How People Change(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
How People Change
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/opinion/brooks-how-people-change.html
10 comments
I am in deep agreement with the thrust of your argument, particularly parents job in relation to "the tyranny of their own desires".
However, I can't agree with "Perhaps the hardest thing to do is to realize that the way your kids turn out is largely due to how effectively you and your partner parent."
If you mean you as a parent will have an enormous impact on your child's life-arc, I certainly agree. But who a child is is often not nearly as malleable as parents, and especially non-parents think. Parenting matters enormously, but I can't agree how a child turns out is "largely" due to parenting.
However, I can't agree with "Perhaps the hardest thing to do is to realize that the way your kids turn out is largely due to how effectively you and your partner parent."
If you mean you as a parent will have an enormous impact on your child's life-arc, I certainly agree. But who a child is is often not nearly as malleable as parents, and especially non-parents think. Parenting matters enormously, but I can't agree how a child turns out is "largely" due to parenting.
Sure. If you plant an acorn in crappy soil and fail to fertilize and nurture it, does it still turn into an oak tree (if it turns into anything at all)? Of course.
But does it turn out as well as it would have if it got off to the right start and/or was cared for appropriately? Probably not.
How the oak tree turned out is largely dependent on the environment it was raised in, the care and attention given to it, no?
Humans have more ability to control or change their conditions than oak trees but the principle still applies reasonably well. At the very least, taking on this responsibility as a parent minimizes the chances that one will be absent or non-attentive.
But does it turn out as well as it would have if it got off to the right start and/or was cared for appropriately? Probably not.
How the oak tree turned out is largely dependent on the environment it was raised in, the care and attention given to it, no?
Humans have more ability to control or change their conditions than oak trees but the principle still applies reasonably well. At the very least, taking on this responsibility as a parent minimizes the chances that one will be absent or non-attentive.
I also deeply agree with your post - and love the "tyranny of their own desires" quote. However ...
I have two kids and worry constantly that their dad will let them down in some slightly vague and unspecified manner that I won't notice till they are 16. I can cover the usual stuff of shelter, clothing, food, love, attention, bit of discipline etc. But there always seems to be one more thing that psychologists, parenting magazines or schools are aware of that I am not doing. Or doing wrong.
I am coming round to the view however that evolution long ago decided that leaving the future of the human race in the hands of parents was far too risky - and kids are likely to grow up to be who they will be. And only extreme action will sway them.
My actions now, will I hope, have some positive improvements on my childs happiness and life outcomes. But in the main who they are is a genetic gift. Mother Nature, as mothers are wont to do, decided that Dads are likely to be wrong too often to rely on.
So I can relax and focus on trying to raise happy inquisitive kids - I shall try and focus on the big things - happiness, inquisitiveness, healthy lifestyle, not as bad with money as dad, marry a happy person. I think of it as like laying down railway tracks that slowly open up to become roads, then prairies with rules that trammell them becoming advice about exploring.
And find out with them, just who they are going to grow up to be.
I have two kids and worry constantly that their dad will let them down in some slightly vague and unspecified manner that I won't notice till they are 16. I can cover the usual stuff of shelter, clothing, food, love, attention, bit of discipline etc. But there always seems to be one more thing that psychologists, parenting magazines or schools are aware of that I am not doing. Or doing wrong.
I am coming round to the view however that evolution long ago decided that leaving the future of the human race in the hands of parents was far too risky - and kids are likely to grow up to be who they will be. And only extreme action will sway them.
My actions now, will I hope, have some positive improvements on my childs happiness and life outcomes. But in the main who they are is a genetic gift. Mother Nature, as mothers are wont to do, decided that Dads are likely to be wrong too often to rely on.
So I can relax and focus on trying to raise happy inquisitive kids - I shall try and focus on the big things - happiness, inquisitiveness, healthy lifestyle, not as bad with money as dad, marry a happy person. I think of it as like laying down railway tracks that slowly open up to become roads, then prairies with rules that trammell them becoming advice about exploring.
And find out with them, just who they are going to grow up to be.
