Well, in a word, the answer is "no." Let's see, the two alleged child psychologists that you overheard talking sound out of line.....but, you also couldn't have heard the rest of the conversation. We can't really know what to think about their conversation.

I think psychologists, more than most people, understand correlational research, and don't confuse it with causality. It's the first major point I make when I teach Intro to Psych (I'm a psychologist). I think the error is in the way research is filtered down to mainstream, lay publications, or used by "pop" amatuerish "therapists" like Dr. Laura or Dr. Phil. Honestly, most of the psychologists I know do not overpathologize people. I see many posts by MDCers that do more to pathologize parenting styles or criticize mothers. To use your example, I have seen many posts here express outrage and dismay over letting a child cry for five minutes, or calling a child a "spoiled brat" when you are stressed out. The psychologists I know in real life wouldn't look askance at that at all. They are more into resiliency, and talk about the "totality" of the parenting: Are the parents loving overall? Do they do their best? Do they provide for the child's needs decently, most of the time?? I think psychology has a much more tolerant view of parents than many "AP advocates." And, I'm not trying to offend AP advocates at all. Just saying that they adhere to a more "strict" definition of "good parenting" than most psychologists would. Most psychologists practice "mainstream" parenting techniques, so they do not see harm in things like daycare, formula feeding, time out, maybe even some forms of "sleep training." Now, I'm not saying they are right in all these things....I'm just saying I don't see much evidence to support for the position that you are advocating.

 

Actually, I don't think child psychology is the problem at all. I think that all the new brain and developmental research is pretty exciting, and has an overall good effect--if people pay attention to it.

I think what you are talking about is marketing. And "parenting psychology", I suppose. Where parenting becomes less about what helps guide/shape the individual child into someone who can reach for their dreams and live responsibly, and more about what other people will think of the PARENT if they do (or don't do) XYZ. Or, more importantly, buy certain lessons/toys/DVDs/stimulating activities/shoving academics down some poor tot's throat. You get the picture.

Two very, very, very different things.

Unless you are talking about ivory tower psychology, where people forumulate all sorts of bizarre ideas that would frankly only apply in laboratory situations--because, guess what, that's what they were observed/researched in.

But I really like how research methods/data collection for CHILDREN has changed in the past 20-30 years or so. I think it's a lot more accurate than when children were seen as unintelligent blank slates.

But when parenting becomes all about the parent, that's were the problem starts. I've noticed that tends to most often happen in a situation where someone is trying to sell you something (whether it's another one of their book series or a Genius Baby DVD/CD or Soccer-For-Crawlers Class). So I attribute it more towards marketing and a bit of sheeple behavior, than condemning child psychology per se.

It's all the evil corporate empire, I tell ya! Time to adjust my foil hat again!

Oh, as an aside, are you SURE that those people you heard talking at the school were really serious, or where they trying to show off for each other? I mean, it really sounds like the kinds of BS things that some of my smarter friends say, when they're trying to outdo each other and show how smart they are compared to the rest of us drooling idiots in the world. Call me a cynic, but I think those two were just doing some self-stimulation at the lower life form's expense. Not saying they were intentionally mean or anything, but...I mean, look at how people here pick each other apart over trivia about AP here. It's just another form of geeking (ever seen two computer people get in an argument about linux vs. M$? Makes our little tiffs about whether or not a bucket seat constitutes abuse look like high tea with the queen.). So I wouldn't take it TOO seriously.

But I bet someone would love to write a bestselling book about how if you finish your child's picture they will become vegetables and it's all your fault! And I will bet you another dollar that there'll always be someone to buy it, too!

 

Hey, momea, I went to UC Davis for my teaching credential years ago. Are you another Aggie?

In general, I agree with your post. Actually though, I want to point the finger at the media more than the field of psychology. Sometimes journalists who cover the science beat seem to convey the findings to the public in a sensationalistic way. They pull quotes out of context, suggest causal relationships between correlational factors in a study, fail to report the scope of the trial... that kind of thing. Drives me nutty.

: The research itself is pretty fascinating, I think, but it's hard to find good sources that explains the research clearly and accurately to the public.

I'm also not sure that all this research is what is driving such an intense scrutiny of parents. Haven't people always thought that children reflected their parents somehow? And mothers particularly have been scrutinized and criticized for the way they rear their children for a long, long time - often most viciously by other mothers. I took a class with a feminist anthropologist, and we spent several weeks looking at this dynamic in different cultures around the world.

