain" episodes. I was raised largely deprived of my mother and father's presence and attention for most of my childhood. I have addictions (smoking, alcoholism, and dependency on illicit substances), violent tendencies and sexual proclivity (over 50 sexual partners, and a former pornography addiction). I'm not shattering any records here, obviously, but I feel like I wouldn't have tripped over so many of these obstacles in life if my parents had played larger roles in my early development. My own life is all the experience I require to make an affirmative case for myself. If that's not suitable evidence for you, then listen to some of Molyneux's work. 

I'm very sorry for your situation, but with regards to my household, my son spends <16 hours a week in a montessori pre school, with a 6-10:2-3 child/teacher ratio.I appreciate the evidence he has presented, but that maternal abandonment was around infant age if i recall correctly?

[Liberty Bill]

Why isn't it enough to stop the child's aggression and explain why it's wrong? If the kid you so badly want to hit can't understand your reasoning, what makes you think they will understand why you are intentionally inflicting pain? Are you going to tell the kid "It's wrong to hit" right before you hit him?

 

Why do you want to hit 4 year olds?

Because it is inconsistent to not punish the initiation of aggression with children when you do punish it with everyone else...  it is important for children to learn that they cannot get away with it (but I am big on warnings and explanations and all that, of course).  I agree that the child must be old enough to understand your reasoning, but it happens to be the case that at 4 years old one can understand that they shouldn't hit others.  No, I usually say "it's wrong to hit first" or words to that effect. 

 

I don't want to hit them, and never would if they failed to ever initiate violence, but in those case in which they do I feel obligated to teach them that the initiation of force is impermissible and will/should/must be punished by the authorities (be it police or PDAs/DROs), the heroes, or the victim.

[JohnH.]

The quote does not apply to my argument.  This is an argument for possible scenarios in which one might initate force.  I am talking about a situation in which the child has initiated force.  According to the NAP and the POP, if the child initiates force then a proportional punishment is legitimate.

Aggregate data that includes scenarios in which the child is spanked in violation of the NAP and/or POP are not valid in regards to an individual who spanks in strict accordance with them.  I believe it important for a child to understand that if they initiate force they will be stopped and punished, whereas my understanding of pacifist peaceful parenting is that a child who initiates force will not be punished for this.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

If you're going to bring up proportionality don't skip over the power disparities between parent and child. 

[Jer]

Because it is inconsistent to not punish the initiation of aggression with children when you do punish it with everyone else...  it is important for children to learn that they cannot get away with it (but I am big on warnings and explanations and all that, of course).  I agree that the child must be old enough to understand your reasoning, but it happens to be the case that at 4 years old one can understand that they shouldn't hit others.  No, I usually say "it's wrong to hit first" or words to that effect.

I think it's inconsistent to do harm to a person who is completely incapable of doing harm to you. If he can be reasoned with, why do you need to do harm? It's absolutely inconsistent to say "it's wrong to hit" and then hit.

[Liberty Bill]

I think it's inconsistent to do harm to a person who is completely incapable of doing harm to you. If he can be reasoned with, why do you need to do harm? It's absolutely inconsistent to say "it's wrong to hit" and then hit.

 

I have already dispensed with the argument that self-defense is a necessary component to administering punishment of an NAP violation.

 

Because exercising that reason reveals that a proportionate punishment in kind is a permissible response to NAP violations, and I personally think punishment in kind is the most appropriate approach.

 

It is not wrong to hit, it is only wrong to hit first... if it's in response to an initiation of force, it is justice.  After all, punishment is permissible up to double the initial aggession, according to the NAP and POP.  As I've said, this "it's wrong to hit [at all times]" thing is a pacifist view.  From a strictly logical perspective, ascribing this view to being rooted in the NAP is simply wrong and thus an argument built on this premise is incorrect.

[Slavik]

I have already dispensed with the argument that self-defense is a necessary component to administering punishment of an NAP violation.

 

Because exercising that reason reveals that a proportionate punishment in kind is a permissible response to NAP violations, and I personally think punishment in kind is the most appropriate approach.

