Weekend Observation

By: Carol Maxym, Ph.D.

What a joy today to be able to watch a dad be such a cool dad to his two sons. He was funny, loving, playful, directive—very directive—clear in his communications to his sons. He didn’t say “awesome” even one time. He didn’t overpraise, not once. Once when one of the two boys (three and four, I would guess) didn’t quite obey (yes, obey! imagine using that word!), he simply stared the boy down. Because his son already respected his dad and dad’s authority, it worked well.

He was playing a bit rough with them—good boy-kind of rough play. One of the boys was “scared”; the dad didn’t let it go. He asked why but didn’t hang on getting some sort of pretend-reasonable/rational explanation from a four-year old. Later one of the boys wanted to “give up.” Yay for the dad who didn’t ask why or try to cajole him. Yay for the dad who simply advised, “Don’t give up. Don’t ever give up.” Yay for the dad who never raised his voice because he had established his knowledge, authority, and that he provided safety for his sons.

And, sadly, I need to contrast with the dad I saw yesterday. Since it was raining, and I go nuts if I don’t get exercise, I was walking in an indoor mall. I mean, you do the best you can, right? In came a dad with a very pretty little daughter—probably four. She was all dressed up in a darling dress with a little sequined bag. As they entered the mall, dad said, “So, what store do you want to go to? You choose.” He stood back to give her the run of the mall. Really. She is four. Four years old. How could she possibly make such a choice?

This is a perfect example of the problem of giving kids choices way beyond their years and development. What would any four-year old do with such an invitation? Well, exactly what she did. Get excited, overly excited, and start running around. To some she may have seemed really happy because she could do whatever she wished. To me she seemed mainly overwhelmed with having to try to do what her dad asked her to do: Choose what store(s) to go into. She was trying to please her father. He was trying to please her, I am quite sure. He wanted, I am guessing, to make her happy. 

Overwhelming a child with choices is not a way to make the child happy. It is a way to make a child anxious and overwhelmed, no matter how good a parent’s motives.

Instead, he could have taken her hand and walked with her to whatever store(s) they wanted or needed to visit, made their purchase(s) and gone home with, in fact, much less anxiety for this pretty little girl.

I do not ascribe anything but good motives to the dad. I wish, rather, simply to note again and with this specific example how important it is to tailor choices to a child’s age, maturity, and actual, real, demonstrable ability to make the choice being offered.

Okay?? One of the Most Dangerous Words a Parent Can Say

By: Carol Maxym, Ph.D.

People say that the expression OK dates from the 18^th Century. I was told, once upon a time, that it was Millard Fillmore (a particularly uneducated President) who first used the abbreviation. He was abbreviating Oll Korrect. Ok, so his spelling wasn’t fabulous. He wasn’t much of a President either. I’ve just looked in the dictionary which tells me that OK was a humorous abbreviation for “Old Kinderhook” which was a slogan from the 1840 Presidential campaign of Martin van Buren. Interesting but not important.

This is important: Saying, “Okay?” to your kids when you have given them a direction, suggestion, or instruction is important, very important. It’s important because asking “Okay?” is asking a child to assent to your statement—or not, as the case may be. It asks a child to determine and decide if what you have stated, instructed, requested is…well, okay with her. It is giving a lot of power to a child. Power the child cannot exercise with wisdom. Of course. This is a child not an adult.

I’m guessing you are saying, “No, that’s not it. It’s different. I’m not asking for permission to give a direction or instruction or whether my child wants to do what I’ve said; no, I’m checking to see if he/she heard what I said.” Ok (pardon the pun). It’s still a huge problem.

When you speak, you child is supposed to pay attention. Why? Because you are the parent. Therefore, it makes best sense if you assume that your child has heard what you’ve said. If you need to check to see if your child has heard or rather paid attention, you can be pretty certain your child is used to having you repeat.

