U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-10-2020, 02:33 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
88,518 posts, read 82,591,369 times
Reputation: 93004

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankSterleJr View Post
_______
“It has been said that if child abuse and neglect were to disappear today, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual would shrink to the size of a pamphlet in two generations, and the prisons would empty. Or, as Bernie Siegel, MD, puts it, quite simply, after half a century of practising medicine, ‘I have become convinced that our number-one public health problem is our childhood’.”
Childhood Disrupted, pg.228.
Hear, hear! Unresolved childhood trauma and the resulting Post-Traumatic Stress, even Compound PTSD, is one of the main health risks there is. It sets people up to make poor decisions throughout life, and to seek comfort in food, usually the wrong kind, which can lead to diabetes, and a shortened life. . It often leads to substance abuse of one sort or another as well, leading to the same result--a shortened life.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 11-10-2020, 02:44 PM
 
12 posts, read 10,596 times
Reputation: 40
A notable passage from the book Childhood Disrupted (: How Your Biography Becomes Your Biology, and How You Can Heal, pg.24) in part reads: “Well-meaning and loving parents can unintentionally do harm to a child if they are not well informed about human development …”

Sure, people know not to yell when baby is sleeping in the next room; but do they know about the intricacies of why not?

For example, what percentage of procreative adults specifically realize that, since it cannot fight or flight, a baby stuck in a crib on its back hearing parental discord in the next room can only “move into a third neurological state, known as a ‘freeze’ state … This freeze state is a trauma state” (pg.123). This causes its brain to improperly develop; and if allowed to continue, it’s the helpless infant’s starting point towards a childhood, adolescence and (in particular) adulthood in which its brain uncontrollably releases potentially damaging levels of inflammation-promoting stress hormones and chemicals, even in non-stressful daily routines?

Also, how many potential parents are aware that, since young children completely rely on their parents for protection and sustenance, they'll instinctively stress over having their parents angry at them for prolonged periods of time?

Yet we, society, generally treat human procreative rights as though we’ll somehow, in blind anticipation, be innately inclined to sufficiently understand and appropriately nurture our children’s naturally developing minds and needs.

_______


“The way a society functions is a reflection of the childrearing practices of that society. Today we reap what we have sown. Despite the well-documented critical nature of early life experiences, we dedicate few resources to this time of life. We do not educate our children about child development, parenting, or the impact of neglect and trauma on children.”
—Dr. Bruce D. Perry, Ph.D. & Dr. John Marcellus

“I remember leaving the hospital thinking, ‘Wait, are they going to let me just walk off with him? I don’t know beans about babies! I don’t have a license to do this. We’re just amateurs’.”
—Anne Tyler, Breathing Lessons
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-10-2020, 04:30 PM
 
12 posts, read 10,596 times
Reputation: 40
I'm very curious as to what degree were you taught child development in high school back in 1975? Did the course(s) get into any details of the child's developing mind?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-16-2020, 03:03 PM
 
12 posts, read 10,596 times
Reputation: 40
Default I Find Nothing Entertaining In Watching Infant/Toddler 'Actors' Being Potentially Traumatized

In his book The Interpretation of Dreams, Dr. Sigmund Freud states: “It is painful to me to think that many of the hypotheses upon which I base my psychological solution of the psychoneuroses will arouse skepticism and ridicule when they first become known. For instance, I shall have to assert that impressions of the second year of life, and even the first, leave an enduring trace upon the emotional life of subsequent neuropaths [i.e. neurotic persons], and that these impressions—although greatly distorted and exaggerated by the memory—may furnish the earliest and profoundest basis of a hysterical [i.e. neurotic] symptom … It is my well-founded conviction that both doctrines [i.e. theories] are true. In confirmation of this I recall certain examples in which the death of the father occurred when the child was very young, and subsequent incidents, otherwise inexplicable, proved that the child had unconsciously preserved recollections of the person who had so early gone out of its life.”