The father's pattern of behavoir is interesting here. He was absent when his children were young and then sent them off to boarding school and didn't stay in touch. Now their lives are not going as well as he'd like, so he's decided to excoriate them for their decisions. What authority does he have for this? He earned the money for their expenses when they were young, but he was otherwise completely uninterested in their upbringing. Now he's going to parachute in and make demands. Fathering children does not make you a father.
The funny/sad thing is, I could write a similar e-mail to my parents explaining how disappointed I am with their live choices, inability to learn, their wrought inter-dependence they call marriage, and, to be honest, the way they raised their children (including me, of course).
I don't think there is anything wrong to be honest to each other. Family isn't as important as it has been throughout history and the Idea of Family as portrayed in our culture has become an outdated concept. On the other hand, as a family we do share a bond and a shared history together and we're connected. We can cut our physical ties to one another, just never see each other again, but we cannot free ourselves from our mental bond. We have to live with that. And I don't see how cutting physical ties would change anything about that.
I don't think there is anything wrong to be honest to each other. Family isn't as important as it has been throughout history and the Idea of Family as portrayed in our culture has become an outdated concept. On the other hand, as a family we do share a bond and a shared history together and we're connected. We can cut our physical ties to one another, just never see each other again, but we cannot free ourselves from our mental bond. We have to live with that. And I don't see how cutting physical ties would change anything about that.
> Family isn't as important as it has been throughout history and the Idea of Family as portrayed in our culture has become an outdated concept.
I wonder if it's exactly this opinion that yields ``adults'' like Nick Crews' children...
I wonder if it's exactly this opinion that yields ``adults'' like Nick Crews' children...
That is a good question, yes.
Maybe there is a generation gap. I wonder if Nick Crew and his broken family ever did talk about their expectations they have for each other. Or he just never expressed his opinion clear and cut to his children and, once he had enough, just cut the cord.
The article is somewhat sparse on details. I would have liked it to have some sort of broader social-cultural analysis of sorts.
Maybe there is a generation gap. I wonder if Nick Crew and his broken family ever did talk about their expectations they have for each other. Or he just never expressed his opinion clear and cut to his children and, once he had enough, just cut the cord.
The article is somewhat sparse on details. I would have liked it to have some sort of broader social-cultural analysis of sorts.
With the paywall up [1], I only have access to a couple NYTimes articles per month. I was horrified to discover this was just a link to some stupid op-ed by David Brooks. What a waste. I'm completely sick of all the hot-air professional bullshit-artist columnists. If this linked to a Tom Friedman article, I'd have completely lost it.
[1] I know there are a lot of exceptions, I'm not sure if this will count against my monthly limit if I went to the page via this HN link.
[1] I know there are a lot of exceptions, I'm not sure if this will count against my monthly limit if I went to the page via this HN link.
The easiest exception to the paywall is incognito mode.
Here in non-USA-ia, there is no such paywall. Maybe visiting their site through an alien proxy could give you unlimmited access. Then again, why bother as more and more 'articles' as you accurately observe have become short and easy opinion pieces.
Where has in-depth research journalism gone?
(I would really like to know and am willing to pay for quality content.)
Where has in-depth research journalism gone?
(I would really like to know and am willing to pay for quality content.)
They keep track of how many pages you've read in cookies. Delete your cookies. No reason for brash hostility.
Just use this bookmarklet:
javascript:(function()%7Bvar%20s%3Ddocument.createElement(%27script%27)%3Bs.setAttribute(%27src%27,%27http://toys.euri.ca/nyt.js%27)%3Bdocument.getElementsByTagName(%27head%27)%5B0%5D.appendChild(s)%3B%7D)()%3BTo avoid the NYT paywall, just append "?_r=1" to the URL (perhaps removing other "?..." stuff).
[It seems too simple to last, but has worked great for quite a while...]
[It seems too simple to last, but has worked great for quite a while...]
Open the link in porn mode.
you can easily bypass the paywall with a little javascript.
I fail to understand how this made the front-page of HN.
A father sent an email to his children expressing his disdain. Email went viral in a way unanticipated by the daughter who made the email public. Some lame exposition is given on the basics of positive re-enforcement.
