(no subject)
Apr. 7th, 2006 03:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tabular_rasaI ate too much today. It probably didn't help with going to the Chocolate Bar last night. The problem with eating too much is the prospect of not eating to make up for it just makes me depressed, and I eat more to "prepare" for not eating for a while . . . it's so weird . . .
I was thinking today, in as I was depressed in Japanese (I was thinking about it in the context of, "Why do I suck at Japanese?" "Oh, I guess I was never really taught it properly, I guess, because I really do remember everything I was taught . . . !"). , how people really are never self-made. They never, ever are. Note Sarah (![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
palatier)'s icon: 
It's a very Eastern mindset, actually; one is not self-made, but community-made. You cannot brag; you are but what you are made. It's really true, actually; even the man who has "self-taught" himself had to procure the books with which to provides the means to teach himself. No man has ever been an isolated island to discover everything as the rest of the world did collectively throughout history. There is even an arguable case for a collective consciousness: you cannot simply just "discover" things; you know them inherently due their discovery of others throughout history. Yet, of course, this is not truly inherent; this is merely inherent in our society, and society is permeatind through all of our lives that we cannot escape it.
So, that brought up thoughts about how utterly complex it is to raise a child. I mean, think about it! I've thought about this before, and often; this is why I want so badly to be a stay-at-home mom. Childhood discipline is perhaps one of the most complicated things in the history of the universe, particularly considering how dependent upon society it is (and no one wants to talk about it, because it's such a touchy, "personal" subject-- either because of its connotations of own's own personal experience with discipline as a child, or because of fear as being seen as a "bad," "ineffective," or "abusive" parent; both overly-strictness and permissiability-- and, most importantly, irrationality-- are seen as bad by this society, and, well, I agree, for the most part).
For instance, traditional society valued the sense of authority and hierarchy; therefore, children were trained (usually by via brute force) to obey; just about every moral came under the scope of "obedience" in the end. Even if someone could argue that taking a cookie wasn't "wrong," if there was a rule about taking cookies, it was, because it was disobedience. Some parents follow this strain of thought; they're usually labelled "authoratative," or something, by Psychology textbooks/scholars. It's about the parents' power, and the submission to it and obedience to their will. That was what society was about, just in the context of the kingdom/lordship, etc . . . shoot, even adults could be beaten for crimes, as if they were children under the law, etc . . .
(In fact, it's only because child-rearing is so dependent on society that children with terrible parents can still be functional human beings, but, still-- I want an awful lot of say in what goes on there. One has to gauge the measure of society and apply it, and yet still instill certain values beyond those dominant of society . . . )
Not to make an overgeneralization, but corporal punishment tends to go along with this most often. Even now, parents that value authority and believe in social hierarchy (including those who believe in it for religious reasons) are more likely to be advocates of spanking.
Yet corporal punishment is just behavioral psychology. They get punished; they don't do it again. It's rational. Yet kids are surprisingly specific about their behavior changes, just as most creatures are, specifically as they grow to experience more punishments more often. It's not about just "not stealing a cookie;" it's "not stealing a cookie when Mommy isn't around to punish you." It can be frustrating when this causes little effect deeply and securely (not to mention the studied potentials of side-effects-- once again, having to do with authority!-- of violent behavior towards their own underlings, such as younger siblings, etc . . . ). Kids have their own separate agendas, after all; they're not going to ponder that all out. That's another thing about behavioral methods of discipline; no one thinks about them; there's no true introspection or deep conscience.
Yet, on the other hand, you can't just deal with a kid's conscience. After a certain point, you almost inevitably can, but there are stages where kids just don't care (or even know) about other people's feelings, etc . . . So, you really have to make a conscience for them. So stuff can't just be light and fluffy, either. There has to be some kind of structure; that just makes common sense. Even the most spanking-opposed parent realizes this, unless they're completely clueless and arguably negligent, lol . . . it's just manifested in other ways, such as time-outs or just a scolding, etc . . . Yet the focus is more about "think about this for a while" as well as a punishment. Kids are meant more to introspect than they used to. Of course, they don't always (pssh, I never did-- though maybe inadvertantly, but usually it was more like *SPITE I AM GOING TO THINK ABOUT PUPPIES AND KITTENS JUST TO SHOW YOU!!!* lol . . . ), but that's got to have some effect.
(It's interesting to note the shift in the books/media; kids used to talk of being spanked, then more about losing desert or something, now they almost always get grounded . . . )
Do kids therefore today feel guiltier about their actions? Does that inspire a better conscience? Did the original method create a more mathematical sense of "justice," as in: "You do wrong, you are punished," a more society-focus (ahh, the days of superheros; oddly, I found the opening to "The Incredibles" as being highly relevant to this) whereas, now, it's more "You do wrong, you suffer for it from the inside?" Shame vs. Guilt? Social responsibility vs. Personal responsibility? Which is easier? Which is more effective?
Is it better to have a fear of punishment, or a fear or your own conscience?
I would argue that conscience is arguably stronger.
On the conscience side, in Psychology, we talked about how if you can get an enemy to agree to a request for you, they will abolish the cognitive dissonance of doing something nice for someone they hate-- a moral/cognitive contradiction-- by liking you in response. Could you therefore someone get a child to internalize the necessary moral meant to be taught to them by having them ask to be punished, by making them make the choice themselves (I don't know how this would be assured to be done, though; you might have to punish them as a waiting event until they make the choice, lol . . . or just by social pressure of pretending to "hate" them until they comply, or something . . . ? That seems terrible . . . O.o), to do so causing them to internalize, "I gave in and took the punishment for stealing the cookie; that must mean I believe that stealing cookies is wrong."