Contemporary literature tells me that, since it cannot fight or flight, a baby stuck in a crib on its back hearing parental discord in the next room can only “move into a third neurological state, known as a ‘freeze’ state … This freeze state is a trauma state” (Childhood Disrupted (How Your Biography Becomes Your Biology, and How You Can Heal, pg.123).
This causes its brain to improperly develop; and if allowed to continue, it’s the helpless infant’s starting point towards a childhood, adolescence and (in particular) adulthood in which its brain uncontrollably releases potentially damaging levels of inflammation-promoting stress hormones and chemicals, even in non-stressful daily routines.

Decades before reading Freud’s theories or any others regarding very early life trauma, I’d always cringe at how producers and directors of negatively melodramatic scenes—let alone the willing parents of the undoubtedly extremely upset infants and toddlers used—could comfortably conclude that no psychological harm would result in the baby ‘actors’ screaming in bewilderment.

Initially I’d presumed there was an educated general consensus within the entertainment industry on this matter, perhaps even on the advice of mental health academia, otherwise the practice would logically compassionately cease. But I became increasingly doubtful of the accuracy of any such educated consensus.

(And why even designate them as ‘actors’, when true actors are fully cognizant of their fictional environment?)

Cannot one logically conclude by observing their turmoil-filled facial expressions that they’re perceiving, and likely cerebrally recording, the hyper-emotional scene activity around them at face value rather than as a fictitious occurrence?

I could understand the practice commonly occurring within a naïve entertainment industry of the 20th Century, but I’m still seeing it in contemporary small and big screen movie productions.
As just one relatively recent example, in the movie Hustlers (with actress Jennifer Lopez), a toddler is clearly actually distraught, wailing while caught in between a screaming match between mother (“Destiny”) and father characters.

Within the last two years, I’ve emailed, and left a voice message with, the Union of British Columbia Performers numerous times on this matter, all to which I received no response.

Meanwhile, in January of 2017, a Vancouver dog-rescue organization cancelled a scheduled fundraiser preceding the big release of the then-new film A Dog’s Purpose, according to a Vancouver Sun story, after “the German shepherd star of the film was put under duress during one scene.”
The founder of Thank Dog I Am Out (Dog Rescue Society), Susan Paterson, was quoted as saying, “We are shocked and disappointed by what we have seen, and we cannot in good conscience continue with our pre-screening of the movie.”
This incident managed to create a controversy for the ensuing news week.

While animal cruelty by the industry shouldn’t be tolerated, there should be even less allowance for using unaware infants and toddlers in negatively hyper-emotional drama—especially when contemporary alternatives can readily be utilized (e.g. a mannequin infant or digital manipulation technology).

Last edited by FrankSterleJr; 11-16-2020 at 04:03 PM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-16-2020, 03:10 PM
 
11,929 posts, read 4,770,768 times
Reputation: 27417
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankSterleJr View Post
I'm very curious as to what degree were you taught child development in high school back in 1975? Did the course(s) get into any details of the child's developing mind?

Is this for me? I graduated in 75, and yes, we took child development.


You're asking me to climb in the way way back machine, so there's not a whole lot of detail I remember, but yes, it did go into some detail about how a child's mind develops.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-19-2020, 02:52 PM
 
12 posts, read 10,596 times
Reputation: 40
A memorable passage from Childhood Disrupted (pg.24) in part reads: “Well-meaning and loving parents can unintentionally do harm to a child if they are not well informed about human development …”

Sure, people know not to yell when baby is sleeping in the next room; but do they know about the intricacies of why not?

For example, what percentage of procreative adults specifically realize that, since it cannot fight or flight, a baby stuck in a crib on its back hearing parental discord in the next room can only “move into a third neurological state, known as a ‘freeze’ state … This freeze state is a trauma state” (pg.123).

This causes its brain to improperly develop; and if allowed to continue, it’s the helpless infant’s starting point towards a childhood, adolescence and (in particular) adulthood in which its brain uncontrollably releases potentially damaging levels of inflammation-promoting stress hormones and chemicals, even in non-stressful daily routines.