Just this afternoon I heard two parents do the okay thing. One was to a 7-year old, the other to a toddler. Neither child needed to be consulted. Each parent knew what he/she was doing. Each child required a parent who doesn’t ask for permission to tell the child what to do or what is happening next on the daily program.

So often I hear desperation in a parent’s voice when the okay question is asked. The question implies your own questioning of your instruction or even explanation. Your child will pick up on this. Do your child the favor of being clear, concise, and firm when you tell him or her something. Asking the okay question implies you aren’t sure. Your child needs you to be sure. Your child needs to know who is driving the bus. Not being sure is one of the subtle ways that kids become anxious.

Starting the okay question with little ones just sets the stage for much bigger and less pleasant discussions once your child is older and bigger. “No drinking while you’re driving. Okay?”

Not asking the okay question is one of the better ways to establish and maintain the authority you need to have vis a vis your child. Remember, your child does need to know who is driving the bus.

Please check yourself and anyone who gives direction or instruction to your child(ren). Please think carefully and a lot about the situation you set up for your child when you ask, “Okay?” Remember that not only are you giving your child the power you need to maintain in order to keep your child safe, but you are asking your child to make a decision far beyond his ability or maturity.

Micromanaging: Take Two

By: Carol Maxym, Ph.D.

Introducing the Concept of Pronoun Disorder

I’m coming back to this topic because it is one of the most important and least recognized topics in modern child rearing. I will be bold and perhaps even harsh because I so much want to help you to understand the extreme risks of micromanaging.

Micromanaging is being a lazy parent. Yes, lazy. Now you will probably think that makes no sense at all because it takes so much of your energy, keeping everything together, running smoothly. Yes, it does. It creates a phony order out of what is ultimately chaos because your child is not gaining independence of action, thought, and emotion. Sorry. That’s the fact. Think about it.

You’ve probably heard the old Chinese proverb: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you allow him to feed himself for life.

How does that relate to micromanaging your child(ren)? You can organize all your children’s homework each night. You can help them to do their larger projects. You can speak to the teacher when things aren’t working optimally or even at all. You can organize their schedules. You can remind and nag to obtain the results that you know are the good results. You can impose adult-level quality on every aspect of their lives…and what is going to happen when you aren’t there?

Are you providing one fish after another or teaching your child to fish?

I am continuously distressed to hear about parents needing to be more involved in their child’s education. No, no, no! You do not need to supervise what your child is learning and how he is doing. You do not need to micromanage school for your child. I have no doubt you will do a better job (you are an adult!) resulting in a higher quality end product. However, the end result of having a better product is the antithesis of meeting your child’s needs. Remember your child’s needs are more closely related to being able to become independent, honorable, productive in the adult world than to be imitating adult-level competence at the ripe age of 8 or 12 or 16.

Okay, I’m going to say it: Micromanaging is selfish. Yes, really, because it’s about you having the satisfaction of the end product instead of the pain and distress of waiting to see how your child will do if left on her own. It’s wanting adult-level quality for kid-level endeavors. It is easier to micromanage something than to teach how to do it, to wait for the learning to happen. (Learning rarely happens immediately).

Micromanaging is about you having instant gratification. Micromanaging is about you not having to bear the anxiety of your child not doing perfectly at the start…or even later.

Here is one way you can tell if you are micromanaging. Check out whether you have “Pronoun Disorder.” Pronoun Disorder is when you use the pronoun “we” when you should be saying “he” or “she.” Pronoun Disorder is when you say things like, “We’re applying to college.” Pronoun Disorder is when you think things like, “I know exactly how he’s feeling. I must ease it for him.”

Please reconsider whether the process or the end product is more important in the long run.

Micromanaging: A Lose-Lose Scenario

By: Carol Maxym, Ph.D.

I know. You are encouraged to micromanage your child. No one wants to say that, but there it is.

