Is child-raising becoming a science?

[Lawrence Salcido]

Lately I've noticed an abundance of articles on the news and online and stuff that all talk about the best things to force your child to do so that they get something useful in the future, better memory, better vision, faster learning. A fine example is the "My baby can read" thing I seen recently. Like cheat codes, but for kids. Insert x command here and get y. But the point I'm trying to make is listed above in the topic; has raising kids started to turn into a science?
Opinions, specific sources, let's discuss Escapist.

 

[Strain42]

Statistics mean nothing to the individual, and that's really the ultimate truth when it comes to raising kids.

All you can do is what's best for the kid and hope you don't screw it up too badly.

 

[lacktheknack]

There is no one-size-fits-all component of child-rearing. It's still very much an art, requiring you to listen to your child, set boundaries specially designed for them and coming up with creative solutions to problems that suit your child best.

For example, spanking. One child won't care after being spanked (high pain tolerance, notices that the pain doesn't last), another will respond effectively (remembers the pain most out of the entire action/reaction sequence), and devastate another child (MOM HIT ME! WHY!? I CAN'T TRUST HER ANY MORE!)

Now, if we start cloning...

 

[Comando96]

Well... yes... sorta...

It can be done scientifically if you want, but obviously to do it scientifically would be impossible as it would require complete disconjoining of emotion... without which you can't raise a child healthily.

If you know psychology well enough (and a competent caring person) then you can raise a child very well and the way you want to but its not as clear cut as science as each child is different and therefore the response given needs to be different.

For example to raise me, an autistic dyslexic child, like any normal child, for my dyslexia and autism only to be noticed and diagnosed by education professionals at the age 17 (I am now 18 by 5 days) should not be the cause.
The result of raising me like a normal child has resulted an individual of a "very high" level of natural intelligencel; due to his upbringing having a lot of untapped and even squandered potential and now having depression and on anti-depressants for various reason. Fuck I really need to see my Councillor again soon >.>

 

[xmbts]

People have always wanted their kids to excel in things like that, It's just now that's marketable.

So it's nothing new really just a different approach.

 

[Fluffythepoo]

If it exists, then smart people will make it better and probably take all the fun out of it while theyre at it.. this includes the manufacturing of children and child like entities

 

[girzwald]

There is no science to raising a child. We've gone through tons of "scientific" studies on how to raise a child and they always fail. Dr. Spock has raised a generation of spoiled, entitled brats with inflated egos. The "Give a boy barbie and a girl GI joe" theory has proven false. Baby Einstein was proven to be bunk.

Trying to direct your childs development in a specific, unnatural way will always fail and/or create disastrous results.

 

[TRR]

Yes, because you can turn anything into a science.

 

[Hoplon]

A lot of the things in these articles aren't about making your child behave in a certain way but can develop certain skills since they are not dependant on intelligence etc but on having it happen early enough that it takes.

But I do agree with the general feeling that their emotional and personal development is still very much about your response to them as an emergent person, which can never be predefined.

 

[Prince Regent]

Yes, because you can turn anything into a science.

No you can't. You can do scientific research on most things, but that doesn't make the thing itself a science.

For example: If a biologist (a scientist) goes to study blood cells in the liver, that doesn't make the liver or the blood cells a science.

Now Pedagogy is a part of psychology wich in turn is considerd a science.

 

[FamoFunk]

Raising Kids is a mind-fuck.

2.5 years in and I still feel a little lost in it all. Sod adding Scientific crap into it.

 

[bdcjacko]

If by recently you mean at least for the last 20 years.

 

[Esotera]

What would be wrong with parenting based on evidence? I think parents are paying more attention to studies out there, and that can only be a good thing.

 

[Legit101]

................

 

[Akimoto]

What would be wrong with parenting based on evidence? I think parents are paying more attention to studies out there, and that can only be a good thing.

Some studies are under alot, and I mean ALOT, of fire in the scientific community.The main beef between the yeas and neas is mostly based on philosophy.

One such study mainly concerns Emotional Intelligence. EI is simply the ability to recognize, understand, manage and even manipulate emotions in others or self. But I bet our moms could have told us that eh? =)

Strangely when I was doing my paper on it there was a mention (other than the theories) of being able to develop EI in children and one of them is the Mozart Effect. I am certain I have the paper and if you want it I can search for it just mail me, but simply put listening to Mozart has inconclusive results. But before anyone cries foul, that was only the one study.

Is child raising becoming a science? I think it always has been. As good parents should, and will always be, they are concerned with bringing up children the best way possible. Should we see science as the only way to guide child raising? No real harm, but it limits our options and we sell ourselves short.

The biggest problem is when the unscrupulous few take the science and twist it to their own ends to make money.

 

[Flunk]

No, because for Science you need long-running peer reviewed studies and I don't see parents signing off for their kids to be in the control group (no human interaction at all).

 

[Akimoto]

No, because for Science you need long-running peer reviewed studies and I don't see parents signing off for their kids to be in the control group (no human interaction at all).

That's part of the problem indeed, most of the studies are done with adults. There are very little longitudinal studies with kids currently.

I don't think no human interaction is an issue, the issue might most likely be concerns of unintended side effects. It's a little ironic that we don't mind getting results and tests done, but yet we hold suspicion towards these very tests. Sometimes I blame the Kuhnerian way of science. =) But that's another story.

 

[Shock and Awe]

To me almost all truly important things are both art and science to some degree or another, even art and science themselves. War, Politics, and child rearing all have both of these elements.

 

[SilentCom]

Following a scientific approach to forcing your child to be a certain way only works if the child is a robot.