Here's another perspective. Many 16-19 year old girls like to have sex. Who's to say that the experience these girls had with your brother wasn't overwhelmingly a positive one. Have you spoken to any of them or have any reason to believe that your brothers actions have caused them harm? — Perplexed

Perplexed, how do you know that many 16-19 year old girls like to have sex? How do you know what their take away is with having sex with any man, of any age? How many men had you slept with by age 16? How much older was he/were they than you? Do regret having sex with your first? Were you worried about being pregnant? Did you wonder if he broke you because of all of the blood? When did you tell your parents that you were having sex? Is one of your fantasies to get a "do -over" in losing your virginity to someone less experienced, more gentle and slower moving?

If not isn't it somewhat condescending for you to assume that they don't have minds of their own or can make decisions for themselves. — Perplexed

Sure girls can make decisions for themselves about many things at 16 like what kind of makeup to buy, what prom dress will look the best and what their friends should do about their first high school crush. Those are things that 16 year olds have the rationale to choose and can handle the lasting impact of the consequences of their choices. To look back in horror at the peach taffeta prom dress you thought was so princess like is one thing but to look back at how you navigated your sexual growth with someone twice your age makes for therapy, at least a good year of therapy. All 16 year old girls have the desire to express their free will to choose but they do not always understand the long term consequences of their choices which is why adults set what appear to be arbitrary ages for consent.

One more thing: even though it can be condescending for any adult to assume that girls at age 16 don't have minds of their own, IT IS NOT condescending of an adult to assume that a 16 year old cannot always make the best decisions for themselves.

Its not the existence of an age of consent I object to, its the cultural influence over what that age actually is. We cannot keep denying a young adult's right to choose what to do with their own body on the basis of some cultural notion of development with no objective basis. — Pseudonym

Yes, we can deny a young adult's right to choose what to do with their own body until they, alone, are capable of handling the consequences of their actions both foreseen and unforeseen.

Why do you omit the next clause? — tim wood

Because I find no reason to comment on it.

Yes, we can deny a young adult's right to choose what to do with their own body until they, alone, are capable of handling the consequences of their actions both foreseen and unforeseen. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well Tiff, you can at least try to deny them the right. And then they will go behind your back and do it anyway. Which would be worse because they would lose the benefit of knowledge and support that adults are supposed to give children.

It should be the adults job to prepare their kids for adulthood in all senses. It is not right that adults deny them things until they are 18 or 21 and them say "Go ahead now, on your own."

I still think that deny anything until a specific age is reached does more harm than good. Simply because mother nature will eventual take over and the desires will rule the day. Whether it is about sex, booze, drugs or even gambling, the best prevention to bad things happening is education. Ignorant people are famous for doing more stupid things than educated ones.

Kids being made aware of the consequences of their actions beforehand are less likely to do things. Kids that are made aware of and understand the reasons for not doing something should then be able to make a reasonable decision for themselves.

Why are there so many teen mothers around? Because they believed the guy that wanted to screw them that they would not get pregnant the first time. Because they had been told by their classmates that you cannot get pregnant if you do it standing up. Because their stupid parents never told them about sex and its results. And lots of other dumbassed ideas I have heard from students over the years.
Do you think that all of those teen mothers would have let it happen if they had been properly educated?

Ass an adult, education is the key to deciding what you want to do in your life. Why should it be less for a young boy or girl?

Absolutely, well said. If a 16 year old can't make at least a reasonably sound decision about their own body then it's us as parents that have failed, not biology.

Absolutely, well said. If a 16 year old can't make at least a reasonably sound decision about their own body then it's us as parents that have failed, not biology. — Pseudonym

Seems likely you're not a parent.

Seems likely you're not a parent. — tim wood

Well I am, what makes you think I'm not?