Kids who are already quite old enough to walk to school being walked to school by their parents (and parents carrying the back pack, walking back with the scooter that can’t be parked at the school but that the child really wants to ride). Micromanaging. Checking to see if there is homework assigned. Micromanaging. Checking to see if homework is completed and completed correctly. Micromanaging. Explaining and explaining. More subtle, yes, but still micromanaging. Helping your child to understand and live his/her emotions. Micromanaging because you aren’t so much helping as dong.

What can I say? If the shoe fits….

Micromanaging is when you become more concerned with the outcome than with the process. Micromanaging the growing-up process is dangerous and cannot be successful.

Micromanaging: One of the more dangerous modern methods of child rearing.

I’ve known so many mothers who are/were high-powered professionals who became major micromanagers of their kids. Why? Because it is a skill cultivated and honed in the working world. A good skill for the work world. Disaster for mothering.

Think about this: When you are/were employed outside the home, no matter what your job or profession, one thing you are always trying to do is anticipate problems so they don’t occur. If they do occur, whatever your position, you work to solve the problem and make certain it doesn’t reoccur. That’s what makes you a competent professional. Yes.

This is not a good skill for mothering or fathering. Raising kids isn’t a job. It’s a duty; it’s a part of your life. Jobs end at some time every day. Child rearing doesn’t. Using the skills that make you successful in your job or profession is generally quite dangerous.

Micromanaging takes over the growing up process. It disrupts the learning process your child must accomplish in order to become mature and independent. It is better to let your child fail a test or a class than to micromanage to achieve the end result you want. Think if forward: If you are micromanaging your child’s world, what happens later? Do you plan to micromanage at college (well, the sad fact is, I hear parents trying to do that all the time).

Here’s one thing I can predict: Kids who are micromanaged will find ways to thwart your micromanaging. They will avoid, go underground, become secretive, use drugs, become promiscuous…pretty dire? Yes. Kids will find ways to avoid your micromanaging and you are unlikely to like any of the ways they will find.

Your best bet? Don’t micromanage. Don’t concern yourself with the end result; concern yourself with the way your child gets there and what he/she can learn by engaging in the process.

Seeking Comfort or Solving Problems

By: Robert Schmidt, M.A.

“My name is Robert and I’m an addict.”

In the 10 plus years that I have been clean and sober I have made that statement about myself out loud hundreds of time before speaking about personal experiences regarding substance abuse and recovery processes. That one phrase is both introduction to a topic and a claim to authority over the subject matter that follows.

It is also an expression of solidarity with a group of people and their conception of a particular problem. That always makes me cringe slightly.

So, what do I mean when I say I’m an addict? Do I mean to say that I have a disease?

In 1987, the American Medical Association proclaimed that drug dependencies including alcoholism were diseases. Not based on biological evidence the proclamation was an attempt to shift the burden of responsibility from the criminal justice system to the heath-care system.

There are many people in academia and outside of it who argue the various points on whether addiction is a disease as if there were actually some a priori truth to be discovered regarding how well the one theoretical construct matches the other and if it really matters to an addict or alcoholic choosing a life in recovery.

In the meantime, addicts are dying every day.

I no longer find the debate compelling. I am only interested in how an individual’s beliefs about his or her use effects the chances for recovery.

When I was a teenager I used to steal money from my father’s wallet while he took his morning shower. I also stole money from my friends and their parents. I justified this behavior by telling myself “I have an addiction to feed.” At that time I thought I was biologically propelled to addiction and that my behaviors were a result of some genetic misfortune. I exempted myself from feelings of guilt on these grounds for years. I was also excusing myself from any pressure to act toward changing the addictive behaviors.

In addition to the AMA proclamation, I think that part of the reason the disease model has permeated the popular narrative on addictions is Alcoholics Anonymous, and a misrepresentation thereof.

The first of the AA 12 steps states: “we admitted we were powerless over alcohol – that our lives had become unmanageable.” Many people in and around AA take this very literally and disregard the fact that the next 11 steps all detail a process of claiming power back from alcohol.