 

It is not wrong to hit, it is only wrong to hit first... if it's in response to an initiation of force, it is justice.  After all, punishment is permissible up to double the initial aggession, according to the NAP and POP.  As I've said, this "it's wrong to hit [at all times]" thing is a pacifist view.  From a strictly logical perspective, ascribing this view to being rooted in the NAP is simply wrong and thus an argument built on this premise is incorrect.

From a simple logical stand point, it is you who is responsible for your child's development (they are not fully developed)  Which means it is you who is responsible with your childs behavior, if he /she is acting out and hitting you.   There is no assigned moral responsibility to children simply because they are cognitively incapable of many things, you are trying to assign that responsibility when the whole world already knows this distinction.

[Ashton]

From a simple logical stand point, it is you who is responsible for your child's development (they are not fully developed)

If thats the case, where did the unschooling movement come from? That speaks opposite to your statement, as that's about letting your child develop.

[Slavik]

If thats the case, where did the unschooling movement come from? That speaks opposite to your statement, as that's about letting your child develop.

Dude Im replying to a person on spanking, what the heck are you talking about?

[Liberty Bill]

From a simple logical stand point, it is you who is responsible for your child's development (they are not fully developed)  Which means it is you who is responsible with your childs behavior, if he /she is acting out and hitting you.   There is no assigned moral responsibility to children simply because they are cognitively incapable of many things, you are trying to assign that responsibility when the whole world already knows this distinction.

I agree, and that is why I believe it is important to teach her that hitting has consequences.  She has never hit me personally (our bond is incredibly tight as I have raised her personally as a stay-at-home-dad), but she does sometimes hit her 3 y.o. brother when she gets angry.  It's been a while because she understands that I will punish her in kind for the offense (proportionately, of course).

 

I disagree with Stef's assertion that children are tabula rasa who merely reflect their parent's behavior (the whole "water takes the shape of its container" analogy seems to discount nature and put the entire onus on nurture).  If that were the case, her brothers would also be hitters (same family, same environment, same rules) and they are not.  She was born with a frown on her face and has always been incredibly self-centered and selfish, unlike her brothers (in her first year I was seriously wondering if she was a sociopath).  I have taught her to be more generous and kind, and it seems to be working, but it is definitely something I have had to focus on. 

[Slavik]

I agree, and that is why I believe it is important to teach her that hitting has consequences.  She has never hit me personally (our bond is incredibly tight as I have raised her personally as a stay-at-home-dad), but she does sometimes hit her 3 y.o. brother when she gets angry.  It's been a while because she understands that I will punish her in kind for the offense (proportionately, of course).

 

I disagree with Stef's assertion that children are tabula rasa who merely reflect their parent's behavior (the whole "water takes the shape of its container" analogy seems to discount nature and put the entire onus on nurture).  If that were the case, her brothers would also be hitters (same family, same environment, same rules) and they are not.  She was born with a frown on her face and has always been incredibly self-centered and selfish, unlike her brothers (in her first year I was seriously wondering if she was a sociopath).  I have taught her to be more generous and kind, and it seems to be working, but it is definitely something I have had to focus on. 

Are you sure she understand, or does she simply does not aggress in front of you?  From my own personal experience, my older brother was hit for hitting me, which ended with him abusing me even more when the parents were no looking.  Seriously your approach to children being selfish or being born a certain way, is absolutely unfounded, and quiet frankly very unnerving.  It is not only you she might have learned that hitting is ok.  Did you even find out why she was hitting?  Did you talk to her?

[Liberty Bill]

Are you sure she understand, or does she simply does not aggress in front of you?  From my own personal experience, my older brother was hit for hitting me, which ended with him abusing me even more when the parents were no looking.  Seriously your approach to children being selfish or being born a certain way, is absolutely unfounded, and quiet frankly very unnerving.  It is not only you she might have learned that hitting is ok.  Did you even find out why she was hitting?  Did you talk to her?

