"Americans are Simple-Minded"

[antagon]

the focus on doing things right and affirming competitive spirit has worked too well in the past for it to be abandoned. wrong answers and lost games are not mutually exclusive to the battle and the effort to solve problems and win. i believe children can benefit from earlier exposure to life, rather than this presumption that sheltering and coddling will actually rear adults who can perform in the real world.

Competitiveness is intrinsic in humans, it doesn't need to be indoctrinated by over zealous adults at that age.

After years of coaching, I honestly believe little league was invented for fathers that failed in sports. Kids are better off going to a playground and having a 'choose up' game all by themselves and let them work things out on their own. There should be a sign posted...NO ADULTS ALLOWED

our intrinsic competitiveness is not enough to ensure real excellence in young people. this needs to be fostered, instead. the tales of exceptional people don't generally bank on innate competitiveness, but commonly on drive and motivation pressed upon them from young, by circumstances or their parents. this is particularly true in sports.

this all depends on your definition of 'better off'. i argue that this definition has changed over the years and that this new one which values comfort over reality is not superior.

i dont disagree that some can be overzealous with their kids, but does that justify not scoring games or grading work based on performance? can you recognize that the goal of these tactics is to knock the edge off of our competitive nature?

 

[Bfgrn]

Competitiveness is intrinsic in humans, it doesn't need to be indoctrinated by over zealous adults at that age.

After years of coaching, I honestly believe little league was invented for fathers that failed in sports. Kids are better off going to a playground and having a 'choose up' game all by themselves and let them work things out on their own. There should be a sign posted...NO ADULTS ALLOWED

And you know what kids do on their own?

They keep score. One team wins, the other team loses.

That's right, but it's up to them, not some anal retentive adult. You want to see a kid grow up to be a 'choker'... PUSH him to win at an early age. He or she will freeze up and eventually shut down and NOT want to play.

 

[Samson]

the focus on doing things right and affirming competitive spirit has worked too well in the past for it to be abandoned. wrong answers and lost games are not mutually exclusive to the battle and the effort to solve problems and win. i believe children can benefit from earlier exposure to life, rather than this presumption that sheltering and coddling will actually rear adults who can perform in the real world.

Competitiveness is intrinsic in humans, it doesn't need to be indoctrinated by over zealous adults at that age.

After years of coaching, I honestly believe little league was invented for fathers that failed in sports. Kids are better off going to a playground and having a 'choose up' game all by themselves and let them work things out on their own. There should be a sign posted...NO ADULTS ALLOWED

our intrinsic competitiveness is not enough to ensure real excellence in young people. this needs to be fostered, instead. the tales of exceptional people don't generally bank on innate competitiveness, but commonly on drive and motivation pressed upon them from young, by circumstances or their parents. this is particularly true in sports.

this all depends on your definition of 'better off'. i argue that this definition has changed over the years and that this new one which values comfort over reality is not superior.

i dont disagree that some can be overzealous with their kids, but does that justify not scoring games or grading work based on performance? can you recognize that the goal of these tactics is to knock the edge off of our competitive nature?

The goal of these tactics is to reduce hopelessness, not to "knock the edge off of our competitive nature." However, I agree that, when extrapolated to its logical conclusion, no one will do anything, because everyone can do everything. We must develop specialists in every field without developing masses in doing nothing.

To accomplish this kids talents need to be recognised early, and nurtured. Parents should spend a lot of time weeding out activities for which their kids have no talent, or no desire, and fostering the one or two things a kid can do well.

