[truculation]

Fine, as long as you accept that the main purpose of reading a story aloud is to relax and enjoy the story together rather than to develop skills. Just as the main purpose of lego and similar toys is not to develop 'hand-eye coordination' but rather to build cool stuff. (Whatever claims are advertised on the packaging.)

This isn't a trivial point. If you read stories with the intention of fostering skill development you will neither inculcate skills nor get the most out of those stories.

>parenting coach

Ha. The idea that there exist professional parents who explictly know what they are doing (with footnotes and sources) is a major conceit in our present culture.

[Symbiote]

> the main purpose ...

That's absolutely the purpose when you're doing the activity with the child, but there's a decision in the toy shop when you have to choose between Lego and the talking movie-tie-in doll, or between the book and the DVD.

> professional parents

Psychologists or psychiatrists study child development. That's some distance from a "parenting coach", but the coaches probably read the books or study what the psychologists write.

A friend teaches "child development" to 14-16 year olds, in the end they take this [1] exam. It's fairly basic, it mostly deals with babies and infants, but it seems completely reasonable that there's and evidence-based way of dealing with "daddy, there's a monster under my bed".

[1] http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/sample-papers-and-mark-schemes/2... (PDF linked from http://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/home-economics/gcse/home-econ..., which also has the official answers).

[rxhernandez]

The conceit exists with people who assume they are experts at something despite having very limited experience with the subject and zero attempts at research. Are you saying you or anyone else is equipped to be a decent parent just because you were a child and maybe had a parent? Or is it just because you are a decent person that you think you are equipped?

I know plenty of decent people who think it's okay to spank a child when we know full well that it results in kids thinking that violence is a solution to their problems. It took me years to unlearn yelling at people as a solution to my problems. It took me years to not fight every little semblance of stupidity I see. It took me decades to recover from depression induced by a father who still thinks to this day that he was doing the right thing by yelling at me for my every little wrong as a child.

This same ridiculous logic that spawned this frivolous criticism is the same logic that results in people saying "we've gotten along just fine for y years without x; you are being ridiculous for wanting or saying you need x." Feel free to substitute in electricity, clean water, doctors, internet, cars and child labor laws for x. And yes life finds a way despite a lack of technology or understanding but that doesn't mean we can't seriously improve our lives or the lives of our children by using either. If you took a second to look at current child development research you would see how out of your depth you are.

[lr4444lr]

You have a point insofar as child psychologists can advise parents about general best practices and diagnose what might be beneficial for their specific child. Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt though, I think he has in mind that this refers to a group of self-styled experts who aren't all that steeped in the research, and probably can't separate the wheat from the chaff because they don't have the training to interpret or critique it on its own merits, let alone having conducted any under peer review. They probably haven't put in clinical hours under multiple layers of supervision. The kind who are more concerned with credentials as a means to self-market and profit from their "brand" than as a badge of scholarly accomplishment and continued contribution to the field.

[magicalist]

> Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt though, I think he has in mind that this refers to a group of self-styled experts who aren't all that steeped in the research

and then we go back to the article and see the reference is to people literally part of the research program.

[truculation]

>Are you saying you or anyone else is equipped to be a decent parent just because you were a child and maybe had a parent?

Yes. I think that, as things stand, good parenting is largely a matter of being lucky enough to have oneself received good parenting, i.e. it's mainly a matter of tradition. This doesn't imply that one shouldn't attempt improvements here and there, some guided by science. My beef is principally with the idea that there's a scientific method to produce better people. Conceiving of people as products rather than as ends-in-themselves.

[Trundle]

Better people doesn't mean they have to be a product. Better people isn't even really how I would phrase it. More like lining your child up to have a better life.

It's something very hard to optimise for because what a good life is doesn't really have a strong definition. Is it quality of life in objective measurements? Comparative to your peers? To your upbringing? Is it having many itches and being able to scratch some of them? Having few itches and scratching them all? Is there an authenticity component ie in a hypothetical situation where you could matrix yourself and have a better life than your real one would you? Is 'meaning' a thing? Is it still meaningful if you create arbitrary need for 'meaning?