Well I am, what makes you think I'm not? — Pseudonym

What makes me suppose that is the tenor of your posts and arguments. I've got the impression that in this thread no proper distinction has been made or maintained among rights, abilities, and capabilities. I think you've argued mostly categorically and analytically, but a parent would argue the practical, where-the-rubber-meets-the-road side. Well, ok, you have children: do the views you have expressed here reflect your parenting? Do you practice what you preach? Or as a parent do you routinely usurp your children's "rights" when you think it best to do so?

I've got the impression that in this thread no proper distinction has been made or maintained among rights, abilities, and capabilities. — tim wood

Do children that are underage for something have any rights in that area? For example, what rights does a 12 year old have about alcohol?
What abilities would a 14 year old need for sex?
What capabilities does a 13 year old need to be allowed to drive a car?

Do you practice what you preach? — tim wood

Yes I do.

Or as a parent do you routinely usurp your children's "rights" when you think it best to do so? — tim wood

Which rights could be usurped if they are underage? Even if you think your 17 year old kid is mature enough to be in a sexual relationship, the law says it cannot be allowed.

Do children that are underage for something have any rights in that area? For example, what rights does a 12 year old have about alcohol?
What abilities would a 14 year old need for sex?
What capabilities does a 13 year old need to be allowed to drive a car? — Sir2u

Alcohol? None.
Sex? None. I'm thinking most 14-year-olds are able to have sex.
Drive? In many states, at least three more years of maturation, plus a prescribed course of training.

I don't really care to discuss my personal circumstances on a public forum, but, yes, suffice to say that I have never told my children what they can and cannot do, they are perfectly capable of making rational decisions for themselves, the idea that children cannot decide what is in their own best interests is a myth perpetuated so that adults can justify forcibly moulding their children into an image they, or their culture, prefer. Adults treat them like dolls they can dress up and make behave in whatever way suits their little games. It's nothing to do with their best interests.

Boy I'm not so sure I share your confidence when it comes to giving the average 16-year-old the type of complete freedom over their lives it seems you're advocating for here. At the very least, I'd imagine most people that age (and maybe even a few years older) could benefit a great deal from the benevolent guidance and personal examples of those around them, be they parents, teachers, coaches, or whomever.

To me, parenting is a good example of something which (on average) there's a golden mean to be aimed at and extremes to be avoided. It depends on the particular kid, of course, but finding the right combination of encouragement, involvement, discipline, and occasional tactful pulling back to let them make mistakes, all within the framework of unconditional love and support, seems far preferable to both the laissez faire "do whatever you want it's your life" and the overbearing "you're going to do exactly what I tell you to do" approaches.

In hindsight, I think I could have used more "active" parenting of the type I just briefly outlined during those impressionable childhood and teenage years. Left to my own devices I pretty much took the easy road in everything I did, which for the most part wasn't horrible, but it wasn't great either, and I basically tried to just slip in with the crowd and do what everyone else was doing. At sixteen I had little clue as to who I was or what I wanted out of life, and I don't think I was atypical in this regard.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I would have HATED being given periodic pep talks, being encouraged to give my best effort at everything I chose to do, being encouraged to reflect upon the long-term consequences of my immediate actions, being reminded that my life was intimately connected with those around me, etc. But in hindsight I really think I could have used one or two older and wiser people in my life to offer some conventional wisdom (however banal it sounds to sophisticated ears) guided by their genuine concern.

Anyhow, this topic clearly flows into wider issues of parenting and the difficulties of trying to be a positive influence on your kids without having them resent you for being too controlling. I have two boys and their personalities are way different, so again I realize there's no one size fits all approach and would acknowledge the dangers of trying to force your kids to become who YOU want them to be and not who they want to be.

I'd re-emphasize that most teenagers probably aren't thinking of those major life issues during this transitional time (nor should they be IMO), and because of this shortsightedness many would likely benefit from the positive involvement and active concern of their parents rather than disengagement, however well-intentioned that may be. It's somewhat of a nuanced position, I guess, and I do get your concern about over-parenting to the point of being detrimental to the development of the teenager.