I do take the general point though. Sometimes it feels that the vibe "out there" is pretty negative and critical, and over such small things.

 

I often wonder how many of the correlations you refer to become self fulfilling prophecies. I.E. if "x" happens, "y" will be the result, and then people RESPOND to the child as if "y" has either already come to pass, or is written in stone. I think it happens with adults as well, and in both cases, the time and energy put in protecting the self from being classified, categorized, and pigeonholed takes away from the time and energy that needs to be spent instituting change, or healing.

And ironically, I back up my opinion with the books "Toxic Parents" and "The Dance of Anger". In both cases, the book talks about the friends and family sabotaging efforts to make positive improvements, because they are invested in the status quo.

 

I have seen that dynamic you describe SO MANY TIMES - people with child psychology, ECE or development degrees obsessing over tiny little actions on the part of parents. Heh, I can remember the evil shrink my parents sent me to reading volumes into the way I opened an envelope, too.

I don't think the problem is the disciplines; I think the problem is the training of the professionals in the disciplines, and more broadly the problem is one of generational segregation in society. Too many people end up with postgraduate degrees having to do with children who have only spent time with children under artificial circumstances. Many of these degree programs require internships or other service, which very often happens in community centers that are serving really, really poor people with really, really huge problems. This thoroughly colors the view that professionals end up having of children and family life.

I'll give a specific example: I once had dealings with a very young school therapist on her first job. While she was getting her degree, she did volunteer counselling in a homeless shelter. The school she was working for was very poor, and this woman came from a semi-abusive working-class single-parent family. She had NO experience of two-parent or of stable family life. NONE. She EXPECTED families to be in constant crisis, inadequate to the needs of their members, and in constant need of expert supervision and intervention, because that's all she knew.

People should not have authority over family life or children unless they have raised children. As a society, we give enormous amounts of power to "experts" whose expertise is incredibly narrow. A mother who is also a child psychologist can be a fount of incredible wisdom. A child psychologist who is just a child psychologist is kind of useless.

 

"People should not have authority over family life or children unless they have raised children."

I really disagree. I worked with a number of child psychologists over the years, and there was no correlation ime between having children and being competent. In fact, the best one I worked with was childless. She was astonishingly good at her job and I saw her make a profound difference to the lives of many families. One child in particular had had several failed adoption attempts until she started work with him and a new family - and it was an incredible success story that nobody would have believed possible. I even find myself, years later, having imaginary conversations with her, to work out what she'd advise me over my own parenting and kids!

I didnt have kids back then either, but I have letters and messages from now-18 year olds telling me what a difference I made in their lives. (I wasnt a psychologist but worked with special needs and ebd kids and families). I don't think I was worthless in the 14 years I worked with these kids. In fact, I know I did a good job - and I'm not sure that I'd be that much better at it now that I"ve had children.

I've heard that argument many times, and it is seriously flawed imo. Sorry!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by urklemama People should not have authority over family life or children unless they have raised children.

I agree with Britishmum--I think her post said very well what I feel. I know plenty of people that have raised children whom I sure wouldn't trust with my child or family. I have a sil who thinks that being a mother of four makes her know so much more than I do. Well, she is only an "expert" on her own children and in her own parenting style, which happens to be one which I find severely lacking. She has absolutely no understanding of normal child development--she really could use an ECE background. I think sometimes people who work with children outside their own homes can have a much broader experience and perspective than those whose only exposure has been to their own children. Of course a childless person isn't going to have the inside knowledge of just how it feels to be a mom 24-hours a day. But that doesn't mean they know nothing. The key isn't so much whether you have children or not but how open you are to learning.

 

Britishmum - I think the American system, and American culture in general, is so different from yours that we'd be comparing apples and oranges.

Laurel - you've quoted what I said, but you seem to think it means that the corollary: that anyone has raised children, than they should have authority over families with children. No. I don't think that.

i do believe very strongly that no one - no family court judge, no custody evaluator, no CPS agent - should have the kind of power they do unless they have personally experienced sleepless nights, being covered in spit-up, being totally responsible for a helpless little infant. I think it's really weird that as a culture we go to experts first for advice and not to mothers.

Laurel, you find your sister ignorant and arrogant and say she knows nothing about child development - ok, that's your opinion. Your opinion is, in my opinion, no more worthy than hers. I find the statement that a mother of four knows nothing abour normal child development to be a little frightening, honestly. If it is true in any sense, it may true in the sense that she knows nothing about normal child development *as defined by child psychologists based on observation of mostly white, Western children in limited and often artificial circumstances.* Myself, I think that child psychologists are the ones who don't understand much about normal child development.