People have different measures but they pretty much all have measures.

Given that acquiring whichever mixed bag of "good life" things you believe in is almost certainly going to require certain modern life skills, I don't see any reason to attribute it to productisation of people. Just parents looking out for their kids interests.

[lopmotr]

I think you're right as shown by rich parents being more likely to have rich kids, violent parents have violent kids, poor parents, poor kids, etc. The trouble is, those violent people become parents too so they perpetuate the same problems. Without training, what's there to help whole cultures filled with poor parenting being passed on through generations?

"I want kids, but I wouldn't be a good parent so I won't have any" said nobody ever.

[asmithmd1]

Why is parenting a special skill that isn't coachable? Or do you similarly believe a: CEO coach, marriage counselor, financial advisor, high-school guidance counselor, and dog trainer are a waste of time and people availing themselves of those professionals should just ask their parents advice instead?

[pjc50]

> good parenting is largely a matter of being lucky enough to have oneself received good parenting, i.e. it's mainly a matter of tradition

a) Tradition is extremely variable across both time and space, even within the West

b) we have largely moved away from some of the nastier edges of "traditional" parenting, with good reason

c) there has to be a huge number of people who feel they don't want to replicate the upbringing they had and instead want help, who deserve decent resources

d) given that parenting resources exist, it's better to have and use scientifically tested ones than ones that replicate the prejudices of the loudest voices

[truculation]

>we have largely moved away from some of the nastier edges of "traditional" parenting, with good reason

Corporal punishment, you mean. Yes. However we've regressed in at least one way: many toddlers are now in daycare for 30+ hours per week.

>given that parenting resources exist, it's better to have and use scientifically tested ones than ones that replicate the prejudices of the loudest voices

Well, my original comment was more about how we use resources. But it seems doubtful whether we can scientifically test for how good such resources are, except in terms of narrow criteria like safety. We can't yet look into children's imaginations and measure how fired up they are; we can only try to find out what our children enjoy and help them to do more of it.

Consider the Harry Potter books. They may have done more for literacy than everything else combined since they arrived. Yet the first manuscript was rejected by many publishers, including some who no doubt had access to purportedly scientific advice.

Far better to look at what other families are doing, reading and playing with. And to read reviews online.

[adrianN]

What's the purpose of parenting and education if it's not making the best person possible out of a child?

[foldr]

Why does it need to have a purpose? Parents have a duty of care towards their children and (usually) love them. That's motivation enough. Why make it more complicated than that?

[scotty79]

Why treat and educate people about their specific problems if they have all the motivation to stay healthy?

If people are doing bad job at keeping themselves and their loved ones well, why not help them with little scientific knowledge?

Why doom them to do only as well as what they learned from their parents allows them to?

[foldr]

I didn't say anything about not using scientific knowledge.

[snowwrestler]

"Making the best person possible out of a child" is not motivation, it's the goal.

In other words, it's not the "why"--it's the "how."

What parent does not want the best for their kids? The question is, how to do that? There are informed answers to that question.

[foldr]

It seems like a weird and rather amorphous goal, since there's never any way of knowing whether or not someone is the best person they could possibly be. I certainly doubt that many parents have this goal in mind.

>There are informed answers to that question.

To an extent. There's also lots of contradictory advice that's difficult to verify.

[dragonwriter]

> If you read stories with the intention of fostering skill development you will neither inculcate skills nor get the most out of those stories.

[citation needed]

I suspect this only even approaches reality if by “intention” you mean “clumsily projected attitude”.

> The idea that there exist professional parents who explictly know what they are doing (with footnotes and sources) is a major conceit in our present culture.

The idea that parenting isn't a field which can be, and is, productively studied and that there aren't people who can provide useful guidance based on greater knowledge of that study and skill at observing and applying that knowledge is, itself, a major conceit in our present culture.