Yes, of course I talk to her, I explain everything.  It's clear to me that the community here tends to make unwarranted assumptions about my parenting due to my logical defense of spanking being in accordance with the NAP (which no one here has been able to logically attack, I should add, only voicing disapproval or throwing negative reputation my way), so I should emphasize that my parenting is otherwise pretty much identical to Stefan's.  I stay at home, I home school, I play with them, I reason with them, I teach them to think logically, I explain why I do things and what is expected of them, etc.  I am absolutely rigorous and consistent in my devotion to the NAP and POP, even more so than Stefan as a matter of fact because his aversion to spanking is not actually rooted in the NAP but in the related-but-not-the-same philosophy of pacifism (an inconsistency in his views, I believe).  And it works, my kids are wonderful, full of light and life and highly developed intellects, easily observable by everyone (as evidenced by the constant stream of slightly amazed compliments).  My daughter's aggressiveness has largely been replaced by pride in sharing and taking turns (though not always, due to her nature, but we're getting there).

 

Frankly, your assertions regarding my observations as "absolutely unfounded" are quite astounding.  Are you truly trying to say that there is no argument for nature having any impact compared to nurture?  That is what I'm hearing, and if so, there is little more I can say other than "read more".  The nature-nurture argument is extensive and Stef's analogies notwithstanding there is a lot of evidence that nature has a huge impact.  Most believe it to be a combination of the two (including myself).  I do have to qualify this by saying I'm not hugely exposed to Stefan's work so I may not have a full understanding of his view, I am only making assumptions based on what I've heard so far.

[Slavik]

Yes, of course I talk to her, I explain everything.  It's clear to me that the community here tends to make unwarranted assumptions about my parenting due to my logical defense of spanking being in accordance with the NAP (which no one here has been able to logically attack, I should add, only voicing disapproval or throwing negative reputation my way), so I should emphasize that my parenting is otherwise pretty much identical to Stefan's.  I stay at home, I home school, I play with them, I reason with them, I teach them to think logically, I explain why I do things and what is expected of them, etc.  I am absolutely rigorous and consistent in my devotion to the NAP and POP, even more so than Stefan as a matter of fact because his aversion to spanking is not actually rooted in the NAP but in the related-but-not-the-same philosophy of pacifism (an inconsistency in his views, I believe).  And it works, my kids are wonderful, full of light and life and highly developed intellects, easily observable by everyone (as evidenced by the constant stream of slightly amazed compliments).  My daughter's aggressiveness has largely been replaced by pride in sharing and taking turns (though not always, due to her nature, but we're getting there).

 

Frankly, your assertions regarding my observations as "absolutely unfounded" are quite astounding.  Are you truly trying to say that there is no argument for nature having any impact compared to nurture?  That is what I'm hearing, and if so, there is little more I can say other than "read more".  The nature-nurture argument is extensive and Stef's analogies notwithstanding there is a lot of evidence that nature has a huge impact.  Most believe it to be a combination of the two (including myself).  I do have to qualify this by saying I'm not hugely exposed to Stefan's work so I may not have a full understanding of his view, I am only making assumptions based on what I've heard so far.

1) Your logical defense of spanking? In order to assign moral agency, a person you assigning it to needs to be able to comprehend it.  You might want to look up "4 cognitive stages of childs development".  Attributing moral behavior to children is like attributing responsibility to ancients who didnt use antibiotics.  It is not that people arent able to counter your defense of hitting children, it is simply that you are not willing to recognize long ago accept facts of moral agency in children. 

 

2) You have talked to her about her hitting?  Im curious what did she say?  Why did she hit?

 

3) By nature having a lot of impact I assume you mean epigenetics ?  The genes that turn on and off as an adaptation to the environment that you create and /or place your child into?

You thought she was a sociopath?  How do you know that?  Have you taken her to the doctor to do the extensive diagnosis which is required for that?  And do you even know that sociopaths do not respond to punishment? You are making a lot of assumptions, and I am seriously not sure why.  What is that need you have to hit a little child?

