Independent thought and parenting

[Corbin Wells]

I am hoping to write a book on this and decided to get some more info before I even think of typing up anything just yet.
Here's the idea: People grow old and die and have kids to take their place and whatnot. The parents job while raising the child is to keep their own beliefs going by teaching their child every belief that the parent has. But here's the question:
When should the parent let go of their teachings and let the child decide for themself? When should the child be granted the right to become an independent thinker? When does the parent no longer have a say in what this child should be? (I know it's a little sloppy right now)

[Mans0n]

I say a child should be able to decide for him/herself once there about 13, but their parents should only make the big decisions.

[devonin]

You are never "granted the right" to be an independant thinker. That's a contradiction in terms. You think independantly as soon as you assert your independant thoughts. Parents can attempt to indoctrinate their children with a certain belief set, in fact this happens all the time. Whether it's as simple as the particular moral code for right and wrong that you are taught, or something as deep and important as cultural or religious identity, parents, educators etc can and do try to teach children a certain predesigned value set and thought process system.

However, there comes a time in everybody's life when they are driven to question, and depending on how those questions are answered from those around them, they start to deviate from the track that may be set for them. This manifests in a number of ways, but the usual 12-14 year old issues with authority are one of the primary ways in which boundaries are tested, and children start to fit themselves into their own concieved notions of thought.

In my view, it is a good parent that encourages and fosters an analytical mind prone to questioning things in their children, but many parents acitvely discourage it, mistaking it for a questioning of their parental authority. I mean, this process may take the form of an -actual- questioning of parental authority, but since the actual answer is "Since the law holds me responsible for you, YES I do actually have some authority over you" it all comes down to how the parents decide to deal with their child manifesting independant thinking.

[Corbin Wells]

Originally Posted by devonin

Parents can attempt to indoctrinate their children with a certain belief set, in fact this happens all the time. Whether it's as simple as the particular moral code for right and wrong that you are taught, or something as deep and important as cultural or religious identity, parents, educators etc can and do try to teach children a certain predesigned value set and thought process system.

Yes, that's exactly why it's important to look at all of the issues surrounding the growing member of society. They have to deal with the beliefs their parents have, the beliefs of those that openly speak of their religion around them, and those of anyone else who wishes to teach them. It is all of these things this little citizen must be aware of and it's important that a parent encourages the child to ask the questioning and learn from as many people as possible in order to question for him/herself and develop their own ideas of rights and wrongs and what morals to grow up with. But in a constructive way that will allow this person to be content with himself and those around him/her.

In my

Originally Posted by devonin

view, it is a good parent that encourages and fosters an analytical mind prone to questioning things in their children. It all comes down to how the parents decide to deal with their child manifesting independant thinking.

I totally agree, and it's necessary for a parent to let a child experience things. This is one of the reasons I am against home-schooling.

[devonin]

important that a parent encourages the child to ask the questioning and learn from as many people as possible in order to question for him/herself and develop their own ideas of rights and wrongs and what morals to grow up with. But in a constructive way that will allow this person to be content with himself and those around him/her.

Much more important than encouraging children to ask these questions is encouraging adults to actually answer them. My mother's yardstick for telling whether we were actually at an intellectual level and level of maturity to understand the actual answer to our questions was whether we were able to actually ask the whole thing, openly, with a straight face and non-euphemistically.

What becomes a problem is that many parents aren't at a place to answer these questions by the time their children are. They don't like to accept that kids start fairly early developing their own opinions about things, and wanting to know why things are the way they are.

Everyone knows the trope of children constantly asking "Why?" and responding to the explanation with "Why?" and frankly that's an incredibly healthy attitude and it pains me to see how little patience for it many adults have.

Further, when you're actually willing to answer fully any question your child can ask you fully, it makes it much easier for them to accept it when there are situations where you -can't- explain the answer fully to them.

I'm a big fan of the Terry Pratchett concept of "Lies-to-children" the sort of pseudo-truths we tell to kids when they ask questions when we know they won't properly understand the answer yet. Telling them that water in the ocean is blue while water in the glass is clear because it reflects the sky is actually not wholly incorrect, and is an answer they will accept and understand well before you could launch into a discussion about wavelengths of light etc. But it is increasingly important as the child grows up to both take them back to previous lies-to-children and fill in the gaps, and also to acknowledge when they are at the point where the proper answer will actually make sense to them.

