What do you think?
Rate this book
The Myth of the Spoiled Child: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom About Children and Parenting
Caution! No English version! Polish release.
280 pages, Hardcover
First published March 11, 2014
125 people are currently reading
2277 people want to read
About the author
Alfie Kohn
49 books539 followers Alfie Kohn writes and speaks widely on human behavior, education, and parenting. The author of fourteen books and scores of articles, he lectures at education conferences and universities as well as to parent groups and corporations.
Kohn's criticisms of competition and rewards have been widely discussed and debated, and he has been described in Time magazine as "perhaps the country's most outspoken critic of education's fixation on grades [and] test scores."
Kohn lives (actually) in the Boston area with his wife and two children, and (virtually) at www.alfiekohn.org.
Kohn's criticisms of competition and rewards have been widely discussed and debated, and he has been described in Time magazine as "perhaps the country's most outspoken critic of education's fixation on grades [and] test scores."
Kohn lives (actually) in the Boston area with his wife and two children, and (virtually) at www.alfiekohn.org.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews
October 5, 2016
I received a copy of this book for free through Goodreads Giveaways.
I am of two completely opposing opinions in regard to this book. On the one hand, I find much of the research the author cites to be accurate, agree with a number of the conclusions he comes to, and overall see the educational system and typical parenting methods as generally failing to help kids fully realize their potential. On the other, Myth of the Spoiled Child is frustratingly ideological, frequently goes after opposing viewpoints in a sideways manner, and leaves issues unaddressed solely because they're in the author's blind spot.
(This was the first time since college that I actually felt compelled to take notes when reading a book so I could keep track of all the points I thought needed to be addressed. I'll just be hitting the points as I wrote them down, so I apologize in advance for the choppiness.)
Right off the bat, Alfie Kohn has a habit of using "conservative" and "traditionalist" as synonyms for "bad" and "liberal" as a synonym for "good" throughout the book. If a conservative were to get past the obvious dismissiveness toward their political leanings in this book, they'd still be at odds with the values that the reader is assumed to hold. Liberals will read this and mostly nod along, conservatives will read it and mostly shake their heads (or just stop reading), but it lacks persuasive power and is unlikely to change any hearts and minds.
Alfie Kohn hates dodgeball, and more generally competition of any kind, believing it should be discouraged; however, he likes autonomy for children and allowing them to pursue their own interests and activities. So what happens when kids want to play dodgeball or some other competitive game? Kohn doesn't seem to even consider that when kids get a chance to choose their own group activities, they'll go with tag, baseball, soccer, or even, horror of horrors, dodgeball. It's one of those glaring blind spots this book is repeatedly guilty of: What happens when Alfie Kohn, proponent of autonomous thought for kids, disagrees with what those kids think is best for them? From what I gather, kids' desire to compete is one of the very few cases where he'd override their wishes, but only letting kids choose their own path when it doesn't contradict his preconceived beliefs about what they should want would be a pretty conservative way of looking at things.
Grades are addressed in this book in terms of being "rewards" and "punishments," which I found immediately odd. Grades are meant to be assessments of how well a child understands the material they're dealing with. I've never known many children for whom the grade itself was the goal, though in some cases tangible rewards or punishments might be given based on a grade (a trip to Pizza Hut for a good report card, as an example). Again, this just seems to be a basic misunderstanding of something stemming from Kohn's ideological slant.
Alfie Kohn likes intrinsic (self-originating) motivation, and dislikes extrinsic (outside-originating) motivation, and seems to assume that if you just leave kids to their own devices they'll go off and learn everything they need to know on their own because it'll help them assuage their natural curiosity. Well, what about kids who just want to play XBox all day and would never touch a book unless forced to? Some kids lack motivation to do much of anything, but that's another thing that Kohn just assumes would never be the case. There are a lot of things in the world that are important to learn about in order to be a productive, intelligent member of society, but it's the rare kid or teen who will pick up a history or philosophy book without being pushed to do so. There are lazy, incurious kids in the world, but there's not the slightest nod in this book in regard to how you help them.
A lot of what gets addressed in this book seems to be by way of cherry-picked quotes that are only tangentially related to the subject at hand, and are only the points chosen to be rebutted because they were the ones that were contradicted by preexisting research. Similarly, a lot of what people these days are suggesting comes from "helicopter parenting," "overparenting," "spoiled children," and the like is never mentioned. "Safe spaces," "trigger warnings," disinvitations of controversial speakers at colleges, and protests over inconsequential slights seem to be the hot-button topics of the day that are attributed to an increasingly fragile and mentally unstable youth, but those concepts are unaddressed. Maybe that's just a quirk of the timeframe this book was being written in sitting just outside the window of those events blowing up, but it feels more like an uncomfortable set of issues that Kohn would rather not address because it might hurt his position.
There's also a general lack of solutions and alternatives given to traditional methods of teaching and parenting. Kohn uses a lot of platitudes, but what the educational system would look like if he were in charge of it is unclear. How would a classroom be run? What would happen if a kid just refused to do any work and spent the whole day doing nothing but throwing rocks at the other children? Would any formal system exist to prepare young people for work and life in the real world?
Here's the damnedest thing: I actually think that the majority of Kohns premises are right, and I would absolutely have done better in school if I had been allowed to study topics that interested me on my own time and in my own way. It's just that the ideas are presented in a way that seems a bit dishonest, ill-thought out, and as if Kohn was enthusiastic to critically examine opposing views (or strawmen thereof) but didn't once turn that lens back on his own beliefs to find the contradictions, logical holes, and problems.
I've never been so frustrated by a book that I basically agree with.
I am of two completely opposing opinions in regard to this book. On the one hand, I find much of the research the author cites to be accurate, agree with a number of the conclusions he comes to, and overall see the educational system and typical parenting methods as generally failing to help kids fully realize their potential. On the other, Myth of the Spoiled Child is frustratingly ideological, frequently goes after opposing viewpoints in a sideways manner, and leaves issues unaddressed solely because they're in the author's blind spot.
(This was the first time since college that I actually felt compelled to take notes when reading a book so I could keep track of all the points I thought needed to be addressed. I'll just be hitting the points as I wrote them down, so I apologize in advance for the choppiness.)
Right off the bat, Alfie Kohn has a habit of using "conservative" and "traditionalist" as synonyms for "bad" and "liberal" as a synonym for "good" throughout the book. If a conservative were to get past the obvious dismissiveness toward their political leanings in this book, they'd still be at odds with the values that the reader is assumed to hold. Liberals will read this and mostly nod along, conservatives will read it and mostly shake their heads (or just stop reading), but it lacks persuasive power and is unlikely to change any hearts and minds.
Alfie Kohn hates dodgeball, and more generally competition of any kind, believing it should be discouraged; however, he likes autonomy for children and allowing them to pursue their own interests and activities. So what happens when kids want to play dodgeball or some other competitive game? Kohn doesn't seem to even consider that when kids get a chance to choose their own group activities, they'll go with tag, baseball, soccer, or even, horror of horrors, dodgeball. It's one of those glaring blind spots this book is repeatedly guilty of: What happens when Alfie Kohn, proponent of autonomous thought for kids, disagrees with what those kids think is best for them? From what I gather, kids' desire to compete is one of the very few cases where he'd override their wishes, but only letting kids choose their own path when it doesn't contradict his preconceived beliefs about what they should want would be a pretty conservative way of looking at things.
Grades are addressed in this book in terms of being "rewards" and "punishments," which I found immediately odd. Grades are meant to be assessments of how well a child understands the material they're dealing with. I've never known many children for whom the grade itself was the goal, though in some cases tangible rewards or punishments might be given based on a grade (a trip to Pizza Hut for a good report card, as an example). Again, this just seems to be a basic misunderstanding of something stemming from Kohn's ideological slant.
