Generalization is actually good!

A few years back, I read Coloring Outside the Lines by Roger Schank. While disagreeing with some things (such as his advice to avoid directly answering our children's questions) -- I've found what he has to say about categorization/generalization very useful in thinking about how to best foster learning, for myself and my children.

Schank disagrees with the modern idea that people "shouldn't be quick to generalize." He asserts that our ability to store and retrieve information about the world, hinges on our ability to quickly arrange new information and observations into categories, and make generalizations in our attempt to make sense of all we're taking in.

The important thing, he argues, is to be equally quick to take in new information, including information that conflicts with the categories we've previously formed, and then make new categories to accommodate what we've just learned. So, he's not saying, "Be quick to generalize and then set it all in stone." He's advocating fluid categories that keep growing and changing continuously.

(Side-note: When I talk about "fostering learning in my children," I'm not talking about me "directing" them to form categories and make generalizations, but rather about me being a responsive sounding-board when they're trying to process various kinds of information about the world.)

I'm realizing that this is exactly how I learn -- which wouldn't be a problem for someone who does most of her processing inside her head. However, I find dialog and discussion (whether written or verbal) essential to life and learning -- and it's frustrating to feel compelled to keep many observations and questions to myself. Basically anything having to do with differences between people.

I've just said generalization is good. However, it's only good if it's fluid and ever-changing. In online discussions, I find that people like me who make observations out-loud and ask questions to hear more perspectives (some of which may possibly cause us to change our generalizations and create new categories), are likely to find ourselves being lumped into some categories ourselves.

Which seems fair. However, the people doing the generalizing in these cases don't seem to be doing it out of openness to changing their views. It's more of a door-slamming, discussion-killing kind of generalization. I.e., if I talk about differences I see between men and women, I'm likely to get accused of misogyny (hatred of women). Even, and perhaps especially, if women come out favorably in my comparison -- because then I'm idealizing and "dehumanizing" women, and placing them/us on a pedestal, to the point where women who diverge from my observation are likely to feel defective, and to suffer harm because of what I've expressed.

If I observe what appear to be differences between various ethnic or religious-groups, and ask questions to learn more, I'm likely to get accused of racism. Even, and perhaps especially, if I'm talking about differences that I'd like to emulate in my own life and home. If I note that certain non-industrialized peoples seem to experience fewer breastfeeding problems than women in my own culture, and are more likely to parent responsively, I'm likely to get accused of romanticizing the other culture, which is seen as very, very racist and also harmful, as it somehow promotes the continuation of institutionalized racism.

I agree that none of us should just stop learning and stay in the "romantic" phase about any particular people-group or idea. Some of the people who get upset about others' idealistic observations, actually do share some additional information that encourages the idealists to learn more about other practices in that culture, so they can get a clearer and more realistic picture of the way life is for those people.

However, I think this encouragement would be more effective without the constant slamming of less-enlightened learners for being racist without knowing it. It's almost like they're saying, "You're too dumb/ignorant to even discuss this subject -- or to even ask questions -- in a public forum without doing 'harm' to others."

I do think people who feel hurt by others' words should speak up, so others can be more sensitive in expressing themselves. But many times the "racist" accusations don't actually seem to be coming from people who are feeling hurt by what the questioner is saying, but rather from people who aren't even from that other culture, but simply want to present themselves as more highly-evolved than the questioner.

"Look Me: I Up High Like a King!"

All of a sudden my 2 1/2-year-old has started constructing more complex sentences. Up until recently, she spoke only one-word commands and some two-word sentences. Some people have even expressed concern, given her older sister's extreme earliness. But lately, boom! Then tonight she stood up on the table and made the above announcement.

We were totally floored, and at first I thought I'd heard her wrong on the "like a king" thing. But she repeated it enough, we feel sure that's what she was saying. But where did she get it? She still doesn't like being read to, though she does enjoy studying pictures and reading books to herself. She's always with us, we don't leave her with sitters, so we're truly puzzled.

