Well argued and the right time to make the case for the harm that comes from helicopter parenting, with good evidence.
This made me laugh though: "If there’s a predator loose in the neighborhood, your daughter doesn’t get to go to the mall.". Is that because I'm from somewhere that spells it neighbourhood instead of from the US or just because I understand statistics? Do the kinds of people reading an NYT article about raising successful children actually think that "predator on the loose" is a real thing outside of very rare events?
"HANGING back and allowing children to make mistakes is one of the greatest challenges of parenting."
I would agree with this, you (as the parent) know its a mistake and you want them not to suffer for something they could avoid but you can't teach what the mistake does.
That said, I am a big fan of having your kids make their mistakes and failures early and often. It is so easy to help your child avoid failing at some task, and yet doing so robs them of the value of not failing. Or more succinctly Success is measured in failures. If you try to do something and fail at it several times and then succeed, that success is that much sweeter than trying something and exceeding without ever failing. Thus success without failure is hollow.
So like the example of watching and encouraging your kid to walk, responding to failure with compassion and support is just as important.
Mistakes for any of us should be early, often, and not particularly severe.
Also I wonder how smaller family size plays into it. As one friend of mine put it, your first child is made out of glass, your second out of wood, and your third out of rubber.
My children have been successful with the main thing that I do is to put them to bed at night we talk for about 20-30 minutes about their day, we diagnose any problems that day and come up with solutions they can try. I did this with the kids for many years now they are both old enough and mostly do this on their own.
My daughter (14) has straight A grades at her High School.
My son is at High School but on a 2 year college campus where he takes college classes instead of regular high school classes (he is 16 the website is middlecollege.guhsd.net)
My parents didn't do anything like that and I was as academically successful as your kids.
What you're doing probably helps their happiness, though.
My mom graduated young though, and I gave myself pressure to prove I was smarter than her. Not sire if that's a point in the "nurture" column or the "peer competitive pressure" column.
• The assumption that child-rearing practices are responsible for how children
develop is a myth of modern western culture.
• Most socialization research ignores the effect of genetics and peer groups on
personality and behavior.
• Research into the results of different pa renting styles may confuse cause and effect;
do parents spank difficult kids or do kids become diffi cult because they are spanked?
• Human beings naturally form groups. They are social animals and excellent imitators.
• Children learn by identifying with a peer group and imitating its members.
• Peer groups are more influential than parents in determining children's behavior.
• Among his or her peers, a child's goal is child success – not adult success.
Negative peer influence may, for instance, undermine programs intended to fi ght
juvenile delinquency.
• The ability of parents to determine how children turn out is decidedly limited.
• The family can become the peer group that affects a child, but that‘s rare.
• Perhaps the most that parents can do to infl uence children's decisions and behavior
is to choose a community or school where the peer group refl ects parental values.
The goal of a child is not adult success, but rather childhood success. Status in a peer
group is a lynchpin factor in that success. Children do not seek to emulate their parents;
instead, they want to be like their peers. This is why children consider the prospect of
being held back in school as frightening. They lose membership in the group they know
and must take the status of being misfi ts in a group they do not know.
Group forces may be responsible for the failure of certain programs intended to combat
juvenile crime or to improve educational outcomes. It isn’t unusual, for example, for
African-American boys to consider academic success as un-African-American – or even
to scorn too-studious peers for “acting white.” Research shows that children are more
likely to smoke if their friends smoke – but whether their parents smoke makes little
difference. Some teen peer groups value criminal behavior, toughness and a willingness
to take risks. Recidivism is particularly high among juvenile delinquents who are sent to
programs where they live with other youthful offenders. This is to be expected, given the
power of group norms. Small wonder, then, that the neighborhood where a child grows
up can have a powerful determining infl uence on how it develops. A Danish study found
that children adopted by criminals were only likely to become criminals themselves
under one circumstance: growing up in a high-crime neighborhood.
To influence behavior and development, social programs should address groups rather
than individual children or their parents. Groups transmit language, culture and values
to children. It is noteworthy that historically black colleges produce the majority of
prominent black intellectuals, and that girls seem to do better in science and math in all-
girl schools than in co-ed schools. In a school with an all-black or all-female population,
academic achievement is not defined as nonblack or unfeminine. Group norms do not
discourage excellence.
Clearly, parents have a limited ability to influence children’s development. Socialization
researchers have not demonstrated that such factors as birth order, spanking or
parental education are responsible for how children develop. Genes and environment
matter. However, in the long run, it is not the parental environment, but the peer group
environment that really counts.
Parents can affect the development of children most directly through the influence they
exercise over establishing a child’s peer group. Parents pick the neighborhood where t...
This is extremely important information, and every parent should read the wall of text, but I have a few quibbles.
* It mentions but sort of underplays the importance of finding a good neighborhood/school.
* It underplays the role of parents in the pre-school years where parents are the child's primary social world.