 

Oops, double post!

 

Laurel - you've quoted what I said, but you seem to think it means that the corollary: that anyone has raised children, than they should have authority over families with children. No. I don't think that."

I see what you're saying now. I did misunderstand what you meant. I still don't agree with your conclusion about childless people and "family" work, but I see your point.

"Laurel, you find your sister ignorant and arrogant and say she knows nothing about child development - ok, that's your opinion. Your opinion is, in my opinion, no more worthy than hers. I find the statement that a mother of four knows nothing abour normal child development to be a little frightening, honestly."

I admit that my saying she knows "nothing" was an exaggeration, and you're right that it's also my opinion. It's just frustrating to see someone parent in ways that show so little respect for or understanding of children's abilities and needs. This goes far beyond an "AP vs. mainstream" thing in this case. These are things that were great concerns for virtually all other members of our family (and all of us were coming from different parenting styles/perspectives). When I say that an understanding of basic child development would really help her, I'm not talking about fancy theories or psycho-babble. I'm talking about things like not understanding that a 3-year-old child really isn't capable of cleaning the entire messy living room on his own without parental supervision, and that all the punishing in the world isn't going to change that. I'm just talking about every day things that seem common sense to most of us. My frustration with this situation is also a reaction to this sil's constant assertions that her experience as a mother was so much greater than mine and therefore I should do things her way. This was especially troubling for me as a new mom. Things are much better now as she has seen that I am doing things my way and that is not going to change. I've also tried to stay out of her parenting business.

But I admit that I do think psychology has value in parenting, so that is going to bias my opinions. I don't think I"m a slave to it at all. I read a lot and read critically, so I'm always asking myself, "what is this really saying? do I really believe this is how the world, or a child, works?" But I have gained a lot of positive things from psychology. Though I do agree that when mothers rely on experts instead of on their own intuition, that is scary ground. I think parents need to use the knowledge of others as a resource, and not as the absolute truth.

When I was in college, I took a wonderful class on theories of development. The class was wonderful because we took all the prevailing theories (Freud, Skinner, Piaget, etc.) and ripped them to shreds. We didn't do it to discount anything valuable they included, but just to show that no one can claim absolute truth in this. I think that class really shaped my view of psychology. I love psychology, but also recognize it's limitations. I felt like I learned how to think in that class.

The topic of childless people is personal to me because I was childless for a very long time against my will (infertility). I also have an ECE background, although I didn't complete my degree in that. I was always very careful not to assert my opinions before I had children, even though I held them very strongly. My opinions really haven't changed much since becoming a mother. But it was hard to watch other people doing things that I felt were very detrimental and keeping my mouth shut about it. It was hard having people treat me like a know-nothing just because I didn't have firsthand experience as a mother. Again, I rarely voiced an opinion on parenting pre-child unless asked. But becoming a mother and seeing that my beliefs held true even after having a child has definitely shaped my view. I think that childless people can be completely effective in many roles working with children and families, and even in positions of judgment, as long as they have empathy and the ability to be open to learning from the very people they are working with, and if they do acknowledge their lack of firsthand experience.

I am a mother through adoption, and through the process of getting my son had to work with a lot of people sitting in judgment and making decisions over my family. At first I thought that if those people had adopted themselves and been through infertility like me, it would make them more capable and empathetic in their work with me. I found that not to be the case. The caseworker who had been through virtually the same experiences I had was cold, distant, and intimidating. The "greenie" caseworker fresh out of college who had no first-hand idea what we were going through was absolutely wonderful! He was warm and caring, and most of all, willing to learn from us.

 

Thanks for the long reply, and thanks for being so willing to discuss your own experience.

I also worked with children for a long time before I had one, and I totally get that it's annoying to be told you don't know anything because you're not a mother. I want to repeat that that isn't what I'm saying, and I don't mean that the only people who ever have any are parents have anything useful to say. I am saying that in general, child psychology training produces people who have an inadequate understanding of normal family life, and that as a culture, we discount mothers' experience and voices in favor of experts. When it comes to not just advice or who gets interviewed on television, but who is making decisions about custody, no, I'm really comfortable saying that, for example, a childless child psychologist is an inappropriate person to have so much input and power. There is a sixth sense that ONLY comes from lived daily experience with children in homes that is necessary to make these kinds of decisions in wisdom.

