Unlimited Television? And Crack? Why I Am Not a "Radical Unschooler" When It Comes to Television and Other Drugs

A reader called me recently to discuss my approach to screen time. She found it fascinating that I am so strongly pro freedom, and yet strongly against unlimited screen time for my son.

How we do screen time: We don't own a television, but we do own computers, iphones, and an ipad. Occasionally, maybe once a week, we watch documentaries on our computers or the ipad. On the full moons we watch a fiction movie. We have educational games on the ipad that are played sporadically, maybe once a month.

This arrangement, for my family at this time, is quite simply not a problem. It's not a problem for me; it's not a problem for Tom, and it's not a problem for Anders. So first, I never really thought very much about the unlimited television question because there was just no problem that needed to be solved.

But my reader asked me to consider: Should Anders be watching more television? Is he being deprived of valuable life experiences? Have I poisoned him against television by reading to him  chapters from Remotely Controlled and Living Outside the Box and explaining to him that television is a drug to be used with care? Have I deprived him of making his own conclusions about television by helping him draw the connection between his ability to pay attention to his math and the amount of television he watches? Isn't it controlling and therefore against my philosophy to say to Anders, "I notice you have been watching television for over an hour now, and I am wondering if you want to do something else?"

Great questions!

My first response is that I don't believe in biting my tongue and taking a deep breath when my son is doing something that makes me uncomfortable. Because my needs matter too. When Anders was two he liked to climb very high and, though he never fell or even seemed unsafe, I would sometimes get uncomfortable and ask him to come down. "Anders, I am sure you are safe up there, but the stress in my body is so intense right now, I can hardly handle it. I feel so much fear I might start crying. I am wondering if you would be willing to come down?" He always came down – because my needs matter to him. I think that's wonderful. I think this negotiation of needs is the dance of healthy human relationships.

Because here's the thing: Bite your tongue all you want, if your veins are coursing with stress hormones, those are going to affect the people around you. Idealize that away all you want, it's a fact of human nature. (Presented compellingly in the book Connected by Nicholas A. Christakis and James H. Fowler.) The fact that anxiety felt by one family member will eventually most likely be felt by all family members for one reason or another is also written about in Bowen's work on family systems theory. These facts should never be used as control mechanisms, but between respectful people who have a healthy relationship – I need to know when what I am doing is stressing you out because your stress is going to get passed around to every member of our household.

I love NVC, but I don't buy into the idea that, "We are not responsible for other people's feeling's at all." There's just no common sense there. It may be a good approach to offenses caused by strangers or to unhealthy relationships, but in close, healthy relationship, I think it is more true and more helpful to believe that, "It takes two to tango." In our family, we consider all problems we have relationship problems for both of us to solve together. You're insecure? Yes, you need to take responsibility and do what you can do to solve that problem, but because we are married, it's my problem too. You're wanting to numb out into a drug? That's definitely a problem you need to look into, but because I am your mother, that's a problem I will look into too. You needs matter to me; let's solve this together.

This was one of the most interesting things I learned in marriage. Before I met Tom I lived by myself and I had no problems with myself so ... there just wasn't a lot of drama there. Then Tom moved in and suddenly I close all the cupboards too loudly and my desk is too messy. Suddenly, I had problems. Or rather we had problems. It wasn't my job to placate Tom by training myself to be quieter and neater, and it wasn't Tom's job to accept me for who I am and deal with his feelings on his own; it was our job to be sensitive to one another, accept one another, and give each other gifts.

When I peruse the unlimited screen time approach to television and video games, I find a lot of it disrespectful to parents, to their needs and discomforts. I find that the abstract ideal of freedom is presented as more important than creating a relationship between the parent and child that works for both of them. There is no right answer here. There is no "should" when it comes to how I keep my desk. There is only what works for me and what doesn't and what works for other members of my household and what doesn't. In a household focused on healthy relationships, everyones needs matter, even their irrational ones.

But I don't think my discomfort around television and video games is irrational. There is a reason parents feel instinctively worried when they see their child watching television or playing video games, because no matter how hard you try to tell yourself it's okay, deep down, you know your kid is on drugs. Meth to be specific. Television and video games are in the same addictive category as meth. 

"There are few things ever dreamed of, smoked, or injected that have as addictive an effect on our brains as technology. This is how our devices keep us captive and always coming back for more. The definitive Internet act of our times is a perfect metaphor for the promise of reward: We search. And we search. And we search some more, clicking that mouse like – well, like a rat in a cage seeking another "hit," looking for that elusive reward that will finally feel like enough.... Computer and video game designers intentionally manipulate the reward system to keep players hooked. The promise that the next level or big win could happen at any time is what makes a game so compelling. It's also what makes a game so hard to quit. One study found that playing a video game led to dopamine increases equivalent to amphetamine use – and it's this dopamine rush that makes both so addictive. (Kelly McGonigal, Ph.D. in The Willpower Instinct: How Self Control Works, Why It Matters, and What You Can Do to Get More of It.)

"Television is unique, the perfect medium to produce strong rewards for paying attention to something. So what is so powerful about this reward? Compared to the pace with which real life unfolds and is experienced by young children, television portrays life with the fast-forward button fully pressed. Rapidly changing images, scenery and events, and high-fidelity sounds are overly stimulating and, of course, extremely interesting. Once you are used to food with monosodium glutamate flavour enhancer, real food doesn't taste as interesting. Television is the flavour enhancer of the audiovisual world. Nothing in real life is comparable to this. Television overpays the young child to pay attention to it, and in so doing it seems to physically spoil and damage his attention circuits. In effect, television corrupts the reward system that enables us to pay attention to other things in life." (Dr. Aric Sigman, Remotely Controlled: How Television Is Damaging Our Lives).

Our ability to pay attention is our life. Our ability to focus and control what we pay attention to is consciousness. To do a drug that damages your ability to pay attention is risking your ability to be consciously alive. That is why there is a direct correlation between how much television children watch and ADHD, among other things.

"Children who watch television at ages one and three have a significantly increased risk of developing such attentional problems by the time they are seven. For every hour of television a child watches per day, there is a nine per cent increase in attentional damage. The scientists suggest that their findings may actually be an understatement of the risks to children. They speculate that even if there is some educational benefit to be had from the actual programmes watched, this benefit may have covered up the even greater damage to the child's attentional systems that would occur if they watched programmes that had little educational benefit for them." (Sigman)

"A 26 year study of the 'Association Between Child and Adolescent Television Viewing and Adult Health' was recently published in the medical journal The Lancet, involving 1,000 children born in 1972-73. It found that children who watched more than two hours of television a day between the ages of five and fifteen suffered serious health risks many years later, at the age of 26. The study concluded that 15 per cent of cases of raised blood cholesterol, 17 per cent of obesity, 17 per cent of smoking and 15 per cent of bad cardiovascular fitness were linked to the television viewing that took place years before when the adults were children. This link remained, irresponsive of other factors such as social background, body mass index at age five, parents' BMI, parental smoking and how physically active the children were by the age of 15." (Sigman)

"Within 30 seconds of turning on the television, our brain becomes neurologically less able to make judgements about what we see and hear on screen. Our brain treats incoming information uncritically ... Our brain's left hemisphere, which processes information logically and analytically tunes out while we are watching television." (Sigman)

"Television provides the best means of persuading you to buy into the right values... Nowadays television executives talk of 'raising public awareness of...' This used to be simply called propaganda... Long after people forget what they hear, they remember how they feel. So Bonneville creates those unforgettable feelings..." (Sigman)

"And a study of 22,079 American adults for the pharmaceutical industry quantified the link between television viewing and rates of depression, concluding, 'The incidence of depression is a monotonic increasing function of television viewing' It seems that a television nation becomes a Prozac nation." (Sigman)

So television and video games are dangerous drugs. But, the argument goes, happy people don't get hooked on drugs. Happy mice can have access to heroin water and will choose to not drink it.