Alfie Kohn likes intrinsic (self-originating) motivation, and dislikes extrinsic (outside-originating) motivation, and seems to assume that if you just leave kids to their own devices they'll go off and learn everything they need to know on their own because it'll help them assuage their natural curiosity. Well, what about kids who just want to play XBox all day and would never touch a book unless forced to? Some kids lack motivation to do much of anything, but that's another thing that Kohn just assumes would never be the case. There are a lot of things in the world that are important to learn about in order to be a productive, intelligent member of society, but it's the rare kid or teen who will pick up a history or philosophy book without being pushed to do so. There are lazy, incurious kids in the world, but there's not the slightest nod in this book in regard to how you help them.
A lot of what gets addressed in this book seems to be by way of cherry-picked quotes that are only tangentially related to the subject at hand, and are only the points chosen to be rebutted because they were the ones that were contradicted by preexisting research. Similarly, a lot of what people these days are suggesting comes from "helicopter parenting," "overparenting," "spoiled children," and the like is never mentioned. "Safe spaces," "trigger warnings," disinvitations of controversial speakers at colleges, and protests over inconsequential slights seem to be the hot-button topics of the day that are attributed to an increasingly fragile and mentally unstable youth, but those concepts are unaddressed. Maybe that's just a quirk of the timeframe this book was being written in sitting just outside the window of those events blowing up, but it feels more like an uncomfortable set of issues that Kohn would rather not address because it might hurt his position.
There's also a general lack of solutions and alternatives given to traditional methods of teaching and parenting. Kohn uses a lot of platitudes, but what the educational system would look like if he were in charge of it is unclear. How would a classroom be run? What would happen if a kid just refused to do any work and spent the whole day doing nothing but throwing rocks at the other children? Would any formal system exist to prepare young people for work and life in the real world?
Here's the damnedest thing: I actually think that the majority of Kohns premises are right, and I would absolutely have done better in school if I had been allowed to study topics that interested me on my own time and in my own way. It's just that the ideas are presented in a way that seems a bit dishonest, ill-thought out, and as if Kohn was enthusiastic to critically examine opposing views (or strawmen thereof) but didn't once turn that lens back on his own beliefs to find the contradictions, logical holes, and problems.
I've never been so frustrated by a book that I basically agree with.
April 18, 2014
This book is the application of Alfie Kohn's parenting philosophy, set out in his book Unconditional Parenting, to current fashions criticizing today's parenting as too indulgent, children as too lazy, and of course, children as too spoiled. It turns out, Kohn argues, that being mean to children, having them compete against others, and controlling their behaviour down to the details - isn't very good for their development. It might seem obvious, but the book is full of evidence that it is very far from obvious to everyone. I wish there was no need for books like this, but if you are under attack for being too nice to children (crazy, I know) this book will be an indispensable kit in your self- and kid-defense arsenal.
One thing I especially liked about the book was Kohn's analysis of the underlying world view behind much of these mean-to-children utterances: a philosophy based on conditionality, scarcity, and deprivation. I don't want to live that way.
In my family, the word "spoiled" has been "reclaimed" - we talk about "spoiling" children like it's a good thing. Now I can cite this book for some footnoted backing.
One thing I especially liked about the book was Kohn's analysis of the underlying world view behind much of these mean-to-children utterances: a philosophy based on conditionality, scarcity, and deprivation. I don't want to live that way.
In my family, the word "spoiled" has been "reclaimed" - we talk about "spoiling" children like it's a good thing. Now I can cite this book for some footnoted backing.
March 28, 2014
Alfie Kohn’s ideas are always radical and incendiary and this book is no exception. I’m a huge fan of all his writing, and find that his ideas crystallise concerns I have always had as a teacher and parent about the focus of contemporary education. It’s still confronting to read, though, as it forces the reader to examine the extent to which most of us rely on rewards, competition and unquestioning compliance to ‘educate’ our children.
I believe this may be the best of his books so far as it synthesises many of the ideas in his previous works and also adds new, thought provoking material. Where some of his books have been primarily focussed on either education or parenting/sociology, this combines both into a great read which I would recommend to absolutely anybody.
Some of the chapters repeat ideas from his previous books, including critiques of competition and rewards, and an emphasis on unconditional parenting, but they are summarised succinctly and in some ways provide an improved, more concise outline of his theories. The chapter on self-control and ‘grit’ contains a lot of thought-provoking material, most of it new to me. An enlightening expose of the famous marshmallow experiment, demonstrates that it’s more about how easily we can distract ourselves than actual self-control, and Kohn radically questions the intrinsic value we place on self-control, self-denial and self-discipline. Finally, the chapter on raising rebels brutally dissects our cultural emphasis on conformity and compliance, perhaps the most challenging idea for educators and parents to confront.
Kohn is one of very few writers who force me to drastically re-evaluate the way I teach and raise my own children, and yet I am completely convinced by his philosophies. His ideas are intrinsically hard to implement in schools without radically overhauling the existing system, but I believe we should use them to create gradual changes in practice and ideology, even if it just begins in individual classrooms. This is essential reading, not just for teachers, but for everyone who cares about the future of our children.
I believe this may be the best of his books so far as it synthesises many of the ideas in his previous works and also adds new, thought provoking material. Where some of his books have been primarily focussed on either education or parenting/sociology, this combines both into a great read which I would recommend to absolutely anybody.
Some of the chapters repeat ideas from his previous books, including critiques of competition and rewards, and an emphasis on unconditional parenting, but they are summarised succinctly and in some ways provide an improved, more concise outline of his theories. The chapter on self-control and ‘grit’ contains a lot of thought-provoking material, most of it new to me. An enlightening expose of the famous marshmallow experiment, demonstrates that it’s more about how easily we can distract ourselves than actual self-control, and Kohn radically questions the intrinsic value we place on self-control, self-denial and self-discipline. Finally, the chapter on raising rebels brutally dissects our cultural emphasis on conformity and compliance, perhaps the most challenging idea for educators and parents to confront.
Kohn is one of very few writers who force me to drastically re-evaluate the way I teach and raise my own children, and yet I am completely convinced by his philosophies. His ideas are intrinsically hard to implement in schools without radically overhauling the existing system, but I believe we should use them to create gradual changes in practice and ideology, even if it just begins in individual classrooms. This is essential reading, not just for teachers, but for everyone who cares about the future of our children.
April 5, 2014
Writing about what’s wrong with the youngest generation, also known as Millennials, has been exhausted as a subject. Mostly writers have come to blame bad parenting for all the ills of the world. No matter which side of the political spectrum you fall on, you’re likely to believe that strict parenting is the best way to go. Alfie Kohn, author of Myth of the Spoiled Child, challenges these commonly held beliefs and calls for a more balanced style of parenting.
Kohn does an excellent job easing the worries of those who are concerned for the younger generations. He systematically goes through the common arguments that are made about Millennials and debunks them. He even tackles popular books such as Generation Me which I found to be very refreshing. Calling people out, even if their writing has been viewed practically as scripture, is always refreshing to read.
Kohn also uses excellent sources to back up his arguments. His viewpoint is not based solely on anecdotal evidence as has been the case for the writers he’s criticizing. Instead, he takes the time to comb through scientific and peer-reviewed articles to back up his claims. You feel confident in his viewpoint because he’s taken such effort to prove it.
Overall, this is a great book. I recommend it to parents of Millennials who are looking for the best way to raise their children. I also recommend it to people who think the world is going to Hell in a handbasket. Kohn may just change your mind.
I was provided with a free electronic copy of this title from NetGalley in return for an honest review.
Kohn does an excellent job easing the worries of those who are concerned for the younger generations. He systematically goes through the common arguments that are made about Millennials and debunks them. He even tackles popular books such as Generation Me which I found to be very refreshing. Calling people out, even if their writing has been viewed practically as scripture, is always refreshing to read.
Kohn also uses excellent sources to back up his arguments. His viewpoint is not based solely on anecdotal evidence as has been the case for the writers he’s criticizing. Instead, he takes the time to comb through scientific and peer-reviewed articles to back up his claims. You feel confident in his viewpoint because he’s taken such effort to prove it.
Overall, this is a great book. I recommend it to parents of Millennials who are looking for the best way to raise their children. I also recommend it to people who think the world is going to Hell in a handbasket. Kohn may just change your mind.
