Willie71 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:https://www.amazon.ca/Family-Therapy-Clinical-Practice-Murray/dp/0876687613/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1461992376&sr=8-2&keywords=murray+bowen

Page 430: "The group prescribes language, dress, and behavior"

https://www.amazon.ca/Treating-Personality-Disorders-Children-Adolescents/dp/B019NEECBG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1461992454&sr=8-2&keywords=Bleiberg+personality

I didn't expect to find anything in this one way or the other, and didn't.

http://www.amazon.com/Traumatic-Relationships-Serious-Mental-Disorders/dp/0471485543/ref=la_B001ITWTM4_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461992725&sr=1-6&tag=rationskepti-20&tag=rationskepti-20

I didn't expect to find anything in this one way or the other, and didn't.

http://www.kidsmentalhealth.ca/documents/EBP_conduct_disorder.pdf

Page 14: "Since adolescents rely more on peers than parents or teachers for values and direction, intervention with adolescents should include a focus on peers as well as family." (Feldman & Weinberger, 1994)

Page 16: " To avoid conduct-disordered behavior, intervention may be necessary to remove the youth from an antisocial group and help them to develop a new peer group. "

Really, This is too fucking easy. What you've put up so far isn't about teaching children values and behavior, they're about managing children and parent training.

And just as I said, and two of your sources seem to agree, peer groups, groups of friend, gangs, whatever are where adolescents learn their behavior and get their values. And just as I said, Every one really knows that Harris is right they just don't want to hear it. Some parents, and some psychologists and sociologists, resit Harris' theory because they think Harris is delivering a message that good parenting is futile in the light of larger roles that genetics and peer groups play. There is no such message. Nowhere in Harris' or Pinker's or anyone else's writings on the subject is there even a hint that good parenting is useless or not valuable. It's just that the utility and value may not be where most parents, and some psychologists and sociologists believe them to be.

You are cherry picking just like Harris.

No I'm not, the first quote above says it plainly "The group prescribes language, dress, and behavior," and in the context of physical maturation and a natural moving away from parents and the initial choosing of friends and peer group. And in that paragraph it specifically says that the adolescent begins putting more energy into into relationship with the group (friends and peers) as they formerly devoted to their mothers. It also says that the [peer] group is where the adolescent now seeks "love" and approval.

Besides behavior, the quote I used also also says that the group prescribes language and dress. If you look at children of immigrant parents, even if the child was born in the old country, Harris' theory jumps right out at you, and shouldn't even need explaining. While the adolescent might still love and respect their parents, speak their parents language at home and follow the customs of their parents, outside of the house they speak the language of their group, and I don't mean just English, they speak the dialect and vocabulary, with slang, of their group. They dress as their group does, and behave as their group does. Many are embarrassed in public by their parents if the parents have not assimilated well, especially embarrassed if their group is involved.

This is exactly what Harris says happens: Parents teach kids how to behave at home, friends and peers teach them how to behave outside of the home.

Peers influence kids, no doubt. The primary influence? No way.

Well, lets take a look at that by asking a few questions. In general:

a) Do kids dress like their parents?

b) Do they use the same words and phrases outside of the home as parents?

c) Do they like the same music as their parents?

d) Do they like the same movies, television shows... as their parents?

e) Do they have the same politics as their parents?

f) Do kids not smoke, drink, get high, have sex... because their parents taught them not to?

g) And most importantly, do kids act outside the home the same as they do around their parents or inside of the home?

Thinking about those questions and that the answer to all of them, if you answer truthfully, is "no" or "not always" you have to then ask where those preferences, opinions, behaviors, come from? Kids, in general, don't emulate their parents, they emulate their peers.

Now maybe if culture remained static you could say that kids emulate their parents, but only because the affect of peers would be masked by the younger generations dressing, speaking, thinking, and behaving just like the older generations. But culture doesn't remain static, culture evolves, and that evolution occurs, just as it does in biology, in successive generations.

It's so plain to see what Harris is on about in common phrases used by parent for generations upon generations:

"I never taught you to act like that."
"He didn't learn that at home."
"She doesn't act like that at home."
"They don't get away with at home."

The thing is that parents never say such things about behavior they or society approve of. They take credit for "good" behavior but not responsibility for "bad" behavior. Even if it is over achievement that in fact the kid didn't learn from the parents they don't say things like those above. And in that is the masking effect I mentioned concerning static culture.