Of course, but first of all, those were adult mice not baby mice choosing not to drink the heroin water, and second of all, allowing my child the freedom to do heroin is entirely different from allowing my child to do heroin after I have told him about the dangers and risks involved.

I read these posts by these moms who advocate unlimited screen time, and I just can't imagine that it is possible for a mom to watch her kid do heroin and think, "He'll decide for himself what he thinks of it. Maybe he'll love it all his life long, and that'll be great! So important for them to find their One True Passion!"

So I have to assume that these moms either have never done any research on this particular drug or are television or gaming addicts themselves and therefore comfortable with passing on the addiction. The old, "I'm an addict, and I turned out fine," argument is reprehensible to some, but I am actually okay with it, because evolutionarily speaking, they're right. Likewise, the Christians that beat their children for the last thousand years had six times the birth rate of the modern day Swedes who don't. Not saying we should beat our children, just saying that we shouldn't immediately knock what has clearly worked (evolutionarily speaking).

Like moderation. Moderation served our ancestors well. Drugs are a part of life. Teaching our kids to use responsibly is an important part of parenting. I tell Anders that we must make sure we use the dangerous drugs like spices, to spice up our lives. If occasionally we want to use them as medicines, to change our mood, that's okay. But when we want to use them as drugs, to numb out, we need to find someone we love to talk to about it, because those feelings and choices can lead to very risky places.

Note that I have read some evidence to suggest that anyone allowed to do a drug as much as they want will, after a certain amount of time (almost never more than ten years), give the drug up voluntarily. There is possibly a "life cycle" to most addictions, an eventual end to the desire to numb out. But again these studies were done on adults, not children. In children, if I recall correctly, studies generally show that their brains alter to accommodate their addictions, making them likely candidates for lifelong abusers of that drug. I have, however, read anecdotes from parents that refute this.

Some moms who write in support of unlimited screen time say that it is not the abuse of screen time that is the issue – the issue is why the child wants to numb out. To this, I can only say, "Exactly! But then why are you handing him heroin instead of figuring out what is going on in his life that is causing him to want to not exist?!"

In my experience children, even the very young, are fully capable of having these discussions and of judging and moderating their use of dangerous substances provided they are given the information they need to make wise choices and a relationship they value. I have never had to force Anders to stop watching something. I have only ever reminded him that we don't want to overdo it.

For the record, Anders has overdone it a few times. I remember once he watched five or so hours of television in one day. The next day when he sat down to do his math it took him eight times longer than it had the day before. It took him a week to get his ability to focus back. The experience was very educational.

But back to my house where we don't usually overly indulge in screen time. It's interesting to me that none of us care very much about television. It's not like we have to exert great amounts of self-control to abstain from something truly glorious. A documentary is a welcome addition to an afternoon for Anders when he is curious and wants to know more about something. Both he and I appreciate what my ipad has to offer when I want to socialize at a friend's house, and he has to wait for me. He enjoys full moons when he watches movies that he has heard other kids talking about. But otherwise, television doesn't really occur to him as something to do with his time. He plays and when he is bored with playing he comes to see what I am doing and joins me. It's the same with me. I cook, clean, do errands, and write and when I need a break, I read or exercise or join him. Television isn't really on my radar. I love that.

I was raised without television. Of all the parenting choices my parents made, that was the single most wonderful gift they gave me – the gift of time, the gift of reading, the gift of not knowing what giant corporations wanted me to think.

When I was in elementary school my friends were obsessed with Full House. They learned that they were supposed to be obnoxious to adults and hate their siblings. During those years I read the Little House Books and thought families were supposed to be kind to one another and sisters were supposed to be good friends.

When I was in junior high school my friends were obsessed with Saved By the Bell. They thought school was lame and people who liked school were nerds, and the most important thing was to be popular. I read the Anne of Green Gables series and thought being the smartest girl in school was the best thing to be. I had no idea what popularity was, or that I was supposed to desire it.

When I was in high school my friends were obsessed with Buffy. They continued to hate school and began to obsess over boys and sex. I loved everything I got to learn in school. I thought every subject was fascinating and couldn't understand why they hated it so much. I was into Jane Adams at the time and though I did care a great deal about boys, I was just not as obsessed as my friends.

When I was in college my friends watched Sex and the City and were obsessed with sex and expensive shoes. And I ... was obsessed with James Joyce and couldn't care less about shoes.

The unlimited screen time moms shake their heads at me, "Do you really think reading is a more important activity than watching television? That reading is a more valid life experience in some way? How dare you claim that you might know what is better for me!" They're right. I don't know what is better for you and your family. But I do know that television is a dangerous drug that makes humans numb, unable to focus, passive, mainstream, unsatisfied with their real lives, poor, obese, and divorced.

I also know that while reading, our critical mind is active. A book is generally one person sharing his worldview. It's like a conversation. With television, you are hypnotized while exposing yourself to someone who will do anything to get your attention and keep it. When you watch television, you are the product. Your attention is what is for sale. Companies are not interested in providing quality entertainment, so much as they are interested in getting your attention and keeping it by whatever means necessary. Then they sell your attention to their advertisers. That is the nature of the business.

A writer has to sell his books. The reader is the customer. If the books are not good, the writer will not have customers. Not so with television. You are not the customer. You are the product. His customer is the advertisers. And the television writer will write accordingly. The more product they can deliver, the higher their ad revenue. (The Attention Merchants by Tim Wu)

This is why, if you are going to watch something, movies are much preferable to television. With movies, the viewer is the customer. (Though product placement often fudges that line a little.)

I also know that reading is directly related to our ability to think at abstract levels. According to the research of Leda Cosmides our brains cannot abstract verbally past more than five levels of abstraction. To think more abstractly than that requires writing our thoughts down in order to follow them. Reading is directly related to our ability to think complexly.

We ignore and override so much valuable information our subconscious brains feed us. There is a reason we smile and feel warm and fuzzy when we see a child curled up with a book and a reason why we feel disgusted and turned off when we see a child all zombied out in front of a screen.

"Most of the stories are told to most of the children not by their parents, their school, or their church, but by a group of distant corporations that have something to sell." (Sigman)

There are 150 different products linked to Dora the Explorer. The average American child watches 40,000 commercials each year. When the parents of TV free households are surveyed and asked how often their children pressure them to buy brand-name or otherwise popular toys, games, or foods, 97% of them answered never, rarely, or not very much. (Sigman)

"If you think about it in imperialistic terms, cultures and minds can now be colonised remotely.... Formerly known as propaganda, soft power lies in the abiity to attract and persuade other cultures of the validity and desirability of your own.... CNN, HBO and Disney have succeeded where napalm failed. Perhaps Apocalypse Now – The Sequel is playing out on the streets of Hanoi as young Communists can be seen eating M&Ms while watching Eminem." (Sigman)

"'The difference between children who can picture a story or scene in their mind's eye and those who were raised in front of a TV screen are obvious and very profound," wrote Sue, a TV-free mother who is also a kindergarten teacher. "This difference is evident in their play, their artwork, their writing, the foods packed in their lunch boxes, their show-and-tell, and their conversation. TV permeates every facet of thier being. I think children raised with screen shave never experienced what it's like to dream, create, and imagine inside their own heads–independent of externally supplied (usually corporate) vision.'" (Living Outside the Box)

"In 1990, the American Family Research Council reported that the average American parent spent 38.5 minutes in meaningful conversation with his or her children each week. That's less than six minutes a day. Given that our TV viewing has spiraled steadily upward since then, chances are the situation today is no better... For children raised without television, however, circumstances are different. The parents who participated in my survey of TV-free families reported spending an average of 55 minutes per day in meaningful conversation with their children. That's 385 minutes per week...." (Living Outside the Box)

Another interesting thing I remember reading about television is that our brains cannot tell the difference between our television show "friends" and our real life friends. Because our brains are wired to pay more attention to higher status people than lower status people, we will feel a greater need to check in with our television show friends of high status than our real life friends of lower status.