I was provided with a free electronic copy of this title from NetGalley in return for an honest review.
April 16, 2014
Originally posted here: The Steadfast Reader
I received a copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
Confession time: I picked up this book as a hate read. I opened it with the attitude, "This is gonna be a crazy, liberal book on how we ought to be coddling out children and never setting in any boundaries."
Rather quickly, through citing studies, statistics, and history - Kohn was able to draw me around to his point of view and I found myself in agreement with many of his assertions. The book opens by pointing out that since the beginning of recorded history people have been saying the same thing about "kids these days".
"This time, in other words, things really are different. That's what people today post in their blogs to get you to take their italicized complaints seriously, and it's what people were using fountain pens to communicate a hundred years ago for the same reason. Appeals to historical perspective apparently need to be put in historical perspective."
So after dismantling the assumption that kids these days are lazier, more disrespectful, etc. Kohn turns to the 'problem' of helicopter parents and overly permissive parents. Turns out, when you look at the evidence - sure - the helicopter parents are out there and Paris Hilton is still a thing but they're not the widespread massive problem that the media would like us to think that they are. He argues that because most parents fear being considered overly permissive they tend to overcompensate by being excessively controlling.
So what's wrong with controlling our children? Kids gotta learn, right? They better get used to it because that's just how life is, right? Wrong. Kohn points to multiple studies that show the best way to prepare kids for failure and disappointment later in life is not to start young - it's to boost them up with success early on. After you shake off the chains of that conventional 'common sense' - it starts to make a lot less sense. Kohn's arguments are actually very intuitive.
"Parenting at its core - or at least at its best - is a process of caring, supporting, listening, guiding, reconsidering, teaching, and negotiating."
There's no doubt that Kohn's ideas feel radical. He calls for the elimination of sports and activities that pit children against each other. He discusses the harmful effects of the 'scarcity model' for child rearing activities and perhaps most radically advocates for the elimination of letter grades and class rankings at all levels of education (but especially for younger children). He coins this parenting style, 'doing-to'.
"Put it this way: If you were to make an argument against doing-to parenting, it's unlikely that someone would challenge you by asking, "But if we stopped using rewards and punishments, how could we make sure that our kids will be happy, psychologically healthy, genuinely concerned about others, critical thinkers who will fight against injustice and work for social change?" Instead you would probably hear, "No rewards and punishments?? Then how will we get our kids to do what they're told, follow the rules, and take their place in a society where certain things will be expected of them whether they like it or not?" Indeed, there is evidence that greater concern about social conformity translates into more punitive and restrictive parenting."
Wow.
Now, this book isn't without its problems. There's a lot of great theory in here - but very few suggestions on how to actually put things into practice. It's all well and good to want to raise non-conformists but there are times when I need my three year old to put on her damn shoes. There's no time to talk or listen to how she feels about it. Kohn offers little advice on how to handle everyday situations like that.
I don't buy it all, but I definitely think that there is much in this book worth thinking about and discussing.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
Confession time: I picked up this book as a hate read. I opened it with the attitude, "This is gonna be a crazy, liberal book on how we ought to be coddling out children and never setting in any boundaries."
Rather quickly, through citing studies, statistics, and history - Kohn was able to draw me around to his point of view and I found myself in agreement with many of his assertions. The book opens by pointing out that since the beginning of recorded history people have been saying the same thing about "kids these days".
"This time, in other words, things really are different. That's what people today post in their blogs to get you to take their italicized complaints seriously, and it's what people were using fountain pens to communicate a hundred years ago for the same reason. Appeals to historical perspective apparently need to be put in historical perspective."
So after dismantling the assumption that kids these days are lazier, more disrespectful, etc. Kohn turns to the 'problem' of helicopter parents and overly permissive parents. Turns out, when you look at the evidence - sure - the helicopter parents are out there and Paris Hilton is still a thing but they're not the widespread massive problem that the media would like us to think that they are. He argues that because most parents fear being considered overly permissive they tend to overcompensate by being excessively controlling.
So what's wrong with controlling our children? Kids gotta learn, right? They better get used to it because that's just how life is, right? Wrong. Kohn points to multiple studies that show the best way to prepare kids for failure and disappointment later in life is not to start young - it's to boost them up with success early on. After you shake off the chains of that conventional 'common sense' - it starts to make a lot less sense. Kohn's arguments are actually very intuitive.
"Parenting at its core - or at least at its best - is a process of caring, supporting, listening, guiding, reconsidering, teaching, and negotiating."
There's no doubt that Kohn's ideas feel radical. He calls for the elimination of sports and activities that pit children against each other. He discusses the harmful effects of the 'scarcity model' for child rearing activities and perhaps most radically advocates for the elimination of letter grades and class rankings at all levels of education (but especially for younger children). He coins this parenting style, 'doing-to'.
"Put it this way: If you were to make an argument against doing-to parenting, it's unlikely that someone would challenge you by asking, "But if we stopped using rewards and punishments, how could we make sure that our kids will be happy, psychologically healthy, genuinely concerned about others, critical thinkers who will fight against injustice and work for social change?" Instead you would probably hear, "No rewards and punishments?? Then how will we get our kids to do what they're told, follow the rules, and take their place in a society where certain things will be expected of them whether they like it or not?" Indeed, there is evidence that greater concern about social conformity translates into more punitive and restrictive parenting."
Wow.
Now, this book isn't without its problems. There's a lot of great theory in here - but very few suggestions on how to actually put things into practice. It's all well and good to want to raise non-conformists but there are times when I need my three year old to put on her damn shoes. There's no time to talk or listen to how she feels about it. Kohn offers little advice on how to handle everyday situations like that.
I don't buy it all, but I definitely think that there is much in this book worth thinking about and discussing.
April 20, 2014
Title: The Myth of the Spoiled Child
Author: Alfie Kohn
Publisher: Da Capo Lifelong Books
Date: 2014
Pages: (preview copy e-book) via netgalley: 282
Author Page: Alfie Kohn
[You need to read this before you take another glance at this page: the FCC wants you to know that it is imperative information that I received a free copy of this book in exchange for my unbiased review. I'm glad that's off my chest and I hope you feel better knowing it.]
I was warned about Alfie Kohn when I was in graduate school. I was warned that his ideas are somewhat 'naive', that they sort of controvert the 'mainstream,' and that they are not compatible with 'reality.' So I began the reading with not a little nervousness and apprehension. Yet, as I went deeper into the book I found myself nodding in agreement, highlighting in agreement, and sort of shaking my head in disbelief at the depth of common sense I was discovering with each turn of an electronic page. I was warned that Kohn is a little out of the mainstream; I was not told that I might actually find what he is saying useful, helpful, and sensible.
I was trained at a university in the finer points of Applied Behavior Analysis and I am a strict student of the tools, techniques, and trials that accompany such a method of educating students who have special needs. I am a special education teacher, an Intervention Specialist, and when I think about a typical day with my students, I think about the words I have used throughout the day: "Don't ask me why;" "The goal of this exercise is so that the student will learn to comply;" "These students will not always have us around to guide them on every step of their lives, they need to learn how to do on their own without all the hand holding, mothering, and coddling;" "Good job!;" "Because I said so;" "Prize box at the end of the day if...." And so it goes, on an on. These are the words that accompany other interventions (such as time-outs, various rewards, Class-Dojo points, deprivation of recess for misbehavior, and so on and so forth). All of this is designed for one purpose, and that is to elicit compliance--a word, as I have reflected on my teaching practices, I use entirely too much. Kohn writes:
In reviewing popular books and articles for parents, I'm struck again and again by how their focus is on how to elicit compliance. There's considerable variation in the strategies they propose, from bullying to bargaining, from techniques frankly modeled on animal training to subtler forms of manipulation. But the animating question in such texts is rarely 'What do kids need, and how can we meet those needs?' Rather, it's 'How can you get your kid to do whatever you want?' (37)
Kohn's book caused me to pause and gasp quite a lot--not because it is necessarily deep, but because it makes sense, more sense, in any number of ways, than Applied Behavior Analysis. It also caused a great deal of reflection, deeper reflection, about the way I work in my classroom. It made me think long and hard about what my ultimate goal is with my students who have various disabilities and it made me think of the various ways that I attempt to motivate them to those ends. Frankly, the book made me question a lot of things about a lot of things: what was the purpose of my own education from elementary school to graduate school? What is the overarching purpose of today's public education system? It seems to me that perhaps more people ought to be asking some of these questions too--people who are in positions to ask them and bring about necessary changes. The more I think about what Kohn wrote the more I am convinced that a larger portion of the things we teach kids each day in school would be better off consigned to the rubbish heap.