[Corbin Wells]

Devonin I love you

[Ruritsu]

Last paragraph was beautiful devonin...

I had made a pact with myself a while ago to answer all questions posed to by my child. I remember growing up and being told "Because thats how it is" or "because yourn not supposed to" or just plain "because". All that told me was that that there was no reason and that I should simply give up on worring about it. Seeing the same thing happen to the next generation makes me sick...

I just figure that theres not really much I can do about it...

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Corbin Wells

Devonin I love you

And to think I'm never having children.

[Ruritsu]

^Any particular reason?

[Zythus]

Originally Posted by Ruritsu

Last paragraph was beautiful devonin...

I had made a pact with myself a while ago to answer all questions posed to by my child. I remember growing up and being told "Because thats how it is" or "because yourn not supposed to" or just plain "because". All that told me was that that there was no reason and that I should simply give up on worring about it. Seeing the same thing happen to the next generation makes me sick...

I just figure that theres not really much I can do about it...

I understand that a child needs substantial knowledge to begin to think independently, but answering their question with one's absolute perspective will not produce results and does not promote independence.
Thus, in my opinion, both the "Because thats the way it is" and "because see, this is how you do things(in my perspective)" are not in any way valid to be told to a child, unless universal concepts and factual answers, not one's perception of a topic.

[DDRXTIIDX]

Originally Posted by Zythus

I understand that a child needs substantial knowledge to begin to think independently, but answering their question with one's absolute perspective will not produce results and does not promote independence.
Thus, in my opinion, both the "Because thats the way it is" and "because see, this is how you do things(in my perspective)" are not in any way valid to be told to a child, unless universal concepts and factual answers, not one's perception of a topic.

Well, I see the one-liners as a sign of exasperation, as having to explain 300 facts to a toddler or even an adolescent is surely very tedious, and it promotes independence, whether it is for self-development of moral code, or learning every other fact on one's own. Then the latter, in my point of view, is probably more acceptable because it will not induce a slight grudge composed of "You didn't teach me this because you're mean" especially in more dependent children. I agree with what you said about the explanation in one's own perspective, and yes, if so, then it should be based on 100% proven fact. But I guess it so happens that many parents use "Just because" and/or "I'm older than you" wryly, and often even worse parents use "BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T, I'LL DUMP YOU INTO THE NEARBY RIVER!!! NOW EAT THAT KIDNEY BEAN CASSEROLE, YOU...!"... well, you don't wanna know.

I say that fully expanding an offspring's boundaries into the wide world is when they're 18-23, while making higher-level decisions than a simple child's should be left unto those of 13 years or above.

As such, my mom thinks my "questioning of decision/right" is a questioning of her authority. Too bad. On a trip to the mall, I simply say that "Of course it didn't hurt when I got squeezed in between two pedicabs, but it probably might've not happened if you just looked back..." and then she squabbles about me being ungrateful blah blah blah etc. Or perhaps I justly explain my side of the story in a certain event, and then she yells at me to just keep quiet whenever elders blah blah blah... and bull$#!+ about respect I don't even need to hear about, not because she is in the wrong, and I mean she probably isn't, but I am in the right, then she decides to do away with it cheaply through her slightly undeserved authority speeches. Slightly, anyway. After all, who got me a SN2 US CS, amirite?

[rzr]

Well, I was avoiding this thread because it didn't particularly tickel my fancy, but I suppose I'll throw my beliefs out there.

When it comes to adolescants, I, speaking from a first person perspective, do not believe any child above the age of 13 should be forced into schooling, weather it be public, private, home, etc. Now don't misinterpret that, I love school and fully support it. However, children at 13+ tend to be rebellious and do what the opposite of they are told is. Because of this most children detest school and education. But if they were given a choice then it would be their decision and they would be supporting it themselves rather than being forced into it at their most rebellious stage of life. However, when it comes to parenting I think the parent should never teach their child their values. I DO think they should show the child their values, and make the child aware that there are more morals and beliefs out there. But let the child decide for him or herself. Besides, most children tend to idolize people quickly anyway. If the parent just displayed values that impressed the child, the child would follow the path on their own.

@ Ruritsu: I too have made the same promise to myself. My parents are both very sophisticated, nonetheless the majority of my questions are responded with a "ask your [relative subject] teacher." If my child/ren are curious I hope to god I can satisfy that need.

@ devonin: That's a shame, I think you would make a great parent with a great deal of integrity of offer to the next generation; and I think the next generation will really need it.