[Liberty Bill]

1) Your logical defense of spanking? In order to assign moral agency, a person you assigning it to needs to be able to comprehend it.  You might want to look up "4 cognitive stages of childs development".  Attributing moral behavior to children is like attributing responsibility to ancients who didnt use antibiotics.  It is not that people arent able to counter your defense of hitting children, it is simply that you are not willing to recognize long ago accept facts of moral agency in children. 

 

2) You have talked to her about her hitting?  Im curious what did she say?  Why did she hit?

 

3) By nature having a lot of impact I assume you mean epigenetics ?  The genes that turn on and off as an adaptation to the environment that you create and /or place your child into?

You thought she was a sociopath?  How do you know that?  Have you taken her to the doctor to do the extensive diagnosis which is required for that?  And do you even know that sociopaths do not respond to punishment? You are making a lot of assumptions, and I am seriously not sure why.  What is that need you have to hit a little child?

Yes, I agree that the child needs to comprehend the situation and I do not advocate spanking too young precisely for that reason.  However, at her age she does understand that she's not supposed to hit and she knows what will happen if she does (and why).

 

Generally because she was upset that her brother was playing with a toy she wanted and he wouldn't give it to her.  For one she was angry, and for two hitting allowed her to acquire the toy.

 

No, I mean genetics, not epigenetics which is a malleable subset of the former.  I did not know she was a sociopath, I wondered because she was so self-centered compared to her brothers.  I think it less likely now because her behavior has improved, but I am still observing.  I do not "need" to hit a child, I choose to do so because the NAP is my guide and a proportional punishment is acceptable by that standard when she initiates aggression.  I believe punishments should be in kind because this is both the most proportional option and the most easily comprehensible to the child.  Not punishing NAP violations simply teaches a child that they can get away with such behavior...  not on my watch.

[Slavik]

Yes, I agree that the child needs to comprehend the situation and I do not advocate spanking too young precisely for that reason.  However, at her age she does understand that she's not supposed to hit and she knows what will happen if she does (and why).

 

Generally because she was upset that her brother was playing with a toy she wanted and he wouldn't give it to her.  For one she was angry, and for two hitting allowed her to acquire the toy.

 

No, I mean genetics, not epigenetics which is a malleable subset of the former.  I did not know she was a sociopath, I wondered because she was so self-centered compared to her brothers.  I think it less likely now because her behavior has improved, but I am still observing.  I do not "need" to hit a child, I choose to do so because the NAP is my guide and a proportional punishment is acceptable by that standard when she initiates aggression.  I believe punishments should be in kind because this is both the most proportional option and the most easily comprehensible to the child.  Not punishing NAP violations simply teaches a child that they can get away with such behavior...  not on my watch.

What children need to understand at any age, is not that daddy or mommy will beat them, but that if they hit, they are hurting someone.

Her upset is what parents normally deal with first, which isnt a fast process, after that the recommendation is to spend time teaching a child that hitting is wrong, there are many ways of doing that, hitting only gets an already upset child even more upset and angry. 

Talking about genetics.  Genetics is absolutely indefensible position.  If a person is genetically predetermined to be a certian way, then hitting them will not teach anything, remeber they are genetically predetermined to be that way. 

 

Again you are ignoring moral agency Quote:"Toddlers, from ages 2 to 7, perceive the world through magical thinking and animism (attributing human emotions and characteristics to inanimate objects). They are acquiring motor skills during this stage, and a certain amount of “decentering” begins to occur. At this stage, the child is still unable to think logically. At age 7 to age 12, children begin to understand logical or rational thought, but only concretely — in relationship to things they can see or touch. They are also noticeably better at seeing another’s point of view and considering others’ feelings." 

 

Basically you are completely ignoring scientific data on the manner, assigning moral agency to a child, and instead of teaching (which takes time) you bring up NAP (which has to do with actors with full cognitive agencies ) and attribute it to a child who has yet to develop it.  Then you come back saying that logically we cant prove you wrong.  Scientifically you have been proven wrong. 

 

On the exaggerated example this is why there is no death penalty for mentally retarded (no full comprehension) 

 

All you end with is ,she understand because I say so. 