One of the more important points that Kohn makes in his book is that we give way too much emphasis and enthusiasm to competitive pursuits as parents and schools. I have written about this as plank in my own ideas about education reform, but suffice it to say that I didn't take it to the ends that Kohn did--but armed with his analysis I am ready to do that very thing. I won't spoil all of the fun of reading through Kohn's analysis, but suffice it to say that I believe he is correct: there is far too much emphasis on competition in families, in schools, in life and when competition is introduced at an early age, well, what can we expect when our children view life through that lens?
Something I don't particularly care for is his heavy lean to the left of things--to the extent that even though he claims the current president extended and intensified the education policies of the former president one still gets the sense that it is still the former president's fault for initiating them to begin with. Now I don't particularly care one way or another if Kohn is liberal or conservative or Martian.What bothered me is that at the beginning of the book that 'an awful lot of people who are politically liberal begin to sound like right-wing talk-show hosts as soon as the conversation turns to children and parenting' (2). He goes on:
Have a look at the unsigned editorials in left-of-center newspapers, or essays by columnists whose politics are mostly progressive. Listen to speeches by liberal public officials. On any of the controversial issues of our day, from tax policy to civil rights, you'll find approximately what you'd expect. But when it comes to education, almost all of them take a hard-line position very much like what we hear from conservatives They endorse a top-down, corporate-style version of school reform that includes prescriptive, one-size-fits-all teaching standards and curriculum mandates; weakened job protection for teachers; frequent standardized testing; and a reliance on rewards and punishments to raise scores on those tests and compel compliance on the part of teachers and students. (2)
He goes on to note that liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans all sound the same when it comes to education (and parenting). My point is that even though he says the two sound alike, it is the conservative side of this conversation that receives the majority of Kohn's verbal aggression. All of our problems with parenting and education date back to an appalling sense of devotion to Puritanism and the so-called Protestant work ethic and their perpetuation in our current day. He says that it was left-leaners who sounded like conservatives that prompted the book (2) and yet there is nary a word of criticism for those left-leaning folks who cannot make up their minds one way or another. In other words he uses words like 'right-wing', 'Puritan', 'religious', and 'conservative' all in a pejorative sense and, frankly, it just gets tired after the first 100 repetitions.
In my opinion, Kohn made a lot of good points--points that I fully agree with and intend to implement in my own work as an educator. Kohn has a way of stripping us of our blinders and forcing us to look at our own prejudice:
We Americans stubbornly resist the possibility that what we do is profoundly shaped by policies, norms, systems, and other structural realities. We prefer to believe that people who commit crimes are morally deficient, that that have-nots in our midst are lazy (or at least insufficiently resourceful), that overweight people simply lack the willpower to stop eating, and so on. If only those folks would just exercise a little personal responsibility, a bit more self-control! (170)
He also has a biting sense of humor--as a fan of sarcasm, I appreciate his efforts.
Finally I will say this. I really do not know what to make of his analysis and critiques of newspaper editorials, blog posts, and peer-reviewed papers. He could be correct, it could just be his opinion of those things. For every point he brings up, the skilled researcher can probably find a counterpoint, for every yin he slings, someone will sling a yang. Kohn writes from his contrary, against the mainstream, point of view and most folks in research are aware of that so I'm sure there will be plenty of peer-reviewed critiques of the book. Nevertheless, the book is meticulously referenced and footnoted (37 pages of end notes) and referenced (26 pages of references) and even if one happens to disagree with his points and his ultimate conclusion (of which I am a bit skeptical to be sure) it cannot be denied that he has stirred the pot--frankly, for the better.*
It is time to strip the pretenses we have as parents and educators of children and dial back some (all?) of our antiquated ideas about how children should be raised and how they best learn. I may not be on the bandwagon for every jot and tittle of this book, but by and large I have been challenged to reexamine my own value system, my own educational practices, and my own care and concern for children--my own and others'.
The bottom line is that kids learn to make good decisions by making decisions, not by following directions. If we want kids to take responsibility for making the world a better place, then we need to give them responsibilities. That means dialing back our control, whether of the flagrant or subtle variety. (189-190**)
Well said. It requires courage, but I think it can be done. I think folks who are willing to have their presuppositions challenged, who are tired of the status-quo, and who are tired of people in the media telling them how (and what and when and why) to raise their children will appreciate Kohn's frankness, the depth of his research, and his skillful analysis of the myths perpetuated by those who have more of an agenda than an actual valid point.
5/5 Stars
*The book will also, in its finished form, contain an index.
**I previewed a pre-publication copy of the book. Page numbers may have changed in the actual published book.
Author: Alfie Kohn
Publisher: Da Capo Lifelong Books
Date: 2014
Pages: (preview copy e-book) via netgalley: 282
Author Page: Alfie Kohn
[You need to read this before you take another glance at this page: the FCC wants you to know that it is imperative information that I received a free copy of this book in exchange for my unbiased review. I'm glad that's off my chest and I hope you feel better knowing it.]
I was warned about Alfie Kohn when I was in graduate school. I was warned that his ideas are somewhat 'naive', that they sort of controvert the 'mainstream,' and that they are not compatible with 'reality.' So I began the reading with not a little nervousness and apprehension. Yet, as I went deeper into the book I found myself nodding in agreement, highlighting in agreement, and sort of shaking my head in disbelief at the depth of common sense I was discovering with each turn of an electronic page. I was warned that Kohn is a little out of the mainstream; I was not told that I might actually find what he is saying useful, helpful, and sensible.
I was trained at a university in the finer points of Applied Behavior Analysis and I am a strict student of the tools, techniques, and trials that accompany such a method of educating students who have special needs. I am a special education teacher, an Intervention Specialist, and when I think about a typical day with my students, I think about the words I have used throughout the day: "Don't ask me why;" "The goal of this exercise is so that the student will learn to comply;" "These students will not always have us around to guide them on every step of their lives, they need to learn how to do on their own without all the hand holding, mothering, and coddling;" "Good job!;" "Because I said so;" "Prize box at the end of the day if...." And so it goes, on an on. These are the words that accompany other interventions (such as time-outs, various rewards, Class-Dojo points, deprivation of recess for misbehavior, and so on and so forth). All of this is designed for one purpose, and that is to elicit compliance--a word, as I have reflected on my teaching practices, I use entirely too much. Kohn writes:
In reviewing popular books and articles for parents, I'm struck again and again by how their focus is on how to elicit compliance. There's considerable variation in the strategies they propose, from bullying to bargaining, from techniques frankly modeled on animal training to subtler forms of manipulation. But the animating question in such texts is rarely 'What do kids need, and how can we meet those needs?' Rather, it's 'How can you get your kid to do whatever you want?' (37)
Kohn's book caused me to pause and gasp quite a lot--not because it is necessarily deep, but because it makes sense, more sense, in any number of ways, than Applied Behavior Analysis. It also caused a great deal of reflection, deeper reflection, about the way I work in my classroom. It made me think long and hard about what my ultimate goal is with my students who have various disabilities and it made me think of the various ways that I attempt to motivate them to those ends. Frankly, the book made me question a lot of things about a lot of things: what was the purpose of my own education from elementary school to graduate school? What is the overarching purpose of today's public education system? It seems to me that perhaps more people ought to be asking some of these questions too--people who are in positions to ask them and bring about necessary changes. The more I think about what Kohn wrote the more I am convinced that a larger portion of the things we teach kids each day in school would be better off consigned to the rubbish heap.