Ah just noticed your positive response to Sir2u's post, so we're probably in agreement because that was indeed a good one.

I took it as articulating the importance of the sort of active parenting (for lack of a better term) I was fumbling to outline above. To be honest, that seems much different from what you expressed in your most recent post, although I may very well be misinterpreting your position (or his).

I don't want to make presumptions about your upbringing so I'm going to stick to hypotheticals and leave you to correct me if you have personal experience to the contrary you'd like to share.

The thing with free parenting is that it treats good decision making like any other skill, it needs practice. I would be reluctant myself to give most 16 year olds any important decisions, but I'd be reluctant to give most 40 year olds important decisions because I think kids are not trained in how to make decisions and they don't get much better in adulthood either.

Right from the start, children are told "don't touch that", "don't go there", cupboards are locked, dangerous things are put out of reach. Children grow up thinking that anything that is a danger to them has either been ruled on already or removed from their environment.

So by the age of 16, they still have no idea how to make a sound judgement because they've never practiced. It's like expecting someone to ride a bike without ever falling off.

My boy had his first knife when he was 4, he's now quite an accomplished carver and makes most of his own toys, but I wouldn't give a knife to most 16 year olds I meet, because they weren't given one when young, they just don't know how to handle it.

The brain gets less plastic as we get older, so new skills become harder to learn, including how to make good decisions.

We avoid the chance for children to learn these skills by experience when their brains are most amenable to learning, and then expect them to learn the whole lot in the space of a few years, just when they've got everything else going on. It's no wonder we get the poor decision making ability of the adult society we've ended up with.

Sounds like you're an exceptional parent who's thought this through a great deal. The way you pitched your parenting philosophy here--specifically the reasoning behind your (in)actions--actually makes a lot of sense and there's really not much to disagree with. Your son has a good example to follow and I'm sure he benefits from that exposure quite a bit.

In some ways think I kind of fall into the category you mentioned regarding those who have to figure things out for themselves, but unfortunately it took me a long time to do so and in the process I was (e.g.) a mediocre student when I could have been exceptional, a slightly better than average athlete when I could have been much better, etc. If I had someone behind me pushing me I think the trajectory of my life may have been much different, probably even much better.

Not that I completely regret the path I've taken, but I did make some poor choices that I look back on with a sense of utter disbelief. Who was that young man who did those dumb things? Yeah, that was me. I see the person I've turned out to be, I compare that with my youthful self, and the contrast is pretty extreme. Frightening even if I'm being honest.

To switch gears here for a minute, I'm of the admittedly antiquated opinion that developing certain character traits is even more important than acquiring knowledge about things. Parenting, and education more generally, should be just as (if not more) concerned with the development of a certain way of being as with the accumulation of information, however useful the latter may be. Both are important, obviously, but I feel like the character development side of things is often overlooked these days if not outright dismissed as a remnant of an obsolete past.

In my estimation, if one has a virtuous, inspired, thoughtful, perpetually inquisitive character, then one has "succeeded" in life, and this regardless of how much money or what type of social status one has attained. I know that sounds a bit corny and probably unrealistic, and it definitely runs contrary to modern ideals and the dominant values underpinning notions of personal fulfillment and happiness in a liberal democratic consumerist society, but that's what my experience so far has led me to believe, and it's one of the few things I'm not agnostic about.

I should also clarify my own upbringing a bit since I think I gave the erroneous impression that my parents were horrible, which wasn't the case. They were very young when they had kids (my mom was 16 when she had my older sister), neither one had great parents or other role models to follow, both worked very hard with long hours at their jobs to provide a decent material existence for us, and they eventually divorced and kind of moved on with their lives when we were in our teens. All of these things (and others) led to maybe a lack of time and attention being placed on our overall development.

