Beyond Words

[Misty_Morning]

Ya, and we all know how much we can trust priests with children...

that was unfair darlin....you cant pass judgement on the whole because of a few.....(mind you I am not catholic)........and something we should keep in mind during political debates as well...

again...back to the reason for the thread......where were his parents? Why was he out and breaking into a zoo?

WTF?

My guess...his parents will bail...they will say he is a bad seed or uncontrollable..everyone else will to be to blame....except them....

 

[SweetWitch]

Not every child requires corporal punishment and corporal punishment does no good at all for other children. It's up to the parents to figure out what works for each child -- something that most parents have a great deal of difficulty understanding.

And therein lies the mystery. Only experience in that realm can help with the decision. Sometimes I think a child rears a parent just as much as a parent rears a child.

It is far more important to house-proof the child than it is to child-proof the house. And it is NOT difficult to houseproof a child as soon as they can move from one place to another by themselves -- but it cannot be done by reasoning with them because they have no language skills at the age when house-proofing is most effectively done.

Very eloquently put. The most important word in the any language when a child is that young is "no" -- and to make it mean something. It's a single syllable, and easy to understand for anyone, as long as the foundation is taught.

The actions of a seven-year-old are controlled -- or not controlled, as the case may be -- by the parenting that was done for the first six years of life. If the foundation of discipline and social graces aren't in place by age seven, it is very difficult to impossible to instill andy sdiscipline or social graces.

The Jesuits had a fairly famous motto for educating young nobles: Give me a child for the first seven years and I shal give you the man he will become. It wasn't an idle boast in the middle ages and it's a sound, time tested, principle of child-rearing today -- unless you listen to childless liberals who "know right from wrong."

Every word true.

 

[Weird Harold]

Ya, and we all know how much we can trust priests with children...

The Jesuits were monks and teachers, not corrupt modern priests.

Whether they were predatory pedophiles or not, the maxim that a person's personality and value system are mostly formed in the first seven years of life has nothing to do with the Jesuit's religious affiliations, because it's also the foundation principle of "early learning" schools and companies and based on numerous statistical studies demonstrating the importance of the first seven years in both scholastic success and in general lifetime sucess (however you choose to define it.)

 

[starrkers]

It is no accident that most children's first word is "no"

So small, but so powerful.
Only a couple of years ago I was standing on the side of a road, waiting to cross. It looked clear and I stepped off the footpath. The kids surged forward (as they do - hell the oldest was a teen). A car suddenly appeared, going way too fast.
"NO" had all three of them back on the footpath in less time than it would've taken to say "Come back now".

 

[epiphany65]

that was unfair darlin....you cant pass judgement on the whole because of a few.....(mind you I am not catholic)........and something we should keep in mind during political debates as well...

again...back to the reason for the thread......where were his parents? Why was he out and breaking into a zoo?

WTF?

My guess...his parents will bail...they will say he is a bad seed or uncontrollable..everyone else will to be to blame....except them....

Well, it was more than a few (although certainly not all) and the cover-up was extensive. I was friends with a Jesuit priest years ago (I was raised Catholic) and he said in seminary they were shown homo-erotic art and taught to mistrust women. It was part of the culture and we've all read about the results.

I've also wondered what role his parents did or didn't play in all this.

 

[SweetWitch]

that was unfair darlin....you cant pass judgement on the whole because of a few.....(mind you I am not catholic)........and something we should keep in mind during political debates as well...

again...back to the reason for the thread......where were his parents? Why was he out and breaking into a zoo?

WTF?

My guess...his parents will bail...they will say he is a bad seed or uncontrollable..everyone else will to be to blame....except them....

Which, of course, would lead to the reason that their son was out at that hour, torturing and murdering.


Off track, but a funny story: My daughter plays with our neighbor's son. He's a cute kid, extremely funny, about a year younger than the princess. When he was four and our daughter five, he was just learning about independence. The boy is legally blind and wears thick glasses; has since he was 18 months old.

Anyway, one Saturday morning, we awoke to find the rascal in our bedroom. Being nearly blind, he had to get up close to see clearly, so there he was just two inches from my face when I woke.

Of course I screamed. I was just a bit startled. He grinned from ear to ear and asked if the princess could play. It was still semi-dark out!

I turned on the light, could see that he had dressed himself, judging by his backward shirt and wrong-side-out pants. His shoes were on the wrong feet and untied.

What did I do? I fixed breakfast, of course. After feeding the family and the boy, I walked him home. His parents had just gotten up to discover him gone. They came out just as we were approaching.

We all still laugh over that to this day.

I also now check all the doors twice before going to bed every night.