If the child does turn out very similar to one parent or both in a positive way credit is awarded to the parents, but if the child does something dissimilar in a negative way it is, more often than not, blamed on the "bad" influence of friends or peers. This could be seen as unfair to peers that have a "good" influence on the child. They are not getting the credit they deserve. Even if the parent/s manage to separate a kid from their "bad" group of friends and succeed in having them join in a new group of "good" friends the new group probably won't get the credit they deserve.

Which brings us to something that Jerome Price, one of your authorities, mentioned on page 31 of Power and compassion, and that is how hard children will fight and what lengths they will go to if parents try to separate them from their group of "bad" friends. I say "bad" friends because parents seldom, if ever, try to separate their kid from their group of "good" friends with the hope of them joining a group of "bad" friends.

I'm betting even you when first treating a child with "bad"/antisocial behavior one of the first things you want to do is to take a look at the child's group of friends, and if the group of friends is not "good" recommend that the parent/s try to separate the child somehow someway from his/her current group.

The peer group a peer group is attracted to is based on the foundation laid down by the parents.

This is demonstrably false in so many ways: Kids, who's parent's have laid down "good" solid foundations or tried to, often fall in with a bad crowd. In fact it happens so often that it's become a cliche. And it happens in reverse also, kids with no foundation at all - kids with inattentive or neglectful or just down right lowlife parents often join groups of friends that we could call "good" influences.

Try looking up the principle of the surrogate family. Jerome Price and Scott P. Sells discuss this in great detail.

Well I looked up Sells Parenting Your Out-of-control-teenager and as I expected it's full of him stressing how important friends are to teenagers: "Because peers exert such a powerful influence over your teen that they become like a second family." He mentions more than a few times that teens will listen to and accept the advice or opinions friends/peers more readily than from parents. And more than once he talks about kind and gentle ways of separating a kid from friends/peers that are "bad" influences.

And again it shows that a therapist that might not think so or like to admit it agrees with Harris.

How do you explain the different outcomes for child vs adolescent onset conduct disorder as discussed by a Moffat?

Why don't you explain it or link to it and I'll have a look.

You didn't find anything in Bleiberg or Allen? They describe in Greg detail how personality development goes off the rails. More recently the first 6 months of development has been shown to be of critical importance, based on the process of mirroring.

Well, we're not talking about infants, are we? And I nor Harris or Pinker or anyone else has claimed that until at least age five parents aren't the largest influence on a child, other than possibly genetics.

Maybe look up the ACE study, and the influence early childhood experiences have on later development.

Deals with trauma and the effects. Not really having anything to do parents being the primary influence in adolescents and young adults other than it may be the parent that caused the trauma.

Willie71 wrote:http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/acestudy/

In infant-parent interactions, mirroring consists of the parent imitating the infant's expressions while vocalizing the emotion implied by the expression.[6] This imitation helps the infant to associate the emotion with their expression, as well as feel validated in their own emotions as the parent shows approval through imitation. Studies have demonstrated that mirroring is an important part of child and infant development. According to Kohut's theories of self-psychology, individuals need a sense of validation and belonging in order to establish their concepts of self.[7] When parents mirror their infants, the action may help the child develop a greater sense of self-awareness and self-control, as they can see their emotions within their parent's faces. Additionally, infants may learn and experience new emotions, facial expressions, and gestures by mirroring expressions that their parents utilize. The process of mirroring may help infants establish connections of expressions to emotions and thus promote social communication later in life. Infants also learn to feel secure and valid in their own emotions through mirroring, as the parent's imitation of their emotions may help the child recognize their own thoughts and feelings more readily.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirroring_(psychology)

Well besides not having anything to do with what we've been discussing, the above is bullshit. The beginning premise is completely wrong, and with all of the studies and research that show that facial expression of emotions is universal, it is ludicrous to even suggest that an infant needs to be taught how to express or interpret at least the basic expressions.

As professor David Matsumoto and researcher Hyi Sung Hwang point out, Darwin was the first to suggest that emotions and their associated facial expressions are evolved survival mechanisms, innate, and universal, and, as much of Darwin's work has been, his hypothesis has been verified, added to, and proved to the point that it is no longer a hypothesis, it is a fact.

The surrogate negative peer group or positive peer group choices are symptoms of what came before, not the causal variable.

If that were so then the kids of bad parents would always join "bad" groups and the kids of good parents would always join "good" groups, no?

This is what Harris misses. When treatment involves parents setting limits on negative peer choices, the parents obviously have higher influence on their kids than the peers do.

That's not influence that's power, and it doesn't always work, or maybe even often work. And even in setting those limits the therapist and the parents are admitting that the "bad" group of friends has more influence than the parents. And if the goal is to have the kid join a "good" group of friends in an effort to change behavior they are again admitting that the group of friends has more influence than the parents.

