BLM & The Dream of Harrison Bergeron Style Equality: Our Education Goals Have Not Changed Since Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development in 1958

I just finished Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development. The huge claim of this book is that morality is synonymous with justice and that justice is synonymous with equality. The purpose of this book is to argue that moral education (which for him is justice education) should be part of public education. Kohlberg insists that justice education is not value re-education of other people's children because what he is interested in is the growth of the concept of justice in the child (the complexity or level of abstraction of the child's thinking about justice) rather than any particular idea of justice. Fascinating idea!

But then--

This has to happen in school because Kohlberg does not think anyone will think deeply or clearly unless they are "stimulated into it." If I did agree that children need to be "stimulated" into thinking deeply, I would still find it annoying that Kohlberg assumes that school is better at achieving this than the child's parents or life in general. Moreover, I find it annoying that Kohlberg thinks school even can accomplish this since my experience in school was that it was unable to stimulate (force) those who were not interested in thinking deeply to do so, and it was a cumbersome waste of time for those of us who were going to think deeply anyway.

But this is neither here or there because Kohlberg's arguments, for anyone paying attention, are all subterfuge. Kohlberg absolutely wants value re-education of other people's children. He wants America to buy into his idea of equality (Harrison Bergeron style socialism). He wants to accomplish this through the education system.

This repetitive, contradictory, and boring mess of a book should have been a concise report on a very small (and disorganized) study that Kohlberg did on 50 similar boys and how their concept of justice developed over a decade or two and how that compares to 1 philosopher Kohlberg likes. Of course, it would have been dismissed instantly, since Kohlberg completely failed to control any variables, but at least it would have been clear. Instead this book tries to be Piaget's theory of development as applied to the concept of justice. And since Kohlberg draws on many fascinating ideas and even appears intelligent at times, the reader who is not paying attention may mistake Kohlberg's mess for actually proving something. Kohlberg does not have the research to back up the conclusions-for-all-of-mankind that he makes and I seriously hope, for his sake, that this book was a giant attempt at manipulation via distraction because otherwise he is a just a terd who should not be taken seriously who wrote a book called, "No one should be allowed to be prettier than anyone else!"

Kohlberg claims that he is not arguing for any one specific idea of justice, but since all the level 6 philosophers he includes agree on what is just... he is. (And note that by "all" the level 6 philosophers I do not mean the claims Kohlberg makes about Martin Luther King or Jesus, but rather the one or two who participated in his study which I have a sneaking suspicion were both Kohlberg.)

Kohlberg's theory of justice is equality. He says, "The rationale for government is the preservation of the rights of individuals, that is, of justice." Let me clarify this since Kohlberg struggles so much with clarity: You have a right to be as smart as your neighbor! You have a right to be as pretty as your neighbor! Your government is here to make sure equality prevails! To make sure no one has the freedom to be better at anything than anyone else! Your government will preserve your rights to have no freedoms whatsoever!

It entertained me when Kohlberg tackled Objectivists on page 156 (I believe this is what he was doing, he never stated it explicitly): "The metaethical questioning that appears typically as a transitional phase in the movement from Stage 4 to Stage 5 does not always lead directly to stage 5 thinking. Instead, it may generate a number of ideologies whose common feature is the exaltation of the self... Although our work suggests that such college student ideologies are usually short-lived... there is no doubt that under some social conditions such ideologies become stabilized orientations... At their best, they celebrate a moral conscience little distinguishable in its principles from the stage 3 or 4 moral sense but held as the sacred possession of an inner self whose moral integrity comes before both community welfare and rational discussion."

Lol. All rational people know that community welfare is best served by making everyone wear a mask so no one is prettier than anyone else!

According to Kohlberg, you cannot "move past stages 3 and 4" unless you:
1. buy into Rawl's veil of ignorance and
2.  agree that the highest value above all, is human life and that preservation of that life is the standard of morality in all situations. "We know that it is alright to be dishonest and steal to save a life because it is just, because one person's right to life comes before another person's right to property."

This drove me insane while reading this book. Over and over in this book we are told that property is subordinate to human life. Never is it mentioned that to create property requires the time of a human life and to take his property is take his time--which means, to enslave him. You cannot get to stages 5 and 6 unless you agree that enslaving in order to save a life is moral.

The other thing that drove me insane was the failure to question in any form the veil of ignorance theory. (ISN'T THAT WHAT ADVANCED COMPLEX THINKING IS ABOUT KOHLBERG?!!!!?????)

Kohlberg's sorry excuse for a study revolves around the Heinz dilemma: Your wife is dying. You cannot get enough money for the drug that will save her. Time is running out. Should you steal the drug to save her?

Kohlberg says: absolutely, and every highly evolved moral person agrees, that stealing the drug to save her is the right thing to do. Because the preservation of life comes before property and you must chose to live in a society without knowing what role you will play (i.e., in this scenario, you may be cast as the wife and in that case you would definitely want your husband to steal the cure).

So first, I hate this moral dilemma because in real life, there are always other solutions (like making a deal with the guy who has the drug to work off the cost).

Second, let's clarify this question. (Yay! This is what makes books like this fun for me!) The moral dilemma is:
-Would you enslave an enemy so that your wife may live? (Of course! Though I would not argue that it was just.)
-Would you agree to be a slave so that you may live? (Ummmm, for how long?)
-Would you enslave your husband for ten years so that you may live? (Is he okay with that?)
-Would you enslave your child for fifty years so that you may live? (Nope, I'd rather die.)
-Would you enslave the children of 100 strangers for fifty years so that you may live? (Hmmmm)
-Would you enslave 100 of your closest friends and family for fifty tears so that you may live? (Definitely not. I'd rather die.)

My point is this: The veil of ignorance combined with the preservation of life as the highest moral value is incorrect. Yes, we all want to live. But there is a limit. There are prices we are unwilling to pay. It's easy to enslave a stranger. It's hard to enslave those you love. But I would rather live in a world where the moral idea is that we do not, in fact, enslave each other. We can understand that desperate people  make desperate choices without claiming that it is moral or without condoning it legally.

Let's call this the Darth Vader Syndrome. In the Star Wars story Anakin Skywalker kills an untold number of people, because that is, he believes, the only way to save Padme from certain death. But when Padme finds out what he has done "for her" she doesn't appreciate his gift. Moreover, he has become a bad guy in order to save her life. Rawls theory has to be wrong. Anything that requires immoral action has to be wrong. It's not that I am an impractical moralist. It's the humans know deep down that the ends are never worth the means, no matter how practical those means seam.