[truculation]

>if by “intention” you mean “clumsily projected attitude”.

Nah, just intention. For example, teaching children arithmetic with great moral seriousness, as we do, doesn't produce great arithmeticians. It merely encourages people to become math teachers.

>The idea that parenting isn't a field which can be, and is, productively studied

Trouble is that most of the knowledge is inexplicit and that family life is private. So trying to uncover and understand what's really going on is hard. If you try to study families empirically then you're (a) interfering with their normal activities, and (b) avoiding the fact that morality is independent of outcome. However, from the article, 'coach' suggests people are already giving advice. They think they know the answers.

[olau]

100% agree. You can see the same happening in management - results from extremely simplified experiments is extrapolated to overarching advice.

Interacting with other people is complex and context-sensitive.

[jacobolus]

Can you explain what you mean by “great moral seriousness” and “great arithmetician” in this context? What do you think the purpose of teaching elementary mathematics is?

[jakobegger]

The main reason I read to my kids is to get them to stop running around and calm down and go to bed.

Similar with Lego. It’s amazing how much time my kids spend playing Lego, how quiet they are when playing (unless they are fighting over one of the special pieces) and I’m grateful for every minute that it keeps them occupied while I clean the kitchen or whatever.

[noufalibrahim]

I second this. I've bought several toys for my kids. Highly desirable ones (from their perspective) - Nerf guns, board games, hobby kits etc. But they get bored of those things in about 3 weeks. LEGO on the other hand is a gift that gives on giving. They randomly pick it up and start making things. We've bought a big basket and dump all the bricks into that so that there's enough variety to build anything.

Interestingly, I bought them a Jenga set a few weeks ago and they spend more time using the wooden bricks to make structures rather than playing the actual game. Maybe there's some instinct that's at work there.

[asmithmd1]

I will probably be banned for this question: Are your kids boys or girls?

Boys and girls have obvious physical differences, yet it is offensive to even whisper that their brains might be different.

[ddingus]

You should not be. I had both. They do work differently, and there is a lot of overlap.

Legos though. Common ground! Almost everyone will get after a pile of legos.

The thing I disliked the most was watching the girls lose interest in some things as social pressure increased on them. Girlie norms. Good for girls, not for boys, kinds of things were in play. Rubbed me the wrong way.

Thing is, some boys are girly, and some girls are boyish. That's OK. Has to be, or we require people to live lies. I sure don't want to do that. How can I require others to do it?

What if it were me? You?

We gotta shake that stuff all off, learn new ideas, new ways for people to better self identify and be good with who they are. We do that so they too can be good with who they are.

As a parent, it was hard to compete with the norms. Was mostly successful, but not to the degree I now feel makes sense. I had help from my kids peers who saw I was open, seeking, just wanting to bring out who I saw developing.

BTW: watching their peers showed me those brain differences aren't just gender driven. Boys and girls, in a general sense, can make these things easy to see.

And people get stuck on all that too. Like they stop right there, when the truth is they should be continuing!

The reality is the kids brains will work differently. A boy who likes to craft and sew happens more often than many understand, just as does the girl who likes to build, take it apart, or race. We tend to celebrate the latter, when we should just celebrate new people, our future.

That's where we need to get to, if you ask me. Let the kids present as who they are, and we can then seek to understand with them and maximize that with and for them.

Many young people today get this cold. A whole lot of norms we struggle with today are going to change for the better. It's a good thing, but will likely continue to be kind of rough for a while yet.

All, FWIW, just observations from the school of hard knocks. :D

[lopmotr]

I think it'll always be an uphill battle. Teenagers especially need to distinguish themselves from the opposite sex for sexual reasons. So whatever's normal for girls is what boys won't want to do and vice versa.

[noufalibrahim]

Oh, One boy and one girl and It's quite obvious to me that they're differently wired. The daughter is older than the son.