AMAZINGLY, many parents cannot:

1. Accept that their kid cannot do EVERYTHING well

2. Accept that their kid can do ANYTHING well

 

[antagon]

That's right, but it's up to them, not some anal retentive adult. You want to see a kid grow up to be a 'choker'... PUSH him to win at an early age. He or she will freeze up and eventually shut down and NOT want to play.

you have made this up, but it is not supported by the facts of life and the histories of race drivers, athletes, artists and academics.

do you recognize that while you deride parents who live vicariously through their kids by pressuring them to succeed, that you also advocate living vicariously through kids with your coddling prescription? moderation is required, but the latter will not return better performance in young people. they do not know how to raise themselves, rather, indications are that the earlier concepts are introduced to children the better. it is hard for this to be argued with respect to physical and mental aptitude; what makes the case that emotional aptitude is any different?

this last failure to recognize the potential of children to absorb concepts far earlier than the convention is beginning to be the line which separates the dense americans from the exceptional. maybe it always has been.

 

[antagon]

'hopelessness reduction' is innately in the purview of adaptation.

 

[Samson]

That's right, but it's up to them, not some anal retentive adult. You want to see a kid grow up to be a 'choker'... PUSH him to win at an early age. He or she will freeze up and eventually shut down and NOT want to play.

you have made this up, but it is not supported by the facts of life and the histories of race drivers, athletes, artists and academics.

.

Well, it was bound to happen: I agree with Bfgrn on this one.

I'm not sure what is "not supported by the facts of life and the histories of race drivers, athletes, artists and academics."

However, for every race driver or athlete or artist or whatever that is successful, there are thousands that are not.

 

[Bfgrn]

That's right, but it's up to them, not some anal retentive adult. You want to see a kid grow up to be a 'choker'... PUSH him to win at an early age. He or she will freeze up and eventually shut down and NOT want to play.

you have made this up, but it is not supported by the facts of life and the histories of race drivers, athletes, artists and academics.

do you recognize that while you deride parents who live vicariously through their kids by pressuring them to succeed, that you also advocate living vicariously through kids with your coddling prescription? moderation is required, but the latter will not return better performance in young people. they do not know how to raise themselves, rather, indications are that the earlier concepts are introduced to children the better. it is hard for this to be argued with respect to physical and mental aptitude; what makes the case that emotional aptitude is any different?

this last failure to recognize the potential of children to absorb concepts far earlier than the convention is beginning to be the line which separates the dense americans from the exceptional. maybe it always has been.

I'm not making anything up. I am stating my opinion based on what I've seen over years of raising my own children and coaching other people's children from T-ball to high school age.

I don't have a problem with keeping score. I DO have a problem when pushing kids to 'win' causes them to become so tense and fearful of failure that they CAN'T succeed. Just trying to hit a baseball is hard enough. It requires concentration and an ability to relax your muscles. The best hitter who ever lived was only successful 4 out of 10 times at the plate, and that was for ONE season. A 3 out of 10 success rate is a MLB all star. The ONLY thought that should be in a kids head should be making contact. When his or her head is filled with other people's expectations and the fear of possible criticism if he or she fails to get a hit, it is destructive to the development of that child.

 

[blu]

In math testing, it HAS been common practice for years to award points for showing an understanding of the proper procedure to solve a problem, even if the calculations are incorrect. It makes perfect sense, because the goal is to learn HOW to solve a problem.

The link to the soccer article has only a paragraph and a picture.

If THIS is the age group, then the focus should be on participation, getting exercise and making it fun. There is plenty of time when they grow older for competitive games.

I played and coached baseball and hockey for years. I saw way to much PARENT interference and competitive obsession that ruined the fun for the kids.

the focus on doing things right and affirming competitive spirit has worked too well in the past for it to be abandoned. wrong answers and lost games are not mutually exclusive to the battle and the effort to solve problems and win. i believe children can benefit from earlier exposure to life, rather than this presumption that sheltering and coddling will actually rear adults who can perform in the real world.

Competitiveness is intrinsic in humans, it doesn't need to be indoctrinated by over zealous adults at that age.

After years of coaching, I honestly believe little league was invented for fathers that failed in sports. Kids are better off going to a playground and having a 'choose up' game all by themselves and let them work things out on their own. There should be a sign posted...NO ADULTS ALLOWED

yea the over obsessed parents are pretty sad. my gf's son is only 8 and I have helped coach his basketball and baseball teams and some of the parents actually had their weekend ruined in their kid didn't do well in the game or the team lost. some kids actually got punished b/c of it!