All we can figure is that maybe she picked up the "king" idea from something she saw on TV, which is on a lot. She may have noticed something I didn't while I was blogging. Or maybe from watching her older sister, or her sister's friends, playing and imagining stuff.

She's also lately started getting immersed in imaginary play, talking to her babies, and seeming to be off in another world that is very real to her. It's all so exciting!

The American Jumble

I've just finished reading James A. Michener's Poland. It's really got me thinking about the suggestions, of many of the Attachment Parenting people I converse with on message boards, that the best thing for families would be for America to become completely socialist. And of course, these people insist a socialist government wouldn't be like Big Brother, always watching and stepping in to punish those who think the wrong thoughts.

But it was so scary learning about the atrocities committed against the Polish people, after they'd been freed from the Nazis by the communists. Does anyone really know what a whole new form of government would look like, before it's actually in effect?

Libertarianism and anarchism appeal -- but I still wonder if it might be best to have some kind of socialization for health care costs. I think this way because my husband has type 2 diabetes and some other medical issues, and we can't afford the insurance that's available through his job. Right now he gets a 100% discount for any medical care he needs at our local hospital, and a partial discount for medicines. We qualify for Medicaid for the girls but not for us.

I realize this assistance is a form of socialism -- but we never know for sure how long we'll qualify. A tiny raise or a change in public policy could be all it takes for us to rise above the imaginary line.

Still, I'm scared by the idea of pure socialism. I can't help thinking it's capitalism that provides enough of a tax-base to support these programs. And I can't help thinking socialism would come with some loss of freedom.

For instance, I've heard that in Canada, if someone from Child Protective Services comes to the door, you have to let them in and cooperate with whatever investigation they want to do. Here in the U.S., many parents don't know it but no one has the right to enter your home without a warrant -- unless you invite them in.

I've never dealt with CPS personally, but I know people who have and I like the fact that in America, there are laws to protect us from unwarranted search and seizure.

So maybe our hodgepodge of competing political philosophies, is really best for keeping freedom alive while providing some sort of a safety net for people who need it. The more I study political issues, the less I feel like I can join with any particular philosophy. I don't see capitalism or socialism as evil: as long as they co-exist, one can balance out the other: I think the evil comes in the extremes.

Getting in Touch, Losing Touch ...

I used to do lots of journaling -- and be computer illiterate. Then I discovered the Internet, and blogs and discussion boards. I've become addicted to the interactive quality of the Internet, and it's become a new social outlet for me. I've become skilled at typing with one hand (either hand) while holding or nursing my toddler.

Earlier today I got my notebook and pen, determined to get back into the swing of journaling. My writing was clumsy and messy -- and, after a couple of sentences, I realized my hand was hurting. I need to work myself back into it again.

It's so good having the interaction I get with on-line communications -- but I don't want to lose the ability to write "alone" either. I guess I just have to get past the cramping -- like you do with exercise.

Moving Away from Coercion and Embracing Cooperation, Responsiveness, and Love

My husband's just taken our oldest to see the new "Charlotte's Web" in the movie theater, and our youngest is nursing in my lap, so I thought this might be a good time for me to put together much of what I've been learning lately.

I've been recently introduced to the consensual living philosophy -- first on the motheringdotcommune discussion board and also on some other sites. I see this philosophy as the ultimate in respectful living: family members listen to one another, and in cases of conflicting desires they look for the underlying needs each member's trying to meet and think creatively until they find a solution agreeable to everyone, including the youngest members of the family. Essentially I think Consensual Living is the same as Taking Children Seriously (I'm fairly new to both philosophies so I'm not speaking as an expert): the main difference seems to be that TCS approaches the issue from more of an intellectual standpoint (saying the only way to improve our thinking and way of life is by opening ourselves up to the possibility that we may be wrong and someone else -- even someone much younger -- may be right), while Consensual Living approaches it from more of an emotional and moral standpoint (saying it's wrong for one person to impose his/her will on another). I think both standpoints are true and am enjoying and learning a lot from writers from both camps.