They both enjoy making stuff but it's very different. My daughter gets a kick out of making intricate stuff (everything from common household objects like a toothbrush to things more elaborate like a multi shelf cupboard). My son mostly make elaborate planes and cars. He figures out some "technology" (like swinging door or hinge) and then all the things he makes uses that.

[posterboy]

What are those physical differences between children in lego age? The really obvious ones aren't fully developed, not active, so it shouldn't be offensive to suggest that a mental difference, as profound as expressed in lego playing, aren't active, either.

[wibr]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapla

[noufalibrahim]

Bless you! Thanks!

[meh2frdf]

Ha spoken like a real parent!

[bernardino]

> as long as you accept that the main purpose of reading a story aloud is to relax and enjoy the story together rather than to develop skills

American culture puts so much stress on young kids these days. While I’m still an undergraduate, I see my sister who is about to graduate high school make dark jokes about going to college and her life but it seems there is some truth there.

If or when I become a parent, I’m going to teach inner cultivation rather than productivity, etc. I.e. “Do whatever you please, pal. I got your back.”

It’s just the whole social order seems very toxic and I don’t want that for young kids growing up. I argue that it’s the way we are raised and taught that we become so anxious, etc. We worry that we if we aren’t accumulating skills for the workforce or whatever, we are wasting our time. No, man. Play video games for the sake of playing video games. When did we become so anxious about doing the latter?

[scalesolved]

I like the way you think! I myself have fallen into this trap before, playing video games to relax whilst trying to read technical articles to improve my skills.

I didn't realise the danger of it until someone pointed out the waste, if you're going to relax then just relax!

As a recent father I'm going to teach my daughter financial planning and responsibility so she can provide for herself but otherwise that she can take her life in any which direction and that money is the not the answer.

[wmwm]

I respect your intent —- there’s a lot going on in the co-enjoyment of reading that can’t be captured by research. But what research has captured are differences in literacy, verbal and cognitive abilities in children from different socioeconomic classes. When researchers went in and studied the actual reading styles of the different parents, they found that higher socioeconomic status parents asked different types of questions and engaged in different thinking patterns than lower SES parents. There was a tendency towards abstraction in the former and concreteness in the latter. That kind of stuff has significant effects in the process of early childhood brain development, which people don’t realize is this crazy critical window that the brain kind of solidifies around for the rest of life. So yeah, read and enjoy it, but be mindful of staying engaged and of engaging your kids’ thinking in multiple areas. Sometimes that’s not exactly natural or “in the moment.”

[alanthonyc]

Can you share the link to that study please?

[sjg007]

Well I mean teachers are kind of professional parents in that they teach kids new skills.

[Pulcinella]

No no no! I am not your child’s parent! You are!

I will do my best to be your child’s teacher and teach them and be a positive influence in their life, but I am definitely not their parent.

[milesvp]

So much this! I have a friend who teaches special needs children. She is amazing at her job. She can handle all the worst behaving kids like you wouldn't believe. Her experience is always that the biggest problem for many (most?) of her students with behavioral problems is, when she meets their parents, it's clear they have no boundaries, and the children get away with murder at home.

So much of being a parent is saying no, and having clear consequences when behavior is inappropriate. I can feel my pre frontal cortex getting exhausted when I watch my children, it's just so clear that theirs has yet to develop, and I need to be their behavior regulator.

[jacobolus]

I have a 20 month old kid, and in my experience out and about the town, meeting other parents, going to the playground, etc., in general I find that many (most?) parents (especially of the well educated / middle class or professional type) err very far to the other side.