I know that many parents rely on the television to be their babysitter and the thought of going without it is horrifying. It is for that reason that I began Anders's YouTube channel when he was young. I didn't want him to watch cartoons, but I did need some time off, so I created an hour long playlist of home videos on YouTube for him to watch. This worked like a charm, and I highly recommend it as a strategy for parents who want to avoid television. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD5CYaUtWd6SjTovWryZtPz7pSTwdMj5K

I was not homeschooled or unschooled, but I was raised without television. Yet I am far less mainstream than the homeschooled and unschooled kids I knew growing up who were raised with television. Contrary to the stories some Unlimited TV Moms spread, I didn't pine away wishing I had television in my life or wishing I were more "normal," and I didn't turn into an adult who became a television addict, neither did my siblings. None of us actually watch a lot of television still today and all of us are happy about it. I am not advocating being TV free here – I don't know what would work in your family. But I would encourage parents to think twice about their choice to welcome screens, and especially unlimited screen time into their homes. Television is not in the same addiction category as sugar, it's more similar to METH, and should be treated as such. My research and life experience has led me to conclude that heavy television exposure is more damaging than sending children to school. 

Dynasties: How to Avoid "Blue Collar to Blue Collar in Three Generations"

 I am currently studying family systems, what leads families to stay together, and what tears them apart or encourages their dispersement. Seventy percent of all generational wealth transfers fail. And then there is the proverb that is, statistically speaking, almost always true: "Blue collar to blue collar in three generations." Why?

 

The story generally goes like this: An ambitious middle-class man creates great wealth and starts a family dynasty. His children try not to mess it up, but mostly they are lazy and/or uncreative. The fortune is no long grows, rather, it stagnates. The grandchildren are worse than the children, even less creative, and sometimes despots, and now the fortune decreases. By the time the great-grandkids are grown, there is no fortune. The dynasty is over, and the family is back to blue collar work.

 

I have been coming up with theories about how families can fight the proverb since I began working for families who were dealing with these issues. For a long time, my answer has been: Your children are headed toward the mean because you are not raising them – middle class nannies and teachers are. Want your children to have your values, habits, and skills? You need to be the one who raises them.

 

But recently I have come to a second realization. In some ways, it only appears that the children are "not great" like the parents. And it only appears that the parents are all that great. Because most of the time it takes three generations to make the "great creator." I think the story is six generations long.

 

Generation 1: The pioneer generation. They struggle for survival in a new ecosystem. 

 

Concrete Example: A young man, raised by an unsuccessful Inn Keeper, decides to be a farmer as there is an opportunity for cheap land out west. He goes there. It is wilderness. It is far from anyone he knows. Though he knows how to run an inn, he does not actually know how to farm. And though his parents weren't ideal, at least he knew people in the town where he grew up. Now he knows no one. But he is hardworking and determined to make something of himself. Survival isn't easy or guaranteed at first, but he plugs away, clearing the land, breaking in the soil, building a tiny cabin, and saving. He marries and works his tail off to feed his offspring. He has to create a new family culture because the only thing he was able to learn from his own parents was what not to do. So, he does not turn to drink, does not divorce, does not indulge in overspending, etc, but he is a lot better at knowing what not to do than what to do.

 

Generation 2: The second generation continues what the pioneers began. With hard work and perseverance, they will do well, but they will never make it big. Outlying success will allude this generation.

 

Concrete Example: The children of the pioneer don't need to spend a decade breaking-in virgin soil, learning the native plants of this ecosystem, clearing the land, or even figuring out what values lead to success. They inherit this wealth of knowledge, and they improve upon it. They build bigger houses, barns, and better tools. They plant trees for beauty, not just for food. Their father was only ever able to think about the current year. Because they are already on top of that, they plan ten years ahead. They grew up knowing people in the area - small time farmers like themselves, so unlike their father, they have a support network (not to mention the best support network their is, successful family members nearby). They also build on the family culture. Their parents were good parents, but they want to be even better.

 

Generation 3: The outliers. They can do what their parents and grandparents could not. Biographies will be written about them. They will be heralded as the creators of a dynasty.

 

Concrete Example: The grandchildren of the pioneers are born into a family successful enough that they have free time. Their family farm is already productive and beautiful, so they focus on improving it even more, making it not just beautiful but glorious, and making it not just productive but top notch. They grew up watching their parents be alluded by the big leagues, and they know exactly what they need to do to go big. They go to school, and college. They network. They have a support network of a higher caliber than their parents did. Their family has now made it, and they are revered for their success.

 

But their childhoods are not given enough credit. Their parents and their grandparents, keeping it together despite the rigors of pioneering in a new field, are not given enough credit. Those who came before them don't become part of the family myth. Whether it's Stephen "Wonderboy" Thompson or Beyonce or Gwenyth Paltrow, the third-generation outlier becomes this heroic individual who did it with help from his parents, sure, but not to the extent that anyone imagines.

 

And now we get to their children.

 

Generation 4: How do you follow up a truly incredible parent? Hopefully the Generation 3 Outlier used his success to find the best possible mate he could and then settled into focusing on his own children. More likely, he will be seduced by his own success and not able to give it up. He will spend his life focusing on attaining even higher echelons of success. He will fail to raise his children. A child of an outlier, say, Beyonce's kids for example, has a choice when it comes to work:

-Don't work and live off the family money

-Try to outdo Mother

-Try to do my own thing (i.e. be a pioneer in a new field and/or ecosystem)

 

Family systems experts generally recommend to heirs that they do their own thing. Thus, they inevitably end up not being very impressive. The experts recommend having compassion for them. 

 

Much of the time, families return to pioneering before the third generation is even reached. Perhaps the family has bought into the cultural myth that everyone must have a One True Passion, and the point of childhood is to find it. Many in academia believe that if all children worked in fields different from their parents, they would not be able to benefit from nepotism, and the playing field would be leveled for all. If everyone was always a pioneer, we would all be equal!

 

The hard life of a pioneer is also often the end result of twenty-two years in school. Well-meaning parents deprive their children of the wealth of knowledge they would have received from a childhood at their side. So, they end up, at twenty-two, starting as a pioneer in their parent's business - a pioneer because even though it is their parent’s line of work, they have no experience in it.

 

The fourth-generation children, the children of outliers and successful people, will most likely never be that successful, not because they are lazy or losers or less than their parents, but simply because they are pioneering in a new field. They will struggle just to survive in their chosen career in ways that their parents cannot possibly understand.

 

A second or third generation success cannot fathom what it is like to arrive in the wilderness and learn an entire ecosystem. This is another reason why so many children of successful people choose to be pioneers – because the successful parents advising the children have no idea how hard it is. As a rule, the successful people were not pioneers. They think success is easy and anyone can do it.

 

Concrete Example: the generation-four child of the outlying farmer is told that he can do anything with his life. All he has to do is work hard and he will be a success like his father. So, he goes to college and studies film. When he graduates, he moves to Los Angeles to be a director. He spends his family's money lavishly and, though he is able to get a foothold, he doesn't find any success in his career. It is so depressing for him, measuring himself up against his father, that he turns to drink. He is a horrible parent to his own children.

 

Generation 5: Raised by a miserable father who drinks and beats his child.

 

Concrete Example: The child from this generation decides that the movie industry ruined his dad. His family still has enough money for him to go to college, so he studies something safe, like business. He gets a job in Chicago running an inn and, as a pioneer, struggles just to survive. He wasn't raised with any good examples of hard work, rather he grew up learning how to be depressed and drink his problems away. This is what he does.

 

Generation 6: Back to blue collar.

 

Concrete Example: The fortune is gone now. The family is now blue collar again. Generation 6 will not be able to afford college. This child is raised by an alcoholic failure who runs an inn. All he knows about his future is that he doesn't want to be like his father.