 

[epiphany65]

The Jesuits were monks and teachers, not corrupt modern priests.

Whether they were predatory pedophiles or not, the maxim that a person's personality and value system are mostly formed in the first seven years of life has nothing to do with the Jesuit's religious affiliations, because it's also the foundation principle of "early learning" schools and companies and based on numerous statistical studies demonstrating the importance of the first seven years in both scholastic success and in general lifetime sucess (however you choose to define it.)

Then I guess we have to look at who enstilled his value system in him... not that this is entirely their fault but it might help to understand his motives.

 

[Misty_Morning]

Well, it was more than a few (although certainly not all) and the cover-up was extensive. I was friends with a Jesuit priest years ago (I was raised Catholic) and he said in seminary they were shown homo-erotic art and taught to mistrust women. It was part of the culture and we've all read about the results.

I've also wondered what role his parents did or didn't play in all this.

You're a lovely person..and I must apologize. I myself have numerous times condemned the many because of the few.

It wasn't until I read my own words that I realized just how wrong I was to judge. It's aproblem I hope to correct someday. Until then I can only say I'm sorry.

 

[SweetWitch]

It is no accident that most children's first word is "no"

So small, but so powerful.
Only a couple of years ago I was standing on the side of a road, waiting to cross. It looked clear and I stepped off the footpath. The kids surged forward (as they do - hell the oldest was a teen). A car suddenly appeared, going way too fast.
"NO" had all three of them back on the footpath in less time than it would've taken to say "Come back now".

And you thought they never listened to you.

 

[epiphany65]

You're a lovely person..and I must apologize. I myself have numerous times condemned the many because of the few.

It wasn't until I read my own words that I realized just how wrong I was to judge. It's aproblem I hope to correct someday. Until then I can only say I'm sorry.

Thanks, but... no need to apologize.

 

[Weird Harold]

Then I guess we have to look at who enstilled his value system in him... not that this is entirely their fault but it might help to understand his motives.

WRT the boy who prompted this thread, I suspect that he is not included in the "most kids" whose first word was "No!" I suspect that his parents simply did nothing to curb the natural lack of empathy that most young children exhibit.

It isn't a flaw or chemical imbalance, it is simply the natural self-centeredness of a young child that has never known the word "no" or at least never had it enforced.

His parents likely adhere to the non-corporal child-rearing philosphy you champion that says you shouldn't stifle a child's natural impulses -- without considering that (young) children don't give a lot of thought to consequences unless they have been taught that there are consequences for bad behaviors.

 

[epiphany65]

WRT the boy who prompted this thread, I suspect that he is not included in the "most kids" whose first word was "No!" I suspect that his parents simply did nothing to curb the natural lack of empathy that most young children exhibit.

It isn't a flaw or chemical imbalance, it is simply the natural self-centeredness of a young child that has never known the word "no" or at least never had it enforced.

His parents likely adhere to the non-corporal child-rearing philosphy you champion that says you shouldn't stifle a child's natural impulses -- without considering that (young) children don't give a lot of thought to consequences unless they have been taught that there are consequences for bad behaviors.

You're assuming a lot there, but none of us know.

I said nothing about stiffling a child's natural impulses. All I'm saying is that you can reprimand or discipline a child without resorting to hitting them. They can be taught consequences by less detrimental methods.

 

[Weird Harold]

You're assuming a lot there, but none of us know.

I said nothing about stiffling a child's natural impulses. All I'm saying is that you can reprimand or discipline a child without resorting to hitting them. They can be taught consequences by less detrimental methods.

NOt assuming much at all, just applying Occam's Razor. It is far more likely that a child's natural lack of empathy is responsible for that kind of sociopathic behavior than it is for there to be a physical/mental deficiency or active child abuse severe enough to generate sociopathic behavior.

In order to apply "they can be taught consequences by less detrimental methods" you must first be able to communicate with a child which will cost you half, or more, of that dritical first seven years. The best way to teach a child before they learn to communicate is through their basic biology -- the fight/flight reflex and the pleasure centers -- just as you house-train a puppy. Newborn infants may not be as physcally capable as a newborn puppy, but they're generally much smarter. parents should not put up with behavior from infants that they wouldn't accept from a puppy.

That requires stifling some natural urges -- like putting everything into the mouth, or throwing things -- because a child who does NOT have aome natural incinations stifled is one of those children you see throwing temper tantrums in the store or tying firecrackers to cats' tails.

 

[starrkers]

I've found one follow up story so far. The incident happened on Wednesday morning between 8 and 8.30am. It is school holidays in the Northern Territory.

Police have spoken to the child's mother. No mention of father. No police action will be taken due to the child's age. He is described as "well known" which is usually a euphemism for "always in some form of trouble".