Look, even your authority Sells, in his Parenting Your Out-of-control-teenager, admits to the power and importance of friends and peers, and recommends that parents (due to their lack of influence) involve friends and peers in controlling a kid's bad behavior. He even goes so far as to say that even "bad" friends and peers have a better chance of changing the kid's behavior for the better than parents do.

I understand that you might think that your livelihood might be at stake if Harris is right, or that you would have to change the way you practice your profession, but it doesn't have to be that way. Nothing is really changed by this, other than possibly gaining a better understanding of what's going on with troubled teens and their parents. Parents still need to do what they do. Just because Harris has shown that what parents do is not as important as has been thought does mean that it is not important at all, and it might give an added benefit to parents to, under the appropriate circumstances, be told that it isn't their fault their kid seems fucked up, and their kid isn't a suffering from a physical or psychological condition requiring medication. The kid is just "running with the wrong crowd." Where to go from there is the hard part.

Just to play along:

Well, lets take a look at that by asking a few questions. In general:

a) Do kids dress like their parents?

T-shirt and blue jeans.Exact thing my father wore. Only difference between my pa and I was I liked boxer briefs and he liked briefs.

b) Do they use the same words and phrases outside of the home as parents?

Yep. Swear words and all. Got in trouble at school because my language was too adult. My dad told the school to fuck off.

c) Do they like the same music as their parents?

Considering my mom loved all things pop and my dad got me into Styx, Foreigner, Def Leppard, Meatloaf, etc. yes. It wasn't until I became an adult when I started to explore my own music tastes further from the rock that my dad listened too.

d) Do they like the same movies, television shows... as their parents?

Yep.

e) Do they have the same politics as their parents?

I looked up to my dad as never being wrong and him being really smart. My father was a conservative Republican and I was too. Until I became an adult and started to think outside of my parent's influence.

f) Do kids not smoke, drink, get high, have sex... because their parents taught them not to?

I never smoked because I was disgusted by my parent's smoking habit. I never got high because my dad got me into reading and taught me an imagination beats getting high. I drink occasionally because they drank occasionally. My dad had no problem with me drinking wine with dinner.

g) And most importantly, do kids act outside the home the same as they do around their parents or inside of the home?

Yep, sure did.

Thinking about those questions and that the answer to all of them, if you answer truthfully, is "no" or "not always" you have to then ask where those preferences, opinions, behaviors, come from? Kids, in general, don't emulate their parents, they emulate their peers.

I definitely answered truthfully and the thing is I did not feel like an oddball out among my peers. My peers influenced me that's for sure, but if I answered honestly my personal behavior would not be what it is today without the foundation my parents, especially my father, provided.

But I am not a psychologist. I am just a guy who answered questions.

Sometimes I look in the mirror and think "Jesus Fuck, it's my old man!"

willhud9 wrote:Just to play along:

Well, lets take a look at that by asking a few questions. In general:

a) Do kids dress like their parents?

T-shirt and blue jeans.Exact thing my father wore. Only difference between my pa and I was I liked boxer briefs and he liked briefs.

b) Do they use the same words and phrases outside of the home as parents?

Yep. Swear words and all. Got in trouble at school because my language was too adult. My dad told the school to fuck off.

c) Do they like the same music as their parents?

Considering my mom loved all things pop and my dad got me into Styx, Foreigner, Def Leppard, Meatloaf, etc. yes. It wasn't until I became an adult when I started to explore my own music tastes further from the rock that my dad listened too.

d) Do they like the same movies, television shows... as their parents?

Yep.

e) Do they have the same politics as their parents?

I looked up to my dad as never being wrong and him being really smart. My father was a conservative Republican and I was too. Until I became an adult and started to think outside of my parent's influence.

f) Do kids not smoke, drink, get high, have sex... because their parents taught them not to?

I never smoked because I was disgusted by my parent's smoking habit. I never got high because my dad got me into reading and taught me an imagination beats getting high. I drink occasionally because they drank occasionally. My dad had no problem with me drinking wine with dinner.

g) And most importantly, do kids act outside the home the same as they do around their parents or inside of the home?

Yep, sure did.

Thinking about those questions and that the answer to all of them, if you answer truthfully, is "no" or "not always" you have to then ask where those preferences, opinions, behaviors, come from? Kids, in general, don't emulate their parents, they emulate their peers.

I definitely answered truthfully and the thing is I did not feel like an oddball out among my peers. My peers influenced me that's for sure, but if I answered honestly my personal behavior would not be what it is today without the foundation my parents, especially my father, provided.