That is, they follow their kids around closely, telling them what to do or not to do 200 times an hour, and not letting the children try anything for themselves. «Don’t climb down those steps. Don’t climb up the slide. Don’t run. Don’t pick up those rocks. That candy wrapper is trash don’t pick it up. Don’t put the stick in your mouth. Don’t step in that puddle. Stay far away from that dog poop. Stay on the path. Don’t kick that ball. Don’t borrow that toy, it’s not yours. Share your toy with the baby. Oh you fell down you’re okay you’re okay. Oh someone took your toy you’re okay you’re okay. Eat this or you won’t get that. We need to leave now, get in the cart.» And on and on. For the kids’ sake I wish the parents would just shut up and let them explore sometimes, and would explain their boundaries instead of just saying “no” to everything.

The poor kids then get scooped up and carted around in little strollers, often with their vision obscured by a canopy, strapped in, not interacting with the world or with people and with no personal autonomy. They then get transferred to a car seat, again strapped in and bored to tears as they are driven around town unable to see or interact with anything. The modern suburban lifestyle is terrible for small children.

The job of parents is not to shield their children from any and all stimulus because some of it might carry minor risks or be a minor inconvenience to someone else, but to help them get as much meaningful feedback as possible from their environment while not getting grievously injured. Parents should interact with their children all they want if that interaction comes in the form of talking to them, playing games, dancing around together, running up a hill, reading stories, building things, etc., but when the interaction consists largely of the parents exercising control over the children (and in my experience often otherwise glued to their phone screens), it’s really sad.

[Symbiote]

> That is, they follow their kids around closely, telling them what to do or not to do 200 times an hour

I'm British, but I live in Denmark.

It's excruciatingly easy to spot some (most?) British families, because of the way they treat their children. "Don't do that" "stay here" "don't touch that".

Danish parents seem much more willing to let the child follow along in the general direction, poking whatever and stamping in the puddles.

[jld]

I am American and was in Denmark with an 18 month old toddler last year. We spent hours at many different Danish playgrounds.

There was one interesting design paradigm I noticed that I think is reflective of a difference in parenting cultures.

On the all the Danish play structures we played on, all of the elements where a kid could fall more than a few feet were in areas of the structure that required a sufficient level of coordination to reach, like climbing a ladder or using climbing holes in a wall. Less coordinated kids were stuck at the lower levels of the structure where there was fun stuff to do for younger kids.

This thoughtful design allowed us to sit far away from our kid while he played knowing that the structure was designed to scale the risk with his capability.

Here at home, my toddler could climb to the top of many climbing structures using regular steps, and fall six feet down to the ground through the open doorways where you might find a ladder to climb up or a pole to slide down. A six foot fall is too risky in my mind, even though I'm not much of a helicopter parent. In fact, 15% of construction fall fatalities are from six feet or less.

I think this kind of smart design can help give kids confidence to take risks when they are able and ready.

[scalesolved]

I'm British but live in Barcelona, our baby is being raised by the building where I live. The concept of personal space/privacy is much different, practically our whole building come and talk, hang out and play with our baby (9 months old), when we visit the UK people are much more hands off and cautious.

It also makes me incredibly happy that my daughter hears 4/5 languages daily, growing up multilingual seems such a cool and interesting thing.

[sjg007]

Well part of it is preventing the kid from eating something toxic and I imagine that is wired into us genetically. The other is that ER bills are expensive... :) And the problem is kids have a hard time telling you what is wrong if they are hurt non obviously. Still kids should get to explore, I agree.

[mc32]

Yeah, there was a guy who was nicknamed the baby whisperer, recently died. Said while being able to help other parents, he was at a loss with his own children, well, to a degree.

[seanmcdirmid]

Perhaps it is possible to be objective with other peoples' kids but impossible to be objective with your own. Sort of like with relationships.

[mc32]

Not sure, he seemed like a self-deprecating kind of guy.[1]:

SHAPIRO: For generations of parents, Brazelton was the expert. But when it came to his own children, he struggled.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED BROADCAST)

BRAZELTON: Oh, gosh, I don't think I ever did anything right. My kids will be glad to tell you that. (Laughter) And so I really feel that learning to parent is learning from your mistakes, not from your success.

[1]https://www.npr.org/2018/03/15/594062954/revolutionary-pedia...