So they did the best they could given their personal background and circumstances, and under the guiding values of our commercialized culture. I don't resent them at all for not doing what they didn't know how to do. But still, sometimes I think of what could have been had they been more involved in our lives on a daily basis. I'm thinking primarily along the lines of Aristotle's emphasis on character development through habituation sort of thing, which in turn may have positively impacted other areas of our lives like school, personal relationships, work, etc.

But yeah, I'll leave it at that while acknowledging the difficulty I have in abstracting too much from my own concrete experiences on this topic. I'll just add one final thing, and that's that it's not just me I think of here but even more my older sister, who was always super smart and extremely talented and capable of great things, but who was also given way too much leeway to do what she wanted to do (which was usually to ditch school, hang out with older people, drink alcohol and do drugs, etc.) when what she probably needed--she readily acknowledges this now--was some parental guidance, direction, and discipline.

I do think there's a wide gulf separating your thoughtful, purposeful strategy on raising kids on one side and parental indifference or (as perhaps in my case) just plain honest ignorance of how to parent properly on the other. There was really no conscious strategy being implemented to help us develop the necessary skills and traits to prepare us for adulthood. Lots of kids are in that predicament, I think, and as you suggest many seem to stay that way through adulthood. So it takes great parenting to cultivate the specific conditions under which your kids to learn to think rationally about things and to solve practical problems on their own.

Not sure if any of these somewhat disconnected thoughts add much to the topic under discussion, but I will say I think you made some good points here. Maybe it depends on molding your style to fit the particular kid's disposition and other natural qualities. Some kids may thrive under your approach--as it sounds like your son does--while others may languish (as I in my youthful stupidity may have).

I recall a famous retired baseball coach saying something that I found very interesting when asked what made him so successful on the field and so respected among his former players. He became a good coach, he said, once he realized that it was a mistake to treat all of his players the exact same way: some needed a kick in the ass, some needed a pat on the ass, and some just needed to be left alone.

Not sure if that's relevant to the topic at hand but it struck me as being indicative of a sort of practical wisdom which can be applied to teaching, coaching, parenting, or any type of mentoring relationship.

was (e.g.) a mediocre student when I could have been exceptional, a slightly better than average athlete when I could have been much better, etc. If I had someone behind me pushing me I think the trajectory of my life may have been much different, probably even much better. — Erik

This is certainly something that is often on my mind, especially if the kids are choosing to spend their day climbing trees instead of studying (they don't go to school obviously) but I think it's too easy to think that a push will, or would have, had an overall good impact. One only needs to look at your average high achiever to see that things are rarely all sweetness and light for them. The 'push' they received had its negative impact too.

What I've personally found to be really important is setting a good example and providing a positive environment. Given those two things, kids tend to make the right choices.

I find it perennially mystifying that parents will shout at their children, demand they do as they're told and spend all their free time watching TV and are then surprised when their children shout a lot, try to make others do what they want them to and spend their days watching TV.

With regards to your 'bad' choices, a lot of what this thread has been about is the ability (right, I would say) for kids to make some poor choices and see how they turn out, they've got to stand on their own two feet someday and the ability to know a good choice from a bad one doesn't magically arrive at 16,18 or whenever. I wouldn't presume to comment on your own experience, but I suspect you learned some important lessons from those early choices and I doubt you would have the motivation to be who you are now without having discovered for yourself what happens.

It's refreshing to hear someone else thinking there's more to an upbringing than acquiring knowledge. Children actually have a 'right' to an education under the UDHR, they do not have a right to play time. Does that sound right to you?

Personally I couldn't agree more with your definition of sucess. Like you it's one of the few things I feel I know is right (although there's lots of things I think I know are wrong).

I agree that some kids need more guidance than others, but I really can't see any justification for this constant need society seems to have to insist it knows best to such an extent as to actually ban them from certain activities and make others mandatory. Even so much as a cursory glance at the adult world will tell anyone that what modern culture thinks is best for everyone, most assuredly is not.

but, yes, suffice to say that I have never told my children what they can and cannot do — Pseudonym

Never?