Did I miss anything?

[Corbin Wells]

Originally Posted by Zythus

I understand that a child needs substantial knowledge to begin to think independently, but answering their question with one's absolute perspective will not produce results and does not promote independence.
Thus, in my opinion, both the "Because thats the way it is" and "because see, this is how you do things(in my perspective)" are not in any way valid to be told to a child, unless universal concepts and factual answers, not one's perception of a topic.

You're forgetting that a Parent has complete control over what their child should believe in. The concern is finding a true balance between sharing what you want them to follow, and letting them form their own self identity.

[Zythus]

Indeed, it comes down to the discretion of the parent to induce their child. Yet, "what you want them to follow" should be the 100% factual points of life that is compulsory to achieving a good etiquette in society and living a more refined way. Other than that is their odyssey of pursuing their paths of self identity.

Like DDRXTI's reminiscence, many parents and a great deal of them, love to, consciously or subliminally, flatter themselves with their authority. I myself think that it is quite unfounded and WRONG to discipline a child while having no absolute consideration of the views of the child. "I'm older than you, so I'm right and you should stop complaining and respect me." is a load of spaghetti. Simply put, "I don't show respect to people who don't deserve any"

[OMG its HIM]

Originally Posted by Corbin Wells

I am hoping to write a book on this and decided to get some more info before I even think of typing up anything just yet.
Here's the idea: People grow old and die and have kids to take their place and whatnot. The parents job while raising the child is to keep their own beliefs going by teaching their child every belief that the parent has. But here's the question:
When should the parent let go of their teachings and let the child decide for themself? When should the child be granted the right to become an independent thinker? When does the parent no longer have a say in what this child should be? (I know it's a little sloppy right now)

when they move out

[devonin]

When it comes to adolescants, I, speaking from a first person perspective, do not believe any child above the age of 13 should be forced into schooling, weather it be public, private, home, etc. Now don't misinterpret that, I love school and fully support it. However, children at 13+ tend to be rebellious and do what the opposite of they are told is. Because of this most children detest school and education. But if they were given a choice then it would be their decision and they would be supporting it themselves rather than being forced into it at their most rebellious stage of life.

Since you've said yourself that at this age they tend to behave a certain way, the way that makes them resent having to go to school, I don't see a way that the VAST majority of these kids aren't going to say "Well then I'm not going to school"

In addition to this being a HORRIBLE idea from the standpoint of their future development (The consistant educating of children from 5-16 is pretty much solely responsible for ensuring that they have, among other things, the skills to be self-sufficient in the world, something they would then lack if from 13+ they could just decide to not go to school) what the hell are you going to do with a huge pile of 13-16 year olds that have opted out of education?

The mandatory schooling system as it stands today was first put into effect in Britain after child labour laws changed, so that you couldn't make a 10 year old work 14 hour days for terrible wages in dangerous jobs. By making it illegals to put children to adult labour, they generated a whole age category of kids who suddenly had nothing to do. They weren't able to work at unskilled labour anymore, their parents were all still working full time and overtime and thus couldn't really take care of them either, so the arguably very very smart idea to simply offer education for all of them during the working day was developed.

None of our countries (Except for maybe Liechtenstein) has a 0% unemployment rate. All over the world, there are people who are old enough and skilled enough to get jobs who don't have jobs. This suggests that there are more people than jobs. So generating even MORE people with nothing to do would make the problem worse. They can't work at 13 years old, but their parents still have to support them and thus must work, so what are you going to do from 13-16 with no school, and no work? Build treeforts? For three years?

There's a line between "Forcing a child to do something they don't want to do" (Eating Lima Beans) and "Forcing a child to do something they don't want to do, which is clearly and obviously in their best interests" (Educating them)

I completely agree that there needs to be some change in the way the education system works, but I don't think that simply letting kids (Who aren't necessarily able to make a -proper- judgement on whether this is the right thing to do [They are very much still caught up in wants instead of needs, and not really getting that sometimes you just have to do things you don't like because they need doing]) pick whether they want to go to school or not is a good idea.

[Ruritsu]

Originally Posted by Zythus

I understand that a child needs substantial knowledge to begin to think independently, but answering their question with one's absolute perspective will not produce results and does not promote independence.
Thus, in my opinion, both the "Because thats the way it is" and "because see, this is how you do things(in my perspective)" are not in any way valid to be told to a child, unless universal concepts and factual answers, not one's perception of a topic.