One of the more important points that Kohn makes in his book is that we give way too much emphasis and enthusiasm to competitive pursuits as parents and schools. I have written about this as plank in my own ideas about education reform, but suffice it to say that I didn't take it to the ends that Kohn did--but armed with his analysis I am ready to do that very thing. I won't spoil all of the fun of reading through Kohn's analysis, but suffice it to say that I believe he is correct: there is far too much emphasis on competition in families, in schools, in life and when competition is introduced at an early age, well, what can we expect when our children view life through that lens?
Something I don't particularly care for is his heavy lean to the left of things--to the extent that even though he claims the current president extended and intensified the education policies of the former president one still gets the sense that it is still the former president's fault for initiating them to begin with. Now I don't particularly care one way or another if Kohn is liberal or conservative or Martian.What bothered me is that at the beginning of the book that 'an awful lot of people who are politically liberal begin to sound like right-wing talk-show hosts as soon as the conversation turns to children and parenting' (2). He goes on:
Have a look at the unsigned editorials in left-of-center newspapers, or essays by columnists whose politics are mostly progressive. Listen to speeches by liberal public officials. On any of the controversial issues of our day, from tax policy to civil rights, you'll find approximately what you'd expect. But when it comes to education, almost all of them take a hard-line position very much like what we hear from conservatives They endorse a top-down, corporate-style version of school reform that includes prescriptive, one-size-fits-all teaching standards and curriculum mandates; weakened job protection for teachers; frequent standardized testing; and a reliance on rewards and punishments to raise scores on those tests and compel compliance on the part of teachers and students. (2)
He goes on to note that liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans all sound the same when it comes to education (and parenting). My point is that even though he says the two sound alike, it is the conservative side of this conversation that receives the majority of Kohn's verbal aggression. All of our problems with parenting and education date back to an appalling sense of devotion to Puritanism and the so-called Protestant work ethic and their perpetuation in our current day. He says that it was left-leaners who sounded like conservatives that prompted the book (2) and yet there is nary a word of criticism for those left-leaning folks who cannot make up their minds one way or another. In other words he uses words like 'right-wing', 'Puritan', 'religious', and 'conservative' all in a pejorative sense and, frankly, it just gets tired after the first 100 repetitions.
In my opinion, Kohn made a lot of good points--points that I fully agree with and intend to implement in my own work as an educator. Kohn has a way of stripping us of our blinders and forcing us to look at our own prejudice:
We Americans stubbornly resist the possibility that what we do is profoundly shaped by policies, norms, systems, and other structural realities. We prefer to believe that people who commit crimes are morally deficient, that that have-nots in our midst are lazy (or at least insufficiently resourceful), that overweight people simply lack the willpower to stop eating, and so on. If only those folks would just exercise a little personal responsibility, a bit more self-control! (170)
He also has a biting sense of humor--as a fan of sarcasm, I appreciate his efforts.
Finally I will say this. I really do not know what to make of his analysis and critiques of newspaper editorials, blog posts, and peer-reviewed papers. He could be correct, it could just be his opinion of those things. For every point he brings up, the skilled researcher can probably find a counterpoint, for every yin he slings, someone will sling a yang. Kohn writes from his contrary, against the mainstream, point of view and most folks in research are aware of that so I'm sure there will be plenty of peer-reviewed critiques of the book. Nevertheless, the book is meticulously referenced and footnoted (37 pages of end notes) and referenced (26 pages of references) and even if one happens to disagree with his points and his ultimate conclusion (of which I am a bit skeptical to be sure) it cannot be denied that he has stirred the pot--frankly, for the better.*
It is time to strip the pretenses we have as parents and educators of children and dial back some (all?) of our antiquated ideas about how children should be raised and how they best learn. I may not be on the bandwagon for every jot and tittle of this book, but by and large I have been challenged to reexamine my own value system, my own educational practices, and my own care and concern for children--my own and others'.
The bottom line is that kids learn to make good decisions by making decisions, not by following directions. If we want kids to take responsibility for making the world a better place, then we need to give them responsibilities. That means dialing back our control, whether of the flagrant or subtle variety. (189-190**)
Well said. It requires courage, but I think it can be done. I think folks who are willing to have their presuppositions challenged, who are tired of the status-quo, and who are tired of people in the media telling them how (and what and when and why) to raise their children will appreciate Kohn's frankness, the depth of his research, and his skillful analysis of the myths perpetuated by those who have more of an agenda than an actual valid point.
5/5 Stars
*The book will also, in its finished form, contain an index.
**I previewed a pre-publication copy of the book. Page numbers may have changed in the actual published book.
October 27, 2019
Kitabın kapağında yazan tam isim; "Şımarık Çocuk -Bir Şehir Efsanesi- Pışpışlanan Çocuklar, Helikopter Ebeveynler ve Diğer Sahte Krizler"
Kitabın isminden dolayı son derece önyargılı başladım bu okumaya. Ebeveynler çocukları pışpışlıyor, her şeye kol kanat germeye çalışıyorlar, aşırı ebeveynlik yapıyorlar tarzında bir kitap bekliyordum. Ancak beni tamamen ters köşe yaptı yazar.
Kitabın en beğendiğim bölümünde ebeveynlerin müsamahakarlığı, çocukların şımarıklığı ele alınıyor. Bu konuda özellikle sık sık duyduğumuz "şimdiki çocuklar da çok şımarık, bizim zamanımızda böyle miydi?" kalıbı eleştiriliyor. Bu kalıbın kullanıldığı kaynaklar araştırıldığında Sokrates'in dahi "Şimdiki çocukların büyüklerine saygıları yok." dediğine değinen yazar bunun her nesil tarafından kullanılan bir kalıp haline gelmiş olmasını vurguluyor.
Aşırı müdahaleci ebeveynler, rekabetçi ebeveynler, ödül-ceza yöntemi, mola yöntemi(bunun faydalı olduğunu düşünürdüm, ama kanıtlanmış hiçbir kalıcı etki olmadığını öğrenmek çok şaşırttı beni), özsaygı(bu konuyu okurken kendi yetiştiriliş tarzımı düşünüp biraz korktum açıkçası, aynı hataları yapmam umarım), özdisiplin gibi pekçok konuda yapılan araştırmalar, çeşitli anketler ve kalıcı sonuçlar paylaşılmış. Kitabın yazarı ele aldığı tüm konulara son derece objektif bir yaklaşım sergilemiş.
Kitabın isminden dolayı son derece önyargılı başladım bu okumaya. Ebeveynler çocukları pışpışlıyor, her şeye kol kanat germeye çalışıyorlar, aşırı ebeveynlik yapıyorlar tarzında bir kitap bekliyordum. Ancak beni tamamen ters köşe yaptı yazar.
Kitabın en beğendiğim bölümünde ebeveynlerin müsamahakarlığı, çocukların şımarıklığı ele alınıyor. Bu konuda özellikle sık sık duyduğumuz "şimdiki çocuklar da çok şımarık, bizim zamanımızda böyle miydi?" kalıbı eleştiriliyor. Bu kalıbın kullanıldığı kaynaklar araştırıldığında Sokrates'in dahi "Şimdiki çocukların büyüklerine saygıları yok." dediğine değinen yazar bunun her nesil tarafından kullanılan bir kalıp haline gelmiş olmasını vurguluyor.
Aşırı müdahaleci ebeveynler, rekabetçi ebeveynler, ödül-ceza yöntemi, mola yöntemi(bunun faydalı olduğunu düşünürdüm, ama kanıtlanmış hiçbir kalıcı etki olmadığını öğrenmek çok şaşırttı beni), özsaygı(bu konuyu okurken kendi yetiştiriliş tarzımı düşünüp biraz korktum açıkçası, aynı hataları yapmam umarım), özdisiplin gibi pekçok konuda yapılan araştırmalar, çeşitli anketler ve kalıcı sonuçlar paylaşılmış. Kitabın yazarı ele aldığı tüm konulara son derece objektif bir yaklaşım sergilemiş.