Nothing about this was interesting or mentally stimulating.
A father sent an email to his children expressing his disdain. Email went viral in a way unanticipated by the daughter who made the email public. Some lame exposition is given on the basics of positive re-enforcement.
Nothing about this was interesting or mentally stimulating.
What was the point of this article? I don't think it had much to do with how people actually change. It was pretty much aggregating a "viral" email and summarizing (maybe super-summarizing) some views from cognitive behavioral therapy and maybe some chapters from "The Power of Habit"
The explanation of "How people change" is superficial at best in this article.
The explanation of "How people change" is superficial at best in this article.
The father's email was hardly ferocious. When children are young, we express disappointment when they do something they should not do and express encouragement when they do something they should.
" People don’t behave badly because they lack information about their shortcomings. They behave badly because they’ve fallen into patterns of destructive behavior from which they’re unable to escape."
The behavior described by the father could hardly be genetic or environmental shortcomings. If lack of information is not the cause, then why do we say that problem youth need more and more education with superman-like teachers and fewer kids per class?
"Human behavior flows from hidden springs and calls for constant and crafty prodding more than blunt hectoring. The way to get someone out of a negative cascade is not with a ferocious e-mail trying to attack their bad behavior. It’s to go on offense and try to maximize some alternative good behavior. There’s a trove of research suggesting that it’s best to tackle negative behaviors obliquely, by redirecting attention toward different, positive ones."
Yes, hidden springs that mysterious yet totally doable thing that, if we did it right, then we'd know we were doing it, somehow.
" People don’t behave badly because they lack information about their shortcomings. They behave badly because they’ve fallen into patterns of destructive behavior from which they’re unable to escape."
The behavior described by the father could hardly be genetic or environmental shortcomings. If lack of information is not the cause, then why do we say that problem youth need more and more education with superman-like teachers and fewer kids per class?
"Human behavior flows from hidden springs and calls for constant and crafty prodding more than blunt hectoring. The way to get someone out of a negative cascade is not with a ferocious e-mail trying to attack their bad behavior. It’s to go on offense and try to maximize some alternative good behavior. There’s a trove of research suggesting that it’s best to tackle negative behaviors obliquely, by redirecting attention toward different, positive ones."
Yes, hidden springs that mysterious yet totally doable thing that, if we did it right, then we'd know we were doing it, somehow.
The article brings some good points about habit formation:
1. Start with one habit, one part of life at a time
2. Create repeated, consistent incentives for abstaining from bad habits
3. In place of bad habits, put into practice positive behaviors
4. Change happens in a supportive, nurturing environment
Even though the article is mostly about one man's relationship to his adult kids, the author manages to include a few decent ideas about change.
1. Start with one habit, one part of life at a time
2. Create repeated, consistent incentives for abstaining from bad habits
3. In place of bad habits, put into practice positive behaviors
4. Change happens in a supportive, nurturing environment
Even though the article is mostly about one man's relationship to his adult kids, the author manages to include a few decent ideas about change.
You can read the original letter and skip David Brooks' opining.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9686219/I-am-bitterly...
Please change the title. It doesn't talk about how people change but how to change people.
If the father had done a better job parenting instead of permissively coddling his children or allowing others to parent them, he would never have had to write this email.
Parenting is coaching. It's a process of constantly weening children from dependency after dependency. It can be tough when they cry at every rule you put in place and at every missed chocolate or toy or tv show. But you have to be firm, stay true to your vision, and view yourself as saving your children from "the tyranny of their own desires".
If you want it done right, you can't do it from a distance. You can't oursource the effort by sending them off to boarding school and hope someone else will do your job for you.
It's not easy. I have 3 of my own. Perhaps the hardest thing to do is to realize that the way your kids turn out is largely due to how effectively you and your partner parent. Yes they make their own choices. But they should make those choices within a framework of confidence, intelligence and independence that you as a parent have cultivated.
That's a lot of responsibility. But you have to take it on if you want to increase the chances of your children having good lives.
Waiting until they're 40 to write them an email expressing your disappointment is far too little way too late.