Children Can Teach Themselves Beautifully

Children are much smarter than we give them credit for. They have the incredible ability to self-regulate their own learning process without much help from adults. It is amazing to think that although we adults oftentimes view infants as helpless, needy, little people, they actually develop the autonomy to teach themselves from an early age.

In this age of technological advancement, it seems quite natural to create interactive computer programs to teach toddlers and young children. But as David Elkind shares in his book, The Power of Play, "Many infants and young children faced with computer programs and instructional videos...are not sure what they are supposed to be looking at or for. Often they end up being...confused and disheartened... [They] know for themselves what they have to learn. Indeed they are programmed to learn the basic adaptive skills and concepts necessary for survival. Most infants and young children have the good sense to ignore or resist such intrusions into their self-directed learning. But if adults push too intensely on the look harder materials, even infants and young children can get discouraged and give up."

Children come perfectly wired with the ability to teach themselves what they need to know, all in good time. Unfortunately, many Americans, concerned for the future of their children, value education (and the high status that can eventually result from it) so much that they try to force too much information on a child before they are ready. As Elkind discusses in his book, most formal schooling in Europe does not begin until age six or seven. They do have preschool before that, but their preschools do not focus on learning numbers or how to read, rather, they choose to allow their students to develop physically and socially before they start their more formal instruction.

Americans are simultaneously highly competitive in respect to their children's education, while also extremely concerned that their children may be falling behind in their studies. These attitudes toward education in our country have been leading us down a self-destructive path in which we are oftentimes doing more harm than good by introducing concepts too early during a child's cognitive development. I think the lesson to be learned here is that you can't force a learning process that has been biologically wired to work in a certain way. Stop trying to "force it," America! Children will learn, all in good time.

How Is America Screwing Over Parents And Their Newborns?

In a lot of ways apparently. Because the whole system is fucked. There is no simple fix to make the first couple years of a newborn's life ideal for the parents or for the infant (unless you are incredibly rich). There is a large difference between what a child needs in his or her first few years of life and what parents have access to as American citizens. Quality childhood development seems to correlate positively with access to wealth. Socioeconomic status has almost everything to do with how well American children will develop, learn, and acquire new skills. Other countries have found ways to better equip all parents with the information and resources that they need in order to be successful, but the United States is making it difficult for many parents to encourage healthy development.

The problems begin where I left off last week, with a necessity for our children to be independent from the get-go. Infants have no concept of independence, nor do they have a sense of entitlement. Infants need constant care from at least one person so that they can form a secure attachment. Our readings discussed in great detail the importance of healthy attachments between infant and adult. Parents need to teach their newborn that when they have a need, it will be addressed; when they cry, someone will be there for them. But the idea of "appeasing" a child when they cry conflicts terribly with our American ideal of independence. Many parents are led to believe that their child just needs to "cry it out" and that they will be better for it in the long run because their child won't grow up to be a "cry baby." While this belief has proved to be false, Americans still value independence and individualism and many parents remain in ignorance of appropriate ways to care for their child.

The next problem is two-fold: American parents are rarely given any reasonable amount of paid maternity- or paternity-leave and therefore must resort to finding a daycare for their child. Not only does work keep many American parents from bonding with their newborn, but there is an entire spectrum of daycare options to choose from, and the phrase "you get what you pay for" has never been truer. Parents who make enough money can at least afford to send their child to a quality daycare center with reliable and consistent employees where there may be the potential for their child to establish a secure attachment with one of his or her caretakers. Alternatively, parents who are less well off may send their child to a more affordable daycare where there is a higher turnover rate of caretakers. This variety in care providers will make it even more difficult for the infant to form a secure attachment.

If the child is not able to make a healthy attachment to at least one adult within the first two years of his or her life, they will instead form insecure attachments which can lead to anything from minor insecurities to the potential for violent behavior. Most at-risk, American youth formed insecure attachments as babies; these unhealthy attachments have been linked to ADHD, insecurity, addiction, violent behavior, and lack of empathy. In many ways, even parents with the best intentions may still be putting their children at risk for unstable behavior in the future.