* It underplays the role of teaching children how to successfully achieve peace and happiness in the home-- though I agree this may be tangential to the child's later success in life. It is key to parental happiness, though.
* It emphasizes that peers teach kids their attitudes. But adults teach kids much of their skills and strategies. Peers with skills may model and communicate those strategies better, but those peers can be hard to find.
15 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 44.4 ms ] threadhttp://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?articl...
that was shared here on HN a while ago.
This made me laugh though: "If there’s a predator loose in the neighborhood, your daughter doesn’t get to go to the mall.". Is that because I'm from somewhere that spells it neighbourhood instead of from the US or just because I understand statistics? Do the kinds of people reading an NYT article about raising successful children actually think that "predator on the loose" is a real thing outside of very rare events?
I would agree with this, you (as the parent) know its a mistake and you want them not to suffer for something they could avoid but you can't teach what the mistake does.
That said, I am a big fan of having your kids make their mistakes and failures early and often. It is so easy to help your child avoid failing at some task, and yet doing so robs them of the value of not failing. Or more succinctly Success is measured in failures. If you try to do something and fail at it several times and then succeed, that success is that much sweeter than trying something and exceeding without ever failing. Thus success without failure is hollow.
So like the example of watching and encouraging your kid to walk, responding to failure with compassion and support is just as important.
Also I wonder how smaller family size plays into it. As one friend of mine put it, your first child is made out of glass, your second out of wood, and your third out of rubber.
My daughter (14) has straight A grades at her High School.
My son is at High School but on a 2 year college campus where he takes college classes instead of regular high school classes (he is 16 the website is middlecollege.guhsd.net)
What you're doing probably helps their happiness, though.
My mom graduated young though, and I gave myself pressure to prove I was smarter than her. Not sire if that's a point in the "nurture" column or the "peer competitive pressure" column.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nurture_Assumption
• The assumption that child-rearing practices are responsible for how children develop is a myth of modern western culture. • Most socialization research ignores the effect of genetics and peer groups on personality and behavior. • Research into the results of different pa renting styles may confuse cause and effect; do parents spank difficult kids or do kids become diffi cult because they are spanked? • Human beings naturally form groups. They are social animals and excellent imitators. • Children learn by identifying with a peer group and imitating its members. • Peer groups are more influential than parents in determining children's behavior. • Among his or her peers, a child's goal is child success – not adult success. Negative peer influence may, for instance, undermine programs intended to fi ght juvenile delinquency. • The ability of parents to determine how children turn out is decidedly limited. • The family can become the peer group that affects a child, but that‘s rare. • Perhaps the most that parents can do to infl uence children's decisions and behavior is to choose a community or school where the peer group refl ects parental values.
The goal of a child is not adult success, but rather childhood success. Status in a peer group is a lynchpin factor in that success. Children do not seek to emulate their parents; instead, they want to be like their peers. This is why children consider the prospect of being held back in school as frightening. They lose membership in the group they know and must take the status of being misfi ts in a group they do not know.
Group forces may be responsible for the failure of certain programs intended to combat juvenile crime or to improve educational outcomes. It isn’t unusual, for example, for African-American boys to consider academic success as un-African-American – or even to scorn too-studious peers for “acting white.” Research shows that children are more likely to smoke if their friends smoke – but whether their parents smoke makes little difference. Some teen peer groups value criminal behavior, toughness and a willingness to take risks. Recidivism is particularly high among juvenile delinquents who are sent to programs where they live with other youthful offenders. This is to be expected, given the power of group norms. Small wonder, then, that the neighborhood where a child grows up can have a powerful determining infl uence on how it develops. A Danish study found that children adopted by criminals were only likely to become criminals themselves under one circumstance: growing up in a high-crime neighborhood.
To influence behavior and development, social programs should address groups rather than individual children or their parents. Groups transmit language, culture and values to children. It is noteworthy that historically black colleges produce the majority of prominent black intellectuals, and that girls seem to do better in science and math in all- girl schools than in co-ed schools. In a school with an all-black or all-female population, academic achievement is not defined as nonblack or unfeminine. Group norms do not discourage excellence.
Clearly, parents have a limited ability to influence children’s development. Socialization researchers have not demonstrated that such factors as birth order, spanking or parental education are responsible for how children develop. Genes and environment matter. However, in the long run, it is not the parental environment, but the peer group environment that really counts.
Parents can affect the development of children most directly through the influence they exercise over establishing a child’s peer group. Parents pick the neighborhood where t...
* It mentions but sort of underplays the importance of finding a good neighborhood/school.
* It underplays the role of parents in the pre-school years where parents are the child's primary social world.
* It underplays the role of teaching children how to successfully achieve peace and happiness in the home-- though I agree this may be tangential to the child's later success in life. It is key to parental happiness, though.
* It emphasizes that peers teach kids their attitudes. But adults teach kids much of their skills and strategies. Peers with skills may model and communicate those strategies better, but those peers can be hard to find.