October 28, 2024
All you need to read is the title. Actually just its first part. The rest is an endless collection of bad studies that go against the main idea and good studies that support it. Over and over again, without any visible differences betweeen the chapters. Don't remember a book I was this annoyed with despite agreeing with its premise.
August 24, 2016
Pro: Actual researched, scientific, statistical data to back up arguments against the "accepted-as-truth" claims of KIDS THESE DAYS being too narcissistic, their egos too tender, their parents too helicopter-y and permissive, how these kids need to learn grit if they're going to succeed, and delaying gratification is a skill worth cultivating rull hard. Turns out, a lot of it is based on what FEELS like should be true, but is often the exact opposite. There are so many "truisms" that we simply take at face value, without even asking "but who says?" -- very eye-opening.
Con: A lot of this is great to know, but hard to deal with in the day-to-day life of parenting when we have to deal with a larger society that still firmly believes said kids these days are too narcissistic, their egos too tender, their parents too helicopter-y etc. The final chapter provides some ideas for individual parenting style changes and tweaks, but when done in more or less isolation in comparison to the rest of the players in the world/classrooms/playground I can see it getting exhausting trying to be like "but wait!" "but wait!" "but wait!" about what the data really says. So like, knowledge is great! But parenting your kid with that knowledge in the face of classroom policies, teacher "best practices", and parenting advice books that all take for granted that grit and determination and failure are good things to expose kids to, that sports and grade competition build character and encourage kids to work harder, that self discipline is something helpful in all circumstances, that the Marshmallow test was about how well someone could delay gratification *as a person* rather than circumstantially...........yeah. Unless you're prepared to become a full-time Advocate fighting the Man every day for your kid, you might just have to sigh and say, well kid, you and I both know this stuff is BS, but unfortunately we don't have many options but to go along with them. Which is depressing, because it'd be NICE to be the constantly vigilant parent ready to fight for their kid's right not to, say, be told being the best is the only option, or they're not special, or whatever.
Con: A lot of this is great to know, but hard to deal with in the day-to-day life of parenting when we have to deal with a larger society that still firmly believes said kids these days are too narcissistic, their egos too tender, their parents too helicopter-y etc. The final chapter provides some ideas for individual parenting style changes and tweaks, but when done in more or less isolation in comparison to the rest of the players in the world/classrooms/playground I can see it getting exhausting trying to be like "but wait!" "but wait!" "but wait!" about what the data really says. So like, knowledge is great! But parenting your kid with that knowledge in the face of classroom policies, teacher "best practices", and parenting advice books that all take for granted that grit and determination and failure are good things to expose kids to, that sports and grade competition build character and encourage kids to work harder, that self discipline is something helpful in all circumstances, that the Marshmallow test was about how well someone could delay gratification *as a person* rather than circumstantially...........yeah. Unless you're prepared to become a full-time Advocate fighting the Man every day for your kid, you might just have to sigh and say, well kid, you and I both know this stuff is BS, but unfortunately we don't have many options but to go along with them. Which is depressing, because it'd be NICE to be the constantly vigilant parent ready to fight for their kid's right not to, say, be told being the best is the only option, or they're not special, or whatever.
October 26, 2014
Heard a bit of an interview with him on NPR where he said timeouts were bad and only encouraged selfish behavior in kids and I got intrigued (and never had a chance to finish listening to the segment). However, as my first parenting book read, it was a total disappointment. It's really just an effort to debunk popular themes in the media today. I agree with many of the premises (doesn't every generation think kids these days are getting off easy, have inflated grades?), but Kohn takes many sensible notions to the extreme in order to debunk them. When I read the chapter where he tries to unseat the Marshmallow Experiment as not necessarily showing the advantages of self-control, it was ironic timing to then hear the "Marshmallow Man" himself on NPR that day touting his latest book on developing self-control! Given KIPP's focus on character development, it's always good to read the other side's arguments, but his are not particularly impressive because he doesn't allow for the utilization of any common sense in how far an idea goes (does it make sense to persist in a meaningless, pointless task, for instance? No, but most proponents of persistence wouldn't think so either). His other books are supposedly much more parenting focused (vs myth-debunking) and I'd be curious to get the Cliff Notes versions as he emphasizes the need to teach kids the desire and confidence to question and change the system in which they operate and I'd be curious to hear his thoughts on this important and tricky element.
August 22, 2014
I really wanted to like this book. Kohn's thesis is that American attitudes toward other peoples' children, and toward children in general, are unnecessarily conservative and punitive. He argues that the media argument that the millennial generation is uniquely spoiled and narcissistic is basically bull; all older generations since Socrates have written negatively about the younger generation because peoples' viewpoints change as they age. He also argues that liberals and conservatives alike practice a very narrow and small-minded definition of parenting that focuses on Darwinian punitive measures "for their own good" instead of providing them with the support they need to be mentally healthy and successful. These are refreshing points. However, that's really as far as I could get in this book before he just started making those same points over and over again, chapter after chapter - this seems more suited to extended article form than to a book. The first two chapters are good, but then he's just stretching out variations of the same theme over and over again, with barely any new content moving the argument forward. I like where Kohn was going with this, but he gets stuck along the way. If he'd done a better job of being concise and stripping out a lot of the redundancy in the middle instead of following the same formula for every chapter, I'd have rated this a lot higher, but the way it is now I couldn't finish it.
November 5, 2020
Alfie Kohn has done it again. Wow. His writing feels truly revolutionary to me, in the sense that the concepts in this book are wonderful and powerful. Some of them I've believed as long as I can remember, or sound so natural to me now, others I'm unsure on but fascinated by. I don't know where to start with this book, there is so much. The Myth of the Spoiled Child is a provocative title. I wasn't sure what to expect but this book covered all sorts; the underlying values & beliefs that direct how we live & interact with the youth, types of motivation and the impacts of failure & how we deal with it, the importance of self-esteem, the flaws of self-discipline, short-term vs long-term perspective on the effects of our parenting (or in my cause simply interactions with little'uns).
The sensible alternative to overparenting is not less parenting but better parenting. The alternative to permissiveness is not to be more controlling but more responsive. And the alternative to narcissism is not conformity but reflective rebelliousness.
Not only does Alfie Kohn talk with such kindness and wisdom but he's thorough. There is logic & research throughout. The Myth of the Spoiled Child starts with a break down of humanity's obsession with "the good old days". Nostalgia, yearning for the way things used to be, and judging present-day parenting is not a new concept. There are many examples of people complaining about young'uns way, way back into history. Literally centuries. So if I hear one more person say in a frustrated or longing tone "in my day children were..." I'm giving them this book. A lot of how we parent, Alfie argues, isn't based on evidence but on beliefs about the nature of the world & life and how people are or should be - the main values he breaks down are conditionality, scarcity and deprivation.
What provokes particular outrage and ridicule is the idea that children might feel good about themselves in the absence of impressive accomplishments, even though, as I'll show, studies find that unconditional self-esteem is a key component of psychological health.
Wanting a child to be "well-behaved" is all about their outward appearance and conformity. More important than a person's inner state, values and well-being. Rather than working out how we can "make sure that our kids will be happy, psychologically healthy, genuinely concerned about others, critical thinkers who will fight against injustice and work for social change" we want them to follow orders, and not stand out. Getting children to do what they're told is related to keeping people in 'their place'. "Such authoritarian discipline is blithely justified in the name of "teaching self-control" to poor kids of color."
There are some interesting things said about sport. As an avid sports fan, I'm looking forward to reading Kohn's other book - No Contest: The Case Against Competition. In this one, Alfie dicusses the profilic nature of those underlying values (conditionality, scarcity and deprivation) and their place in sports, competition and tests. What do we lose when we only "win" if others lose? At times, this is the part that most felt like overthinking to me, but I'm definitely musing on these ideas.
One of the more radical & important discussions in this book is the question - Who benefits when we fail to help kids to ask why? Who wants children (& therefore adults) to question less and obey more, and why? "In her more recent research, she created a task that is deliberately boring, the point being to come up with strategies that will lead students to resist the temptation to do something more interesting instead. Again, cui bono?" There are also parts about how the media interprets studies however they please. Two studies that Alfie looked at were Mischel's marshmellow experiment & Milgram's 'electric shocks' experiment. Both of which I'd heard of, though with flawed information according to Kohn.