My favorite chapter was "The Question of the Seventh Stage." These folks are post-morality. They contemplate the questions: Why be moral? The universe isn't. They renounce their demand for justice. They have to find a new reason to live and new way to face death. Which, I mean, if that's the 7th stage, doesn't it kinda kill Kohlberg's whole argument? Kohlberg claims that all level 7 folks find their answer is selfless servitude to people suffering.

In closing: What I take away from this book is that human beings are a obsessed with justice. They will do immoral things in the name of their desire for justice. If I want the freedom to be anything, to be myself, to strive, to work, to keep that for which I strove, those with whom I live must agree that it is fair, just, and right for me to be or do so, otherwise, they will rob, enslave, and punish me. Because humans are obsessed with justice.

But of course humans are obsessed with this abstract idea because they are repressing what they are really feeling and needing which is usually compassion, acceptance, and visibility. So instead of obsessing over justice, read NonViolent Communication!

My favorite quotes:

"Why is freedom to be one-self good--by what standard is it a good thing?" page 72

"Anyone who understands the values of life and property recognizes that life is morally more valuable than property." page 123

"The fundamental norm of relationship between people is justice: that is, reciprocity and equality." page 166 (note that Kohlberg relates to other human beings with control).

"Like it or not, teachers are moral educators (or miseducators) as creators of the "hidden curriculum" of the moral climate of the classroom. Insofar as educators do not critically examine the values that govern life and discipline in the classroom or simply opt out of enforcing existing conventions, they "cop out" from really dealing with the values issue, and they engage in subtle or blatant forms of indoctrination. Therefore, teachers must face Socrates' question "What is virtue." somewhere near the beginning.

Thanksgiving, an Ancient Harvest Festival Reappropriated

Thanksgiving Should Not Involve Any White Guilt

1. Thanksgiving should not involve any white guilt because it is an ancient holiday that Native Europeans have celebrated since before Christ.

Thanksgiving, until just 150 years ago, was a harvest festival that was traditionally held on the first full moon after the fall equinox, called the "harvest moon." This happened in early October. Americans celebrated Thanksgiving in early October until 1941. Canadians still celebrate their Thanksgiving in October. So do Swedes and peoples all over Europe -- except their Thanksgivings are still called harvest festivals. 

Native Europeans who came to America had Autumn harvest festivals just as they had had back home. It wasn’t until 1863 that this harvest festival became a national holiday called “Thanksgiving.” It wasn’t until after that, during the height of nationalism, that the American government came up with a story about Pilgrims and Indians to attach to the holiday in order to make it American rather than European.  

It was also around this time (1870) that the United States government turned the Summer Solstice Festivals, which Native Europeans had been celebrating for thousands of years, into another patriotic holiday—the Fourth of July.

If the Christians hadn’t already turned the Winter Solstice into Christmas and the Spring Equinox into Easter, the government would have reappropriated those holidays as well.

2. Thanksgiving should not involve any white guilt because white people are the people that stopped conquering and enslaving others. They are the most special and strange people in the world.

Human history is one long story about different bands of monkeys conquering each other. Contrary to what was believed about hunter-gatherers in the sixties, there were no peaceful bands of humans. Any band unwilling to fight and defend its territory was wiped out. Native Americans were extremely violent, fighting each other, enslaving one another, and partaking in human sacrifices. One of the most important reasons why Cortez was able to conquer the Aztecs was that he had a Spanish man who could speak to the natives. Why did that Spanish man know their language? Because, on a scouting expedition, they had caught and enslaved him. He was their slave for eight years before Cortez bought him. Likewise in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Slavery and conquering is and always has been rampant.

Christianity made the Europeans special. It made them allow people of other races to join their tribe. This never happened with any other peoples in the history of the human race. The Mongols didn’t have any qualms about eradicating entire peoples, neither did tribes in Africa. The Europeans had strange rules about what it meant to fight morally starting in the middle ages and for this reason they often were tricked and lost badly to the Arabs who did not play by the same “noble” warfare rules that they did (rules like you cannot attack and unardmed man, and you must fight people face to face).

Europeans were the most technologically advanced people in the world in the 1500’s. They had guns and no one else did. If it had been Africans or Asians or Middle Easterners with the guns, would they have pondered the morality of wiping entire races off the Earth so they could take their land? Judging from what I have read in history, only Europeans think there is something wrong with genocide—becacuse they are individualists and everyone else is tribal. Everyone else thinks that morally, what is good for their tribe, is good. Only Europeans think that what is good should be universal.

Europeans could have taken all the land in the whole world at that point. They could have obliterated all peolles. But they didn’t. Instead, they brought their culture—their ideas of individualism and democracy and allowed everyone to live as long as they joined. This is unheard of. It’s amazing. Likewise that they fought one another

How to Find the Best Nanny or Babysitter

A reader emailed me recently asking for any advice I might have regarding the hiring of nannies and babysitters. Here is what I said:

What I do is post an ad looking for someone willing to learn (i.e. read). Qualifications and current knowledge are often cumbersome--I have found that training a blank slate is usually easier than retraining someone who thinks they know what they are doing. My only qualification is that the person is interested in learning and growth.

The first thing I have my potentials do is watch the 4-DVD set on caring for infants at RIE.org. I find the attitude of respect in those DVD's helpful even though my child is no longer an infant. Then I have my prospective nanny watch my 2 lectures on YouTube. After that we can have a real discussion about whether or not she/he would enjoy relating to children in the way I describe.

If the potential nanny or babysitter likes what (I will use "she" but it could be either) she has learned thus far and talks about being inspired, I continue with her. If she comments on the ideas being weird, I let her go and find someone else.

Then I begin training which involves her just coming to hang out and watch how I interact with my son. Then I watch her interact with him and give feedback. At the end of the first day, I pull out a stack of 5-10 books (most likely the ones from my recommended reading list) and show them to her and ask her which one she would like to read first. I loan her that book and tell her that when my son is busy, she can read. This is a double bonus: she is being "paid" for the time she spends reading and she ends up not "helicoptering" over my son all the time. Many of the girls I have trained have taken the books home and continued to read them in their free time. Some say they hate reading and never get through the first book--what I have found is that those people won't last long. It's a sign that the proper care of children is not interesting to them--and none of us will last that long or do that well at a job we are not interested in.