I see the problem-solving approach both philosophies advocate as very similar to what I've learned through reading Faber and Mazlish's "How To Talk So Kids Will Listen and Listen So Kids Will Talk," and Alfie Kohn's "Unconditional Parenting." Rather than parents assuming there are only two options when our wills conflict with those of our children (being coercive or being martyrs), we assume there's a solution that will meet the needs of ALL of us, and brainstorm WITH our kids to find that solution. Kohn calls it "working with" our children intstead of "doing to" them. He says we shouldn't focus on making our kids do what we want them to, but on meeting their needs. This means that, instead of doing things TO our kids to "make sure" they never do certain behaviors such as hitting or yelling at us, we communicate with them about the effects their behaviors have on others: we're focused not on changing specific behaviors but on creating an internal state where our kids genuinely care about others' feelings and want to help not hurt.

I really love the unconditional parenting approach because it helps me stay focused on the importance of helping my kids to FEEL as unconditionally loved as possible. I believe I loved my girls just as much before reading this book -- yet I believe there's a strong possibility my girls (especially my oldest) FELT I was MORE pleased with them when they did what I wanted.
I'd already rejected punishments and rewards as a means of changing my girls' behavior, but Kohn's book helped me see WHY these things are so harmful: they keep our kids focused on themSELVES (what will happen to ME if I do -- or don't do -- a certain thing?) rather than helping them to consider the feelings of others (how will that other person feel if I do -- or don't do -- such-and-such?). And of course they make our kids perceive our love as conditional.

Kohn helped me to see that praise can also be a form of attempting to manipulate our kids' behavior, and it can take our kids' minds off the things they enjoy doing so that, whereas they might have started out dancing (or whatever) for the sheer joy of it, they're now totally focused on whether other people (namely us) think they're doing a "good job." So I'm learning to simply pay a lot more attention to what my girls are making/doing, and do a lot more listening (and asking questions) about their creative processes, and describing what I see, rather than offering up judgements because I really want my girls to do what they do out of joy and love for the task itself.

I added the word "love" to the title of this -- because I'm realizing true love receives and embraces the other person as s/he IS rather than attempting, or even desiring, to manipulate that person to be and act according to my will. Really I believe this is all a logical continuation of attachment parenting. We start out responding to, and trusting, our children's communications -- and if we are to continue in this loving and nurturing way of life, we have to break the coercive cycle that's so prevalent in our society and apply respect to all our dealings with others, even and especially the youngest and smallest members of our families.

I differ from Kohn, and also Faber and Mazlish, in that I don't see this child-respectful approach as a NEW thing: yes, we're breaking away from recent TRADITION but there's an ancient, primitive way of life that existed way, way before the time when our industrialized traditions took root and took over in the modern world. From what I've learned of the few primitve people-groups still in existence today, they seem much more respectful and much less coercive in their parent-child relationships, and also in their relationships with other humans in general. So, yes, I'm moving forward in the sense that I'm breaking away from tradition -- but I feel my jouney is really a move DEEPER into the truths about what it really means to be a mammal and to be human.

*edited to correct the spelling of one word

Hooray! My eighteen-month-old just handed me a book and listened as I read about one sentence.

I can't remember exactly when I started reading to my older daughter, but she was enjoying books by the time she was one; at her birthday party someone gave her a book and she came and sat on my lap and said, "Read this!"

Actually, my younger daughter's been enjoying books too (I'm not just talking about her eating them!); she sees me reading to my older daughter and so we've often seen her turning the pages of a book and melodically "reading" it to herself -- but if I try to read one to her, she takes it and starts reading it to herself. Not a problem really, but sometimes I've yearned for Beatrix Potter. My oldest still likes her, I think, but is more into Harry Potter right now. The second time around is definitely going to be different, I want to enjoy it for what it is and not try to re-create the first.

