I liked your discussion of the little girl and her tantrum. I had a similar experience with my son when he was two. We were in the checkout line at a local store and he wanted a soda pop. I told him "No", at which point he threw himself into a classic temper tantrum. I put aside the items I was getting ready to purchase, picked him up, took him outside to the grass field next to the store, put him down, and said, "Ok. Go ahead. Scream. Beat the ground. Make all the commotion you want!" He looked at me with a confused, bewildered expression and said he just wanted a soda pop. I said he wasn't getting one and throwing a fit wasn't going to get him one under any circumstances. You can say what you like about the method, but it was the last temper tantrum he ever threw.
What you described is a different method than what is discussed in the case of the little girl. In your case you followed the tantrum with immediate negative consequences - no soda pop, no store trip, immediate removal from the place where the child could get something. And you explained that this was a consequence of the tantrum. A proper correlation formed - hence no more tantrums. I had many similar incidents when my daughter was growing up. Like in your case - a tantrum in a store resulted in no desired result (candy) and no store trip. Similarly, this was the one and only tantrum trying to make me buy something for her. Other cases were similar - attempt to achieve a result via unpleasant behavior, unpleasant immediate and unexpected consequences, no further attempts of this kind. The problem with "progressive" parenting is that parents are not willing to generate any negative consequences, believing that negative consequences are "bad" for the child.
Your perspective is needed. A new coalition of common sense parents could emerge from white working class homes in rural areas if we can encourage them that their child-rearing practices were correct all along. In fact, this could be the locus of the revolution. Right about Covid, the vaccines, culture, religion, parenting, Wrong about drug abuse, eating, lack of exercise.
If you will permit me, I'm going to take this discussion into a difficult place. And it begins with a simple question. Given the accuracy and seriousness of your analysis, can this problem be solved with education and persuasion? In other words, if we train and employ enough psychologists, and turn them loose on the entirety of the population, can we talk our way out of the mess we're in?
I'm going to argue that we cannot. And solution by tyranny is no solution either. Perhaps the only real solution that has a chance of having a macro-scale impact is a form of societal collapse that results in a return of real hardship and existential threat. In other words, only a significant change in the environment, and associated evolutionary drivers, can "push" the species back on track.
Our current environment is dominated by affluence and the complete absence of real hardship for the vast majority of the population. And even in cases of extreme poverty, there is no lion on the savanna threatening to eat you. That is no natural feedback mechanism that necessitates proper early-life training of children. We are too free to choose otherwise.
Our species is distinct from all others because we evolved complex language skill and used it to "train" our offspring with ancient wisdom that enhanced their ability to survive and thrive in a natural environment of endless hazards and gauntlets. And because environments vary all around the planet, local wisdom is unique in response to local conditions. You must train children for what "works" not what feels good.
We cannot rest with just having identified the problem. If we are to survive as a species, we must also use our brain power to devise or innovate realistic solutions.
I agree with all your points. More shrinks is not a solution, nor more of the same education. Frankly I don't see a solution as long as the current "situation" persists in our societies. As you mention, there are both evolutionary and cultural factors at work which cannot be disregarded. I'm planning on expanding on this piece soon. Thank you all for your comments.
The mentality of the typical 'Progressive' is not really about a concern for any supposedly 'oppressed' people. The real driver is to signal that their privileged narcissistic little wonderful selves are an ever-virtuous elect. 'Oppression' is a shallow abstraction that serves to inflate their personal vanity as 'social justice' warriors. This poisonous vanity has been pouring out of Western academia for decades. "A campaigner for Social Justice is - in their own essentially narcissistic conceit driven by a desire for ...social justice. Gay-Rights and anti-Racist campaigners view themselves as simply dovish souls just wanting to be accepted for what they are. The conservative however is likely to also detect a souring whiff of cant; he notices the champagne in the socialist, the thought-policeman in the Gay Pride marcher, the racist in the anti-Racist, the have-your-cake-and-eat-it coquetry in the Cosmopolitan feminist." https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/are-we-making-progress
This is helpful for understanding, but I would point out that there are different forms of narcissism, so the kind that shows empathy (as ability) but lacks goodwill (as described in your first article) is one (overlapping with the dark-triad) - but the lack of goodwill may be exacerbated by fear, expressed as self-loathing/insecurity. As you say, impulses and emotions are hardwired - but the wiring may vary between individuals - and also depend on abilities, e.g. the more intelligent and imaginative, and the more sensitive you are - the more susceptible you are to fears (explained in next sentence). Finally, your life-experience plays a major role, and this is IMO where memory comes in, because it is there that various experiences (even imagined ones, e.g. from a horror-story or just a dream) may get linked to the fundamental hard-wired impulses/emotions - and the ability of memory to create these associations - is really an expression of what's generally understood as intelligence.