But I am not a psychologist. I am just a guy who answered questions.

What can I say? You're a good kid Will.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:https://www.amazon.ca/Family-Therapy-Clinical-Practice-Murray/dp/0876687613/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1461992376&sr=8-2&keywords=murray+bowen

Page 430: "The group prescribes language, dress, and behavior"

https://www.amazon.ca/Treating-Personality-Disorders-Children-Adolescents/dp/B019NEECBG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1461992454&sr=8-2&keywords=Bleiberg+personality

I didn't expect to find anything in this one way or the other, and didn't.

http://www.amazon.com/Traumatic-Relationships-Serious-Mental-Disorders/dp/0471485543/ref=la_B001ITWTM4_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461992725&sr=1-6&tag=rationskepti-20&tag=rationskepti-20

I didn't expect to find anything in this one way or the other, and didn't.

http://www.kidsmentalhealth.ca/documents/EBP_conduct_disorder.pdf

Page 14: "Since adolescents rely more on peers than parents or teachers for values and direction, intervention with adolescents should include a focus on peers as well as family." (Feldman & Weinberger, 1994)

Page 16: " To avoid conduct-disordered behavior, intervention may be necessary to remove the youth from an antisocial group and help them to develop a new peer group. "

Really, This is too fucking easy. What you've put up so far isn't about teaching children values and behavior, they're about managing children and parent training.

And just as I said, and two of your sources seem to agree, peer groups, groups of friend, gangs, whatever are where adolescents learn their behavior and get their values. And just as I said, Every one really knows that Harris is right they just don't want to hear it. Some parents, and some psychologists and sociologists, resit Harris' theory because they think Harris is delivering a message that good parenting is futile in the light of larger roles that genetics and peer groups play. There is no such message. Nowhere in Harris' or Pinker's or anyone else's writings on the subject is there even a hint that good parenting is useless or not valuable. It's just that the utility and value may not be where most parents, and some psychologists and sociologists believe them to be.

You are cherry picking just like Harris.

No I'm not, the first quote above says it plainly "The group prescribes language, dress, and behavior," and in the context of physical maturation and a natural moving away from parents and the initial choosing of friends and peer group. And in that paragraph it specifically says that the adolescent begins putting more energy into into relationship with the group (friends and peers) as they formerly devoted to their mothers. It also says that the [peer] group is where the adolescent now seeks "love" and approval.

Besides behavior, the quote I used also also says that the group prescribes language and dress. If you look at children of immigrant parents, even if the child was born in the old country, Harris' theory jumps right out at you, and shouldn't even need explaining. While the adolescent might still love and respect their parents, speak their parents language at home and follow the customs of their parents, outside of the house they speak the language of their group, and I don't mean just English, they speak the dialect and vocabulary, with slang, of their group. They dress as their group does, and behave as their group does. Many are embarrassed in public by their parents if the parents have not assimilated well, especially embarrassed if their group is involved.

This is exactly what Harris says happens: Parents teach kids how to behave at home, friends and peers teach them how to behave outside of the home.

Peers influence kids, no doubt. The primary influence? No way.

Well, lets take a look at that by asking a few questions. In general:

a) Do kids dress like their parents?

b) Do they use the same words and phrases outside of the home as parents?

c) Do they like the same music as their parents?

d) Do they like the same movies, television shows... as their parents?

e) Do they have the same politics as their parents?

f) Do kids not smoke, drink, get high, have sex... because their parents taught them not to?

g) And most importantly, do kids act outside the home the same as they do around their parents or inside of the home?

Thinking about those questions and that the answer to all of them, if you answer truthfully, is "no" or "not always" you have to then ask where those preferences, opinions, behaviors, come from? Kids, in general, don't emulate their parents, they emulate their peers.

Now maybe if culture remained static you could say that kids emulate their parents, but only because the affect of peers would be masked by the younger generations dressing, speaking, thinking, and behaving just like the older generations. But culture doesn't remain static, culture evolves, and that evolution occurs, just as it does in biology, in successive generations.

It's so plain to see what Harris is on about in common phrases used by parent for generations upon generations:

"I never taught you to act like that."
"He didn't learn that at home."
"She doesn't act like that at home."
"They don't get away with at home."

The thing is that parents never say such things about behavior they or society approve of. They take credit for "good" behavior but not responsibility for "bad" behavior. Even if it is over achievement that in fact the kid didn't learn from the parents they don't say things like those above. And in that is the masking effect I mentioned concerning static culture.