Which is why I was downing that kind of child care not promoting it. I totally agree with you...

[DDRXTIIDX]

Originally Posted by Zythus

Like DDRXTIIDX's reminiscence, many parents and a great deal of them, love to, consciously or subliminally, flatter themselves with their authority.

Ehehehe, I guess by reminiscence you're talking about the day before yesterday.
It happens constantly but I'm starting to get used to it.

On devonin's quote on education, perhaps the educational system should be modified to suit the aspirations of the youth. Maybe then tweens/teens wouldn't be too rebellious. For example (actually, I really do), I want to become a world famous musician or perhaps a computer programmer as a backup job. Then I should have my studies concentrated on Music, English, Math, Science and Basic Computer education, and a little of everything else, but not forced upon us. Like, I shouldn't study what is considered to be a regular high-school (or before my graduation's case, elementary) level of Chinese or maybe History, but a slightly lower level. For example, I study Math at High School 2 level, I should study 5th or 6th grade History. But that's just my opinion. It'll help greatly.

[Rad3n]

At the 2020 summit (In Australia Devonin ^_^), one of the things that stood out as being wanted by the younger participants (I think that was about 15-24 years of age) was the right to vote at 16.

The very idea that young people aged 15-24 want the right to vote at the age of 16 suggests that young people want to be "indipendant thinkers" (but i'm not sure that's what you meant, I think you mean "Free From Parental Influence").

edit: and the actions of older people.

[devonin]

Well the issues sort of go hand in hand. If you're going to argue that kids younger than 16/18 ought to be considered old enough, intelligent enough, and mature enough to have a greater freedom to decide things for themselves, it isn't much of a stretch to suggest that voting ought to be one of the ways that freedom expresses itself.

I mean, all age limits on everything are arbitrary, and there are people under the limits who would be perfectly capable of engaging in whichever activity (voting, driving, etc) and plenty of people over those limits who still aren't properly capable of engaging in those activities. The arbitray age is just assigned at a point in which it is decided the largest majority with the smallest minority are assumed to be capable. And I'm not entirely sure from my knowledge of dealing with 15-17 year olds (And in addition to having been one, and done co-op in schools around them and so on, I've got plenty of exposure to the way the average 15-17 year old thinks and works from a soild decade of online gaming) that you could say the -majority- let alone the -clear- majority of 16 and 17 year olds are either especially interested in, or espeically interested in putting in the time and effort to investigate the issues of an election sufficiently to vote.

I mean, I would have argued for my right to vote at 16. I might even be able to claim that by 16 I was politically aware enough and mature/intelligent enough to make a resonable decision come election time. But I acknowledge that a) everyone always thinks they specifically are above averagely smart/mature for their age, especially when they want something and b) that these age limits weren't just made up for no reason and that there's probably a reasonable explanation for why it is 18 and not 16.

[Note: Being Canadian, when I talk about the education system, "university" means "college"; and "college" means something between "community college" and "trade school" Our system makes more sense to me, but that's because I live in it. University here is where you go to get 4-year bachelor degrees in all the various fields; College is where you go to get 2-4 year certifications and degrees in usually technical sorts of fields]

As for the changes to the education system, the best and easiest way to change it would be to make highschool and perhaps even elementary school function like university. Each subject stream has its own prerequisites inside the subject stream (IE. 2nd year math requies 1st year math, but doesn't require first year english/history etc) there are multiple ways to meet graduation requirements (Math majors don't need to take any history, though they do have to take -some- social sciences or arts courses) and you can register for anywhere from 1-6 courses per semester.

If highschool functioned like that, you could take only the subjects you preferred, working towards a certain goal, and if you wanted to only take 1 or 2 classes and also have a part time job, or you wanted to overload to 6 classes to get highschool done sooner, you should be able to. You get the benefit of being able to offer things like certificates in certain fields, which could be used to either get entry-level jobs more easily or become new entry requirements for college and trade-school level schooling. (IE. You could get into a college computer hardware program with your highschool certificate in technology [Maybe you had to take computers all through, some science/physics, a couple years of math, and whichever ___shop classes your school offered)

Obviously there would still be emphasis on getting the "full" highschool program, especially if you intended to go on to University, but giving alternate avenues to still get educated, especially for certain types of jobs where the background in say, history and geography is largely irellevant, that option exists also.