My youngest absolutely loves music: both girls love dancing but my youngest is really into singing as well as dancing. She has lots of fun with her little Mega-Blocks piano, she loves playing the keys herself and has recently discovered the buttons you can press to hear tunes. She was listening to the "Twinkle-Twinkle Little Star" tune as I sang along, and she was looking
at me and singing "Baaa-bo, baaa-bo," over and over; then I realized she was thinking of the Jesus Loves Me song I sing to her (similar tune and rythm) -- she was singing, "Bible, Bible." I said, "Bible?" and she got really excited so I sang the whole song as she sang her "Baaa-bo" accompaniment. New child, new memories.

Our Beliefs About Normal Child-Development

I recently spent some time browsing the Ezzo's websites to hear for myself what they're actually saying to parents. One thing that shocked me is their suggestion that they have more in common with attachment parents than some people realize. They see their parent-directed feeding idea as something between the two extremes of breastfeeding on cue and rigidly following the clock. They don't encourage parents to ignore babies' crying, but it seems almost as bad to say, "Before you pick your baby up, listen to the cry and assess what it means." A mother's natural instinct is to be distressed at the sound of her baby's cry and to rush to comfort Baby, so telling her to shut off that emotion and shift herself into "mental" mode seems tantamount to telling her to ignore her baby. How can quenching our God-given maternal instincts be pleasing to God? Also, the phrase "before you pick her up" implies a lifestyle in which Baby spends most of her time in her crib or some plastic receptacle rather than up in arms. Actually, the "in-arms" baby has a lot less need to cry because Mommy can sense her hunger or other discomfort and respond instantly, rather than teaching her she always has to cry to get her needs met.

Then there's their approach to baby-wearing; they say the sling's fine for certain times, but caution that it's not an adequate substitute for the crib. Huh? So, the crib is such a basic piece of baby-furniture, if you don't have one an adequate substitute must be found? We've never had a crib, and never needed to replace it with anything else (except that I was initially scared I'd roll over on my first and slept with her next to me in a basket for her first six weeks), but I'd be hard-put to find an adequate replacement for my sling. Slings are ideal for naps when babies fall asleep in them, unless Mommy wants to get a nap too and then, by all means, take off the sling and lie down with Baby. Actually, I think the main reason my babies never had their days and nights mixed up was that I usually stayed up and held them when they napped during the day and they didn't sleep as soundly as they did when they were lying down next to me at night. What a concept! The best "sleep-training" happens when our little ones are with us!

This shouldn't come as a surprise: Jesus discipled people by inviting them to follow Him, and welcoming them to share in every aspect of His life; why should Christian parents focus their energies on pushing their children away and making them sleep alone and be independent? It seems un-Biblical!

Possibly the most offensive thing I read was their suggestion to observe parents practicing a variety of parenting styles to see how happy and well-ordered the homes are: it sounds so diplomatic, but one thing they say to watch for is how Baby reacts when Mom leaves the room. Okay, that's where our beliefs about healthy child-development really come into play. If I see an older baby or toddler who complacently watches Mommy going away without crying, clinging, or trying to follow -- I think something's gone wrong and they haven't developed an adequate attachment. Attachment is normal, detachment isn't. Happy homes are homes where people are attached to one another; they may or may not be well-ordered, that depends more on the personalities of the individual people. An extremely "convenient" baby, toddler, or young child who adapts easily to other caregivers could actually be an indication of an unresponsive and lonely home.

And of course, I'm also offended by all the fear they try to generate regarding co-sleeping -- maybe because that fear (I hadn't read the Ezzos', but had read and heard fear-inducing stuff from other sources) was what kept me from bringing my first child straight into our bed as a newborn. Thank God I have such a wise husband and I finally listened to him and started trusting myself.