Recommended Reading List Link: http://roslynross.blogspot.com/p/reading-recommendations.html

UPDATE: a reader wrote to me the following in regards to the above advice about how to hire a great nanny--

I wanted to thank you for your insight; we hired a nanny! I spoke with her on the phone and got the feeling that she was definitely open to finding out more about what I was talking about. Then when we met in person, SHE asked ME if I had any books or resources she could read. I gave her Baby Knows Best, as my MIL is currently borrowing my RIE DVD's. She's currently coming to shadow about once a week or so for the next month so she can see us interact with him, and she's very inquisitive.
I felt a lot more confident looking for someone who was willing to learn instead of scouring for someone who already knew what I was looking for. It's almost embarrassing that I hadn't considered the idea myself, haha. I saw that I prompted a blog post, so hopefully others find your ideas helpful as well.

Children Raised in Reality Are Not Afraid on Halloween or Afraid of the Dark

Halloween was always my least favorite holiday when I worked with small children. There was always some costumed person the child saw while trick-or-treating that scared him or her to death. For years I spent every Halloween comforting traumatized, crying children. One little boy had nightmares for over a week following the holiday. 

I have long wondered if Anders would find costumed people scary. He has no concept for the scary things people dress as on Halloween i.e. would seeing a person dressed as wicked witch scare you, if you had no concept in your mind of evil witches using magic to ruin your life? Would a person dressed as a witch be scary if you had no concept of magic? Some of the costumes in the windows around Los Angeles are pretty evil looking, but Anders has no real concept of evil, so I have been curious to know how he will think about these things. Will he find evil faces scary or will he just think they look weird?

I have told Anders about the holiday coming up, Halloween in which people wear costumes, and recently I took him to a costume store. He knows about the concept of wearing costumes from the Renaissance Fair (which he loves) so costumes are a pretty positive thing for him. He has shown no interest thus far in the role-play costumes that kids his age often get into. For example, he loves construction and pretends to do it every day, but when I offered to buy him a construction outfit on three different occasions he said, "No,"

At the costume store (Cinema Secrets if you know it) there were some pretty fantastic and gruesome costumes on display, one in particular, a witch, was pretty horrifying. Anders pointed to it and said, "What's that?" I said, "That's a costume for someone who wants to pretend to be a very ugly, old lady. Some people call ugly, old ladies 'witches,' and when they are pretending to be a witch they laugh like this, 'He he he he he!'" I said, "Do you think this costume is scary or or ugly or just weird?" He said, "Not scary." I said, "Do you think it's ugly?" He said, "No." I said, "Weird then?" But he had already walked off, which means his answer was, "Boring." We looked at other things. He was most interested in the makeup that made people look like they had huge wounds, but he did not think that was scary either.

Anders does not want to dress up on Halloween, though I imagine if his father or I were going to dress up he would possibly change his mind, but we have no plans to. The only costume Anders showed any interest in was a bear costume, but he didn't want to wear it and in the end just wanted a little bear figurine to play with. (He is very interested in bears right now thanks to the Disney Nature Bear documentary I bought for our plane rides over the summer.) 

A side note: Anders is not afraid of the dark. He is afraid of falling when there are no lights on, but perhaps since he has never heard of ghosts or monsters and we have spend a lot of time playing with shadows, he has always been comfortable with the dark, inside and out, and has never needed a nightlight or anything like that.

Anyway, just a development update for those of you who are interested in knowing what happens when you raise your kids without fantasy fiction! 

Translating for Children: "I don't like you" can mean "I'm Done Playing With You"

Anders, almost 3, is playing with Devonna, his new babysitter. I come out of my room and Anders sees me. He runs to me and says, "Mama, I don't like Devonna."

Devonna feels hurt and starts to remind Anders of all the fun they have had together this morning. I tell Devonna that what Anders meant to say is that he has suddenly realized that he misses his mom and he would rather play with his mom right now than Devonna. I confirm with Anders that this is true.

Many kids, when they are done playing with someone, will say something like, "You're stupid." Anders has never heard name-calling so he used an "I" statement instead. (This made me happy!) Either way, it all goes back to NVC, to listening to one another and respecting each other's feelings instead of trying to defend ourselves or convince someone he doesn't feel what he says he does.

Are You Afraid Homeschooling Will Make Your Kid Weird?

Answers to some questions I was recently emailed in regards to nonreligious homeschooling:

Home-schooling is great in theory, but aren't you afraid your child will end up weird?

The reason some home-schooled kids seem weird to other kids is that they spend more time socializing with adults than children i.e. they get along better with adults. Which means they will get along with their peers just fine--once their peers are adults. The adults I know who were homeschooled as children--who I thought were weird when I was a kid--do not seem weird to me now. And vice versa, my adult friends who seem a little weird to me now, were not homeschooled as kids.

Which is to say: homeschooled kids don't end up weird. And people who are going to end up weird, are not "fixed" by going to school.

Aren't you afraid your child will be weird (as a child)?

First, what is "weird" about homeschooled children? I knew quite a few homeschoolers when I was a kid and, like I said above, I did think they were weird. They were all extremely different from one another i.e. they were weird in their own ways, but thinking about it now, what made them weird to child-me was how authentic they were: they weren't afraid to like really random things, they were very honest, and very themselves. No one had taught them about not being themselves and playing a socially acceptable role and liking only socially acceptable things.

They also got along way too well with my parents. As a kid, that bugged me. As an adult all I can think is, "Children who get along great with adults sound great!"

Second, is it truly horrible to be considered "weird" as a kid by the other kids? It's probably more horrible to be "weird" and at school than to be "weird" and at home. I was a "weird" kid. But I wasn't home schooled. I went to pubic school but I was being raised by hippies out in the hills. I had no access to most "normal" foods, or radio, or television.

On Facebook the other day a friend of mine noted that she had to rent Frozen for her child so he could understand how to play with his friends. My parents would never have done that. I was the kid who never saw those movies, who never quite got the game, the joke, what people were talking about or why certain things were considered cool. I was always an outsider studying my peers. But as a kid, I never concluded that I was the one who was "weird." I thought the other kids were weird.

When I was a senior in college, Netflix and my laptop enabled me to watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Sex and the City, and Friends. It was a revelation. Everything that had never made sense to me about my peers in high school and college suddenly made sense--why my girlfriends talked about school and sex the way they did, why my friends thought friendship meant sitting around making fun of one another.

I am really glad that I watched these shows later and understood how they influenced my friends. Rather than shaping me, watching them (and any television I watch today) feels more like an anthropological study than anything else. I love that.