 

And so it starts over again

 

************

 

I think the proverb should be: "Blue collar to Blue Collar in Six Generations." And I think the problem is a general failure to understand that success takes generations to build.

 

So, what does this mean for you and your family or me and mine? I think it would be helpful for families to place themselves: Are you a pioneer, pioneering in a new line of work that you did not learn from your parents as a kid? Are you second generation, successful and perhaps even very wealthy, but not to the level that biographies will be written about you? Are you third generation, the outlier that most likely your child cannot top? 

 

If you are a pioneer, you will most likely think your career is a dead end. You will hope your child does something "better." College will fix it! This is your mistake.

 

I met a guy the other day named Matt. He never went to college. He was raised by a single mother, an immigrant. She worked a minimum wage job and could barely feed him when he was a kid. He quit school at sixteen. He is now forty-years-old and owns thirty two convenience stores. He makes a fantastic living. How did he pull that off?! Hint: He was not the pioneering generation.

 

His mother worked at a 7-11 for his entire childhood. She couldn't afford daycare, and they didn't know anyone, so he hung out at her 7-11 after school. He knew how to run the place by the time he was twelve. Started working there himself when he was fourteen. Saved up and bought his first 7-11 when he was twenty-five. Killed it. Most people who run 7-11's don't understand how to run them, he told me. He does.

 

The lesson: If you are a struggling pioneer don't assume your child will struggle as hard as you. You paved the way. Your child has been paying attention. Invite your child to your life. He will do it better. Don't assume your career is a dead end or you life isn't a worthy one to invite your child to join. If you can just keep it together, despite the insane difficulty of your life, your children will do great.

 

The other lesson: Many people would look at Matt, the guy who owns thirty-two convenience stores, and mistake him for the pioneering generation, after all, his mother never owned any convenience stores. This is not the case. Matt is the second generation in his family to work in the field of convenience stores. Unfortunately, because Matt chose a line of work his childhood had perfectly prepared him for, he thinks that anyone could do what he did, anyone willing to work hard can reach his level of success. That is the mistake the second generation makes.

 

And one more lesson: If pioneers can just provide their children with basic survival and a good parent-child relationship, the family will rise. But pioneers need to stick to it and not flail about.

 

Laura Ingles Wilder's story is a good example of pioneers that could have made it, but instead, flailed about, not settling down, not focusing on providing their children with enough nutrition for them to reproduce well. Their children lived to adulthood, so it seemed like they were successful. They probably told themselves that they were fine parents. Three of the daughters married. But there was only one grandchild for Ma and Pa Ingles and she could not have children. There were no great-grandchildren. The evidence points toward malnutrition related infertility, the physical degeneration Weston A. Price writes about. 

 

If you are second generation, your weakness will be having no idea how hard it is to be a pioneer. Picture Matt's mother and how successful she was, or Pa and Ma Ingles and how successful they were. If you sentence your child to the life of a pioneer, that will likely be that level of success, not yours.

 

Also, don't assume your kid wants to do his own thing if he knows the true choice. Don't send him down the pioneer track by sending him to a "good school" and being able to afford after school activities or a wife at home that prevents him from hanging out with you at the office all day. Your mistake will be one of ignorance, not appreciating what your parents did that you were able to build on. Be clear with your kids: You can be a pioneer, but you most likely will not find the level of success I have found. If you want to start studying the family business now (at seven years old) you have a chance at becoming an outlier.

The key take away is to be clear with children about the real choice. Hard work is not all it takes to reach a second generation level of success at a reasonable age.

 

For example, Laura Ingles Wilder found success as a pioneer in the in the field of writing – when she was seventy years old.

 

If you are adult second-gen who just realized how hard it is going to be to be a pioneer, but its too late to spend your childhood learning the family business, consider accepting your pioneer status and focusing on your children: They can be second generation in whatever field you are pioneering, or, if you raise them at Grandpa's office, they can take your place as the outlying, third generation.

 

Before I move on to third generation, it should be mentioned that staying at what I am calling second generation levels of success is something a family can actually maintain for many generations. The third generation doesn't have to become outliers. They can build on their family's wealth while focusing on their children. They can grow the company, but not be consumed by it. In fact, in my current studies of the institution of family, the most successful families (in terms of their long term ability to maintain a high level of wealth and stay together as a family) follow this model.

 

If you are third generation, and people are writing biographies about you, you are in the riskiest spot. If you have made outlying success, you will most likely struggle the most at parenting because your success keeps you stuck in the maiden/squire phase of life and because your children will grow up in your shadow.

 

You could try to lessen the shadow, toning it down at work. This would happen naturally if you let go of your maiden/squire phase. If your focus becomes your child, and you bring your child to life with you. What happens? You can't do as much. You have to slow down. If you are Beyonce, you do maybe three shows a year, and you prepare for them for months – they take a lot longer to prepare for because your five-year-old is there wanting to learn the dance routine too. You don't make quite as much money because your time is being poured into your child. But in the end, it's wonderful, because you are not a maiden trying to attract the attention of the highest status mate you can anymore. You are a mother now, trying to raise a child who can attract the highest quality mate. You can't buy a good mate for your kid. You can only focus on your child, helping her to become the best potential mate she can be.

 

That's how I can see a third generation successful family working. It is also currently the only way I can see outlying success work at all in a family that thinks in long-term ways (encourage outlying success in the young as a mating strategy, but once mated, get out of the limelight). Because otherwise, outlying successes are so difficult for the next generation to overcome, that I am not sure a family thinking long-term should even strive for it. In many ways those who choose outlying success for their career might consider forgoing having children as to do so is inconsiderate of them. The outlying success who continues to be so after his children are born is not a good parent, and if he ever does graduate from squire to king, he is the king who cannot give up his throne.

 

Another option for outlying families would be to take the child destined for a pioneer career, and your fourth generation child isn't going to follow your career, perhaps he can pick something you exposed him to, so he will have a better chance of not being a total pioneer. For example Brad Pitt's kids could consider architecture or directing or working for the UN. In this way maybe they can pull off (almost) second-generation status. Should they choose chemistry, they will be pioneers. It's fine to choose chemistry, but they should be made aware of the reality of the choice they are making.

 

Another strategy for a third generation parent is to have the child pick something when he is very young. In this way, both child and parent have ten to twenty years to learn about that field, giving the child possible second-generation status by middle age. The danger is that the parent will underestimate the level of involvement needed on his part, thinking that that $150/hr tutor is enough. The tutor is not enough. Every line of work is its own world, it's own ecosystem. If you own a soap business, you can buy your child acting lessons from the best teachers in the world, but if you don't take the time to meet people in the film business, and develop relationships with them, your child will end up a pioneer. 

 

Anyway, not saying there are not exceptions or that this is The One True Rule. It's just a trend that I have noticed.

 

You may not understand what I mean when I say "pioneer" unless you have read this post: http://roslynross.blogspot.com/2015/03/nature-versus-nurture.html. You may not understand what I mean when I say "maiden" or "squire" later unless you have read this post: http://roslynross.blogspot.com/2016/07/living-right-story-parents-as-kings-and.html

 

Only Kings and Queens Can Found Kingdoms: A Story About Successful Marraiges

This is a messy blog post. It is an idea I want to share because, though it may not be The One Truth, it's a story that has been helpful to me.

My husband and I have a great relationship now, but we didn't always. We had horrific childhood attachment issues to overcome in addition to terrible relationship models coming from our two sets of divorced parents. There was a key moment in our relationship right after we got engaged. We got into a terrible fight (of course I cannot remember what it was about). I called my mom, and she said, "Yeah, relationships end. Sounds like yours has run its course." He called his mom, and she said something similar.

When we made up from that fight we realized we could never call our parents to help us through our marriage struggles (if our goal was to stay married). Similarly, I couldn't turn to the advice offered by Ayn Rand or Nathaniel Branden on the subject of marriage and relationships as neither of them had marriages I would want to emulate. I started my search for new relationship role-models.

