"A Nation of Wimps"

There's a new word in Sweden that's all the rage: curlingparents. It's used to refer to parents that pave the way for the children similar to how curlers (is that what you call them?) scuff and smooth the ice for the rock in curling. I find it very amusing...and I was reminded of it by two recent article on child rearing that look at the problems of over-protection and over-prescription.

The first is on article in Psychology Today on parental hyperconcern, which I feel is a huge problem for today's youth. It was particularly apparent in my (county-wide science magnet) high school in New Jersey. It is also rather directly addressed by the educational model of Deep Springs.

The article discusses the 'all-rubber-cushioned surface playgrounds' showing up across America, one of which was installed behind my elementary school just as I moved on up. I am incredibly grateful to have graduated from the 'school of hard knox' playground model, where I skinned my knees and fashioned permanent grass stains into most of my wardrobe.

You can't just bubblewrap a kids life in an effort to protect him. Life doesn't work like that, and there's plenty of evidence from immunology and developing immune systems that clearly demonstrate the benefits of wide exposure.

And that's largely what Deep Springs is about: being handed enormous responsibility and being held brutally accountable for the whole she-bang. Learning to fail. Learning to be accountable for your own actions, your own life.

The article proposes that this is somewhat responsible for the current state of college drinking, "it gives young people something all their own to talk about, and sharing stories about the path to passing out is a primary purpose. It's an inverted world in which drinking to oblivion is the way to feel connected and alive."

It also looks at grade inflation, the disappearance of recess, cell phones, etc. Really good observations. On cell phones:

Think of the cell phone as the eternal umbilicus. One of the ways we grow up is by internalizing an image of Mom and Dad and the values and advice they imparted over the early years. Then, whenever we find ourselves faced with uncertainty or difficulty, we call on that internalized image. We become, in a way, all the wise adults we've had the privilege to know. "But cell phones keep kids from figuring out what to do," says Anderegg. "They've never internalized any images; all they've internalized is 'call Mom or Dad.'"

There's also a point that I've been making for a long time, that cell phones encourage kids to forgo planning, to not think ahead. I remember getting really annoyed at friends who got cell phones near the end of high school because they practically refused to make plans..."I'm going out to dinner with my girlfriend, but I'll call you when I'm done and maybe we can meet up."

Last but not least it looks at the American tendency to freight-train through highschool/internships/college/professionalism. "There's decent historical evidence to suggest that societies that allow kids a few years of latitude and even moderate [rebellion] end up with healthier kids than societies that pretend such impulses don't exist."

One part that I disagree about is the criticism of a Dr. Suess childhood. There's nothing wrong with telling your kids that they can accomplish anything as long as you let them learn the process of accomplishment rather than hand them prefabricated success. Of course they're going to crash and burn if they've never had to work for it. A book like Oh the Places You'll Go! is supposed to show kids what they can do if they put their heart into it. A good message. It's only wrong if their parents are putting the heart and they're being chauffeured to the places.

The other article of note was about Big Pharm's push of ADHD drugs onto the youth of America. It interviews former scientists-turned-industry whores who've been doing bunk research for drug companies.

Between 1997 and 1999, he was paid by McNeil to conduct one of three studies used to get FDA approval. The company currently uses the three studies to claim that 96 percent of children taking Concerta experience no problems in appetite, growth, or sleep. But Pelham says the studies were flawed. The original intent of the studies was to measure both side effects and main effects of the drug. But two of the three studies, including Pelham's, required that the subjects had to already be taking MPH and responding well to it in order to enter the study. In other words, by stacking the studies with patients already successfully taking stimulants, McNeil ensured the subjects would be unlikely to register side effects, Pelham says.

This stuff is really scary, consider that in 10 years it won't be just ritalin but EUPHORIA (tm), and half of american children will be walking around mindless soldier of glee. Be afraid.

---

And this one's for the nerds: An excerpt from a new book on Gödel, Einstein, and Time.