Which is to say: I am not afraid of my son being his authentic self instead of playing roles he learns in school and on television.

Aren't you afraid regular Americans will think your child is weird?

What is this desperate need for approval from this imagined judge who doesn't actually exist? Who is this "regular American" running around telling people if they are normal or weird?

How many friends do you need? How many people have to like you for you to love your life? Do other people's judgements of you matter at all if you like yourself? Would you do business with someone if you liked their product, but thought they were a little weird? Does being weird stop you from having an amazing life? If people meet my son and think he is weird--what will that do? What's the problem? What is it stopping him from achieving? What needs will it prevent him from meeting?

The three "weird" home schooled girls I knew as a kid grew up, found jobs, and are all married now. They married men who went to public school. Two of them have kids. They are functional members of society. The two I interviewed before writing this piece both plan to home school their own kids.

Assuming your child does end up weird, do you think he will resent being weird?

In order to resent being weird, my child has to look out at regular Americans and think they are super cool and wish he were more like them. I have a hard time imagining that happening. 

Or he has to think that being weird or different is bad in some way. Which is not how it went for me at all--if you don't watch television, you don't know that being weird is bad. You don't know that you are supposed to be deeply ashamed of being different or unpopular. You miss that memo. For example, when I was in 10th grade a girl made fun of me by saying that she was "Tommy Hilfiger", her other friend was "Calvin Klein" and I was "Kmart." What passed through my mind when she called me Kmart was not shame but confusion, "No. No. I shop at Walmart. They don't have a Kmart where I live," I said. She was confused for a minute and then she said, "No, I just mean your clothes are cheap," and I said, "What?! Walmart is so expensive!" Because I normally shopped at Goodwill. 

Like me, neither of the women I interviewed for this piece thought she was weird when she was a kid. Weird kids don't necessarily conclude that they are weird. They often conclude the opposite--that you are weird.

That being said: If my son was feeling unhappy about something, I would always try to help him solve the problem.

Don't you think your child would rather go to school?

LOL. Ummmmmm.... no.

That being said, from what I have read about homeschooling, I expect that at some point Anders will ask to go to school. I expect him to go and flee in horror in less than three months. This is what I have read is the norm among most home unschooling families.

Don't you think your child, once he is an adult who realizes he is weird, will wish he had gone to school?

No, because he won't be weird any more by the time he is an adult. And also--

I went to school. I graduated valedictorian from my elementary, junior, and senior high schools and did very well at Wesleyan University. I memorized everything I was supposed to. I jumped through every hoop. And I enjoyed the experience a little. But, looking back, I think they were a total waste of my time, damaging to my intrinsic motivation, and my authentic self. 

School, until I knew what I wanted to do, was fine. I didn't mind it that much. But when I was thirteen and fell in love with the stage and decided that is what I wanted to do with my life, being told to wait ten years was torture. At the time, I didn't mind all that much. So much life seemed to stretch before me I thought, "Sure, I can learn all these other things for ten years to make my parents happy." When I was 22 and finally free, it hit me that: I was ten years behind children who had had the support of their parents in pursing their dreams, I was $40,000 in student-loan debt and needed to get on the work-treadmill to pay that off, my fertility would drop 50% in 8 short years so if I wanted to have kids I would have to climb my career ladder impossibly fast or not have kids or accept the risks of having them later. My father told me the other day his only dream for his kids was that they went to college and didn't ask for money afterward. That was how he defined "successful parenting." No wonder he couldn't see me, the child in front of him, no wonder he couldn't help me meet my needs to create a life I wanted. He was just doing what it took to be a "Good Parent."

In The Case Against Adolescence and Escape from Childhood I learned that historically most people started their first business between the ages of 12 to 22. If you keep a child in school until they are 22, they are more likely to be an employee than an entrepreneur. I learned that we reach our peak of energy and brain performance between the ages of 13 and 16. I learned that most revolutionaries are 16-22. If you keep kids busy and distracted in school until they are 22, there will be a lower likelihood of political unrest.

I am not going to home-unschool my son and push him to have a career at the age of 13. I am going to listen to Anders and support him, to take him, and his dreams seriously.

If your child child did want to go to school, would you support him?

Would you support your child doing crack?

Like I said above, I expect my son to go to school and I expect him to not stay all that long. If he announced that he loved school and wanted to go forever I would ask what he loved about it and see if he could get those needs met in a way that would meet my needs as well. But I don't use force on my son and I don't plan to.

Moreover, I will always make every effort to see the person in front of me and listen.

What do you think are the disadvantages to being homeschooled?

Learning in a group can be easier and more fun than learning by yourself--but there are endless classes and camps for kids these days, especially in Los Angeles so I am not overly concerned about this.

I am a little concerned about the selection of kids that will be available for Anders to have as friends. However, I am insanely happy with the selection of adults Anders already considers his friends and since home schoolers tend to make friends with adults and get along better with their parents--I'm not overly concerned about this either.

My husband and I are very different from "regular Americans." It is frustrating at times to be so different from most of the rest of society. But in order to fit in, we would have to feed our bodies poison every day. We would have to think poisonous things and do poisonous things to others. We often joke that if we had it to over again we would take the blue pill but as time goes on we're finding our people and creating quite a life for ourselves. I am pretty excited about the path that we are on and I am unconvinced that mainstreamers are actually happier and less lonely than we are.

The main disadvantage I can see is for me, not my son. I am still trying to figure out how to "bring my son to life with me" rather than make my son my life. That is very hard to do in the time and place that I currently live. Ideas are welcome!

Book Review - Happiness by Darrin McMahon

To be clear, I loved this book. Couldn’t put it down. But it was really annoying to read because the author:
1. has obviously not read Joseph Campbell or Ayn Rand and any book analyizing happiness from Every Different Perspective Ever that hasn’t read those authors is just sloppy.
2. tried way too hard to see something that wasn’t really there. It is clear to me by reading his exerpts that most of the thinkers he quotes thought very clearly and thoroughly about happiness—there was much less "development over time" than he claims there is. His book contradicts itself in this way, claiming there was a new development in the concept of happiness when I could turn back 200 pages and see that, nope, actually that had been around for a long time, like happy endings to stories. No dude, they were not invented in the 1800’s, off the top of my head—Shakespeare?
3. His writing style killed me. He was full of random methaphors that pulled me out of his book like, “Strong black coffee to clear the head of an evenings wine, his work served as a sobering reminder of the ancient wisdom of the Christian Fall.” Why he feels the need to express such a simple idea in this way is beyond me! There are whole paragraphs dedicated to “setting the mood” that just destroyed this book: “There may have been an occasional cough as Lequinio took his place at the pulpit, the scratch of a workman’s boots, perhaps, side-long glances, the rustling of clothes…” WHAT??? Just friggin give me the quote!!! Even more annoying was when he spent twenty pages telling the life story of everyone he wanted to quote. If their life story was relevant that would have been great. But it wasn’t. This book could have been 150 pages and would have been so much more focused and clear! Author needs to read The Elements of Style.