[Liberty Bill]

What children need to understand at any age, is not that daddy or mommy will beat them, but that if they hit, they are hurting someone.

Her upset is what parents normally deal with first, which isnt a fast process, after that the recommendation is to spend time teaching a child that hitting is wrong, there are many ways of doing that, hitting only gets an already upset child even more upset and angry. 

Talking about genetics.  Genetics is absolutely indefensible position.  If a person is genetically predetermined to be a certian way, then hitting them will not teach anything, remeber they are genetically predetermined to be that way. 

 

Again you are ignoring moral agency Quote:"Toddlers, from ages 2 to 7, perceive the world through magical thinking and animism (attributing human emotions and characteristics to inanimate objects). They are acquiring motor skills during this stage, and a certain amount of “decentering” begins to occur. At this stage, the child is still unable to think logically. At age 7 to age 12, children begin to understand logical or rational thought, but only concretely — in relationship to things they can see or touch. They are also noticeably better at seeing another’s point of view and considering others’ feelings." 

 

Basically you are completely ignoring scientific data on the manner, assigning moral agency to a child, and instead of teaching (which takes time) you bring up NAP (which has to do with actors with full cognitive agencies ) and attribute it to a child who has yet to develop it.  Then you come back saying that logically we cant prove you wrong.  Scientifically you have been proven wrong. 

 

On the exaggerated example this is why there is no death penalty for mentally retarded (no full comprehension) 

 

All you end with is ,she understand because I say so. 

I stated that both nature and nurture are important.  I do not believe people are entirely nature and that genetic predispositions are the entirety of a personality.  One might be genetically aggressive but through nurture taught to be more empathetic.  Part of that teaching of empathy includes letting them know how others feel due to their actions, which is why I prefer punishment in kind. 

 

Perhaps you are not reading the quotes you provide, which clearly state that decentering begins at ages 2 to 7 and becomes better at ages 7 to 12.  So they begin to develop moral agency at age 2 and this continues to develop as they age.  Presumably it is up to the parent to assist and teach them in this development, and that is exactly what I am doing.  Your argument implies that an 11 y.o. cannot initiate aggression because they do not understand the NAP and do not have moral agency, which is ridiculous and counter to the quotes that you yourself have provided. 

 

In regards to your example, it does not prove your point.  One may not execute a retard who has committed a gross NAP violation, but they can certainly be punished...  I'm not executing my daughter for her NAP violations, merely punishing her.

 

It's clear that she understands because she says she does and has altered her behavior in conformance with it.

[Slavik]

I stated that both nature and nurture are important.  I do not believe people are entirely nature and that genetic predispositions are the entirety of a personality.  One might be genetically aggressive but through nurture taught to be more empathetic.  Part of that teaching of empathy includes letting them know how others feel due to their actions, which is why I prefer punishment in kind. 

 

Perhaps you are not reading the quotes you provide, which clearly state that decentering begins at ages 2 to 7 and becomes better at ages 7 to 12.  So they begin to develop moral agency at age 2 and this continues to develop as they age.  Presumably it is up to the parent to assist and teach them in this development, and that is exactly what I am doing.  Your argument implies that an 11 y.o. cannot initiate aggression because they do not understand the NAP and do not have moral agency, which is ridiculous and counter to the quotes that you yourself have provided. 

 

In regards to your example, it does not prove your point.  One may not execute a retard who has committed a gross NAP violation, but they can certainly be punished...  I'm not executing my daughter for her NAP violations, merely punishing her.

 

It's clear that she understands because she says she does and has altered her behavior in conformance with it.

Begin to develop, not fully developed, and at age 12 is the beginning of true understanding.  My argument is that children are suppose to be taught not hit.  Just because you think its ridiculous, doesn't change scientific facts.  There is no contradiction in the quotes I have provided. 

 

You keep on arguing from your own perspective, which is completely non scientific and illogical.  Hitting a child is not teaching.  And you have yet to provide any studies which show that hitting children = teaching. 