My boy had his first knife when he was 4, he's now quite an accomplished carver and makes most of his own toys, but I wouldn't give a knife to most 16 year olds I meet, because they weren't given one when young, they just don't know how to handle it. — Pseudonym

But my guess is that you didn't give him a skill saw at age 4.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that kids should be given age appropriate risks. The focus of the disagreement is which risks are appropriate for which age. The brain's risk assessment capacity doesn't seem to fully develop until the mid-20s. That's why governments draft the young. The young don't think they will die.

In hunter-gatherer societies children are given complete freedom, they are free to play with knives, poisons, fire, deep rivers, wild animals etc. What they learn from this is that they have to decide for themselves what is dangerous and what is not, they have to learn how to spot danger and avoid it. In the really deadly scenarios, and adult is always close by to step in, but other than that, they are allowed to make their own mistakes and learn from them. The result is some of the most psychologically well-adjusted young adults in the world — Pseudonym

I'd truly be interested in any evidence that you have to support that last sentence. If it is true, I wonder how causality is determined. l'd like to see comparisons to other small, inclusive communities such as the Amish.

Never? — tim wood

No as far as I can remember, no. I recall a few occasions when I've had to be quite vocal about what I saw as being the likely consequences of some action they were considering that I thought was a bad idea, but in the end the choice has always been theirs when it is theirs to make. Kids aren't stupid.

But my guess is that you didn't give him a skill saw at age 4. — Tree Falls

The situation never arose, he never even so much as picked up my circular saw, he asked me if my chainsaw would hurt if it 'bit' him when he was younger, I said it would, he never touched my chainsaw after that either. Why would he?

The brain's risk assessment capacity doesn't seem to fully develop until the mid-20s. — Tree Falls

I don't know where you're getting this from, but I'm presuming it's the studies done on recklessness in teenagers. Actually, more tightly controlled studies have shown that; a) the effect disappears when the teenagers are alone (so it's more peer pressure than inability) and b) that in scenarios where they're asked to judge the risk objectively, they are no less capable than adults.

What's more, the growth and plasticity of the young brain continues until about 25. The peak child-bearing age in most hunter-gatherer tribes is 22. I know evolutionary theory is not popular here, but it seems unlikely to me that we could have evolved a type of brain incapable of responsibility at the time when we're most likely to be responsible for the next generation.

I'd truly be interested in any evidence that you have to support that last sentence. If it is true, I wonder how causality is determined. l'd like to see comparisons to other small, inclusive communities such as the Amish. — Tree Falls

I don't have any comparisons to the Amish (or similar), but I'd be happy to collect a few papers for you when I'm back in the office tomorrow.

Kids aren't stupid. — Pseudonym

You're right, but in a way you'r'e also profoundly wrong. I know this because I was a kid once. And you're right, I was never quite stupid. Ignorant, but not stupid. But there were areas where my capacity - I can't call it thinking - did not arise to even remotely near the level of stupidity.

One story. See if you do not agree that at the time what I was doing was at some pre-sub-level well below stupid. When you've read, you can try to give a name to the mental state I describe.

I lived near a large school field, easily ten football fields would have fit in it. I owned a fairly powerful bow. I would take the bow and some arrows and stand and shoot the arrows straight up in the air out of sight, the idea being to see how close to me I could get them to land. Fifteen feet was about my best. These were target arrows with sharp points. And there are other stories, but even now I don't dare tell them.

Nobody told me. Nobody told me a lot of things. Sometimes a kid is better off - and safer - if you just tell him or her.

In some ways think I kind of fall into the category you mentioned regarding those who have to figure things out for themselves, but unfortunately it took me a long time to do so and in the process I was (e.g.) a mediocre student when I could have been exceptional, a slightly better than average athlete when I could have been much better, etc. If I had someone behind me pushing me I think the trajectory of my life may have been much different, probably even much better.