This is done by taking personal inventory, making amends, and helping others do the same in order to seek out a spiritual awakening.

A good friend once told me that addiction is like an elevator going down, and that if we want to we can get off at any floor.

I think the disease model isn’t helpful if/when it is being use to explain away behaviors that can be treated and extinguished. I think it is one explanation that can offer comfort to families in pain, by why seek comfort when the problem can be solved through action?

Boundaries are Beautiful

By: Carol Maxym, Ph.D.

I almost think I don’t have to write another word. Boundaries are beautiful, wonderful, helpful. Boundaries are different from threats. Threats always include the if/then continuum. Boundaries just say what you personally will accept.

Boundaries are not discussion points. Boundaries should not be drawn too quickly. Boundaries need to be considered. You are welcome to change boundaries, but it is not advisable for you to make boundaries moving goal posts.

Boundaries demonstrate self respect. Because boundaries demonstrate self respect, they can sometimes be challenging to others. That others find your boundaries to be challenging does not mean that you change them.

I am not suggesting you should be rigid. I am suggesting that you be clear with yourself and then with others about your boundaries. Other do not need to like your boundaries. Sometimes others will be fine (even better off) with your boundaries. Other times your boundaries may upset, annoy, anger other. Your boundaries should helpful in structuring your life, both practically and emotionally. Remember, boundaries clarify—for you and for others.

Here is a boundary: You may not speak to me that way. This is not followed by a threat. It is enforced by the intensity with which it is uttered. If you are new to setting boundaries, that intensity may be difficult to display. You’ll get better with practice. Remember, your boundaries are not up for negotiation.

Threats have many disadvantages: If you don’t carry out your threat, all subsequent threats become weak and irrelevant. Threats always imply what I call ‘the measuring stick.’ When you threaten, the person (whether your child, spouse, the airline representative, etc.) always thinks quickly whether whatever you are threatening is all that terrible and/or if could can carry it out anyway. Often it isn’t or you can’t/won’t, so again, the threat becomes weak and irrelevant. Remember that you probably won’t carry out any really dire threat, so don’t make it.

Instead set boundaries. You can never really control someone else’s behavior. You can always control your own. You may be able to influence someone else’s attitudes; you are always able to influence your own.

Boundaries are just statements of how you choose to be in the world. Boundaries can be irrational and create more problems. Boundaries can be concise, clear, rational, and demonstrative of your best self.

Suggestion: Take a few minutes now—or later in the day when you are stopped at a red light, caught in traffic, waiting for your kids, on hold with someone, and think about boundaries. Then think about your boundaries—the ones you need to create and enforce for yourself.

Selfies

By: Carol Maxym, Ph.D.

At the beginning of the year I saw that the word ‘selfie’ has been added to the dictionary and was proclaimed one of the most important new words of 2013.  Yippee??

Yesterday I saw a young woman taking a selfie.  She was pouting seductively to…well, herself.  Was she going to send the selfie to someone?  I have no idea.  Old fashioned as I am, I found it somehow so sad to see her being self-absorbed enough to pout and pose…well, as I said, for herself.  

Then this morning I was looking out at the ocean.  Good day for whales.  I saw at least three, possibly four.  And standing next to me was a young woman with a selfie-maker plus.  It was a hot pink mini camera with a matching hot pink stick attached to the camera for…you guessed it.  Taking better selfies, taking selfies from more angles, having a bit more distance, taking selfies looking down on herself.  Here is the really unfortunate thing:  While she was so busy taking photos of herself, she didn’t see the ocean, the sky, the whales.  I mean, really, she could have been anywhere and taken her selfies, her photos of herself.  She missed the moment, she missed being present to her surroundings.  She missed seeing the whales.  There isn’t too much that is really more exciting that seeing whales blowing and breaching right in front of your eyes.  She missed it.