A few years later Tom and I were married, and I was pregnant. Tom's single friends at the time were Tindering it up, and his married friends (and him) were all feeling a little jealous and trapped. I had this realization then, that changed how we saw the situation.

Joseph Campbell wrote about the "human story." He saw a woman's life story as having three main arcs: Maiden then Mother then Crone. For a man was: Squire then Warrior then King. I don't think those work well for today, so I updated them to: Maiden then Warrior Queen Mother then Wise Woman and, for a man, Squire then Warrior King Father then Wise Man.

"The problem," I said to my husband, "is that your friends think they are still squires. They are like the 40-year-old married women running around in short skirts. They're living the wrong story. I'm not a maiden anymore. It's hard to let that story go. Flirting with squires was fun. But now I will live the Warrior Queen Mother story, and I will try to make that story as glorious as my Maiden story was.

As a Warrior Queen Mother, I don't want to wear skimpy dresses and flirt with boys. I want to fight for the survival of my kingdom (e.g. my children). Your married friends would feel a lot better if they stopped seeing themselves as squires who are supposed to be chasing maiden-tail. They are kings now, and they have kingdoms to fight for. They can be heroes. Or they can be playboy princes that destroy their kingdoms."

This story rings even more true now. I was at a department store the other day trying on dresses for a cocktail party. The saleswoman was trying to get me to buy something extremely short and "sexy." "You've got such a great body; you should flaunt it!" she kept telling me. I was totally uninterested and tried to explain to her that I am in my mid-thirties not my mid-twenties, that I am married, that I an not trying to attract anyone, etc. She found it sad that I didn't think I "could" wear sexy stuff anymore.

I became interested in this exchange. Hollywood loves the maiden/squire story and has fed us a ton of one-liners to keep us pursuing our mates rather than building kingdoms. It is rare, on television, to see loyalty between partners. There is so much back-stabbing. And yet it is partnership and commitment that leads to riches, the kingdom we create that leads to a better life.

Squires and maidens tend to spend money in their efforts to show off and attract a mate. Smart kings and queens are more likely to save money because security and ensuring the survival of their offspring is what motivates them. Maidens and squires, whether they have children or not, are largely focused on attracting a mate, not kingdom building.

Maybe it's because we give away our children to be raised by others – there is no kingdom to fight for anymore. Maybe it's because of all the subterfuge involved in today's battle for survival. On the subject of nutrition alone – how many wealthy dynasties have failed because of inability to produce viable heirs due to nutritional depletion of genetic stock across generations? Many wealthy and middle class people think they are successfully "surviving," but they are not, not if you take a long-term (three or more generations) view of it.

I find this reflected in my parent-friends who, rather than be focused on the battle for the survival of their children, are focused on their careers. "Your family is your job!" I want to say. The point of a flashy career is to attract the best possible mate. A married person overly focused on career is a person looking to get divorced (and "trade up" in mates). A king or queen would only be interested in their career to the extent that it could benefit their kingdom, perhaps by making family alliances so that their children can find the best mates possible. But in a very deep way, Kings and Queen know it's not about them anymore, and that's wonderful!

I am all about selfishness, but for me, the battle for the survival of my children is what I want right now. Every time I hear my parent-friends talk about their search for sexual fulfillment, I can't help but think – you are stuck in your old story. By all means, if you are so wealthy that your children are eating farm fresh organic Weston A Price food, if you and they have straight teeth with no braces and no cavities and no other signs of physical degeneration, if you have fantastic communication skills with your partner and your children and you are raising them and not having them raised by others, then perhaps you have so much free time that you could be focused on "sexual fulfillment." Otherwise: You are falling for what seems to me like a media sales gimmick.

When a twenty-year-old tells me about her wild sex life, it's entertaining. When a forty-year-old does so, there is something unattractive about it. And I think it's this: The social cues you are giving me with your focus on sex or your career is that you are not focused on your kingdom.

Having been born into poverty and having been studying successful families since the minute I understood what I wanted, and knowing that most people who make it into the top 1% will stay there less than two years and 80% will stay there less than ten years, and knowing that while I worked my butt off and rose in wealth throughout my life, I have watched most of my friends (who were raised in wealth) fall. Why? Why is it so hard for a family to keep its wealth once it has acquired it?

One conclusions I have made is that wealthy people equate their wealth only to money. This is a fatal mistake in the creation of a dynasty. Ask any of the failed dynasties why they failed: Inability to produce heirs (decline in genetic stock), poor parent-child relationships (which the parents will pass off as unmotivated kids), fighting among heirs (failure of family to share values).

It became clear to me while I worked for unhealthy 1%ers that you cannot lose focus on health and healthy relationships. My husband and I talk about this as we build our wealth. We will build our wealth more slowly than we can, but we will do it right. The foundation of physical health for our bodies and our children's bodies is our highest priority. We can always make money. But money cannot buy good health that has been lost.

Same with relationships. Divorce destroys kingdoms. Children who hate their parents destroy kingdoms. So though my husband and I could be moving toward our financial dreams twice as fast if we put Anders into school and I joined the paid workforce, that is sacrificing the future for the present. And it would likely destroy our kingdom, if not in our lifetime, in our children's lifetime. And why? My husband and I are taken; we don't need flashy amounts of money or success to attract mates. We only need enough money for our own enjoyment and to maximize the quality of our offspring.

Money will only serve the mind that can match it. It is far more important that we focus on giving our son a mind that can match and grow our current level of wealth, than that we keep growing it.

The battle for survival that my husband and I fight is glorious. We must be quite high earners just to feed our family properly. Tom has to earn twice as much as husbands whose wives work so that I can raise our son. But we have a dream of a family like one we have yet to see in our lives. There is nothing more bonding, nothing sexier, than going to war in this way with my husband. It's exhausting of course, but it's a beautiful, fun, and interesting exhausting because it is meaningful for us.

Something else I noticed recently: Battle scars are tragic and hideous on maidens and squires. On kings and queens they are hot, proof of our strength, our prowess. And thank goodness, because I don't think anyone makes it to old age without them.

The belief that we are warriors now, not innocent, happy young folk, also helps us on to the next phase of our life story – old age and accepting death. When you are a maiden or a squire death is tragic. When you are exhausted from battle, scarred, used, death is rest, something that you can be happy about (just a little bit).

This is a subconscious experience for us, an emotional story. But you better believe I am out there making friends who are living this story. Most parents I meet are still maidens and squires. They are not kingdom building and alliances with them are becoming more and more unfulfilling. They are married and have children, but seem to have bought into the advertising media pitch that their life purpose should be ... sex. I like sex as much as the next person, but as your meaning in life?

I was having lunch with a friend of mine the other day who is getting her PhD in sexual health. She was telling me how important sexual fulfillment is, and when I told her it wasn't a priority to Tom and me, she became worried. But upon further questioning it turned out that we have a "healthy" amount of sex. Yet we don't make sex dates or have a date night as is recommend for couples with children. Just the fact that we like each other is enough to get us into bed. I am not holding our relationship out there as a Model For Everyone To Follow, but I think that we are still attracted to each other because of how we see each other. Like I said above, there something bonding and super sexy about seeing each other as warriors fighting a battle together.

Here are some more metaphors: I think many wives subconsciously do their best to stay maidens because they think that is how they will keep their husbands. But it's actually the opposite. If you stay a maiden and keep your husband in squire-mode, eventually you will break up. Why? Because a mother cannot compete with the maidens. A forty year old woman cannot out maiden real maidens. Even if she isn't older than they are, her focus is divided, her story is wrong, and there is always something unattractive subconsciously about people living the wrong story. Rather, the woman who wants to keep her husband should specifically try to not be a maiden or compete with maidens. She should focus on being the most incredible queen any king could wish for. No maiden can compete with a true warrior queen. And no king is attracted to maidens - they are pretty, silly things, not useful to him in battle.

