No denying that peer pressure exerts a great and powerful influence on kids, we old parents didn't need a book to tell us that, we were kids once too, remember. But we knew, as our kids knew, they had to answer to somebody for their actions no matter what their friends and/or everybody else was doing. That has a powerful influence too, especially since they didn't want to go live with their peers. Experience is a powerful educator and some of the things my kids came up with weren't covered in any book I'd ever read. Talk about OJT.

I'm not so sure today's kids have that, though. I've seen a few parents that don't care or don't have time or whatever and these neglected kids do have problems later on because they turn to their peers, who are there for them, for what sometimes is bad advice and influence. I'm sure that's what the statistics are about but you don't hear too much about the good kids these days. They're not newsworthy or very interesting to study I guess.

 

[QUOTE=dlq04,Oct 20 2006, 10:52 AM] My youngest just turned 27.

 

Yep. Although we 'lightened up' a little more with each child my wife and I both believed strongly in discipline. By comparison we had a good friend and neighbor who did not. She had a psch degree and was a school counselor. They gave their kids everything they wanted and more without making them accountable. Neither of her kids today are the better for it.

 

I'll agree with that point. I can recall getting only a small portion of what I asked for over the years, but was certainly held accountable for what I did have, plus everything else in the household ... of course, whenever something went wrong in the house, I was the first suspect ... which was often correct.

 

With all due respect, you sound like a bunch of old people.

I've heard these arguments about the lack of discipline from my grandparents, my parents and now from members of my own generation. I think every generation goes through this.

I don't know. I think there's a whole lot more that goes into the mix than just "strict discipline". Even strict discipline is no substitute for just simply spending time with your kids and showing by example. And some of it is just plain luck.

I'm not a strict disciplinarian, but I'm thrilled with the way my kids are turning out. Those of you who have met my sons will agree. All I've (and Liz) ever done is to spend lots of time with my kids and include them most everything we've done. There is no substitute for the time you spend with your kids, not even strict discipline.

And some of it is just plain luck.

 

Rob, I agree with time spent, leading by example, and luck are all factors but I'm sure even you set rules and followed up when broken.

 

Yes, discipline is only one piece of the puzzle ... 'twas only the topic at hand at the moment.

 

Of course we set some rules, everybody does, but we're really pretty easy.

Kids need to have stability, an anchor. And kids need time and attention. Its really not all that hard to be a parent, you don't even have to be that smart, you just have to make up your mind that you're going to give a lot of time to your kids. If you can't do that you shouldn't have kids.

Liz and I had our kids later. She was in her late 20s and I was in my early 30s. The advantage was that we'd gotten the other things we wanted to do out of the way, and we were ready. Maybe that's the problem. People have their kids before they're ready.

 

With all due respect, you also sound like a bunch of gamblers talking about your systems at Vegas or Atlantic City. "I played red and won $400 on the weekend, so that's what you should try."

There is hard, scientific evidence for this sort of thing. It mostly comes from what are called twin studies, where twins that were raised apart are compared with twins that were raised together. (There are other related kinds of studies as well, but the point is that there are ways to separate out factors that are normally confounded, like the parents' genetic contribution and the parenting style.)

You guys are all starting from the assumption that your parenting style has a whole lot to do with how your kids turn out. It's an assumption people often make, because they care so much about how their kids turn out that they try do do their best to influence. They are trying so hard that they assume they are doing something. That's not necessarily a valid assumption, though.

 

I know this is dragging the conversation off-topic, and I apologize, but I have a question about this nature vs. nurture stuff.

Mike, are you saying that it doesn't matter what we, as parents, do? So, we could let our kids stay up late...smoke pot...cuss and have bad table manners if they want as children, but they'll turn out ok if they inherited good genetics?

Surely parents have SOME impact...after all, we're as much a part of their environment as their friends in those formative years...or at least we have the OPPORTUNITY to be...