Famous ideas about happiness (but keep in mind these thinkers were not nearly as one-sided as these summaries make it seem):
-Ancient Greece: Any happiness anyone experiences is a miracle since as all life is tragic, happiness is pure luck, we are victims of fate
-Aristotle: The goal is to be happy in this life, here and now.
-Plato: Happiness is the ideal that does not exist, Heaven
-Epicurus: Pleasure is the goal (though keep in mind pleasure is defined by him as minimizing pain by living a simple life in the country)
-Stoics: Just be happy, whatever your circumstances, just decide to be happy and be happy *note this is like today's Positive Psychology movement!
-Zeno: Learn to not desire anything and then you will be happy
-Dark Ages: Bear the pain of life now and be rewarded in Heaven—the only possible happiness is suffering now so that you can be happy in death, embrace suffering, suffering IS happiness!
-Aquinas: happiness is the process of fully realizing ourselves, happiness is the hope of Heaven, i.e. the hope of happiness
-Martin Luther: heaven and hell are actually psychological places, omg God wants us to be happy!
-Renaissance: Good people are happy. Bad people are unhappy. You’d better be happy or we know you’re bad
-Rousseau: intellectual people can’t be happy, only dumb people, the only happiness is trying to make other people happy i.e. self-sacrifice, people can be forced to be happy if we control their needs, let us create a new man and a new nature! Then we will be happy
-The Romantics: happiness is god, have you noticed how happy kids are? Let’s be like them! Be one with the world. No ego! Savages are happy too!
-Schopenhauer: Art is the only happiess i.e. the escape we feel when contemplating art i.e. not actually being alive is the only happiness
-Kant: Plato and Renaissance repeat—our duty in this life is to act in a way that renders us worthy of happiness, only good boys and girls get to be happy!
-Locke and the Libertarians: One must assume responsibility of being happy for onself
-Mill (and Rand if the author had read her): Happiness cannot be the goal, an emotion cannot be the goal, rather, happiness is what happens when you are pursuing your goals, you cannot “catch” an emotion, the minute you focus on them they are gone, liberty trumps happiness
-Industrialists: wealth is happiness
-Marx: work is happiness (similar to stoics, learning to love what you have to do anyway)
-Nietzsche: self-esteem is happiness. And power.
-Freud: unhappiness is life. The only goal is to eliminate gratuitous suffering (like Schopenhauer) And stop being delusional and preaching about happiness. You may find satisfaction in life from being loved.
-Modern Science: happiness is genetic, you have no control over it, so if you are not happy you should take drugs
-The Author's Conclusion: The idea that we can find happiness is a modern invention, as are the feelings of failure when we do not succeed. “On the whole the momentum of modern culture has been in the direction of earthly content, accompanied by a steady expanding sense of perogative, entitlement, means, and due… God was happiness, happiness has since become our god… And happiness, we might say, has proved a taskmaster as hard, at times, as the God it has sought to replace.”

Other Notes
-What the intellectuals write about and leave for posterity often does not reflect reality for the masses.
-Since Ancient Greece man has been writing an endless stream of self-help books. I mean endless.
-Aristotle believed that only those who were wealthy enough to have leisure, education, and indepence could be happy. Only those who have organized their lives so as to escape its ordinary conditions (of slaving away for survival) can be happy. I am inclined to agree!
-Many people throughout history have idealized simple country life as a happier life
-Commies seeking to level the playing field (how can anyone be happy if he is jealous of his neighbor?!) have been around forever too
-Great Schopenhaur quote: Accordingly optimism is not only a false but also a pernicious doctrine, for it presents life as a desirable state and man’s happiness as its aim and object. Starting from this, everyone belives he has the most legitimate claim to happiness and enjoyment. If, as usually happens, these do not fall to his lot, he belives that he suffers an injustice, in fact, that he misses the whole point of existence; whereas it is far more correct to regard work, privation, misery, and suffering crowned by death, as the aim and object of life.”

Being Authentic with Children

There is a ton of info out there on what to do with emotional children, but what about emotional parents?

Almost all the parenting literature out there, even the very best stuff, encourages parents to be fake with their kids. Kids get to cry and we accept their feelings, but kids cannot see their parents be upset. Teach kids to cry and rage, but if a mom wants to cry or rage she should do it into her pillow with her door closed so as not to upset her children.

How am I supposed to teach my son to accept and not repress his emotions, if I model repression of my own? And why would I want to pretend that life is something other than it is? My son doesn't need a fake perfect-mom. He needs reality. And the reality is that adults have tons of strong emotions, just like kids.

Science shows that kids generally ARE terrified when they see their parents upset--whether crying or yelling. I think the problem is created by parents who hide their emotions most of the time so when they do emote in front of their kids, it is scary in its difference-from-the-norm. The other part of the problem is that when parents do finally show emotions they do scary things. Mom is calm, calm, calm and then blows up and does something mean to the child. If Mom's strong emotions always equal something horrible happening to the child, of course he will react to emotional people (and his own emotions) with fear. So I strive to remedy these two things by--

1) Being authentic with my son. I share feelings I have throughout the day every day. Feelings of joy, peace, appreciation, gratitude, love, and also feelings of frustration, anger, hurt, sadness, and exhaustion. How we are feeling is something we talk about often--my son's feelings and mine. None of these are foreign concepts.

2) Our strong emotions are not scary because we don't behave in harmful ways when we are feeling them. My being sad or mad does not mean anything for Anders except that I am experiencing a strong feeling. I'm not suddenly mean to him--what I am feeling is about me.

Which means there is no contradiction in the messages Anders gets. When he has strong feelings, I stop what I am doing and connect with him and see if he wants me to hold him until his emotions have passed. When I have strong feelings, his father stops what he is doing and connects with me and holds me until my feelings have passed (and vice versa).

The result is that Anders does not exhibit signs of shame or fear when one of his parents is upset, rather he is comfortable in his skin and confident in his efficacy--well, here is what happened last night:

[It is the end of a very long day. Anders is in bed waiting for Mama. Mama is coming back from the bathroom and stubs her toe. That's the last straw for Mama, she starts crying.]