 

Yes, we are back to you saying so. 

[Liberty Bill]

Begin to develop, not fully developed, and at age 12 is the beginning of true understanding.  My argument is that children are suppose to be taught not hit.  Just because you think its ridiculous, doesn't change scientific facts.  There is no contradiction in the quotes I have provided. 

 

You keep on arguing from your own perspective, which is completely non scientific and illogical.  Hitting a child is not teaching.  And you have yet to provide any studies which show that hitting children = teaching. 

 

Yes, we are back to you saying so. 

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  My kid has learned to share instead of initiate aggression, so there you go.  If you want to pretend that, say, burning yourself doesn't teach you not to grab a flame, that's your prerogative.

[Slavik]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  My kid has learned to share instead of initiate aggression, so there you go.  If you want to pretend that, say, burning yourself doesn't teach you not to grab a flame, that's your prerogative.

And all she has learned is that if she hits, she will get hit by you, nothing more nothing less. Fire?  What does fire has to do with anything. 

[percentient]

Thanks for bringing this up Ashton. I am for one surprised that the results are so ambiguous. I do have some criticism, though.

 

For one, you report a lot of conclusions and summary, which is essentially just opinion. And that's OK, I doubt they are speaking out of their asses in such an easy to criticize format, I'm just saying there isn't that much to argue against. One of the articles is in German and I can't say anything about that, and the last one assessed the influences of different setups within day cares and found nothing significant. People can come by very different conclusions biased by their funding and ideology: a Heritage Foundation report on the effects of day care (http://familyfacts.org/reports/2/the-effects-of-day-care-on-the-social-emotional-development-of-children) disagrees with an article in Journal of Feminist Family Therapy (Deconstructing the “Mommy Wars”: The Battle Over the Best mom; http://www.workandfamily.chhs.colostate.edu/articles/files/Mommy_Wars%5B1%5D.pdf) which basically says that women are oppressed by the media and poverty. Who would have guessed? Stef has quoted authorities such as Burton L. White (author of New First Three Years of Life) and http://www.williamgairdner.com/war-against-the-family/ who are both very critical of daycare.

 

Second, like NGardner suggested, maybe the ambiguity of the results just says more about the standards of modern family life.

 

Third, you criticize Stef for portraying day care as a negative environment, when the science is more nuanced, but you are not responding to anything specific he says. His main claim is that you should stay with your kids for the first three years, and a lot of daycare research doesn't focus on the very early development. These are some arguments/claims/facts in support of staying home with young kids:

 

 - The benefits of breastfeeding last up to one or two years.

 

 - Toddlers show significant attachment insecurity with varying responses. This study https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTsewNrHUHU was criticized for being unethical, yet it's a day-to-day occurrence in many families.

 

 - If you don't bond with your kids at a young age, you are more likely to have problems in their teenage years. "More hours of [early] nonrelative care predicted greater risk taking and impulsivity at age 15" -- Vandell et al., 2010 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938040/), which I think is consistent with the results presented in the Bomb in the Brain series. 

 

 - Day care centers just don't have the (wo)manpower to interact with kids one-on-one, which means that kids are effectively taught by their peers. "Children who experienced more center care were reported by caregivers at 54 months to have somewhat higher externalizing [ie. fighting, cursing, stealing etc.] behavior problem scores than other children" (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200604000389).

 

 - The first few years is when most of their personality is developed, and you owe your kids an environment you can control. In bad homes, the kids statistically may even benefit from day care (where they are probably less likely to be hit), but generally in higher income families, day care is associated with adverse effects. For example, an ancient study by Desai et al., 1989 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2583316) concluded that boys in middle class homes are more stupid because the mom is working.

 

 - Why would you even want to have other people raise your kids?

 

 - The daycare environment is a playground for disease. Kids in daycare are around twice as likely to be sick, according to what Stef quotes in "Working Moms, Daycare and the War Against the Family". At a later age, there is no difference in health one way or the other (I don't remember the source on this one), but that doesn't help much, because in some cases the diseases are fatal or leave lasting effects.