 

[blu]

Competitiveness is intrinsic in humans, it doesn't need to be indoctrinated by over zealous adults at that age.

After years of coaching, I honestly believe little league was invented for fathers that failed in sports. Kids are better off going to a playground and having a 'choose up' game all by themselves and let them work things out on their own. There should be a sign posted...NO ADULTS ALLOWED

our intrinsic competitiveness is not enough to ensure real excellence in young people. this needs to be fostered, instead. the tales of exceptional people don't generally bank on innate competitiveness, but commonly on drive and motivation pressed upon them from young, by circumstances or their parents. this is particularly true in sports.

this all depends on your definition of 'better off'. i argue that this definition has changed over the years and that this new one which values comfort over reality is not superior.

i dont disagree that some can be overzealous with their kids, but does that justify not scoring games or grading work based on performance? can you recognize that the goal of these tactics is to knock the edge off of our competitive nature?

The goal of these tactics is to reduce hopelessness, not to "knock the edge off of our competitive nature." However, I agree that, when extrapolated to its logical conclusion, no one will do anything, because everyone can do everything. We must develop specialists in every field without developing masses in doing nothing.

To accomplish this kids talents need to be recognised early, and nurtured. Parents should spend a lot of time weeding out activities for which their kids have no talent, or no desire, and fostering the one or two things a kid can do well.

AMAZINGLY, many parents cannot:

1. Accept that their kid cannot do EVERYTHING well

2. Accept that their kid can do ANYTHING well

yes and the real problems come when the kid can't do well in what the parent is obsessed with, often a sport or whatever else the parent failed in as a kid. ruining of a kids childhood to fulfill some vicarious dream drives me crazy

 

[Samson]

our intrinsic competitiveness is not enough to ensure real excellence in young people. this needs to be fostered, instead. the tales of exceptional people don't generally bank on innate competitiveness, but commonly on drive and motivation pressed upon them from young, by circumstances or their parents. this is particularly true in sports.

this all depends on your definition of 'better off'. i argue that this definition has changed over the years and that this new one which values comfort over reality is not superior.

i dont disagree that some can be overzealous with their kids, but does that justify not scoring games or grading work based on performance? can you recognize that the goal of these tactics is to knock the edge off of our competitive nature?

The goal of these tactics is to reduce hopelessness, not to "knock the edge off of our competitive nature." However, I agree that, when extrapolated to its logical conclusion, no one will do anything, because everyone can do everything. We must develop specialists in every field without developing masses in doing nothing.

To accomplish this kids talents need to be recognised early, and nurtured. Parents should spend a lot of time weeding out activities for which their kids have no talent, or no desire, and fostering the one or two things a kid can do well.

AMAZINGLY, many parents cannot:

1. Accept that their kid cannot do EVERYTHING well

2. Accept that their kid can do ANYTHING well

yes and the real problems come when the kid can't do well in what the parent is obsessed with, often a sport or whatever else the parent failed in as a kid. ruining of a kids childhood to fulfill some vicarious dream drives me crazy

I don't disagree, but there is the other side, and arguably the more prevalent side of the coin: Parents who don't believe their kid can do ANYTHING well.

 

[daveman]

Competitiveness is intrinsic in humans, it doesn't need to be indoctrinated by over zealous adults at that age.

After years of coaching, I honestly believe little league was invented for fathers that failed in sports. Kids are better off going to a playground and having a 'choose up' game all by themselves and let them work things out on their own. There should be a sign posted...NO ADULTS ALLOWED

And you know what kids do on their own?

They keep score. One team wins, the other team loses.

That's right, but it's up to them, not some anal retentive adult. You want to see a kid grow up to be a 'choker'... PUSH him to win at an early age. He or she will freeze up and eventually shut down and NOT want to play.