If the child does turn out very similar to one parent or both in a positive way credit is awarded to the parents, but if the child does something dissimilar in a negative way it is, more often than not, blamed on the "bad" influence of friends or peers. This could be seen as unfair to peers that have a "good" influence on the child. They are not getting the credit they deserve. Even if the parent/s manage to separate a kid from their "bad" group of friends and succeed in having them join in a new group of "good" friends the new group probably won't get the credit they deserve.

Which brings us to something that Jerome Price, one of your authorities, mentioned on page 31 of Power and compassion, and that is how hard children will fight and what lengths they will go to if parents try to separate them from their group of "bad" friends. I say "bad" friends because parents seldom, if ever, try to separate their kid from their group of "good" friends with the hope of them joining a group of "bad" friends.

I'm betting even you when first treating a child with "bad"/antisocial behavior one of the first things you want to do is to take a look at the child's group of friends, and if the group of friends is not "good" recommend that the parent/s try to separate the child somehow someway from his/her current group.

The peer group a peer group is attracted to is based on the foundation laid down by the parents.

This is demonstrably false in so many ways: Kids, who's parent's have laid down "good" solid foundations or tried to, often fall in with a bad crowd. In fact it happens so often that it's become a cliche. And it happens in reverse also, kids with no foundation at all - kids with inattentive or neglectful or just down right lowlife parents often join groups of friends that we could call "good" influences.

Try looking up the principle of the surrogate family. Jerome Price and Scott P. Sells discuss this in great detail.

Well I looked up Sells Parenting Your Out-of-control-teenager and as I expected it's full of him stressing how important friends are to teenagers: "Because peers exert such a powerful influence over your teen that they become like a second family." He mentions more than a few times that teens will listen to and accept the advice or opinions friends/peers more readily than from parents. And more than once he talks about kind and gentle ways of separating a kid from friends/peers that are "bad" influences.

And again it shows that a therapist that might not think so or like to admit it agrees with Harris.

How do you explain the different outcomes for child vs adolescent onset conduct disorder as discussed by a Moffat?

Why don't you explain it or link to it and I'll have a look.

You didn't find anything in Bleiberg or Allen? They describe in Greg detail how personality development goes off the rails. More recently the first 6 months of development has been shown to be of critical importance, based on the process of mirroring.

Well, we're not talking about infants, are we? And I nor Harris or Pinker or anyone else has claimed that until at least age five parents aren't the largest influence on a child, other than possibly genetics.

Maybe look up the ACE study, and the influence early childhood experiences have on later development.

Deals with trauma and the effects. Not really having anything to do parents being the primary influence in adolescents and young adults other than it may be the parent that caused the trauma.

Jesus Christ, you really don't get how these things are related, do you? What's next, telling Krause how physics really works? Your knowledge is so lacking, and fundamentally flawed, I'm done. Believe what you like.

Willie71 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Page 430: "The group prescribes language, dress, and behavior"



I didn't expect to find anything in this one way or the other, and didn't.



I didn't expect to find anything in this one way or the other, and didn't.



Page 14: "Since adolescents rely more on peers than parents or teachers for values and direction, intervention with adolescents should include a focus on peers as well as family." (Feldman & Weinberger, 1994)

Page 16: " To avoid conduct-disordered behavior, intervention may be necessary to remove the youth from an antisocial group and help them to develop a new peer group. "

Really, This is too fucking easy. What you've put up so far isn't about teaching children values and behavior, they're about managing children and parent training.

And just as I said, and two of your sources seem to agree, peer groups, groups of friend, gangs, whatever are where adolescents learn their behavior and get their values. And just as I said, Every one really knows that Harris is right they just don't want to hear it. Some parents, and some psychologists and sociologists, resit Harris' theory because they think Harris is delivering a message that good parenting is futile in the light of larger roles that genetics and peer groups play. There is no such message. Nowhere in Harris' or Pinker's or anyone else's writings on the subject is there even a hint that good parenting is useless or not valuable. It's just that the utility and value may not be where most parents, and some psychologists and sociologists believe them to be.

You are cherry picking just like Harris.

No I'm not, the first quote above says it plainly "The group prescribes language, dress, and behavior," and in the context of physical maturation and a natural moving away from parents and the initial choosing of friends and peer group. And in that paragraph it specifically says that the adolescent begins putting more energy into into relationship with the group (friends and peers) as they formerly devoted to their mothers. It also says that the [peer] group is where the adolescent now seeks "love" and approval.