Not that I completely regret the path I've taken, but I did make some poor choices that I look back on with a sense of utter disbelief. Who was that young man who did those dumb things? Yeah, that was me. I see the person I've turned out to be, I compare that with my youthful self, and the contrast is pretty extreme. Frightening even if I'm being honest. — Erik

That sounds like I wrote it.
We hardly ever had supervision when I was growing up, mum and dad told us that we should not do this or that because of what might happen if we did. And they were not shy about being graphical in their descriptions of what could happen. Like most kids we paid attention to some things and ignored other things. I don't remember making the same mistake twice though and it was not because we got punished for doing things.

As a teen living in southern Louisiana, I and most of the kids around where I lived were like Huck Finn. We spent lots of time out on the bayous and lakes, none of the parents were overly worried about that because they made sure that the kids learned to swim early and taught them how to use boats. We built and rode go carts and mini bikes with lawnmower engines and had a few accidents. But we figured why it had happened and were careful to make sure it did not happen again. Sometimes we got into trouble, but every time we did we had to admit that we had been warned by the adults. I screwed up my leg and almost 50 years later still suffer from it, but what hurt more at the time was my friend's dad saying "I told you that would happen". I rode bikes many times after that and still do occasionally but I have never made that mistake again.
I remember when I got caught stealing cigarettes from my dad, I was almost 10. He did not say that we were doing anything wrong but invited us to join him and gave us a box each to smoke. An hour later and green around the edges my brother gave up smoking for life. I carried on a few more years until I ran out of money one day for bus fair but had a full box of smokes. Never smoked again.

There is a saying that I am rather fond of:
"He who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.
He who has never tried anything new has not lived a life but has participated in an existence"

Childhood is a time for exploring the world, for experiencing things and finding out about yourself. Too many kids nowadays have no idea about these things because the are coddled up and protect from everything. They have little idea about their own abilities and limitations.
They have not been allowed to find out the consequences of their actions because they are not allowed to act. Many parents prefer to have a bold sitting playing video and drinking soda instead of actually doing something because they are scared that the poor little darling will make the wrong choice and be hurt physically or mentally.
The parent of one of my students told me a few years ago that her son had not done a homework assignment because she had gotten home very late. Turned out that she would not let him do the work by himself in case he got it wrong. How the fuck will that poor kid survive in the real world.

It is a well known fact that telling kids not to do things does not mean that they will not do it. If they think they are big enough to do something they will try. What kids need is knowledge, not a bunch of rules that are easy to ignore and the chance to learn from their mistakes as well as from their successes.

And if there is one thing that does not fit into this it is a specific age limit for being allowed to act.

Ignorant, but not stupid. — tim wood

Ignorance is not knowing.
Stupidity is being aware that you are doing something wrong and going ahead and doing it anyway.

It is scary sometimes when you look back at the things you did. But those same things have made you what you are.

I for one would not bother going back and change things if I was given a chance. I am happy with who I am.

I'd truly be interested in any evidence that you have to support that last sentence. If it is true, I wonder how causality is determined. l'd like to see comparisons to other small, inclusive communities such as the Amish. — Tree Falls

I've no web links, but you might want to start with the work of anthropologist James Suzman who works with the Kalahari Bushmen.
For an account of the disaster of the agrarian revolution see James Scott's "Against the Grain", or Jared Diamond's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee"
Marshall Sahlins's paper "The Original Affluent Society" id the most famous account and contains a considerable number of links
You might also like Daniel Everett's investigation with the Piraha, in which he found no evidence or even notion of psychological disorders, but I don't have a link to the paper.
Maryanski and Turner's book "The social cage, human nature, and the evolution of society" gives a good overview of the changes wrought by societal changes during the agricultural revolution.

For balance
http://www.academia.edu/6409883/HAPPINESS_IN_EVOLUTIONARY_PERSPECTIVE Give s agood account of some of the difficulties of measuring happiness
And The Politics of Egalitarianism: Theory and Practice edited by Jacqueline S. Solway if you can find a copy gives a balanced account of the perspectives, both from supporters and critics of the position.