Self-control, it turns out, is actually a lot more to do with the situation than the person, and there are different sorts of self-control. Even if it may seem, from the outside (kind of ironic) to be an internal motivation, there are different reasons to do things, some more healthy than others. A lot of our idolisation of self-discipline comes from sin-centric religious beliefs - "It's because our preferences are regarded as unworthy, our desires as shameful, that we must strive to overcome them." I love all the stuff about grit and persistence. Kohn breaks down the potential flaws to a never give up attitude.
But my larger point is that we should question not only how self-control and self-discipline works but also whether all versions of it are desirable. If we overlook the differences in how we (and our children) internalize a commitment to do something, or if we deny that it's possibly to be overly controlled, we end up endorsing the idea too quickly and too broadly.
The How is crazily prioritised in our society. We need to focus on Why too. Motives matter. A lot of the time we ask can we do things, not should we do them. This book is a fascinating look at where our beliefs about children come from, what they mean for society as a whole and how we can refocus so our actions embody what we really value.
I'd like to propose a different response: Encourage young people to focus on the needs and rights of others, to examine the practices and institutions that get in the way of making everyone's lives better, to summon the courage to question what one is told and be willing to break the rules sometimes.
I'm not talking about a knee-jerk opposition to everything, the kind of reactive sensibility that was captured by the Marx Brother's lyric "Whatever it is, I'm against it." Rather, I have in mind a thoughtful scepticism, a reflective rebelliousness, a selective defiance based on principle. One should be "critical" in both senses of that word: willing to find fault but also dependent on careful analysis. It's not "If you say yes, I'll say no," but rather "If you say or do something that doesn't make sense, I'll ask why - then, if necessary, say no (and suggest that other people do the same)."
The sensible alternative to overparenting is not less parenting but better parenting. The alternative to permissiveness is not to be more controlling but more responsive. And the alternative to narcissism is not conformity but reflective rebelliousness.
Not only does Alfie Kohn talk with such kindness and wisdom but he's thorough. There is logic & research throughout. The Myth of the Spoiled Child starts with a break down of humanity's obsession with "the good old days". Nostalgia, yearning for the way things used to be, and judging present-day parenting is not a new concept. There are many examples of people complaining about young'uns way, way back into history. Literally centuries. So if I hear one more person say in a frustrated or longing tone "in my day children were..." I'm giving them this book. A lot of how we parent, Alfie argues, isn't based on evidence but on beliefs about the nature of the world & life and how people are or should be - the main values he breaks down are conditionality, scarcity and deprivation.
What provokes particular outrage and ridicule is the idea that children might feel good about themselves in the absence of impressive accomplishments, even though, as I'll show, studies find that unconditional self-esteem is a key component of psychological health.
Wanting a child to be "well-behaved" is all about their outward appearance and conformity. More important than a person's inner state, values and well-being. Rather than working out how we can "make sure that our kids will be happy, psychologically healthy, genuinely concerned about others, critical thinkers who will fight against injustice and work for social change" we want them to follow orders, and not stand out. Getting children to do what they're told is related to keeping people in 'their place'. "Such authoritarian discipline is blithely justified in the name of "teaching self-control" to poor kids of color."
There are some interesting things said about sport. As an avid sports fan, I'm looking forward to reading Kohn's other book - No Contest: The Case Against Competition. In this one, Alfie dicusses the profilic nature of those underlying values (conditionality, scarcity and deprivation) and their place in sports, competition and tests. What do we lose when we only "win" if others lose? At times, this is the part that most felt like overthinking to me, but I'm definitely musing on these ideas.
One of the more radical & important discussions in this book is the question - Who benefits when we fail to help kids to ask why? Who wants children (& therefore adults) to question less and obey more, and why? "In her more recent research, she created a task that is deliberately boring, the point being to come up with strategies that will lead students to resist the temptation to do something more interesting instead. Again, cui bono?" There are also parts about how the media interprets studies however they please. Two studies that Alfie looked at were Mischel's marshmellow experiment & Milgram's 'electric shocks' experiment. Both of which I'd heard of, though with flawed information according to Kohn.
Self-control, it turns out, is actually a lot more to do with the situation than the person, and there are different sorts of self-control. Even if it may seem, from the outside (kind of ironic) to be an internal motivation, there are different reasons to do things, some more healthy than others. A lot of our idolisation of self-discipline comes from sin-centric religious beliefs - "It's because our preferences are regarded as unworthy, our desires as shameful, that we must strive to overcome them." I love all the stuff about grit and persistence. Kohn breaks down the potential flaws to a never give up attitude.
But my larger point is that we should question not only how self-control and self-discipline works but also whether all versions of it are desirable. If we overlook the differences in how we (and our children) internalize a commitment to do something, or if we deny that it's possibly to be overly controlled, we end up endorsing the idea too quickly and too broadly.
The How is crazily prioritised in our society. We need to focus on Why too. Motives matter. A lot of the time we ask can we do things, not should we do them. This book is a fascinating look at where our beliefs about children come from, what they mean for society as a whole and how we can refocus so our actions embody what we really value.
I'd like to propose a different response: Encourage young people to focus on the needs and rights of others, to examine the practices and institutions that get in the way of making everyone's lives better, to summon the courage to question what one is told and be willing to break the rules sometimes.
I'm not talking about a knee-jerk opposition to everything, the kind of reactive sensibility that was captured by the Marx Brother's lyric "Whatever it is, I'm against it." Rather, I have in mind a thoughtful scepticism, a reflective rebelliousness, a selective defiance based on principle. One should be "critical" in both senses of that word: willing to find fault but also dependent on careful analysis. It's not "If you say yes, I'll say no," but rather "If you say or do something that doesn't make sense, I'll ask why - then, if necessary, say no (and suggest that other people do the same)."
October 3, 2015
Everybody seems to think millennials are terrible; narcissistic, self-absorbed, spoiled, entitled, who get trophies just for showing up and demand everything automatically work out for them. But what if I told you the conventional wisdom was wrong? You probably wouldn't believe me. Which is why Kohn's book is so important. He digs into the actual empirical evidence, the research, the studies, and the science to show that not only is there no evidence that kids are overprotected, that they are any more narcissistic or entitled than their parents, or that self-esteem and participation trophies are bad, but that what actually causes problems and bad behavior are traditional and conventional wisdom. He shows that traditional parenting is about forcing external compliance, not teaching internal values, and that the external rewards, punishments, and discipline we *think* will help our kids actually hurt them. He digs into the science of motivation and failure to show how our most treasured sacred cows undermine our parenting goals. A stunning book, full of unconventional insight. Required reading for every parent and concerned citizen.
July 1, 2018
Another excellent Alfie Kohn book that deconstructs social presuppositions and stereotypes. Alfie digs deeper than our shallow values normally go and gets to more important foundations of what we want to see in children. A 'well-behaved' child sounds nice, but what does that mean? And what do studies reveal about non-autonomous, non-visionary, non-opinionated children who simply "do what they're told"? He didn't mention Nazi Germany; the connection was obvious.
I appreciated his chapter on how to raise a rebel, like, intentionally raise them to rebel. I was that kind of child myself, but I got the impression from society that something wasn't quite right with me, and I'd never amount to much because I probably wouldn't pass the (debunked) 'marshmallow test'.
I appreciated his chapter on how to raise a rebel, like, intentionally raise them to rebel. I was that kind of child myself, but I got the impression from society that something wasn't quite right with me, and I'd never amount to much because I probably wouldn't pass the (debunked) 'marshmallow test'.
January 10, 2019
This book basically establishes a parenting/educational philosophy that is against any Biblical values. While I could agree with some of his ideas, he mostly had a very disparaging tone towards Christianity and the desire for children to obey. Believe it or not, parenting with Christian values is not synonymous with being an authoritarian. Not all commands are frivolous, and teaching obedience does not necessarily mean blind obedience. I imagine that if people followed the author's visions for parenting, it would be so exhausting and emotionally draining that no one would want to become parents.