Besides behavior, the quote I used also also says that the group prescribes language and dress. If you look at children of immigrant parents, even if the child was born in the old country, Harris' theory jumps right out at you, and shouldn't even need explaining. While the adolescent might still love and respect their parents, speak their parents language at home and follow the customs of their parents, outside of the house they speak the language of their group, and I don't mean just English, they speak the dialect and vocabulary, with slang, of their group. They dress as their group does, and behave as their group does. Many are embarrassed in public by their parents if the parents have not assimilated well, especially embarrassed if their group is involved.

This is exactly what Harris says happens: Parents teach kids how to behave at home, friends and peers teach them how to behave outside of the home.

Peers influence kids, no doubt. The primary influence? No way.

Well, lets take a look at that by asking a few questions. In general:

a) Do kids dress like their parents?

b) Do they use the same words and phrases outside of the home as parents?

c) Do they like the same music as their parents?

d) Do they like the same movies, television shows... as their parents?

e) Do they have the same politics as their parents?

f) Do kids not smoke, drink, get high, have sex... because their parents taught them not to?

g) And most importantly, do kids act outside the home the same as they do around their parents or inside of the home?

Thinking about those questions and that the answer to all of them, if you answer truthfully, is "no" or "not always" you have to then ask where those preferences, opinions, behaviors, come from? Kids, in general, don't emulate their parents, they emulate their peers.

Now maybe if culture remained static you could say that kids emulate their parents, but only because the affect of peers would be masked by the younger generations dressing, speaking, thinking, and behaving just like the older generations. But culture doesn't remain static, culture evolves, and that evolution occurs, just as it does in biology, in successive generations.

It's so plain to see what Harris is on about in common phrases used by parent for generations upon generations:

"I never taught you to act like that."
"He didn't learn that at home."
"She doesn't act like that at home."
"They don't get away with at home."

The thing is that parents never say such things about behavior they or society approve of. They take credit for "good" behavior but not responsibility for "bad" behavior. Even if it is over achievement that in fact the kid didn't learn from the parents they don't say things like those above. And in that is the masking effect I mentioned concerning static culture.

If the child does turn out very similar to one parent or both in a positive way credit is awarded to the parents, but if the child does something dissimilar in a negative way it is, more often than not, blamed on the "bad" influence of friends or peers. This could be seen as unfair to peers that have a "good" influence on the child. They are not getting the credit they deserve. Even if the parent/s manage to separate a kid from their "bad" group of friends and succeed in having them join in a new group of "good" friends the new group probably won't get the credit they deserve.

Which brings us to something that Jerome Price, one of your authorities, mentioned on page 31 of Power and compassion, and that is how hard children will fight and what lengths they will go to if parents try to separate them from their group of "bad" friends. I say "bad" friends because parents seldom, if ever, try to separate their kid from their group of "good" friends with the hope of them joining a group of "bad" friends.

I'm betting even you when first treating a child with "bad"/antisocial behavior one of the first things you want to do is to take a look at the child's group of friends, and if the group of friends is not "good" recommend that the parent/s try to separate the child somehow someway from his/her current group.

The peer group a peer group is attracted to is based on the foundation laid down by the parents.

This is demonstrably false in so many ways: Kids, who's parent's have laid down "good" solid foundations or tried to, often fall in with a bad crowd. In fact it happens so often that it's become a cliche. And it happens in reverse also, kids with no foundation at all - kids with inattentive or neglectful or just down right lowlife parents often join groups of friends that we could call "good" influences.

Try looking up the principle of the surrogate family. Jerome Price and Scott P. Sells discuss this in great detail.

Well I looked up Sells Parenting Your Out-of-control-teenager and as I expected it's full of him stressing how important friends are to teenagers: "Because peers exert such a powerful influence over your teen that they become like a second family." He mentions more than a few times that teens will listen to and accept the advice or opinions friends/peers more readily than from parents. And more than once he talks about kind and gentle ways of separating a kid from friends/peers that are "bad" influences.

And again it shows that a therapist that might not think so or like to admit it agrees with Harris.

How do you explain the different outcomes for child vs adolescent onset conduct disorder as discussed by a Moffat?

Why don't you explain it or link to it and I'll have a look.

You didn't find anything in Bleiberg or Allen? They describe in Greg detail how personality development goes off the rails. More recently the first 6 months of development has been shown to be of critical importance, based on the process of mirroring.

Well, we're not talking about infants, are we? And I nor Harris or Pinker or anyone else has claimed that until at least age five parents aren't the largest influence on a child, other than possibly genetics.

Maybe look up the ACE study, and the influence early childhood experiences have on later development.

