Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I asked you to tell me what you think accounts for these discrepancies in your theory . . .
Oh boy! Pushing for an issue because it seems you are looking for an all right or all wrong answer.
The discrepancies is simple, HUMANS COME IN ALL KINDS OF VARIETIES. That makes it difficult to have the accurate answer you seem to want. Well, you are not going to get one.
However, I will say that some kids may be aggressive by nature. In those case the parents may not have the skills, abilities, qualities, and patience to guide and develop those those kids. In many of these cases a parent may not be able to channel an aggressive kid in a positive way besides the environment in school, the neighborhood, etc.
On the other hand there are parents that have the skills to help an aggressive child develop in a positive way.
Some kids choose NOT to be "bad" because that also is "fun". There's more than one way to be rewarded for a behavior, and of course rewards increase the likelihood of a behavior being repeated.
You can feel good physically or emotionally, you can get attention/respect/praise (these terms, along with "being cool" mean the same exact thing in said person's mind). But it all comes down to what behavior is rewarded, how often, and if the reward is appreciated. The latter is very important. You must know your child enough to know what kinds of rewards match their personality and values.
And even what I said earlier about teaching a kid simply what's "normal" fits in here. The comfort that comes from familiar behaviors is a reward itself.
I think it all comes down to classic risk vs. reward behavior tempered with empathy. If the perceived risks outweigh the perceived rewards in the persons mind then they don't engage. If the perceived rewards outweight the perceived risks in the persons mind then they go for it. This is of course tempered by empathy where people will not generally risk injuring another person in order to get their reward.
Each person is going to judge these situations differently based on the value and moral system in which they were raised, the rules structure in which they were raised and to an extent their own personal wiring as different things thrill different people, differently.
And I asked you to tell me what you think accounts for these discrepancies in your theory . . .
No clue. Kids either embrace or discard their parent's ideals. This goes both ways. It's not always highly moral parents who have children who choose good. Children with highly immoral parents choose good too. And vice versa.
An example is racism. Children either accept or reject their parents' views on racism. They either embrace their parents' views or they reject those views and form their own opinions.
I suspect the clue rests in children who are free thinkers, who are naturally analytical or who are taught to learn how to form their own conclusons. That's why I always felt it was important to teach my children to think for themselves, not merely follow rules and standards for the sake of rules and standards.
I also think there is a natural tendancy for teenagers to break away independently from their parents. Parenting from the far end of either side of the spectrum is the greatest risk IMO.
And some kids are just wired differently via genetics. Personality and emotional health aren't only environment.
I don't think people give "children" enough credit, and conversely, give parents too much credit. "Children" are simply young human beings, not an inferior species . . .they don't need to be "taught how to think," that is a hard-wired function . . .
I don't think people give "children" enough credit, and conversely, give parents too much credit. "Children" are simply young human beings, not an inferior species . . .they don't need to be "taught how to think," that is a hard-wired function . . .
Don't want to argue with you, but there is a ton of learning that goes into cognition, particularly social learning. It's not just the "hard-wired function" to which you refer.
I don't think people give "children" enough credit, and conversely, give parents too much credit. "Children" are simply young human beings, not an inferior species . . .they don't need to be "taught how to think," that is a hard-wired function . . .
It is not about teaching a child how to think, it is about teaching a child how to determine the difference between appropriate and inappropriate behaviors. Children are very bright and very creative, but without guidance on life's decisions and challenges, how could they possibly make good decisions or choose to take a good path if not given proper guidance?
How do all other life forms become the adults of their species? They all do not have hands-on guidance.
Well, do you want to discuss social learning and morality in chipmunks or in humans?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