As for your experience as an adoptive mother, I'm sorry that the caseworker who had gone through the same experience was so harsh, but after all, she wasn't your therapist. She was there to determine your suitability as an adoptive family, right? And if the greenhorn was so open and kind, do you think he might have been easier to fool?

Part of my strong dislike for the priviliging of child psych in our culture comes from my experience of watching my stepsons' mother repeatedly snow the experts who were supposed to be protecting her children and who totally failed. My experience has been that people who are willing to use child psych as a tool - to rip the theories to shreds as you say - are in a tiny minority. The vast majority of people working in schools and for social services get a common sense-dectomy in university. They are completely enslaved to a rigid way of looking at children and family life and if something doesn't fit the theory or challenges the theory, they just can't see it.

You're saying that you kept your opinions to yourself before you had children, but you have to know how rare that is. You have to know that not only do very few people with this kind of background keep their opinions to themselves, many many of them pursue careers where they are able to order parents around. At least no matter how annoying your sister is, she will never be able to threaten you with the loss of your children if you don't parent the way she does.

 

I think, in general, that psychological research comes from a desire to find a way to PREVENT these things from happening to more children, families etc. I don't think they go out looking to pigeon hole certain groups or tell people they're doing something wrong. I think they're actually looking at things to see if they CAN find a correlation so that maybe we can help improve the lives of children.

 

well, to me, it's kind of like saying "All Xes are this way." No sweeping generalization ever really holds water in the end, does it? Not all parents are good judges of parenting. Not all people without children are poor judges of parenting. Not all psychologists are fools. As a parent, I see no difference in my radar. I could smell a rat of a parent before I had kids and I can smell the same rats today. If anything, I feel like I spend more time trying to convince parents that they have normal kids and lives than the parents try to convince me. :LOL So try adding that into the brew. I agree with the previous poster who pointed out that really what we hear and see a lot of are pseudo-psychologists--Dr. Laura, Dr. Phil--caricatures of psychologists in my mind. I can't stand them--Dr. Laura's not even a psychologist as I'm sure you know, but many people don't seem to realize that. Media, journalists, they inject their own sensationalism into information they're given. They make their own inferences and present them as fact based on so-and-so's research only to later have so-and-so upbraid them for twisting their words...

I'm trying not to be offended by the common sensed-ectomy and other discriminating remarks by realizing that there are events which have made it difficult to filter psychologists rationally. There is a defensiveness about us that is almost universal, I've found. I've learned not to tell people what I do initially because they often literally back away from me as if I'm contagious and then make some sad joke about how I'm probably already analyzing them (yeah, because NOBODY has ever thought of that one before). See, we're humans, just like you.

Anyway, the op wondered about some of the stuff, and as I said, I see it as media stuff that people glom onto. Because there is a ton of stuff out there that nobody seems to pick up on that I see as really important to understanding--like most boys calm down significantly by age five, meaning to me that parents should just chill out on the whole ADHD thing. I also think, in my particular field, that parents often use pop psychology as an excuse--we're dysfunctional, he's ADHD, she has poor self-image. Crap, just love your kids and they'll prolly turn out okay in the end!

And, finally, as in any field, there are always crackpots. They just get the most recognition because they're usually also the squeaky wheels, right? I haven't found a field yet that doesn't have some stellars and some suckers. It's just the bell curve.

 

This discussion is really interesting. Urklemama, I love what you said, because I'm a mother of one who dreams of having her second and last child and then going back to college to get a Master's in Child Psychology when child number two is three.

I know, it's a long way ahead, as ds is only 17 months, and I'm planning on having child number 2 when ds is 3, but it's my life's dream to become a psychologist and psychology was my minor in college.

I think, like everything, there are two sides to the issue. I do agree that it's nonsense to overanalyze every little detail and instead focus on the big picture and the overall and prevailing attitude, time, love, attention and energy parents devote to each of their children as opposed to one small incident. We are, after all, human, and we all make mistakes. I'm a believer in "mistakes are opportunities to learn" and "those who never make mistakes never do anything."

Making mistakes certainly makes us more conscious of our actions and more humble and determined at the same time to improve. The key here is to be able to recognize our mistakes, learn from them and move on from there to improve. You can't be paralyzed by mistakes (e.g. "I said my child was a spoiled brat now I've ruined everything") or burdened by them. Forgive yourself, apoligize to your child and move on. Try again. Never give up.

If we really want to, we most certainly can be the parents we want to be.