Anders: Mama sad?

Mama: Yeah, I stubbed my toe. I'm just really tired.

[Anders pats the bed.]

Anders: Come here, Mama. I cuddle you.

[Mama lies down in the bed and Anders puts his little arm around her neck.]

Mama: Thanks, Anders.

Anders: Tell me about it. Tell me what you feeling.

Mama: Well... I was sad because I was feeling so tired and then I stubbed my toe and it hurt. But now I am lying down resting and I feel very cared for so... now I feel happy.

Anders: Mama happy?! Oh yay! I like you, Mama.

[Anders gives Mama a kiss and rolls over. He is sleeping in less than thirty seconds.]

This is life as Anders knows it! This is how Anders will react to his upset girlfriend one day! This is how Anders will talk to his own kids! This is how Anders will talk to himself! 

Three Conversations With My 2.5-Year-Old

Yesterday Anders and I were reading a book about cats. When I read this page, Anders pointed to the "scary cat" and said, "He not scary. He frustrated. Soooooo frustrated. "

A little while later I said, "Anders, I am going to the Culture Club today. Do you want anything." Anders said, "Almonds. And a cement mixer." *This is called "wishful thinking" on the part of a toddler. He knows the Culture Club sells food and not cement mixers. But he enjoys the thought of buying a cement mixer.

This morning Anders was playing a friend of ours who was visiting. Anders was holding his green plastic saw and said to our friend, "I saw you." Our friend looked horrified and said, "Noooooooooo!!!" Anders said, "It not real saw. It pretend saw." *Anders likes to pretend to fix things with his tools. Previously he has always pretended to fix his tractor, his bike or walls. Yesterday a well-meaning adult friend of ours pretended to fix Anders with Anders's tools... And now Anders likes to pretend to fix people with his tools as well. It looks identical to the tractor video I posted except it's a person instead of the tractor. 

Raising Kids Without Fiction Q & A

Recently I was emailed the following questions and thought I should post my answers to them on the blog!

Q: I think it's interesting that you are not exposing your son to fantasy and I am curious when you anticipate his ability to understand fantasy without it confusing his perception of reality will be?

A: A paper that I read recently on fantasy and the "folkloric realization" in children has led me to believe that he may be pretty clear by the time he is 4 (as compared to average American children who become clear around 9). But the study only covered children's understandings of anthropomorphic animals, not of things like magic. So when he is 4, I will start sharing stories about anthropomorphic animals with him and see how that goes, but I plan to hold off on the stories with magic until later. 

Q: And do you think that it would be beneficial to be honest and clearer (knowing the limits of this) with young children when they encounter fantasy as an alternative to not exposing them to it?

A: I have a friend who raised his kids that way, explaining to them all the time real and not real. He thinks it helped and at the time was happy with his solution to the problem, but he says if he had it to over again he would have done what I am doing because even if the child understands there is "something" about the princess in the movie that "isn't real", that does not change what the child will now be interested in and passionate about. The child will who gets clear explanations, assuming he does fully understand them and it doesn't dammage his self-esteem, will still spend the first 8 or so years of his/her life planning and practicing being either superman or a princess, planning and practicing for a life that will never happen and for living in a world that does not exist.

I notice that kids at my camp who are, for lack of a better word, "fictionalized" tend to think about the world in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys". This makes them act differently than the non-fictionalized kids. For example, if Anders is feeling mad, he says, "Feel mad!" whereas if a fictionalized kid is feeling angry they say, "I'm Lex Luther!" (or some other bad guy). My son understands that he feels mad. The other kid understands that if you feel a certain way, you are a bad guy. It's similar when the fictionalized kids are angry at another child. Anders will say, "Mad! I take toy!!!" and perhaps he will try to grab the toy back. The fictionalized kid will say, "Bad! Bad! I kill you!" and again, perhaps try to take the toy back.

I don't think it's helpful for children to be conceptualizing people they feel angry at as "bad", rather than being aware of what that person did and what they are feeling. Many adults think that way for their entire lives and it does not serve them!

Now, that begets the question: can you spend a lot of time explaining to your child reality and fantasy and also explaining to him that the language used in fictional stories about good and evil is not helpful... yes, you can. But it will still change his psychology, sense of life and the universe and how he thinks about life. Nathaniel Branden writes about how Ayn Rand, in her philosophy, writes about having great respect for emotions but the characters in her books only ever model repression of emotions. Her readers, almost 100% of the time, will model themselves after her characters rather than her philosophy.

A new realization on my part that I had thanks to all the reading I have been doing about fiction and fantasy is that when I get in touch with my subconscious, my inner 4-year-old, I am terribly sad that this is life. I have such a strong desire to be in long gowns and live in a castle and go to balls.... When I get in touch with my inner 16-year-old, I am heart broken that magic isn't real, that I wasn't chosen by the fairies or whoever to suddenly be told I had magic and was really a princess or a witch who got to go live in a reality far more cool than this one. It doesn't feel like a big deal from where I am sitting now, but if I really let myself focus and feel it--it is a big deal. I don't wish that on my kids. I want them to envision and practice and be excited and plan for life as it is. It is one thing to fantasize about alternate realities when you are older and really enjoy it. It is another thing to really, deeply believe in them and then find out they are not real (at least that is what I have concluded at this point).

Other notes: 

Anders, and this should be needless to say, does not attempt to talk to trees and has never named one of his toys. The fictionalized kids do both of these things.

When we wrap Anders up in a towel we continue to be clear:

Mama: Can I pretend you are a burrito?"

Anders, shrieking: Yes!!!

Mama: Can I pretend to eat you?!!!

Anders, giggling: Yes!!!!

[And then I pretend to eat him.]

For this reason, Anders is already fairly clear on the difference between pretending to do and be things and really doing and being things. This will be very helpful later when he is exposed to fiction. It is also helpful for him to conceptualize now. He can tell me he wants to "pretend make eggs" and then I know that he does not need me to turn on the stove.