Also, how many potential parents are aware that, since young children completely rely on their parents for protection and sustenance, they will understandably stress over having their parents angry at them for prolonged periods of time?

Yet, general society treats human reproductive rights as though we’ll somehow, in blind anticipation, be innately inclined to sufficiently understand and appropriately nurture our children’s naturally developing minds and needs.

A psychologically sound as well as a physically healthy future should be all children’s foremost human right—especially considering the very troubled world into which they never asked to enter—and therefore basic child development science and rearing should be learned long before the average person has their first child.

Why shouldn’t they understand how (with curriculum examples) a seemingly-minute yet consequential flaw in rearing/environment, perhaps something commonly practised/experienced, can have negative lasting effects on the child’s sponge-like brain/psyche?

By not teaching this to high school students, is it not as though societally we’re implying that anyone can comfortably enough go forth with unconditionally bearing children with whatever minute amount, if any at all, of such vital knowledge they happen to have acquired over time?

Perhaps foremost to consider is that during their first three to six years of life (depending on which expert one asks) children have particularly malleable minds, thus they’re exceptionally vulnerable to whatever rearing environment in which they happened to have been placed by fate.

I sometimes wonder how many instances there are wherein immense long-term suffering by children of dysfunctional rearing might have been prevented had the parent(s) received some crucial parenting instruction by way of mandatory high school curriculum.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-28-2020, 01:10 PM
 
12 posts, read 10,596 times
Reputation: 40
Default Understanding Child Development Science Through High School Curriculum, Part 2

“The way a society functions is a reflection of the childrearing practices of that society. Today we reap what we have sown. Despite the well-documented critical nature of early life experiences, we dedicate few resources to this time of life. We do not educate our children about child development, parenting, or the impact of neglect and trauma on children.”
—Dr. Bruce D. Perry, Ph.D. & Dr. John Marcellus

_________


A 2007 study ("The Science of Early Childhood Development") has found that, “The future of any society depends on its ability to foster the health and well-being of the next generation. Stated simply, today’s children will become tomorrow’s citizens, workers, and parents. When we invest wisely in children and families, the next generation will pay that back through a lifetime of productivity and responsible citizenship. When we fail to provide children with what they need to build a strong foundation for healthy and productive lives, we put our future prosperity and security at risk … All aspects of adult human capital, from work force skills to cooperative and lawful behavior, build on capacities that are developed during childhood, beginning at birth … The basic principles of neuroscience and the process of human skill formation indicate that early intervention for the most vulnerable children will generate the greatest payback.”

Although I appreciate the study’s initiative, it’s still for me a disappointing revelation as to our collective humanity when the report’s author feels compelled to repeatedly refer to living, breathing and often enough suffering human beings as a well-returning “investment” and “human capital” in an attempt to convince money-minded society that it’s indeed in our best fiscal interest to fund early-life programs that result in lowered incidence of unhealthy, dysfunctional child development.

In fact, in the 13-page study-report, the term “investment(s)” was used 22 times, “return” appeared eight times, “cost(s)” five times, “capital” appeared on four occasions, and either “pay”/“payback”/“pay that back” was used five times.

While some may justify it as a normal thus moral human evolutionary function, the general self-serving Only If It’s In My Own Back Yard mentality (or what I acronize OIIIMOBY) can debilitate social progress, even when it’s most needed; and it seems that distinct form of societal ‘penny wisdom but pound foolishness’ is a very unfortunate human characteristic that’s likely with us to stay.

Sadly, due to the OIIIMOBY mindset, the prevailing collective attitude, however implicit or subconscious, basically follows, 'Why should I care—I’m soundly raising my kid?' or 'What’s in it for me, the taxpayer, if I support child development education and health programs for the sake of others’ bad parenting?'

I was taught in journalism and public relations college courses that a story or PR news release needed to let the reader know, if possible in the lead sentence, why he/she should care about the subject matter—and more so find it sufficiently relevant to warrant reading on.