Deals with trauma and the effects. Not really having anything to do parents being the primary influence in adolescents and young adults other than it may be the parent that caused the trauma.

Jesus Christ, you really don't get how these things are related, do you? What's next, telling Krause how physics really works? Your knowledge is so lacking, and fundamentally flawed, I'm done. Believe what you like.

Who's Krause?

laklak wrote:Sometimes I look in the mirror and think "Jesus Fuck, it's my old man!"

You still look in mirrors? I had to stop, the wilhelm screaming was bothering the neighbors.

laklak wrote:Sometimes I look in the mirror and think "Jesus Fuck, it's my old man!"

I have nightmares like that.

Most people realize how much like their parents they are when they give a lecture to their kid. Most people either become their parent, or try to be the polar opposite.

Bernie has done rather well. At this moment he's ahead by a tenth of a percent. He wasn't predicted to do that well.

The premise that a self-described socialist could do that in a very conservative place like Indiana is a big deal.

Tom

Yes, he's done quite well, but he's going to literally split the delegates with Hillary, 44-39, so.....yeah.

Jeremy Scahill on todays DemocracyNow.org broaadcast lets loose a broaddside on Bernie's record as a hawk in a lot of our past horrors. A year or so ago, when I first started hearing about Bernie, I was pretty unfavorable towards him because I knew he was little different than Hillary on the Palestinian question. That's kinda telling, if you're in favor of Israel, you're ignorant or a monster. But Birnie backed off of his position, and made it clear he wanted to stop our regime changing blunders. But then, Scahill is someone to believe, so I'm not sure where Bernie stands now. His past positions, as Scahill points out, were bad, near neo-con bad, neo-lib bad. But, Scahill makes clear, Hillary is way the fuck worse, and she's proudly so, unlikely to change. Bernie is still the hands down better choice in this regard, we could lean on Bernie to change, and he'd actually listen.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, I mean, you know, first of all, Hillary Clinton is one of the sort of legendary Democratic hawks in modern U.S. history. She’s—you know, she is what I like to call a cruise missile liberal, where—you know, they believe in launching missiles to solve problems and show they’re tough across the globe. Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, really oversaw what amounted to a paramilitarization of some of the State Department’s divisions, and was the main employer of the private contractors that were working on behalf of the U.S. government, and was one of the key people in the horrid destruction that we’re now—in creating the horrid destruction that we’re now seeing in Libya, because of her embrace of regime change. But Hillary Clinton, on these issues, is sort of, you know, an easy target, because she is so open about her militaristic tendencies.

But Bernie Sanders, in a way, has been given a sort of pass on these issues. Recently at a Democratic town hall meeting, Bernie Sanders was asked directly about whether or not he supports the kill list. The actual term "the kill list" was used in an interview with him. And he said that the way that Obama is currently implementing it, he supports. You know, Bernie Sanders goes after Hillary Clinton all the time for being a regime change candidate—and he’s right—and blasting her for her alliance with people like Henry Kissinger. But let’s be clear: Bernie Sanders in the 1990s was a supporter and signed onto legislation that was authored by Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol and these notorious neocons, who created the disaster of the Iraq invasion with Democratic support. Bernie Sanders signed onto the key document that—the legislation that was created as a result of the Project for a New American Century, demanding that Bill Clinton make regime change in Iraq the law of the land. Bernie Sanders then voted for that bill, which, again, was largely authored by Donald Rumsfeld and the neocons. Bernie Sanders then supported the most brutal regime of economic sanctions in world history, that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. He supported the bombings in Iraq under President Clinton, under the guise of the so-called no-fly zones, the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam. Bernie Sanders was about regime change. Bernie Sanders signed onto neocon-led legislation that made the Iraq invasion possible by codifying into U.S. law that Saddam Hussein’s regime must be overthrown. So, when Bernie Sanders wants to hammer away at Hillary Clinton on this, go ahead. You are 100 percent right. She’s definitely the politics of empire right there. But Bernie Sanders needs to be asked about his embrace of regime change, because the policies that he supported in the 1990s were the precursor to the disastrous war in Iraq that he hammers on all the time without ever acknowledging his own role in supporting the legislation that laid the groundwork for it.