Conclusions About Exposing Children to Fantasy Fiction: Montessori Was (Mostly) Right

I just finished reading:
Fiction and Fictionalism
Fiction and Metaphysics
The Art of Fiction
The Romantic Manifesto
A Child's Work: The Importance of Fantasy Play
Daydreaming and Fantasy
The Kingdom of Childhood: Introductory Talks on Waldorf Education
The Uses of Enchantment
A Plague of Fantasies
Under Deadman's Skin: Discovering the Meaning of Children's Violent Play
The Secret of Childhood
The Child in the Family
The Scientist in the Crib
How Children Learn
And a bunch of Joseph Campbell talks

My conclusions about fantasy-fiction for children thus far are--

-Humans have been telling stories about talking animals and gods with magic for a long time
-These stories, when taken as truth (religion), are believed by both the child and the adult, thus there is no damage to the relationship because there has been no lying. Depending on how much the child's own rational conclusions disagree with the adults, there can be some trauma to the child's rational faculty
-These stories, when not taken as truth such as in folk stories of anthropomorphic animals, won't confuse children very much or for very long if the following conditions are met: 1) that the stories are told or read and do not have pictures 2) that the child has plenty of exposure to that real animal in addition to the anthropomorphic stories he hears
-The American childhood, with all the anthropomorphic inanimate objects and animals in movies, is extremely confusing and debilitating to young children, setting them back many years in their "folkloric realization" compared to their own ancestors and their non-western peers. How damaging this is to their self-esteem, relationships and confidence in thinking for themselves is inconclusive.

If you are interested in reading more on this subject I recommend The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand and the first chapter of The Art of Fiction by Ayn Rand were the most clarifying book I read on the subject. Joseph Campbell's stuff is incredible for understanding the place of myth and stories in human lives. Daydreaming and Fantasy was well-organized and I appreciated that it its ability to help me think about fantasy and fiction, but it was full of illogical conclusions. The Secret of Childhood and The Child in the Family by Maria Montessori did a great job of helping me to understand how children think and learn. The Scientist in the Crib was good too.

New Research on Children and Reality

From the article:

"The [Western] mind also appears to be unique in terms of how it comes to understand and interact with the natural world. Studies show that Western urban children grow up so closed off in man-made environments that their brains never form a deep or complex connection to the natural world. While studying children from the U.S., researchers have suggested a developmental timeline for what is called “folkbiological reasoning.” These studies posit that it is not until children are around 7 years old that they stop projecting human qualities onto animals and begin to understand that humans are one animal among many. Compared to Yucatec Maya communities in Mexico, however, Western urban children appear to be developmentally delayed in this regard. Children who grow up constantly interacting with the natural world are much less likely to anthropomorphize other living things into late childhood."

"Given that people living in WEIRD societies don’t routinely encounter or interact with animals other than humans or pets, it’s not surprising that they end up with a rather cartoonish understanding of the natural world. “Indeed,” the report concluded, “studying the cognitive development of folkbiology in urban children would seem the equivalent of studying ‘normal’ physical growth in malnourished children.”

http://www.psmag.com/magazines/magazine-feature-story-magazines/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/

Nursing Babies To Sleep is Awesome!

What will your future be like if your baby is "trained" to be nursed to sleep? Here is a conversation I had today with my 2.5-year-old:

Mama: Anders, we nursed a lot yesterday, so I don't want to nurse you to sleep at your nap time right now. Would you mind going on a walk instead?

Anders: I go on a walk in the stroller and then fall asleep and sleep in the stroller. 

Mama: I would really appreciate it.

[Anders goes to the other room to get his stroller. After we walk in his stroller for less than three minutes he is sound asleep.]

Standard American Parenting books caused me to be sooooo afraid of having a baby habituated to nursing himself to sleep. It has never been a problem. Not for babysitters and not for me. Many days he doesn't nurse to sleep anyway, he just climbs up into my lap and passes out. There is so much respect between us, so much effort to meet each other's needs... it's so beautiful. 

What To Do About Nightmares

Don't expose young children to fantasy fiction.

I was reading the following article--

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121113134926.htm

and I thought it was so INSANE. Write a letter to the monster? Give your child a special toy to help him deal with his fears about the monster? WHY ARE YOU TEACHING YOUNG CHILDREN WHO CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REALITY AND FICTION ABOUT MONSTERS IN THE FIRST PLACE? It's just mean.

In the world I live in, at some point between 8pm and 10pm my toddler tells me he wants to go to bed or I tell him I want to go to bed and.... we go to bed. He is not afraid of under the bed, the closet or the dark. He doesn't hesitate to walk around the house in the dark if there is something he wants in another room or to go outside when it is dark to get a toy he wants. He has had a total of three nightmares in his entire life and all three took place the week after we moved into a new house and they were about things like there being no more cookies or someone taking a toy from him. 

I listen to people talk about their children's nightmares and struggles with bedtime and irrational fears and... I feel so sad for them and for their poor, scared kids. I am happy to be raising my son the way I am!! So happy to keep discovering that a child raised the way I advised is even more amazing that I hypothesized! I wish people knew how easy and fun and just incredible and smart and capable and competent "normal" two-year-olds are. 

Update: Anders is almost 4 and he has yet to come running to my room after a bad dream. He sleeps with me some nights and in his own bed some nights. It's all up to him. During stressful times he sleeps more often with me. 

Update: Anders started getting nightmares at age seven when he started reading Harry Potter. Happily, he is old enough to understand that the nightmares are a result of reading Harry Potter and that he has to decide whether he wants to read HP or not have nightmares. The desire to read HP outweighs the desire to not have nightmares so, he accepts them. He is now almost nine years old and, though he admits to having nightmares, has never once come to my room in the middle of the night complaining or feeling too afraid to go back to sleep.

Review of Steiner's The Kingdom of Childhood AKA Waldorf Education AKA How To Destroy Your Child's Mind

Just read Rudolf Steiner's The Kingdom of Childhood: Introductory Talks on Waldorf Education. That is the last book I will ever read about Waldorf. 

I really wanted to like Waldorf because one of my close friends is really into it. Instead, I think it is one of the greatest evils done to children in this day and age. Many Waldorf ideas have made it out into Standard American Parenting practices and are to blame for many of the problems in parenting today, not to mention the problem with kids, teens, and adults who suffer from such major self-esteem problems.

But first, let's talk about what's good: I totally agree that how we relate to children (and with each other and with ourselves) should involve more awareness of our whole person and our emotional selves. Totally agree all people who work with children need to observe more. Totally agree children should learn things that apply to real life. Totally agree there should be shoemakers and papermakers at every school. Totally agree that only the most heroic people should work with children. Totally agree that one should put their relationship first, always first, with another person. Totally agree that teachers should be autonomous--well... there should be as great a variety in education opportunities as there are restaurants so some schools would have autonomous teachers and some would not. But there would be that option for parents to choose from.