I’m watching a young woman and her mother sitting silently together on a couch.  Apparently they have nothing to say to each other.  They became animated when the daughter took out her phone for a duo-selfie.  She put their heads together and smiled.  Silence again.  The young woman is busy on her phone, the mother staring ahead.  

Are selfies real?

What are your kids missing while they concern themselves with their selfies?  What in the big, wide, exciting, wonderful world are your kids, kids in general missing while they concern themselves with themselves.  How few memories will they have because they forgot to look, to listen, to be in the moment?  Why are they taking photos of themselves?  I remember one mother saying to me he couldn’t understand why her son took so many selfies when he so clearly hated himself.  A poignant question.  

Then I thought of the kind of selfie that makes sense to me.  Self reflection.  Taking the time and the concentration to consider oneself in the world, reflecting on how one effects others, how one can effect others. Taking the time to notice being alive, to consider love and connection.

The selfie—the change from self refection to self absorption—or perhaps more accurately, the expression of a bored generation.

Apples and Gravity

By: Carol Maxym, Ph.D.

When I first began my graduate work in psychology, one of my professors, Professor Dr. Eugene Wist commented, “Why is it that when an apple falls and we know that gravity has something to do with it, we don’t all suddenly think we are physicists, yet everyone thinks they can be a psychologist because they know something about human behavior?”

When I read the op-ed in the January 26, 2014 New York Times by Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/what-drives-success.html?ref=opinion), I thought of Professor Dr. Wist.  Clearly these two writers are highly educated and intelligent.  Since I don’t pretend to be an expert on the law because I’ve watched lots of episodes of Law and Order, I would respectfully ask Chua and Rubenfeld to leave the interpretation and analysis of human behavior to those who have spent as much time studying it as they have the law.

Clearly Chua and Rubenfeld lack training in how to interpret sociological and/or psychological thought and research.  Sadly the conclusions they draw from the studies they quote are valid only insofar as they justify the thesis Chua and Rubenfeld are trying to prove.  They seem happily oblivious to the fact that there are far too many variables in the statistics they quote as well as how they were derived for them to be tossed off as “proof” of a rather silly theory about the three magical attributes of success.  I understand that Ms. Chua and Mr. Rubenfeld are trying to sell books and that they are doing it in the accepted way such is done nowadays.  Still, h’mmm.  I think we need to be a bit more thoughtful on the topic of success, what it is and what makes it happen.

Perhaps oddly, I am reminded of a telephone call I made today.  I called the Marriott Renaissance Hotel in Dallas to inquire the travel time from the hotel to the airport.  Of course the first response I got when my call was answered was from a talking computer.  The talking computer told me that an “Ambassador” would be with me shortly.  An Ambassador?  Are you kidding me?  What they meant was a clerk or receptionist.  When the “Ambassador” came on the line, she said, “Thank you for discovering the Marriott Renaissance Hotel in Dallas.  How can I assist you?”  Okay, I laughed.  I didn’t mean to be rude, but sometimes when things are funny, you just must laugh. I mean I wasn’t speaking to an Ambassador and I hadn’t ‘discovered’ the hotel.  I am attending a meeting there; it’s the hotel for the meeting.  That’s all.  I did get the information I requested.  What a lot of phooey to dress up a very simple communication!

So what does that have to do with the op-ed in the NYTimes?  Well, just this (and we find it in so many aspects of our lives today).  Words don’t need to have meaning anymore.  Surely the meaning of the word ‘success’ according to Chua and Rubenfeld doesn’t have meaning beyond making lots of money (not the definition in the dictionary…) any more than I spoke with an Ambassador when I called the hotel.

Here are some words that, based upon constant misuse and overuse, no longer have much meaning:  depression, focus, awesome, passion.  I guess I may need to add ‘success’ to my list.

I’ll be writing about each of these soon.  Stay tuned.  Meanwhile think about what sort of success you most want for yourself, for your child.  



Dr Carol Maxym