It’s disheartening to find this vocational tool frequently utilized in the study’s published report to persuade its readers why they should care about the fundamental psychological health of their fellow human beings—but in terms of publicly funded monetary investment and collective societal ‘costs to us later’ if we do nothing to assist this (probably small) minority of young children in properly cerebrally developing.

A similarly disappointing shortsighted OIIIMOBY mindset is evident in news reporting and commentary on other serious social issues, in order to really grasp the taxpaying reader’s interest.

I’ve yet to read a story or column on homelessness, child poverty and the fentanyl overdose crisis that leaves out any mention of their monetary cost to taxpaying society, notably through lost productivity thus reduced government revenue, larger health care budgets and an increasing rate of property crime; and perhaps the most angrily attention-grabbing is the increased demand on an already constrained ambulance response and emergency room/ward waits due to repeat overdose cases.

As for society’s dysfunctionally reared thus improperly mind-developed young children, make no mistake: Regardless of whether individually we’re doing a great job rearing our own developing children, we all have some degree of vested interest in every child receiving a psychologically sound start in life, considering that communally everyone is exposed (or at least potentially so) to every other parent’s handiwork.

Our personal monetary and societal security interests are served by a socially functional fellow citizenry that otherwise could or would have been poorly reared—a goal in part probably met by at least teaching child development science to our high school students.

_________


“I remember leaving the hospital thinking, ‘Wait, are they going to let me just walk off with him? I don’t know beans about babies! I don’t have a license to do this. We’re just amateurs’.”
—Anne Tyler, Breathing Lessons
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-27-2020, 11:44 AM
 
13,434 posts, read 17,012,246 times
Reputation: 16101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sassybluesy View Post
Well, obviously I can't say all schools do the same thing, but again...when I was in high school, we had a health class where basic hygiene and cleanliness were taught, as well as other topics of general health and welfare, and basic first aid, as well as reproduction health. We had a home ec class, where nutrition was taught, as well as how to prepare a meal.
.
yes...in high school..In the elementary grades here they might tell your child the importance of washing hands before handling your food, but the children are denied that before eating their lunches (takes too much time, not important)....they are told not to bring junk food (candies) to school...yet the schoolyard monitor hands them out to whomever she/he feels like....hypocrisy at it's finest...that's just one example of many.
I had a home ec class as well in high school...at least I learned how to make good baking powder biscuits
Rate this post positively
 
Old 02-04-2021, 05:23 PM
 
12 posts, read 10,596 times
Reputation: 40
I also strongly feel that not only should all school teachers have received autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and Asperger’s Syndrome (AS) training, but that there should further be an inclusion in standard high school curriculum of a child development course which in part would also teach about the often debilitating condition.

It would explain to students how, among other aspects of the condition, ASD and AS people, including higher functioning autistics, are often deemed willfully ‘difficult’ and socially incongruent, when such behavior is really not a choice.

It might even spare some student, somewhere, from getting bullied.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 02-04-2021, 07:42 PM
bu2
 
18,816 posts, read 9,265,832 times
Reputation: 8237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
I agree, that child development/psychology should be taught in the schools, but then, I think a lot of topics that aren't covered in school should be required: Anatomy & Physiology, environmental science or atmospheric science, to name a couple. HS grads should have a good understanding of how the human body works, how the natural world and the planet work, and a good idea of what a tremendous responsibility bringing a child into the world is, and raising that child.

This, though, immediately raises questions about educational policy, school budgets, and other thorny issues, that the US can't seem to get a handle on. The public school system in many locales can't even manage to teach its students how to read, to say nothing of that Gordian knot that confounds the field of math instruction! I don't know how realistic it is, to add more required subjects to a Middle School and High School curriculum. Although European countries and other parts of the world manage to cover a lot more subjects than many US schools...
Environmental Science is a common one of the sciences, especially if you don't take Physics or you do advanced science in MS and need an extra science. Physical Science covers some of the same material and usually is required.

Economics is something that wasn't required when I was in school that should have been. Its required some places, but not everywhere.

As for the OP, perhaps some of that can be covered in Health.
Rate this post positively
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top