What does it mean when a married woman and mother dresses in a way to attract men? Does it mean she is confident about her body? I don't think so. Something about it is unattractive. (And that is interesting to me.) This is what I think: What it says to me is she is not happy in her relationship, that she may cheat on her husband, that she may wish she were still a maiden, in other words: I should not trust and form alliances with her kingdom as she is alerting me to its instability or lack of success. Perhaps she genuinely thinks she is just showing the world that she doesn't care what it thinks – but that's just out of touch with reality. And I don't think it's attractive to be out of touch with reality. The fact that you will be judged by how you present yourself is unavoidable. To dress as if that is not a fact just makes you in denial and likely to fail.

I think about the things we used to think (as a society) were "bad." Dressing slutty. Divorce. We don't want to stigmatize the people who do these things. But at the same time, in some ways, they signify someone's success or failure to grow up.

I went to a conference over the summer where I was hit on rather a lot. It was flattering, but it occurred to me that it's boring to me now. What's interesting to me is my son and my husband, our growth, our finances, the creation of the best life possible for our family, the dream of building something that could last generations. Several times I was hit on by people who have open marriages who wondered if I have the same. And I ... don't see that in my future. Because it's boring. Seduction and being seduced was once the most fascinating and marvelous thing to me in the world. I read books on it! But now it simply doesn't serve me. It doesn't serve my kingdom.

I can't help but wonder about the people who are married and have children, but are still pursing mating. I wonder how their kingdoms will do (long term) with their energies so distracted.

Likewise the high percentage of women who abandon their children and return to the workforce. This is a subconscious signal to me that they don't trust their relationship. Their relationship is on such shaky ground that the woman cannot afford to specialize in the children, she has to be prepared for the coming divorce. She has to have "her own" money. If you haven't even figured out how to make a committed alliance to your own husband, how can I trust any alliance you make with me?

Not to mention your children. I am looking for the best mates for my own well-raised children. If your children are going to be raised by servants, middle class teachers, and the television, they are not good mates for mine.

Some women think that staying in the workforce is sexier to their husbands. These women are completely out of touch with reality. Every father I know wants his wife to "do whatever makes her happy." But every last one of them hopes that caring for his children (and him) is what will make her happy. I have never seen a man jump for joy when his queen announces that she, actually, would not enjoy caring for his children. What man can forgive that betrayal? Of course they smile and pretend they are modern, but I think that when their wife shows she cares so little for the children, he starts to detach from them as well.

A man cannot become a king without a queen. A woman in the workforce is not a queen. Queens are focused on their kingdoms, on their children. Likewise men pursuing outlying career success are not kings. Kings are focused on their kingdoms. That is what the money is for.

Both partners must choose to mature. If the man stays a squire he will be obsessed with maidens, and since his wife cannot be one anymore, he will end up leaving her for one. And with his new wife he will start a kingdom a second time. And then he will leave her for a third maiden. Never will his kingdoms progress or grow in glory. He will have wasted decades of valuable kingdom building time reliving the same old story rather than committing to the new one.

I maintain that kingdoms can be built at any social status. It is a way of life, not a social status. Some people will argue that their family "cannot afford" to have one partner at home, but according to Ann Crittenden in The Price of Motherhood, if the wife isn't making over 50k (possibly 65k in today's dollars), it doesn't actually pencil for the woman to be working. What does "cannot afford" mean? Money is all about choices. We choose what we value. For a kingdom builder, nothing is more valuable than the children.

For the record, I don't agree with women being stuck in the house with the kids. Please see: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1185171129?type=review#rating_109775433. But I also don't think there is any other option today for the woman that values the health of her children and future of her kingdom.

When my children are ready, I will give up my throne and become a wise woman. This is one of the hardest and most important things a king or queen must do. The failure of many parents to "give up the throne" destroys relationships, and especially the children. It is this awareness of my future obsoleteness that enables me to give Anders my very best happily. Nothing like being a warrior for a few decades to make you feel excited about resting!

I had lunch with one of my favorite girlfriends the other day. Unlike me she grew up in a wealthy family, and she has happily married parents. She said, "Many girls marry rich men because they want to be a princess. But to be a princess you must make your husband your servant. If you make your husband your servant, he will soon be poor. Instead you must seek to be a queen at his side, and make your husband your king. If you treat your husband like a king, he will soon be more rich."

I love this story too. Princess-wives are another example of a way people can fail to change stories.

I apologize for any of this sounding judge-y. Like I said above, this is not The One Truth. There are many glorious stories to live, this one has been mine.

UPDATE

Frank pointed out below that it might be easiest for people to move on to their next story when they have lived their current story to the fullest. As in: squires and maidens who milked every last drop of their squire and maiden experience might be happier to settle into the warrior kingdom mode. Likewise, those who accept the warrior kingdom and live it to its fullest might be the happiest to let that go and become the wise "letting go" generation.

In my studies of death it occurred to me that Buddhism is a disturbing religion for the young. Nor is it helpful for the kingdom builders. But man is it the perfect religion for the old! It's about acceptance and letting go. The entire Tibetan Book of Living and Dying has one main thing to teach: how to die with grace and dignity. Buddhism is the religion for our final stage. I would say Christianity and Judaism (war-making religions) are quite fantastic religions for kingdom building. And for maidens and squires? Well, they should be Pagens. Again, not saying this as Fact. Using these ideas as metaphors to describe the human experience and how we can best facilitate one another to live our stage to the fullest.

A Review of Kumon's Reading Program

Anders did the first 3 units (300 pages) of the Kumon reading program and I want to toss them so… here are the things I noted about the program:

1. I found it disturbing that concepts are just tossed out there in a pretty disconnected way. For example, the first 12 words introduced are: fish, cat, mouse, dog, sun, cloud, car, house, corn, tree, cake, and apple. Why not do all foods? Or start with the family--mom, dad, brother, sister, baby, dog? Or all animals? Disconnection is not how the human brain learns best.

2. I don't like it that corn and cake are in the first twelve words. Throughout the Kumon program there is quite a bit of pictures of candy, hot dogs, french fries, pizza--lots and lots of junk food. Super annoying.

3. I find it strange that the words "mom" and "dad" are not among the first 50 words the kids are introduced to. It makes me buy-in to the school-is-trying-to-destroy-the-family conspiracy.

4. I find it strange that among the first 50 words are the words "king" and "queen," depicted as black people but dressed as a European king and queen would have been dressed long ago. Again with the disconnect. If we are trying to teach our children about life… why are these concepts being introduced in this confusing false-to-life way?

5. Among the first 160 people depicted in the pictures there are 92 males and 68 females. There were 142 dark skinned people and 18 fair skinned people. There were no blond women and only one blond man and he was in the background of a picture featuring a dark skinned person. It seems like there is a social agenda going on.

*Level 3A: "I drink grape juice." Is one of the sentences they must learn. We changed it to "I don't drink grape juice." We also changed "I eat my cereal with a spoon" to "I don't eat cereal."

I don't care for the Kumon reading program at all and don't care enough to look into this more. The first thousand pages would be more significant as a mini-study--perhaps it all equals out or reflects the true distribution of people in the world? No idea. Either way, the Hooked on Phonics program is far better (Anders prefers it as well) so that is what we will use from now on!

Positive Psychology, Stoicism, and the Fruitless Pursuit of Happiness

Recently my husband asked me to explain to him why I am not a stoic. This post is my answer. Though I am excited to do this post (because I love organizing my thoughts), I think it's only fair to warn my reader that I do not consider myself an expert in either positive psychology or stoicism. I do know enough about them, however, to know that they contradict my understanding of epistemology and neuroscience.

Both positive psychology and stoicism I summarize thus: Repress your negative emotions! Repress them I say! But I don't mean repress. Repression is bad. But seriously, repress. I'm not advocating denial here but... look for the good and don't examine the bad!