Zoo boss is threatening civil action.

 

[jomar]

Without a serious family history, we will never know but I am inclined to suspect that "lack of empathy" is involved here and that isn't a question of nuture. Whether it is treatable is a good question. Does it have a good answer?

None of yours would have ever gotten that far. I still think there's something organically wrong with that boy.

Yeah, the unchanging blank face isn't a good sign. He needs to get a good brain scan, if nothing else just to add to the data.

WRT the boy who prompted this thread, I suspect that he is not included in the "most kids" whose first word was "No!" I suspect that his parents simply did nothing to curb the natural lack of empathy that most young children exhibit.

It isn't a flaw or chemical imbalance, it is simply the natural self-centeredness of a young child that has never known the word "no" or at least never had it enforced.

...

I dunno. You might be right, but this just seems to exceed the threshold. I suspect something else is operating here.

The kid clearly needs a psychological/psychiatric evaluation. Or an updated one.

 

[SweetWitch]

I've found one follow up story so far. The incident happened on Wednesday morning between 8 and 8.30am. It is school holidays in the Northern Territory.

Police have spoken to the child's mother. No mention of father. No police action will be taken due to the child's age. He is described as "well known" which is usually a euphemism for "always in some form of trouble".

Zoo boss is threatening civil action.

That same euphemism works that way here, too. Every time I read about some local kid doing something stupid, destructive and cruel, I think of my nephew. He was such a good kid, top of his class, captain of all the local sports teams and chased by every girl in town, and he's tragically gone. Yet there are others alive who are likely destined for a stint in a 6X8 foot cell with bars on the windows and doors who will always be around. It's just not fair.

 

[FatDino]

And to nit-pick... technically it's not negative reinforcement, it's punishment. Negative reinforcement (from a psychological standpoint) is denying someone a reward but not subjecting them to pain or discomfort. Punishment is inflicting pain or a negative stimuli.... but I know I'm getting really technical here.

Gotta disagree with you here. Negative reinforcement can be the denial of a reward as you have stated...but it can also be the establishing negative outcome when one does not adhere to the basic fundamentals of of society.

Okay, so to be really really nit-picky, punishment is NOT negative reinforcement, it's the presentation of said reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is not denying someone a reward, just simply an undesirable or harmful or unpleasant stimulus. The denying of rewards, or taking away expected pleasant reward is called omission training, which is the removal of positive (desirable) reinforcement.



P/s: I'm studying for my Psych midterm, so couldn't help when seeing this.

 

[SlickTony]

Fellow Floridians might remember the case of Maddie Clifton, who was killed by a 14YO playmate who had never really shown any signs of being a bad kid...he was a little odd, as evidenced by the fact that most of his friends seemed to be younger than he, but hell, my son's a little odd and has a lot of friends who are younger than he, and he's OK. Some of my fellow Litsters have even met him. He's a sweet boy.

According to the case, which I followed with more than the usual interest because at one time I was going to do some freelance transcription for the guy who defended him, they were playing in the kid's back yard, when he accidentally hit her with a stick and knocked her out. And then he panicked, and for God knows what reason, he figured that the only logical thing to do was to finish the job.

And then he allegedly hid her in the pedestal of his waterbed, and his parents got suspicious a few days later on account of the smell.

They tried him as an adult, despite the fact he was only 14 and he had never shown any significant sign of trouble--as I say, no more than my own boy has. No stomping of kittens or pulling wings off flies or anything like that. But the child he killed was sweet and pretty and well-known and well-loved. And anyway it's quite common in my country to try children as adults, in some cases before they even have hair on their balls, despite the fact that we also view children as so innocent that the sight of a bare nipple on TV can warp them for life.

I always had suspicions of the parents of that boy. I have slept in waterbeds for almost 30 years, and I'm here to tell you that there is NO FUCKING WAY that a 14YO boy could get a body into the pedestal of a waterbed without attracting some notice, even if both his parents were at work all day. Nothing and nobody could convince me that they were not complicit in some way.

Last year when we had to replace our waterbed mattress, I mentioned the case in passing to the man who owned the shop (and had also slept on waterbeds for 30 years), and he said, with great solemnity, "I knew Maddie. My wife went to school with her mother. When this happened, I called the police and offered my expert testimony, and they wouldn't talk to me." I suppose it was because they had an open-and-shut case and didn't want to open up another can of worms. (I felt terrible. I wouldn't have said anything if I'd known of his personal involvement in the case.)

The young man is serving a life term, with no possibility of parole.