I dunno; that seems counterintuitive, but kind of interesting, actually. This subject actually rather fascinates me, to tell you the truth. How children are raised says ages about our society; it's highly symbolic, really (and I milk it for all that it's worth in certain portions of my story, actually :-P). I mean, family units have been (and, without drastic change, probably always will be) mini-units of the country. Democracy has undermined hierarchy the same way that egalitarianism has undermined absolute paternalistic authority, etc . . .
I was thinking today, in as I was depressed in Japanese (I was thinking about it in the context of, "Why do I suck at Japanese?" "Oh, I guess I was never really taught it properly, I guess, because I really do remember everything I was taught . . . !"). , how people really are never self-made. They never, ever are. Note Sarah (
palatier)'s icon: So, that brought up thoughts about how utterly complex it is to raise a child. I mean, think about it! I've thought about this before, and often; this is why I want so badly to be a stay-at-home mom. Childhood discipline is perhaps one of the most complicated things in the history of the universe, particularly considering how dependent upon society it is (and no one wants to talk about it, because it's such a touchy, "personal" subject-- either because of its connotations of own's own personal experience with discipline as a child, or because of fear as being seen as a "bad," "ineffective," or "abusive" parent; both overly-strictness and permissiability-- and, most importantly, irrationality-- are seen as bad by this society, and, well, I agree, for the most part).
For instance, traditional society valued the sense of authority and hierarchy; therefore, children were trained (usually by via brute force) to obey; just about every moral came under the scope of "obedience" in the end. Even if someone could argue that taking a cookie wasn't "wrong," if there was a rule about taking cookies, it was, because it was disobedience. Some parents follow this strain of thought; they're usually labelled "authoratative," or something, by Psychology textbooks/scholars. It's about the parents' power, and the submission to it and obedience to their will. That was what society was about, just in the context of the kingdom/lordship, etc . . . shoot, even adults could be beaten for crimes, as if they were children under the law, etc . . .
(In fact, it's only because child-rearing is so dependent on society that children with terrible parents can still be functional human beings, but, still-- I want an awful lot of say in what goes on there. One has to gauge the measure of society and apply it, and yet still instill certain values beyond those dominant of society . . . )
Not to make an overgeneralization, but corporal punishment tends to go along with this most often. Even now, parents that value authority and believe in social hierarchy (including those who believe in it for religious reasons) are more likely to be advocates of spanking.
Yet corporal punishment is just behavioral psychology. They get punished; they don't do it again. It's rational. Yet kids are surprisingly specific about their behavior changes, just as most creatures are, specifically as they grow to experience more punishments more often. It's not about just "not stealing a cookie;" it's "not stealing a cookie when Mommy isn't around to punish you." It can be frustrating when this causes little effect deeply and securely (not to mention the studied potentials of side-effects-- once again, having to do with authority!-- of violent behavior towards their own underlings, such as younger siblings, etc . . . ). Kids have their own separate agendas, after all; they're not going to ponder that all out. That's another thing about behavioral methods of discipline; no one thinks about them; there's no true introspection or deep conscience.
Yet, on the other hand, you can't just deal with a kid's conscience. After a certain point, you almost inevitably can, but there are stages where kids just don't care (or even know) about other people's feelings, etc . . . So, you really have to make a conscience for them. So stuff can't just be light and fluffy, either. There has to be some kind of structure; that just makes common sense. Even the most spanking-opposed parent realizes this, unless they're completely clueless and arguably negligent, lol . . . it's just manifested in other ways, such as time-outs or just a scolding, etc . . . Yet the focus is more about "think about this for a while" as well as a punishment. Kids are meant more to introspect than they used to. Of course, they don't always (pssh, I never did-- though maybe inadvertantly, but usually it was more like *SPITE I AM GOING TO THINK ABOUT PUPPIES AND KITTENS JUST TO SHOW YOU!!!* lol . . . ), but that's got to have some effect.
(It's interesting to note the shift in the books/media; kids used to talk of being spanked, then more about losing desert or something, now they almost always get grounded . . . )
Do kids therefore today feel guiltier about their actions? Does that inspire a better conscience? Did the original method create a more mathematical sense of "justice," as in: "You do wrong, you are punished," a more society-focus (ahh, the days of superheros; oddly, I found the opening to "The Incredibles" as being highly relevant to this) whereas, now, it's more "You do wrong, you suffer for it from the inside?" Shame vs. Guilt? Social responsibility vs. Personal responsibility? Which is easier? Which is more effective?
Is it better to have a fear of punishment, or a fear or your own conscience?
I would argue that conscience is arguably stronger.
On the conscience side, in Psychology, we talked about how if you can get an enemy to agree to a request for you, they will abolish the cognitive dissonance of doing something nice for someone they hate-- a moral/cognitive contradiction-- by liking you in response. Could you therefore someone get a child to internalize the necessary moral meant to be taught to them by having them ask to be punished, by making them make the choice themselves (I don't know how this would be assured to be done, though; you might have to punish them as a waiting event until they make the choice, lol . . . or just by social pressure of pretending to "hate" them until they comply, or something . . . ? That seems terrible . . . O.o), to do so causing them to internalize, "I gave in and took the punishment for stealing the cookie; that must mean I believe that stealing cookies is wrong."
I dunno; that seems counterintuitive, but kind of interesting, actually. This subject actually rather fascinates me, to tell you the truth. How children are raised says ages about our society; it's highly symbolic, really (and I milk it for all that it's worth in certain portions of my story, actually :-P). I mean, family units have been (and, without drastic change, probably always will be) mini-units of the country. Democracy has undermined hierarchy the same way that egalitarianism has undermined absolute paternalistic authority, etc . . .