Both of these psychological systems begin with the premise: The Point of Life is To Be Happy.

There is a major problem with this premise. If happiness is my highest value, if I decide that today my goal is just to feel happy, the quickest and surest way to achieve that goal is drugs. If this is the path I take, then my life will be: Moments of "happiness" while I do my drugs followed by days of drudgery while I do what it takes (for my physical survival) to get to my next day off in which I can do drugs. My life is: drudgery and drugs.

But let's say I chose no drugs. I try to pursue "healthy" happiness. It still doesn't work. How often does one pursue an evening of happiness only to find that it doesn't actually make one happy? How often does one find happiness while doing some random task that one thought would suck? Now my life is: Happiness is so frustrating! So elusive! Such a hard master! I need more control! More control over this elusive god! If I can just get enough control, then I will win! (This is the conclusions reached by the positive psych folk and the stoics.)

The problem is the premise. The pursuit of an emotion as the goal of life. To quote myself (from my book): "Most people begin with the assumption that emotions are primary, they seek ways to control and influence their emotional states. But our emotions let us know how we are doing; they help point us in the right direction; they let us know what is working and what needs our attention. Our strong emotions tell us: Pay attention to this! If we listen, our emotions can be great aids in the pursuit of our values. But attempting to manipulate them, like attempting to command what we see or hear, is just refusing to acknowledge reality. It doesn’t change reality and does not serve us." Emotions give us information and energy. They are tools for us to use. They are not neither good nor bad. They are not punishments and rewards for our behavior.

I do not pursue happiness. Happiness is what happens when I am busy pursing my values successfully. But I will only experience happiness if I check-in, if I come into the present and perceive. My consciousness has two primary modes: abstracting and perceiving. When I am abstracting successfully, I may experience flow. I sit down to write and eight hours disappear. I have no idea where they went, but I think I was happy. Perhaps if I had paused for a moment and checked-in with myself (perceived) I would have noticed that I felt happy, but I didn't. Any feeling can only be experienced when you pause and check-in (perceive). Most psychologies and religions attempt to teach this one very valuable skill: stop abstracting and start perceiving. Come into the present. Check-in with yourself.

When I pause at this exact moment I note: I feel very happy. I am full, rested, my body feels good, I hear my son chatting away cutely in the background, my home is tidy and beautiful, and the view outside my window is delightful. Hmmm... I also notice the sounds of traffic which I don't like, and I notice that I am thirsty. I will go back to ignoring the world around me and disappear into my writing again, my abstract brain, but I should really get a drink of water because that little ping, that little unmet need, is going to decrease my overall happiness.

Though the background emotion going on right now for me is happiness, I do not claim to feel it unless I focus on it. As soon as I get back to work, the truth is, I am not feeling anything. My subconscious is storing emotional information for sure, but since I am not focusing on it, it stays subconscious--it is just information. I would argue that I spend most of my life not actually feeling anything. And that's okay. I'm busy doing. For me, feelings are tools, information, they help me direct my actions to meeting my needs and values. But the emotion itself is not the need or the value.

There are times when I seem to pursue emotions. I find that I am drawn to sad music or a sad movie. Why? Why would I seek sadness? Because my subconscious is trying to get my attention, and I am ignoring it. Because that is the background emotion going on for me whether I have come into the present to realize it or not. Because there has been a build up of information now that needs to be felt/perceived. By feeling the sadness that I have been ignoring, I can release it. If I focus on it and figure out why I was sad, then I can understand it and make different choices.

Our strong emotions give us information and energy. That is their purpose. Emotions are not causeless. They evolved to be part of us because the SERVE us. No one is arguing that positive emotions don't serve us--they're fun. But if negative emotions didn't serve us, they wouldn't exist.

Negative emotions provide us with a great deal of energy to change our lives. Repression, numbing, and drugs enable us to live lives we couldn't otherwise live. Most of us have been repressing since childhood. We have never lived a life we wanted to live. We have never lived sustainably with ourselves. We have been taught to put off resting, to put off perception, to put off processing, to put off fun. We have been trained to stay in our abstract brains. Usually, by adulthood, there is so much sadness and anger that has been repressed that coming into the present is quite unpleasant. So we don't. We work (in our abstract brains) and then come home and numb. This is the life I described above in which people "pursue happiness": drudgery--or at best nonexistence--at work, while we await our next drug binge at home--which is more nonexistence. If this is your life--why live? You just want to not exist, so what are you doing?!

Those who advocate positive psychology and stoicism have a tendency to write about human emotions as the behaviorists do: we are dogs or rats and can be trained to be some way or another. "You can train your brain to be happier! Happiness is just a habit!" They say. Emotions are only habits to the extent that we are not being conscious or present. People who focus on consciousness, presence, and perception don't need to "program habits" or worry about "habits" much at all. (For more on this read Nathaniel Branden's The Art of Living Consciously.)

"What you focus on expands! Never focus on anything negative!" They say. But you have to focus on your negative feelings in order to bring them into your conscious awareness, so you can gather the information you need to make different choices. Once you are done gathering the information, the emotion disappears. Unless the problem you need to solve is a major one, then the emotion will expand exponentially--propelling you to change your life. Pain will give you the energy you need to change your life.

But what about depression? That keeps people in bed! Exactly. Depressing your emotions--refusing to feel your pain--will be so exhausting that you have to stay in bed. Stop de-pressing whatever it is you need to feel, start writhing in pain or anger or sadness, and pretty soon you will be up and about fixing the problem. (And by pretty soon I mean quite possibly two to five years depending on how long you have been repressing.)

That's what our intense negative emotions are for: they make us make better choices for our lives. If we don't feel them, if we numb out, repress, or drug out, we won't change our lives. Part of me is like: cool.  I like the Matrix. Drudgery and drugs has worked for this long. Why change now? But the other part of me knows that's just fear. And I used to be really afraid of pain. But now, eh, it's just pain.

I am so sorry to be the bearer of bad news, for those of you who got very excited by the promises of positive psychology and stoicism, but all you can do is train your brain to repress a ton of information that would have served you. Negative emotions are not bad! And neither are negative dispositions.

Many psychologists want us to make sure our kids are Happy All The Time because that way their Happiness Set Point will be set to Very Happy. This is crap. An optimistic disposition is genetic and, though it is a fine disposition, it is no better than having a pessimistic disposition. Common sense: If pessimistic dispositions were bad for our survival, they would not exist. There is a great lecture available on iTunes University called "In Defense of Pessimism" which explains that pessimistic people are just as happy, just as successful, and just was healthy as optimistic people. They just have different strengths. In An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth Chris Hadfield says that extreme pessimists are the only kind of people who should be astronauts--because the skill of ruminating on every little thing that may go wrong is a GREAT skill. Pessimistic ruminators are the safest, most detail-oriented people. There are many other professions in which the skill of being able to think of everything that may go wrong is of the utmost importance.

A few hundred years ago Big Religion switched its stance from saying that unhappiness (suffering) was a sign of piousness to saying that happiness was a sign of piousness (a reward from God for being Good). Unhappiness became a stigma, something that only happens to sinners. Pessimistic people became social pariahs and everyone quickly learned to have a "public persona." From the 1800's on all Americans had to exude absolute cheerfulness at all times to prove to their neighbors that they were good Christians. And… nothing has changed. Except that today we defend this fake cheerfulness using pseudoscience. Anyone who looks into the research will find decades of psychologists attempting to change pessimistic people into optimistic people and finding that it cannot actually be done. Pessimistic people cannot be saved--though they can learn to be fake. Sadly, the very thing that would have been their super power is the thing they were taught to be ashamed of and keep hidden.

One last note: we live a in a society in which happiness is a major aspect of relationship control. No one will follow your advice unless you are Perfectly Happy. No one wants to be your friend unless you seem happy and successful. (Lol, I mean people won't befriend you to use you unless you have what they want….) It's horrifying for people to research the lives of their heroes--Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden--and find that they are taking advice from people who claimed they were The Happiest People on Earth but… the proof isn't there. Alcoholism, fear of driving, loneliness and alienation, disappointment, inflexibility, angry demeanors, meanness, infidelity, repeated divorce--these are not signs of happiness!