I liked your discussion of the little girl and her tantrum. I had a similar experience with my son when he was two. We were in the checkout line at a local store and he wanted a soda pop. I told him "No", at which point he threw himself into a classic temper tantrum. I put aside the items I was getting ready to purchase, picked him up, took him outside to the grass field next to the store, put him down, and said, "Ok. Go ahead. Scream. Beat the ground. Make all the commotion you want!" He looked at me with a confused, bewildered expression and said he just wanted a soda pop. I said he wasn't getting one and throwing a fit wasn't going to get him one under any circumstances. You can say what you like about the method, but it was the last temper tantrum he ever threw.
What you described is a different method than what is discussed in the case of the little girl. In your case you followed the tantrum with immediate negative consequences - no soda pop, no store trip, immediate removal from the place where the child could get something. And you explained that this was a consequence of the tantrum. A proper correlation formed - hence no more tantrums. I had many similar incidents when my daughter was growing up. Like in your case - a tantrum in a store resulted in no desired result (candy) and no store trip. Similarly, this was the one and only tantrum trying to make me buy something for her. Other cases were similar - attempt to achieve a result via unpleasant behavior, unpleasant immediate and unexpected consequences, no further attempts of this kind. The problem with "progressive" parenting is that parents are not willing to generate any negative consequences, believing that negative consequences are "bad" for the child.
I've been calling this demise in western society, revenge of the creche raised kids. Great to hear a proper explanation. Thank you.
Your perspective is needed. A new coalition of common sense parents could emerge from white working class homes in rural areas if we can encourage them that their child-rearing practices were correct all along. In fact, this could be the locus of the revolution. Right about Covid, the vaccines, culture, religion, parenting, Wrong about drug abuse, eating, lack of exercise.
If you will permit me, I'm going to take this discussion into a difficult place. And it begins with a simple question. Given the accuracy and seriousness of your analysis, can this problem be solved with education and persuasion? In other words, if we train and employ enough psychologists, and turn them loose on the entirety of the population, can we talk our way out of the mess we're in?
I'm going to argue that we cannot. And solution by tyranny is no solution either. Perhaps the only real solution that has a chance of having a macro-scale impact is a form of societal collapse that results in a return of real hardship and existential threat. In other words, only a significant change in the environment, and associated evolutionary drivers, can "push" the species back on track.
Our current environment is dominated by affluence and the complete absence of real hardship for the vast majority of the population. And even in cases of extreme poverty, there is no lion on the savanna threatening to eat you. That is no natural feedback mechanism that necessitates proper early-life training of children. We are too free to choose otherwise.
Our species is distinct from all others because we evolved complex language skill and used it to "train" our offspring with ancient wisdom that enhanced their ability to survive and thrive in a natural environment of endless hazards and gauntlets. And because environments vary all around the planet, local wisdom is unique in response to local conditions. You must train children for what "works" not what feels good.
We cannot rest with just having identified the problem. If we are to survive as a species, we must also use our brain power to devise or innovate realistic solutions.
I agree with all your points. More shrinks is not a solution, nor more of the same education. Frankly I don't see a solution as long as the current "situation" persists in our societies. As you mention, there are both evolutionary and cultural factors at work which cannot be disregarded. I'm planning on expanding on this piece soon. Thank you all for your comments.
The mentality of the typical 'Progressive' is not really about a concern for any supposedly 'oppressed' people. The real driver is to signal that their privileged narcissistic little wonderful selves are an ever-virtuous elect. 'Oppression' is a shallow abstraction that serves to inflate their personal vanity as 'social justice' warriors. This poisonous vanity has been pouring out of Western academia for decades. "A campaigner for Social Justice is - in their own essentially narcissistic conceit driven by a desire for ...social justice. Gay-Rights and anti-Racist campaigners view themselves as simply dovish souls just wanting to be accepted for what they are. The conservative however is likely to also detect a souring whiff of cant; he notices the champagne in the socialist, the thought-policeman in the Gay Pride marcher, the racist in the anti-Racist, the have-your-cake-and-eat-it coquetry in the Cosmopolitan feminist." https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/are-we-making-progress
Your articles represent the psychology that I like. I wonder if you may give us some advice on books/textbooks that treat the argument the way you do.
Thank you
Spot on.
Great read. It’s helpful to understand the mechanisms and levers used to bend our will.
This is helpful for understanding, but I would point out that there are different forms of narcissism, so the kind that shows empathy (as ability) but lacks goodwill (as described in your first article) is one (overlapping with the dark-triad) - but the lack of goodwill may be exacerbated by fear, expressed as self-loathing/insecurity. As you say, impulses and emotions are hardwired - but the wiring may vary between individuals - and also depend on abilities, e.g. the more intelligent and imaginative, and the more sensitive you are - the more susceptible you are to fears (explained in next sentence). Finally, your life-experience plays a major role, and this is IMO where memory comes in, because it is there that various experiences (even imagined ones, e.g. from a horror-story or just a dream) may get linked to the fundamental hard-wired impulses/emotions - and the ability of memory to create these associations - is really an expression of what's generally understood as intelligence.