FWIW, before I read of Dobson's books here however many years ago, I only knew of him through his "Focus On The Family" radio snippets. The thing is that, for the most part, I found the vast majority of these "helpful parenting tips" to be full of common sense. I agreed with them. I was actually shocked to discover the "darker side of Dobson," as it were.
But every once in a while, I'd hear one that made me go, "Uh, WTF?" Most recently, he was lecturing on the necessity of allowing teenagers a tiny bit of authority at a time in order to keep them from rebelling.
That's the key point: the object was NOT to prepare them for life (although I believe some lip service may have been given to that idea.) The object was to keep them just satisfied enough not to make waves. The bit in this that really got me was the statement, "Well, of course you can't give a four year old any power! You have to be the one in control!"
Um, WTF? I started asking my now-five year old his opinion on things before he was even capable of knowing how to express it: Are you done eating, or would you like some more? Do you want to wear the red shirt, or the blue one? As far as I'm concerned, one of the primary responsibilities of a parent is to teach a child how to competently function in the world. This requires a lot of practice making decisions (which, on a meta level, also builds confidence in one's ability to make good decisions.)
Even removing the whole "Does Dobson recommend child abuse?" commentary, this one supposedly benign FotF blurb says a helluvalot about his view of parenting.
Inge @363
When a kid's too young to understand that "everyone's unhappy because of something I did, this is bad" (much less an explanation why something is dangerous and should not be done), I'm not sure how hurting the kid will help. Instant karma is one thing (I never pulled the dog's tail again after he bit me), but "you nearly did a thing that might have hurt you so I'm going to hurt you now" to an infant or toddler? Isn't that a little too complex?
I am a firm believer in discipline, not punishment. Consequences, both positive and negative, of a child's actions should be clearly and lovingly explained and implemented. I do NOT believe in corporal punishment.
At the same time, when my little one was two and ran into the road (after being told many times not to do so), I had no problem swatting his butt and saying NO!! loudly enough to startle tears into his eyes. After I had his attention, I gave him hugs and reassured him I still loved him, but the shout and swat (especially because they were so seldom used) got the point across that this was serious.
Xopher @333 (halfway to hell!)
Regarding the physiological effects of spiritual practices, the lecture I attended as part of a conference was titled How God Changes Your Brain, presented by Andrew Newberg, MD (www.andrewnewberg.com).
The parietal lobes help with orientation and differentiating between oneself and the rest of world. (I think these are the parts that are being developed when an infant stuffs its foot in its mouth and suddenly realizes, "Hey! That's part of me!")
Our frontal lobes involve our will (conscious decision making, etc.)
Certain types of meditation, like praying, affected the activity of parietal lobes, leading to a feeling having boundaries between entities/objects relaxed (being One With The Universe.)
Other spiritual activities which involve "surrendering oneself to God" or viewing oneself as a vessel for a higher power impacted the frontal lobes.
For more description and nifty pictures, check out http://andrewnewberg.com/research.asp
There was also a study that provided evidence that spiritual practices performed over an extended period of time can change the baseline state of a resting brain. For example, use of the hypothalamus shifted in a group of subjects with memory problems who practiced Kirtan Kriya over an 8 week period, with before and after tests showing correlating increase in verbal fluency (and something else I didn't take enough notes to remember.)
You might want to take a look at The Center for Spirituality and the Mind at the U of Pennsylvania to see what other aspects of neuroscience are being studied there.
@#137Xopher:
. . . through worship (and ritual, and (less) prayer) I get benefits I could not otherwise get.
What is your explanation for how that works?
(I know this is from far upthread but had to butt in.)
oo! oo! I just attended a fascinating workshop regarding the physiological effects of spiritual practices. They included these really nifty brain scan images showing how meditation actually changed the function of the brain, with areas like the frontal lobe and parietal section giving patterns of activity which were consistent with establishing mental boundaries between oneself and others (as well as "other" from "different other.") I.E. Meditating shifted how the brain processed information, allowing the participant to feel more "at one" with the Universe (or whatever.)
If any one is interested, I could dig out my notes for more specifics.
I find it interesting that, just a couple of entries away from this on my LJ FList of syndications, Scientific American asks, "After a person's pulse and breathing stop, how much later does all cellular metabolism stop?"
Pretty morbid theme for the day, IMHO.
Since cities usually are more economically / culturally / whatever vibrant than rural areas, I like the idea of making cities better places to live (rather than merely lamenting the trend.)
Me, I'm hoping that Greenroofing catches on in a big way.
#2 I wonder if that's good or bad (or neither.) I've been thinking about this a lot lately. My instinct says it's good, but perhaps I will be disabused of this idea. I think that people living in cities use less gasoline and less space and so on, so it's good.
#12 Actually, most people living in urban areas really aren't; they're in the suburban areas, and do tend to use more gasoline since there's very little in the way of transit available.
Also, urban areas provide more pollutants over all (industrial waste in addition to individual use of gas, etc.). Then you start getting into an economy in which the majority of "fresh" produce is grown in a relatively small area and trucked a gazillion miles (more gasoline plus more smog, since trucks aren't exactly the most fuel-efficient of vehicles, not to mention the "need" for more pesticides, GMOs and chemical fertilizers needed to grow the types of produce which can survive the trip)....
Then you get into things like the number of trees and growing things in urban areas versus rural, and the scale tips even more steeply against the long-term benefit to the planet of too densely populated (and therefore prone to expansion) cities.
Yes, rural and urban areas need each other to survive (urban areas process raw materials, among other things), but a preponderance of the urban over the rural really isn't good.
(Says she who escaped from the San Fernando Valley to live in Big Bear, an oasis 7k' above the SoCal smog.)
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 5 |
| 2007 | 3 |
Total: 8 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Rachel Heslin:
Show all comments by Rachel Heslin.