So it's better if some helicopter adult decides score shouldn't be kept so no one's feelings are hurt?

That does kids no favors. Dealing with disappointments and using them as inspiration to work harder is real life.

 

[Samson]

And you know what kids do on their own?

They keep score. One team wins, the other team loses.

That's right, but it's up to them, not some anal retentive adult. You want to see a kid grow up to be a 'choker'... PUSH him to win at an early age. He or she will freeze up and eventually shut down and NOT want to play.

So it's better if some helicopter adult decides score shouldn't be kept so no one's feelings are hurt?

That does kids no favors. Dealing with disappointments and using them as inspiration to work harder is real life.

I agree, but isn't there a distinct difference between an adult that "uses disappointment as inspiration" and one that will "PUSH him to win at an early age?"

Clearly, it isn't appropriate for "the beatings to begin" if the kid fumbles the ball, strikes out, or couldn't practice the piano more than 2 hours a day.

 

[boedicca]

It's a pretty safe bet that most of the Americans he's met are leftwing moonbats.

 

[Samson]

It's a pretty safe bet that most of the Americans he's met are leftwing moonbats.

Did you post this in every thread?

 

[daveman]

That's right, but it's up to them, not some anal retentive adult. You want to see a kid grow up to be a 'choker'... PUSH him to win at an early age. He or she will freeze up and eventually shut down and NOT want to play.

So it's better if some helicopter adult decides score shouldn't be kept so no one's feelings are hurt?

That does kids no favors. Dealing with disappointments and using them as inspiration to work harder is real life.

I agree, but isn't there a distinct difference between an adult that "uses disappointment as inspiration" and one that will "PUSH him to win at an early age?"

Clearly, it isn't appropriate for "the beatings to begin" if the kid fumbles the ball, strikes out, or couldn't practice the piano more than 2 hours a day.

I'm not saying kids should be punished for not living up to their parents' sometimes-unrealistic expectations.

All I ask from my children is that they do their best. If they do that, I'm proud of them, and tell them so.

 

[Big Fitz]

we are quickly becoming the dumbest civilized nation on earth. our school systems (except some colleges) are a joke compared to world standards. their students are a good 3-4 years ahead of us and their familys actually value education, a complete one at that which encompasses, art, science, math, history and everything in between.

"being dumb" and laughing about your ignorance of some subject is embarrassing in most other countries while it flourishes here

You are absolutely right. The reason is easy to see. We muddle the kids brains with bullshit classes about feelings and social engineering and get away from really important things like history, economics, sciences and math. We waste more in athletics programs passing through physically gifted imbiciles and adopting a 'lowest common denominator' method of teaching instead of forcing excellence.

It's not all the schools fault as often they are the only place of parental authority many kids experience because their parents don't have any interest in pushing their children. They're too busy trying to be their best friend and buddy.

But one thing we do know is that the current method of public education has been an abject failure. We need to change the model on how this is done. I would rather see private schools or contractors taken over because you can FIRE them if they do a poor job managing your education system. Taxes could be lower and there is a performance accountability placed on the management company to get the job done. The current government monolith is not interested in doing that because they are protecting their own incomes from change or even termination because they have never been held to private sector results oriented pay like the rest of us. Coming from a family with many educators, I know this to be true by listening to their conversations with each other over the years. It's a closed union shop that takes an act of God or lawsuit to get fired.

Till you change that... we will continue to decline till we can no longer take care of ourselves, let alone help others.

As for the naivete of Americans? Absolutely. Well over half have never grown out of the pure idealism o their youth where everything is moderated by mommy, everyone gets the same size piece of pie, and scoop of ice cream and the world is all bright primary colors of happy feelings. They are totally sheltered from the political/governmental/ethical/economical depth that is required to live life in a modern world, make good choices in politicians who will govern in the closest to a fair and equitable manner while protecting their precious freedoms they'd forgotten need require constant vigilance to keep, and sometimes even the sacrifice of their very lives so others may keep them, after they have given the final honor of their very life.

