Parental Contribution

[stopwatch]

In the aftermath of the Columbine shootings, it made us more comfortable to try and pin some cause to horrific teen behavior. Because other cultures have ruled out the obvious (access to weapons, violent TV/games, etc) we have chalked it up to the parents. Something must have gone wrong in parenting. The same was said after the shootings at Virginia Tech, and the same was stated after Timothy McVeigh. Even the parents of autistic children were at first blamed for their child's disorder - the "Cold Mother" hypothesis.

But this tendency to blame "the parents" (Something very Adam and Eve of us) doesn't just apply to heinous crimes. We use it to explain our own idiosyncrasies. "Oh, I'm so neurotic about being on time because my mother was always late." Or, "Well at least I'm not as cheap as my Dad. I'm a hellovalot better than he is." We are a culture of blame the parents.

What do you think? Is this justified? Or are we simply avoiding the problem out of laziness - this way we can keep our imperfections without feeling guilty.

[Easytrigger]

That is bullshit! Columbine and VT had nothing to do with the parents of those responsable.
In both cases they Targeted a certain enemy. Jocks.



And hot chicks who would'nt give them the time of day.











Goddamn nerds!

[KommieKat]

...............Because other cultures have ruled out the obvious (access to weapons, violent TV/games, etc) we have chalked it up to the parents...........

What cultures are you talking about and why did they rule it out?


Something must have gone wrong in parenting.

Parents my have had something to do with it but not completely.
Kids have to grow up some time and stop blaming mommy and daddy.



..... and the same was stated after Timothy McVeigh.

His case has not been proofed "without doubt". There is still doubt with the public and specialist.

[stopwatch]

We cannot fully explain the phenomenon with violent video games/movies, or access to weapons because other countries play the same video games, watch the same movies and have easy access to weapons (and they haven't had these child/teen killing sprees).

Your second point is my point. (Read more carefully)

I have no idea what you're getting at with point three unless you are trying to say that Tim McVeigh is not guilty. I was just using him as an example that the parental blame applies outside of child/teen cases.

[stopwatch]

That is bullshit! Columbine and VT had nothing to do with the parents of those responsable.
In both cases they Targeted a certain enemy. Jocks.

And hot chicks who would'nt give them the time of day.

Goddamn nerds!

This is a good point about the psychological make-up of the shooters from VT and Columbine, but my point was more about the general tendency that we have to blame parents in our society and whether that is justified.

[Fishypancake]

Its 2008. Get over it.

[stopwatch]

Its 2008. Get over it.

Of course you are right. This is certainly not the year for educated discussion...

[KommieKat]

We cannot fully explain the phenomenon with violent video games/movies, or access to weapons because other countries play the same video games, watch the same movies and have easy access to weapons (and they haven't had these child/teen killing sprees).

Ok.


Your second point is my point. (Read more carefully)

I READ it carefully. Your statement does not apply.


I have no idea what you're getting at with point three unless you are trying to say that Tim McVeigh is not guilty. I was just using him as an example that the parental blame applies outside of child/teen cases.

There is a bit of doubt as to his motives and what help he got.
There are specials done on it, even just recently with the "Discovery Channel".

Google his name and look what comes up?

[possessedblanket]

Saying that "we are a culture of blame the parents" is a hard statement to make. It is not like we measured the level of the "blame parents" attitude in a nationwide survey. Perhaps many other cultures "blame the parents" more. Who really knows.

Now are we justified in blaming the parents? Nurture has a big hand in the shaping of an individual. Also, after a major tragedy such as Columbine or Va Tech, it is psychologically normal for people to try and displace their sorrow, guilt, anger by blaming the parents. This behavior helps people cope with major tragedies.

However, there are many downsides to the persistent use of this excuse. Blaming the parents can be a very politically manipulative move. Policymakers blame the parents so that they don't have to invest any effort or money into the issue themselves. By blaming the parents, it takes the heat off of the school systems, community, Capitol Hill, etc. What really should happen is that people in those positions of power need to invest time and money into research, programs, etc. in order to work towards the future prevention of such tragedies.

On the micro-level, the individual is harmed in the long run if the "blame the parent" tactic persists. Whether or not it's your parent's fault, you still have to live your life. The only person who can improve the way in which you live your life is yourself. The "blame the parent" mentality only gets in the way of your potential self-improvement.

[stopwatch]

Saying that "we are a culture of blame the parents" is a hard statement to make. It is not like we measured the level of the "blame parents" attitude in a nationwide survey. Perhaps many other cultures "blame the parents" more. Who really knows.

Now are we justified in blaming the parents? Nurture has a big hand in the shaping of an individual. Also, after a major tragedy such as Columbine or Va Tech, it is psychologically normal for people to try and displace their sorrow, guilt, anger by blaming the parents. This behavior helps people cope with major tragedies.

However, there are many downsides to the persistent use of this excuse. Blaming the parents can be a very politically manipulative move. Policymakers blame the parents so that they don't have to invest any effort or money into the issue themselves. By blaming the parents, it takes the heat off of the school systems, community, Capitol Hill, etc. What really should happen is that people in those positions of power need to invest time and money into research, programs, etc. in order to work towards the future prevention of such tragedies.

On the micro-level, the individual is harmed in the long run if the "blame the parent" tactic persists. Whether or not it's your parent's fault, you still have to live your life. The only person who can improve the way in which you live your life is yourself. The "blame the parent" mentality only gets in the way of your potential self-improvement.

What are your personal views of parental contribution influencing behavior and development? Your discussion of why and if it should be used is faultless, but I was asking the "what." WHAT is the contribution? Is it different for each individual? Can some contribution be assumed for everyone?

[possessedblanket]

What are your personal views of parental contribution influencing behavior and development? Your discussion of why and if it should be used is faultless, but I was asking the "what." WHAT is the contribution? Is it different for each individual? Can some contribution be assumed for everyone?

The "what" is hinged on how much you believe the person was impacted by nature (the individual's inherent personality, attitude, etc) and how much the person is shaped by nurture (parents play a big role). The reason I stayed away from the "what" is that debating nature vs. nurture is like kicking the dead horse, stabbing it with a sword, then finally decapitating it. It serves no productive purpose. Of course each individual will be different. Some may be 40% nature 60 % nurture. Others may be 90 % nurture 10 % nature. These numbers really mean absolutely nothing. So rather than debate the "what" and try to quantify this contribution, it is much more productive to discuss the "why" and the consequences.

[stopwatch]

The "what" is hinged on how much you believe the person was impacted by nature (the individual's inherent personality, attitude, etc) and how much the person is shaped by nurture (parents play a big role). The reason I stayed away from the "what" is that debating nature vs. nurture is like kicking the dead horse, stabbing it with a sword, then finally decapitating it. It serves no productive purpose. Of course each individual will be different. Some may be 40% nature 60 % nurture. Others may be 90 % nurture 10 % nature. These numbers really mean absolutely nothing. So rather than debate the "what" and try to quantify this contribution, it is much more productive to discuss the "why" and the consequences.

Fair enough.

But just to make sure the horse is dead, let me say this: in terms of court systems, psychological treatment, targeting and prevention, these questions will always remain at the forefront. And I do believe that it will someday be possible to measure it - we just simply don't know how yet.

[possessedblanket]

Fair enough.

But just to make sure the horse is dead, let me say this: in terms of court systems, psychological treatment, targeting and prevention, these questions will always remain at the forefront. And I do believe that it will someday be possible to measure it - we just simply don't know how yet.

Agreed