So, what do we need to change? We need at least a full year of paid maternity-leave available to new mothers. We need quality daycare centers with long-term, well-paid employees who can create healthy attachments with their children. And we need to ignore our American obsession with independence and recognize that when an infant cries, it is because they legitimately need something.

Culture vs. Science

This week I was struck most by this idea that cultural values override scientifically proven facts. Not necessarily all of the time, but in a nation with incredible access to scientific data that may clearly prescribe a certain behavior as "better"than what is culturally prescribed, culture still seems to beat out science more often than not.

For example, infant care in America: traditionally, infants sleep separately from adults, are fed on a schedule (not necessarily when they are hungry or want to be fed), and are formula fed instead of breastfed. Many Americans consider public breastfeeding, in particular, to be taboo. In order to avoid public breastfeeding, mothers oftentimes supplement with formula when in public or completely forgo the mammalian tradition of breastfeeding by using only formula. As Elizabeth D. Whitaker describes in her writing on Ancient Bodies, Modern Customs, and Our Health, "Common infant feeding practices in Western societies, such as timed, widely spaced meals, early weaning, pacifier use, and isolated infant sleep with few or no nighttime feedings, are very new and rare in human history, and do not reflect 'natural' needs or optimal behaviors, as is commonly presumed." Many of these culturally accepted practices are derived from the American obsession with independence. We think that "indulging" a young infant when she cries may cause her to become overly dependent on her parents or caretaker. However, imposing our individualistic values on an infant is unrealistic at best and potentially abusive at worst. Whitaker describes the benefits of traditional practices like on-demand feeding, constant physical contact between mother and infant, co-sleeping with infants, and breastfeeding's superiority to formula feeding, all of which also happen to align with scientifically prescribed childcare strategies. Contrary to American beliefs, which revolve around how to properly instill a sense of independence in children, infant well-being is closely tied to infant-parent proximity and having near-constant access to breastfeeding.

After reading about how Western society's infant-care practices are relatively incongruent with what has historically and scientifically been proven to work best, I have (somewhat frustratingly) found that cultural practices rule, no matter how much other evidence might suggest that our cultural practices are wrong (or maybe just not ideal). It is hard to break the cultural cycle that perpetuates our value of independence and our societal taboos on natural practices like breastfeeding. I don't know if there will ever be a time when scientific facts are valued equally to culture and tradition, but it would certainly be an interesting time to live in.

What is a cohort?

Cohort refers to a group of people who were born around the same time, and as a result, experience many similar important life events. Our reading gave an example of a boy who grew up during World War II and explained how his life situation, while nuanced and unique in some ways, was also similar to the experiences of others who grew up around the same time that he did. A group that shares these experiences that ultimately shape many of their values and beliefs is called a cohort. What struck me, personally, about this idea of a cohort was how the reading's example of a boy growing up around WWII strangely paralleled many of my grandfather's life experiences. Because of the uncanny connections I drew between this some-what stereotypical life and my grandfather's very own real experiences, I wondered what my own cohort's shared storyline might look like 50 years from now.

As we discussed in class, my cohort's shared experiences may not strongly revolve around a particular war, but instead around the ever-changing world of technology and media that we are constantly exposed to through cellphones, television, computers, tablets, the internet, etc. How are these everyday outside influences ultimately shaping our lives and values? We certainly value communication; having access to at least one communication device at all times makes it necessary for us to communicate on a near-constant basis. Conversely, it would seem rude to wait even a full day to respond to a text or e-mail, and in the context of business, also somewhat unprofessional. But looking back even a quarter of a century ago we can observe that communication patterns were nowhere near so desperate and needy as they have become today. Humans may be pro-social by nature, but should we really feel obligated to communicate at all times? I believe this need for communication is something my cohort shares and I am interested to see how it may affect our values and beliefs as our lives play out.