Today the people who sell happiness to us are careful to have perfect public personas. But I worked for a lot of them. People who, to the outside world, seem perfect, happy, wealthy, and wise. It was my job to make their children as good at faking it as the parents were. One set of parents were so anxious about whether or not I would succeed, they bought drugs for a particularly important social engagement. If I failed to make the kids act like perfect, happy, angels the plan was to drug them! Almost everyone I worked for was on drugs--drugs to sleep, drugs to wake up, drugs to get through the day, drugs to deal with particularly stressful days. I came away from a decade working for the top .001% thinking: How horrible to be them!

I don't tend to believe anyone who claims to be happy (outside of a moment). They are either trying to sell me something or they are in total denial. And I know all about that because I've been there and done that. If you follow this blog you know I spent a great deal of my life being fake-happy because Good Girls are happy. At the time I had no idea that I was being fake. I thought I was disciplined, and I also thought I was happy. But the happiness was very tied to goodness, to better-than-other-people-ness. A major clue that we are repressing a part of ourselves is when we passionately hate something in other people. I look back, and I see so clearly how I hated and stayed far away from (or tried to fix) anyone remotely negative or unhappy. If you are truly happy, you let other people be.

And more importantly, people who are honestly happy and not repression-happy know it and are honest about it. They are clear that it is momentary. They admit freely that they don't always feel that way because to be honestly happy means that they feel. Which means feeling the entire spectrum of emotions.

Happiness--all feelings--can only be felt when we are in our perceptual brain. If we want to feel more happiness, we must come into the present more often. But there's a catch: coming into the present more often means we will feel more things, not just happiness. Which is why anyone--or any psychology book--that tries to promise you more pleasure without more pain… is just snake oil.

Happiness is great, I love feeling happy, but at the same time, it's not that important to me. I am far more interested in difficult intellectual problems, in creating beauty, and in people I love. These things matter to me. My feelings are just information and sources of energy that help me with the pursuit of my goals in regards to what actually matters to me.

For those of you who know more about positive psychology and stoicism than I do--have I misunderstood these ideas? Do I need to do more research?

A final note: What I have written here is what I understand based on Objectivist epistemology in which information (consciousness of reality) is valued above all. I love this epistemology, and it is the only epistemology I have encountered that makes sense without contradictions. But I think it is important to note (as I mentioned above) I do not believe the champions of this system of thought--Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden--were particularly happy people. Brilliant, yes. Happy… no. But nothing in my research has led me to conclude that those who search for truth will find happiness (I am thinking of Joseph Cambell's stuff here. Jesus and Buddha found enlightenment not happiness). According to Darrin McMahon, author of Happiness: A History, consciousness and acceptance of our emotions is one way humans at different times and in different places have dealt with "the more-happiness problem". Drugs are another way--and a valid way. Drugs as the only form of true happiness available to human beings has been supported as an idea by more than one great philosopher--Schopenhaur being one of them. Many philosophers throughout the ages have also decided that repression and rejection of all emotion is the best way to go. So, as much as I am content with my own relationship to happiness, with Objectivism, I am not claiming that it is The Happiness Maximizing Route.

Ugh, one more note: I have a hunch that positive psychology and stoicism as psychological ideals, arrive in cultures where people feel powerless over their external world. For example, the best defense of positive psychology I have read (which still didn't convert me) was Victor Frakyl's book about surviving in a concentration camp. In such a place there is no other power except over yourself, no other goal you can accomplish except the goal of controlling your emotions, no other way to experience joy. If happiness is found in our perceptual reality there is none in an ugly, miserable world. If happiness is found abstractly from accomplishing an intrinsically motivated goal, there are none one can accomplish as a slave. Which leaves abstract escape as the only way. Repression of perceptual reality, and making the goal one can accomplish controlling the abstract self.

The Vaccine Decision Is a Trust Decision Not a Science Decision

I was asked recently what my position is on vaccines. This is what I know: I am not an expert! I don't have a lab where I can do my own experiments to verify data others are presenting me with. All the reading and documentary-watching in the world won't change that. I am going to have to trust someone else's advice here.

And that actually makes my decision pretty easy.

There is the pharmaceutical industry and the government on one team. And the other team is the Weston A Price Association and Dr. Mendelsohn.

I don't trust the government at all. Nor the pharmaceutical industry. And when it comes to these two, I am extremely wary of possible hidden agendas, especially financial ones.

Following the advice of the Weston A Price Association cured my husband's hair loss, my acne, my menstrual cramps, and gave me a beautiful, healthy baby who never had cradle cap, crusty eye, or spit up. And that's just in my immediate family. I could go on and on about the evidence I have seen with my own eyes about the benefits of following their diet for my family and friends. The Weston A Price Association does not profit from telling me to not vaccinate. (They do profit from telling me to take cod liver oil, but this post isn't about that.)

Following the advice of Dr. Mendelsohn, who wrote my favorite medical book, How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor, has saved me from a ton of parental worry, many pointless trips to the doctor, for not just my son but my husband and me too. Moreover, my grandfather was a doctor, and he gave this book to my mother in the 1980's. He said the medical industry was headed in a bad direction and no longer to be trusted. Dr. Mendelsohn and my grandfather have no hidden agenda that I can imagine either.

When it comes down to the only decision I get to make – which set of experts to trust – what decision I should make is clear.

It's terrifying – I want my son to be vaccinated against every horror life has to throw at him! And it's hard to reconcile my identity as a science-whorshipper with that of an unvaccinator. So I have to constantly remind myself of what Ayn Rand warned: Science isn't the science I love unless it's done on the free market. The meme that unvaccinators are anti-science is just advertising from two untrustworthy sources – big pharma and the government.

Personal anecdote: My vaccine free child is now six years old. He has had one fever in his entire life (when he was one and teething), he had diarrhea once that lasted a day when he was two, had a cough that was very slight and lasted a few weeks when he was three ... and that's it. He is gorgeously healthy. I don't worry when he plays with sick kids because I know he wont get sick, or if he does it will be nothing more than a runny nose. He also doesn't have any strange issues that doctors excuse as genetic, like eczema. I have two vaccinated nephews on my husband's side that have eczema (it runs in his family). My son's pediatrician - who suffers from eczema herself - says that she believes vaccines are a major trigger for eczema and that if you have eczema in your family, you should not be vaccinated.

Note: I studied nutrition pretty intensely for five years before I considered myself qualified to judge who to trust in that arena. Here is a link to a series of posts I wrote about my path to determining that Weston A Price diet is the one to follow:
http://roslynross.blogspot.com/2011/08/thinking-womans-pregnancy-before.html

The other thing that makes me lean on the "no vaccines" side of the fence is this study (link below) showing that 12% of children in Ulster County, NY have eczema, but only 1% of unvaccinated children from there have eczema. 8% of children have allergies, but only 2% of unvaccinated children... 

It's not this study itself that makes me question vaccines. It's that these studies aren't done all the time by interested scientists. If vaccines were about real science, the scientists would be passionate about finding out whether vaccines are actually ideal or not. They would be open to questioning. They would be open to being wrong.

Businessmen wanting to make money, on the other hand, are not interested in learning more about vaccines and their consequences for human health, they are only interested in convincing/coercing you to buy their product. My experience with vaccines has been all the latter. This makes me think that vaccines studies are done by $cientists, not scientists. 

https://www.icandecide.org/ican_press/ny-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-study-reveals-staggering-statistics-which-the-ny-doh-refuses-to-acknowledge/?fbclid=IwAR36kcEVzRL7wS8OlJIxVsEMvkuFOWeH2aVgbXwGtVzXfiAqi0kvJbm4TJM