Here is his DOC info:

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInmates/detail.asp?Bookmark=1&From=list&SessionID=995970009

If you didn't know what he'd done, I don't think you'd take him for a murderer, especially the murderer of a child. Plus, pictures don't tell the truth. I have a friend who's currently serving out the end of a sentence for a rather buffoonish, bumbling, drug-related crime, and in his photograph he looks like a terrible ruffian--you'd think the DOC had some kind of proprietary photo-editing software that included "extra badass effects."

Sometimes it's very difficult to know what the answer is. Here is an account of the whole tragic thing, and its aftermath, from the boy's mother:

http://www.patrickcrusade.org/JOSHUA_PHILLIPS.html

Oddly enough, this woman and I have the same kind of job.

FWIW, I think the kid had incompetent defense. That lawyer died a few years ago, and he was around my age; I think he was already ill and not up to his job when he had to take the case. In all conscience he should have turned it over to someone who was feeling better.

As far as childproofing a house, let me tell you two stories:

I bought the thingies you stick in the electrical outlets and I stuck them in the electrical outlets. I looked behind me and there was my daughter, pulling them out as matter-of-factly as if she were being paid electricians' union scale to do it. I put the doohickies on the cabinet doors, and in a little while, I came into the kitchen and there was my son, pressing them down weith his finger and looking as if he'd discovered a new physical law

This story of the little boy in Alice Springs is a sad and troubling one, and I think there has to be more to it than what has been told. Was the kid abused, or did the parents raise him lovingly and wonder what the hell went wrong? Sometimes things happen and they just don't make any sense.

 

[Weird Harold]

As far as childproofing a house, let me tell you two stories:

I bought the thingies you stick in the electrical outlets and I stuck them in the electrical outlets. I looked behind me and there was my daughter, pulling them out as matter-of-factly as if she were being paid electricians' union scale to do it. I put the doohickies on the cabinet doors, and in a little while, I came into the kitchen and there was my son, pressing them down weith his finger and looking as if he'd discovered a new physical law

Child-proof outlet covers and cabinet latches generally only serve to identify the spaces a child is not supposed to go. The child not going there is more a function of recognising the "do not enter" sign than any physcal impediment to access.

 

[SweetWitch]

Child-proof outlet covers and cabinet latches generally only serve to identify the spaces a child is not supposed to go. The child not going there is more a function of recognising the "do not enter" sign than any physcal impediment to access.

Exactly.

 

[Guest]

Child-proof outlet covers and cabinet latches generally only serve to identify the spaces a child is not supposed to go. The child not going there is more a function of recognising the "do not enter" sign than any physcal impediment to access.

They always just gave us those few extra seconds to rescue the kid from himself (or herself).

 

[voluptuary_manque]

They always just gave us those few extra seconds to rescue the kid from himself (or herself).

Or at least they're supposed to. But in a room with 20 kindergartners, it's difficult to keep an eye on all of them at once. We once had a little 5 year old oddity who would sneak into the teacher's desk and remove something metallic, like a bobby pin or a paper clip and then go stick it in the wall outlet "to see if what happened last time would happen again". Some people's kids . . .

 

[Safe_Bet]

Or at least they're supposed to. But in a room with 20 kindergartners, it's difficult to keep an eye on all of them at once. We once had a little 5 year old oddity who would sneak into the teacher's desk and remove something metallic, like a bobby pin or a paper clip and then go stick it in the wall outlet "to see if what happened last time would happen again". Some people's kids . . .

VM, that's called the Theory of Natural Selection!

 

[SweetWitch]

Or at least they're supposed to. But in a room with 20 kindergartners, it's difficult to keep an eye on all of them at once. We once had a little 5 year old oddity who would sneak into the teacher's desk and remove something metallic, like a bobby pin or a paper clip and then go stick it in the wall outlet "to see if what happened last time would happen again". Some people's kids . . .

Hey, I was one of those little oddities. I stuck a bent wire into an outlet when I was two. I remember it well because one minute I was standing at the wall and the next I was flying through the air with the greatest of ease. I landed on the other side of the room with a plop.

It didn't hurt and I thought it was fun, so I wanted to do it again. The third time, as they say, was the charm though. That one hurt and it fried the breaker box in the basement. Oops.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Hey, I was one of those little oddities. I stuck a bent wire into an outlet when I was two. I remember it well because one minute I was standing at the wall and the next I was flying through the air with the greatest of ease. I landed on the other side of the room with a plop.

It didn't hurt and I thought it was fun, so I wanted to do it again. The third time, as they say, was the charm though. That one hurt and it fried the breaker box in the basement. Oops.

*Snerk* THREE times??? You must be part cat! Even then you are down to six lives girl!