What I've personally found to be really important is setting a good example and providing a positive environment. Given those two things, kids tend to make the right choices. — Pseudonym

I agree completely. I think it's safe to assume that the personal example you set for your son is a huge factor in his positive development. This subtle way of communicating your values and beliefs is probably a lot more effective than imposing these on him in a browbeating way. Reading books rather than watching TV, cooking and eating at home rather than going out all the time, having great conversations and soliciting my kids' views rather than imposing mine on them, etc. will hopefully leave a lasting impression on them.

With regards to your 'bad' choices, a lot of what this thread has been about is the ability (right, I would say) for kids to make some poor choices and see how they turn out, they've got to stand on their own two feet someday and the ability to know a good choice from a bad one doesn't magically arrive at 16,18 or whenever. I wouldn't presume to comment on your own experience, but I suspect you learned some important lessons from those early choices and I doubt you would have the motivation to be who you are now without having discovered for yourself what happens. — Pseudonym

Agreed again. The tough thing is that the stakes become really high when issues like sex and hardcore drugs are involved. You can become a parent before you're ready, you can become a drug addict, etc. I'm not trying to sound like a prude here--I definitely speak from experience on these matters rather than from some holier than thou standpoint--but there are obviously some legitimate risks involved in experimenting with "serious" things in a capricious manner, which is precisely what I did.

I was fortunate to come to my senses in my mid-20's, but it was a dangerous stage in my life that could have (and nearly did) turned out much different. I learned a lot about myself and other important things, that's true, but at the same time I'm not sure I want my kids to take that path. But it is a difficult call, and your point is well taken about learning from mistakes and using these to make good choices moving forward.

It's refreshing to hear someone else thinking there's more to an upbringing than acquiring knowledge. Children actually have a 'right' to an education under the UDHR, they do not have a right to play time. Does that sound right to you? — Pseudonym

Could you explain this a bit further? I'm not sure what UDHR stands for, but I love playtime for my kids! Learning through play and other informal/unconventional educational strategies are great IMO. I always felt like my natural inquisitiveness (which was strong until I was around 7-8-years-old) was sapped by having to sit in class for 7 hours a day; I came to associate school and learning with drudgery, and it took me a very long time to recapture that fascination and interest in the world around me.

I've said this before around here but I'm a bit of a conservative hippie, and it's been one of my pet projects to try to articulate a position which aligns a form of cultural conservatism (anti-consumerist, pro-environmental, artistically-inclined, pro-family and community, etc.) with a progressive social and economic agenda. I think there are possible areas of overlap worth exploring that could eventually lead to a significant grassroots movement, although this would likely be way down the line. (Apologies for another digression)

Education and child development loom large here, but my ideas are much more experiential and intuitive than scholarly and well-researched. I'd like to change that, though, so I'm open to any suggestions on books, articles, etc. that you think I may benefit from. I'm intrigued enough by your responses to look into your position on parenting in more depth.

I agree that some kids need more guidance than others, but I really can't see any justification for this constant need society seems to have to insist it knows best to such an extent as to actually ban them from certain activities and make others mandatory. Even so much as a cursory glance at the adult world will tell anyone that what modern culture thinks is best for everyone, most assuredly is not. — Pseudonym

Missed this last time but it's a huge issue. This captures the dilemma of parenting these days when the culture your kids are immersed in will significantly shape them in ways that you personally find abhorrent, or at the very least less than optimal for a human being's overall development. You want them to learn to think and act for themselves instead of feeling like they're your puppet, of course, but at the same time there are larger social and cultural forces out there that will provide them with a sense of personal identity and a set of values if you don't step in to challenge these.

The situation is like a tug-of-war in which radically opposed worldviews are set off against each other competing for the "soul" of your kids. But I think this comes back to the importance of positive examples in their development, which are then contrasted with the ideals and images of what they should want, how they should act, what they should think, etc. that they're constantly subjected to outside the home. I like the subtle and unpretentious nature of your approach just as much as its pragmatism.