crank wrote:Jeremy Scahill on todays DemocracyNow.org broaadcast lets loose a broaddside on Bernie's record as a hawk in a lot of our past horrors. A year or so ago, when I first started hearing about Bernie, I was pretty unfavorable towards him because I knew he was little different than Hillary on the Palestinian question. That's kinda telling, if you're in favor of Israel, you're ignorant or a monster. But Birnie backed off of his position, and made it clear he wanted to stop our regime changing blunders. But then, Scahill is someone to believe, so I'm not sure where Bernie stands now. His past positions, as Scahill points out, were bad, near neo-con bad, neo-lib bad. But, Scahill makes clear, Hillary is way the fuck worse, and she's proudly so, unlikely to change. Bernie is still the hands down better choice in this regard, we could lean on Bernie to change, and he'd actually listen.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, I mean, you know, first of all, Hillary Clinton is one of the sort of legendary Democratic hawks in modern U.S. history. She’s—you know, she is what I like to call a cruise missile liberal, where—you know, they believe in launching missiles to solve problems and show they’re tough across the globe. Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, really oversaw what amounted to a paramilitarization of some of the State Department’s divisions, and was the main employer of the private contractors that were working on behalf of the U.S. government, and was one of the key people in the horrid destruction that we’re now—in creating the horrid destruction that we’re now seeing in Libya, because of her embrace of regime change. But Hillary Clinton, on these issues, is sort of, you know, an easy target, because she is so open about her militaristic tendencies.

But Bernie Sanders, in a way, has been given a sort of pass on these issues. Recently at a Democratic town hall meeting, Bernie Sanders was asked directly about whether or not he supports the kill list. The actual term "the kill list" was used in an interview with him. And he said that the way that Obama is currently implementing it, he supports. You know, Bernie Sanders goes after Hillary Clinton all the time for being a regime change candidate—and he’s right—and blasting her for her alliance with people like Henry Kissinger. But let’s be clear: Bernie Sanders in the 1990s was a supporter and signed onto legislation that was authored by Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol and these notorious neocons, who created the disaster of the Iraq invasion with Democratic support. Bernie Sanders signed onto the key document that—the legislation that was created as a result of the Project for a New American Century, demanding that Bill Clinton make regime change in Iraq the law of the land. Bernie Sanders then voted for that bill, which, again, was largely authored by Donald Rumsfeld and the neocons. Bernie Sanders then supported the most brutal regime of economic sanctions in world history, that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. He supported the bombings in Iraq under President Clinton, under the guise of the so-called no-fly zones, the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam. Bernie Sanders was about regime change. Bernie Sanders signed onto neocon-led legislation that made the Iraq invasion possible by codifying into U.S. law that Saddam Hussein’s regime must be overthrown. So, when Bernie Sanders wants to hammer away at Hillary Clinton on this, go ahead. You are 100 percent right. She’s definitely the politics of empire right there. But Bernie Sanders needs to be asked about his embrace of regime change, because the policies that he supported in the 1990s were the precursor to the disastrous war in Iraq that he hammers on all the time without ever acknowledging his own role in supporting the legislation that laid the groundwork for it.

Sadly, anyone remotely reasonable about the Israel-Palestinian question is unelectable in America.

We can agree on that at least, strongly agree.

Columbus wrote:Bernie has done rather well. At this moment he's ahead by a tenth of a percent. He wasn't predicted to do that well.

The premise that a self-described socialist could do that in a very conservative place like Indiana is a big deal.

Tom

He is ahead bu 6 points a few minutes ago. Fivethirtyeight had predicted 90% probability that Hillary would win. Independents make a big difference.

Willie71 wrote:

Columbus wrote:Bernie has done rather well. At this moment he's ahead by a tenth of a percent. He wasn't predicted to do that well.

The premise that a self-described socialist could do that in a very conservative place like Indiana is a big deal.

Tom

He is ahead bu 6 points a few minutes ago. Fivethirtyeight had predicted 90% probability that Hillary would win. Independents make a big difference.

Yep, 538 has predicted two states incorrectly so far.

They've gotten about 25-30 correct.

I'll take those odds any day.

NineOneFour wrote:Sanders is toast. Trump is about to be.

Funny

felltoearth wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:Sanders is toast. Trump is about to be.

Funny

Why?

Can you explain how Sanders defeats Clinton? Please. Show your work.

NineOneFour wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Columbus wrote:Bernie has done rather well. At this moment he's ahead by a tenth of a percent. He wasn't predicted to do that well.

The premise that a self-described socialist could do that in a very conservative place like Indiana is a big deal.

Tom

He is ahead bu 6 points a few minutes ago. Fivethirtyeight had predicted 90% probability that Hillary would win. Independents make a big difference.

Yep, 538 has predicted two states incorrectly so far.

They've gotten about 25-30 correct.

I'll take those odds any day.

So they can't predict the future with 100% accuracy? How many times have they been out by more than 5 points?