We are very naive, very under-educated and about to be very surprised.

 

[boedicca]

There's a root cause: promoting equality of outcome.

 

[Big Fitz]

Thomas Sowell illustrate that point precisely in his book "A Conflict of Visions".

Regardless of party he wrote, the fundamental divide seems to come down to one question:

Do you believe in Equality of Opportunity? Or do you believe in Equality of Results?

The two are mutually exclusive and cannot abide the other. To believe in equality of opportunity is to accept the fact that some people, given the same chance as everyone else will do better than others. They will become richer, more successful and have more of the good things in life than someone else who did not do the same with their opportunities.

Those who believe in equality of results believe that what everyone has at any particular moment MUST be the same. The pie is the same size, the the soda is the same, the income's the same... everyone has the same in the end, regardless of what they do to get it.

You have those who complain that not everyone starts out the same, and that makes the equality of opportunity unfair. This is a misleading argument in the fact that equality of opportunity also requires equality under the law. No special priviledge is given or penalty to anyone. Equality of results requires that every case is viewed individually so the results match as closely as possible. Like kids at a party measuring the size of a piece of cake. The point is that even if the starting positions are not equal that does not make it unfair to anyone under equality of opportunity, for you still have the same chance as someone else in a similar position to dig themselves out as that person in a privledged position has the chance to fail and fall down to your level.

But, some may cry, "the law is NOT applied equally!" This is correct, because both competing visions of the world (opportunity/law versus results) have carved out niches for themselves and they tend to co-mingle in horrible ways. The rich are given both deference in some areas while penalized in others. The poor are given benefits beyond their justification yet prevented from many opportunities.

It is when these two views come together that the worst of both aspects combine to create the hell on earth we so frequently see. Then you get entrenchment of elitism where the haves fight to keep all they have and oppress those they believe may achieve and take what they have. It' almost a form of paranoia that borders on delusion. They try to slam the doors of opportunity, sentencing those who are striving to achieve to a miserable life, and striating equality of opportunity to themselves, while forcing everyone else to equality of results in a twisted view of the two sides by using special laws and circumstances to protect the status quo.

The sad part is, this is precisely what we see going on in government today. The bureaucracy and elected officials have gained power and they plus their private sector buddies who got them elected are solidifying and protecting their limitless opportunity to crush those who also wish to share in that dream. This is the essence of what the tea party is struggling against. For too long, special privileges have been carved out, and the need to be purged from the system. Equality of opportunity needs to be restored to all people. You may never become the next Rockafeller. But you will have the opportunity to try if the monstrosity of the status quo can be shifted.

The choice will be yours. Nothing can be more American than that.

 

[antagon]

That's right, but it's up to them, not some anal retentive adult. You want to see a kid grow up to be a 'choker'... PUSH him to win at an early age. He or she will freeze up and eventually shut down and NOT want to play.

you have made this up, but it is not supported by the facts of life and the histories of race drivers, athletes, artists and academics.

.

Well, it was bound to happen: I agree with Bfgrn on this one.

I'm not sure what is "not supported by the facts of life and the histories of race drivers, athletes, artists and academics."

However, for every race driver or athlete or artist or whatever that is successful, there are thousands that are not.

your conclusion that it is safer to curb the extent that children try for hard-to-obtain goals because of the difficulty should be up to parents and their children. i believe that facilities which have helped go-getters go and get success should not be compromised to accommodate this choice. competition has not been a damaging trend in the US, historically. a lack of competitiveness is an emerging issue.

when i get kids, i wont send them to shit schools, but the country will be worse off for the fixes being made to parts of public education that aint broke. this concern over hopelessness reduction is one of those misadventures. i think hopelessness kicks in when kids learn that the real world keeps score and that their teachers and parents have been bullshitting them.

 

[daveman]

There's a root cause: promoting equality of outcome.