Lots of truth in what you wrote there. I think I was just a really dumb kid. Not dumb as in doing stupid things all the time--that came in my late teens and early-20's--but as in "I'd rather sit in my room and watch television all day than get out and experience the world" dumb. That's what I chose to do with my time and I didn't learn much by doing so. If anything it made me dumber.

What do you do with a kid like that? Serious question. I think that may be where the theory of complete childhood freedom breaks down for me a bit--again I'm only going off my own example--and you may have to (at a bare minimum) force them to get outside and live a little.

The assumption seems to be that kids are naturally active and inquisitive, that they will explore and learn many things through their experiences, but what if they choose to do nothing at all? For kids who do like to get involved in a wide variety of activities the more disengaged style of parenting seems fitting.

Could you explain this a bit further? I'm not sure what UDHR stands for — Erik

The UDHR is the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The only use of the term 'compulsory' in the entire document (which is otherwise very careful with it's wording) in in the phrase "Elementary education shall be compulsory." (Article 26). There is no right contained in the declaration that children should be allowed tme to play, that they should have their wishes considered (though there is in the European Convention on the Rights of the Child), but the Declaration, in an unprecedented use of the term, makes primary education 'Compulsory'.

It just strikes me as indicative of the extent to which the idea that children must be forcibly 'educated' as if this was something done to them, rather than by them, has become ingrained in our culture.

it's been one of my pet projects to try to articulate a position which aligns a form of cultural conservatism (anti-consumerist, pro-environmental, artistically-inclined, pro-family and community, etc.) with a progressive social and economic agenda. I think there are possible areas of overlap worth exploring that could eventually lead to a significant grassroots movement, although this would likely be way down the line. — Erik

Sounds a lot like my philosophy. I agree with the autonomy of conservatism, but the egalitarianism of socialism. There doesn't seem to be a term for it, but I believe it is our natural state and that's why there's such a left/right split. No-one can decide who is right because they both are. It's the socioeconomic mechanism that doesn't allow the two to co-exist hence the arguments about which one we're going to have.

I'm open to any suggestions on books, articles, etc. that you think I may benefit from. — Erik

The place to start is Peter Gray's book "Free to Learn". He also writes a lot for 'Psychology Today' website, so Googling him will give you some outlines of his thinking.

Sergio Pellis's "The Playful Brain" gives a good technical account of the psychological basis.

Sugata Mitra describes a fascinating experiment in self education where he put a computer in a wall in Rural India, no teachers, no instructions. Within hours the local children had found it and were already surfing the Web. Days later, many of them had email accounts!

As you can probably guess, this is my area of academic interest (as well as personal) and we're already way off topic for a thread supposed to be about a specific ethical problem, perhaps this should be a thread of its own? @Michael

One thing that often crops up in these discussions is this problem of competing influences that you highlight here. The issue I think simply boils down to what we really mean by autonomy and the freedom to learn.

If we are in a world where there are strong negative cultural influences, then learning how to deal with them is a skill that kids must obtain. Like any other skill it must be learnt by practice, making mistakes and learning from them.

Kids still need the freedom to do this.

I sometimes express this as a thought experiment. Imagine if we banned children from learning anything about numbers, they weren't even allowed to count and all books with numbers in were unavailable to children. In such a world, the idea that a 15 year old could solve a quadratic equation would seem ludicrous. No-one would even countenance the idea, and people would cite examples of 15 year olds they know, trying to even add up and getting it horribly wrong. But we know, in a world of numbers a 15 year old can be highly competent, even the least numerate can count and do basic arithmetic by then. It's the same with teaching responsibility. It's a skill like any other. Practice it and you'll get good at it, don't practice it and you'll be rubbish.

I hope this doesn't seem to impersonal, but my reply to Erik above also addresses the example you raise here, would it be OK to just ask that you read that as a response, to save me rewriting it?