And now what sucks a lot about Waldorf: Steiner gives lip service to authenticity but actually wants teachers to be inauthentic. He wants them to be actors, actors who can manipulate children into feeling in certain "right" ways. Waldorf education uses song and dance to "get children to do, learn and be," but that is exactly what is wrong with every other form of education. Just because you are manipulating with song and dance does not make it any less a manipulation.

He gives lip service, like everyone else, to allowing children to be who they are, but then goes on to describe all the "lessons," all the things they will have to do with their day whether they want to or not. And if the child doesn't want to--the teacher isn't being enthusiastic/manipulative enough.

His ideas about age-appropriateness of different learnings are laughable (if they weren't so depressing). "You must observe how, little by little, curiosity and longing for knowledge begin to show themselves....between 7 and 14." Are you kidding? Have you ever met a baby? I have never met even a newborn who wasn't working its butt off to understand the world. Not to mention the most curious people on the planet--toddlers.

And the worst of the worst, the reason I want to travel back in time and smack this man: "As yet the child has no reasoning powers and anyone who tries to appeal to the intellect of a child of seven is quite on the wrong lines. The child has fantasy, and this fantasy is what we must engage....It is important to speak of everything around the children--plants, animals and even stones--in a way that all these things talk to each other, that they act among themselves like human beings, that they tell each other things, that they love and hate each other..." Soooo he wants us to lie to children (and in doing so damage our relationship with them). He wants us to confuse them about reality (and in doing so destroy their self-esteem and possibly their minds.) 

I feel so angry at this man. And all the innocent people who have not studied this subject as much as I have and go around destroying their children with good intentions.

Well, now at least I understand why Disney movies are the way they are.

The problem is that Steiner, like most people, have never met or studied real children. They only meet and study the messes parents create. Children who are seven are confused about reality because their parents destroy their ability to understand reality when they were first trying to understand it--back when they were two. Yes, they often revert to fantasy because they assume they are too stupid to understand reality. The fantasy world was a world created for children by the Victorians who didn't want their kids to know about real life. In the history of the world, in cultures all around the world, children are extremely competent and rational beings. Read The Lifeways of Hunter Gatherers or The Case Against Adolescence or The Secret of Childhood or Dear Parents: Caring for Infants With Respect or The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem.

Children do not "demand" we turn everything into fantasy for them unless we first make them morons who think they are unfit to understand reality. Study history, Steiner. SMACK.

Read John Holt! We CREATE those children. Children don't want to be that. Children want to be competent at life.  And that is exactly why we have had so many generations of insecure, miserable automatons who don't have the self-esteem in their own ability to understand reality so they just become sheep and do what they are told. NEVER lie to children. That is how you destroy your relationship with them and their self-esteem.

His ideas about not teaching kids to read until they are much older are retarded. Because they think letters are demonic? Really?! My two-year-old is obsessed with reading and can sound out almost the entire alphabet and not because I have ever asked him to but because he sees me reading and asks me about it. Reading and writing are not suited to humans until they are 11 or 12? How about whenever the kid wants? How about there are no rules and when the kid is interested, he IS suited.

"It is bad indeed to take notice of something that is negative." REALLY??? Yes, let us again deny reality to children. Let us teach them to disown all non-positive feelings so they turn to escapism whenever they feel something they are not supposed to ever feel.

Book Review - Women, Food and God

*My book reviews are not like my other blog posts in that they are a brain-dump rather than a well-formulated essay. They are my notes [for me] from a recent book I finished. *

I read this book substituting the word "drug" for food because addiction is addiction. Some people use food to escape and others use video games, alcohol, sex, television, etc. Addiction fascinates me or rather the question: is it possible to raise children in such a way that they would not need any addictions or is the desire to escape a part of all human life? Is life tolerable without drugs? Is it really so black and white: "Either you want to wake up or go to sleep. You either want to live or you want to die."

So scary to read books like this and think the best thing for me to do with Anders when it comes to food is to have no opinion and let him love all of it. I keep reading these books and they all say the same thing yet part of me desperately wants Anders to feel great shame and fear when he sits down to eat junk (like me). At the same time it makes so much sense that if he is allowed to enjoy his junk food, he wont eat so much of it. It won't be used as a drug to escape but rather for enjoyment. That is the essential question I am trying to answer--how to deal with drugs when it comes to my children.

This book makes me believe that I don't need to worry about drugs, only about continuing to teach Anders to be present and that he is allowed to want what he wants and offering him a safe place to feel what he feels. "Awareness and compulsion cannot coexist." The struggle with addiction and desire to escape is not a struggle of will-power or lack of self-control, it's not about the drug, it's about self-love, wanting and having.

How to not need drugs: to know at a deep level that your life can finally be--and always was--for you, only you. To know that you are entitled to joy.

When to Stop Modeling and Start Coercing

Loved this blog post--

http://www.janetlansbury.com/2014/01/theyll-grow-into-it-trusting-children-to-develop-manners-toilet-skills-emotional-regulation-and-more/

The "But what about the roads?!" question I get is, "But what if your child runs into the street?!!!" The short answer is: my son never tried to run into the street.

The longer answer is that it was really really hard for me to trust Anders around cars. But when he was about one and showed me that he was ready, that he understood cars, I decided to take a deep breath and see just how much I could trust him.

It started with him climbing from the edge of the sidewalk down to the street. We talked a lot about that transition from the curb where I felt like he was kind-of-safe to the gutter where I felt afraid about cars coming and not seeing him. My son showed me, over and over again, that when a car was coming he was just as scared as I was and wanted to be far from the curb on the sidewalk or in my arms. Anders showed me over and over that no matter how enthralled he was with leaves in the gutter, when he heard a car he would rush up to the sidewalk.

By trusting and waiting and watching, I learned that when there were no cars moving anywhere within hearing distance, Anders felt comfortable crossing the street without holding my hand. He would walk next to me, sometimes a few feet in front. Because I allowed him to do this I was able to learn that the minute Anders could hear a car, however far away, he would ask to be held. In parking lots he always asks to be held.

I learned that if we were at the park and Anders suddenly ran for the street, it was because he wanted a better view of something, like a train going by. I learned that even if it looked like was going to dash into the street, he wouldn't. He would stop at the curb. (Anders only ever did this twice though, once for a train and once for a dog.)

For the record I did remove him from the street coercively a few times but it was never about him and my trust in his judgement, it was always about where we were and crowds of people nearby watching and freaking out about the baby near the road.