February 13, 2018
In Kohn's typical style, he cites many studies to prove that every generation criticizes the next one for being spoiled, etc. He is arguing for parents to raise kids to question, and he argues that most commentators, advice columnists and parent educators are actually quite conservative in promoting approaches and strategies that do not do this. While I agree with his overall point, the book is long and tedious, and once again lacking in specific examples of how to put what he is advocating into practice.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 1, 2017
Everyone should read this book before having opinions on 'those spoiled kids'. Who knows, it might make them (the opinionated people) less obnoxious.
July 20, 2021
At one point in the book, Alfie Kohn quotes Richard Feynman, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of authority." and later points out how the sentiment would be brushed off into irrelevance if Feynman wasn't a celebrated scientist.
This particular observation speaks volumes about ideals and popularly realized wisdom(realized and not superficially absorbed). To make a thought or opinion relevant, one has to be highly distinguished and that of proven intellect. Who is to say that the most basic and the most popular ethics are to be cited in a journal before enthusiastic application in our lives? Who is to say that any opinion is universal? The one size fits all approach is understandably the death of creativity and everything innovative which is commonly realized but is still not popularly cited. Most policies, political, social or otherwise, are still framed from one perspective and not all. Dynamic analysis and decisiveness are still matters of a utopia.
This is just a meditation on how conformity kills independence and how this wanna be fit-in epidemic is prevalent but ignored in this largely unhinged society. An opinion is valued by the worth of a person and not the opinion itself. Ofcourse I agree with Feynman and his being an eminent physicist didn't hurt the inspiration his comment inspires. But just as easily, the celebrated intellectual could be Duckworth or Mischell or anyone that can cause ripples of unrealized disturbance in the world around us. Us, as humans, in this capitalist society, especially in the field of psychology have a habit of applying before testing. To cite an example, we declared autism to be a such a stigma, one of the most untreatable misfortunes that children had to live with before realizing it isn't a stigma at all and today children and adults on the spectrum, atleast those getting the care in a more enlightened and educated section of the society are thriving, a far cry from what the situation was, say, 40 years ago.
Is popular opinion really worth it? Especially when it comes to shaping a future society? Perpetual development and endorsement of conformist, docile individuals, is it just a stroke of luck or perhaps an aberration that we have any social development at all?
Alfie Kohn really makes you think.
This particular observation speaks volumes about ideals and popularly realized wisdom(realized and not superficially absorbed). To make a thought or opinion relevant, one has to be highly distinguished and that of proven intellect. Who is to say that the most basic and the most popular ethics are to be cited in a journal before enthusiastic application in our lives? Who is to say that any opinion is universal? The one size fits all approach is understandably the death of creativity and everything innovative which is commonly realized but is still not popularly cited. Most policies, political, social or otherwise, are still framed from one perspective and not all. Dynamic analysis and decisiveness are still matters of a utopia.
This is just a meditation on how conformity kills independence and how this wanna be fit-in epidemic is prevalent but ignored in this largely unhinged society. An opinion is valued by the worth of a person and not the opinion itself. Ofcourse I agree with Feynman and his being an eminent physicist didn't hurt the inspiration his comment inspires. But just as easily, the celebrated intellectual could be Duckworth or Mischell or anyone that can cause ripples of unrealized disturbance in the world around us. Us, as humans, in this capitalist society, especially in the field of psychology have a habit of applying before testing. To cite an example, we declared autism to be a such a stigma, one of the most untreatable misfortunes that children had to live with before realizing it isn't a stigma at all and today children and adults on the spectrum, atleast those getting the care in a more enlightened and educated section of the society are thriving, a far cry from what the situation was, say, 40 years ago.
Is popular opinion really worth it? Especially when it comes to shaping a future society? Perpetual development and endorsement of conformist, docile individuals, is it just a stroke of luck or perhaps an aberration that we have any social development at all?
Alfie Kohn really makes you think.
October 9, 2018
Kohn is very counter-cultural in his approach, but I do believe that he has a unique perspective as he takes on the research regarding permissive parenting, motivation, and questioning authority. I loved the last two chapters especially.
July 9, 2024
Audio. More like 2.5. I really wanted to like this and I did for the first two chapters when he uses research and studies to explain why the media hype of indulgent parenting is inaccurate. But it’s followed by an attack on anything that doesn’t mean a radicalized non-traditional perspective. It really felt like if you have any approach to parenting or education similar to a stereotypical traditional model, you are punitive, perfunctory, and ignorant. If you don’t prescribe to his ideology then you clearly haven’t questioned any methods of WHY we parent or educate in the current system.
Furthermore, he continuously chides critics (media) for generalizing, yet never defines what age group he addresses: how you parent/teach a 5 yo is significantly different than a 15yo.
Ultimately he arrives at the last chapter where he offers the advice that Aristotle gave more than 3 centuries ago. We want our children to have balance: a balance that only Alfie Kohn, apparently, knows how to dictate
Furthermore, he continuously chides critics (media) for generalizing, yet never defines what age group he addresses: how you parent/teach a 5 yo is significantly different than a 15yo.
Ultimately he arrives at the last chapter where he offers the advice that Aristotle gave more than 3 centuries ago. We want our children to have balance: a balance that only Alfie Kohn, apparently, knows how to dictate
November 8, 2018
This book was so challenging and revolutionary to my thinking. I loved it from cover to cover.
October 11, 2020
Rehashes some of the same arguments from “Punished by Rewards,” but less effectively & in less depth. Makes a case for working with children to help them become self-confident, rather than enforcing decisions and restrictions on them. The strongest section, in my opinion, was the last bit where he talks about reflection rebelliousness and the need to raise a generation of thoughtful, questioning individuals who can make meaningful changes in the world.
April 10, 2021
Alfie Kohn can always be relied on for thoughtful critiques of mainstream educational policies and practices. Very similar in attitude to Punished By Rewards, this book helped me reconsider some of the messages about education and parenting I take for granted.
October 29, 2019
I rated this book an "I liked it a lot" 4 stars for a few reasons. First of all, it is an extremely well researched and scientifically minded book on behavior which thrills me to no end. However, it is a bit repetitive as these books tend to be. Mr. Kohn does do a good job of making it less dry though. I also didn't fully understand the section on competition. While I agree with him and with the research that says that intense competition can be bad for kids, it seemed like he was saying that competition was always bad? It was hard for me to swallow that with the fact that there are many instances when I love and get a high off of competition even if it's hard or I lose. Not necessarily in school grades, but in games etc. Did I miss the actual point somehow in that section? Feel free to contradict me.
I also see where he's coming from with rewards creating extrinsic and destroying intrinsic motivation, but I really don't think that's so clear cut either. I think extrinsic and intrinsic motivation can exist together. That seemed oversimplified to me. Overall though, a well written treatise on our cognitive dissonance when asked to face actual research results and the way our culture has traditionally treated children.
I also see where he's coming from with rewards creating extrinsic and destroying intrinsic motivation, but I really don't think that's so clear cut either. I think extrinsic and intrinsic motivation can exist together. That seemed oversimplified to me. Overall though, a well written treatise on our cognitive dissonance when asked to face actual research results and the way our culture has traditionally treated children.
March 7, 2017
Audiobook. Great narration.
Alfie Kohn is a proponent of progressive parenting, and many other books like Peaceful Parent, Happy Kids and How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk are influenced by his writing. I really enjoyed this book as I felt like I was getting a better explanation of the psychological studies behind the beliefs in so many other books I read this year.
It's also just kind of fun to see someone unravel beliefs you have picked up in media and haven't really thought critically about.
Short synopsis of his beliefs:
* traditional authoritative parenting is deeply flawed unless your only goal is compliance
* traditional discipline doesn't work, including incentives like rewards and consequences (exception is natural consequences)
* homework in elementary school is useless
* grades don't matter, and are actively harmful to learning
* competition breeds negative behaviours
* parents need to focus on their long term goals for their child's development rather than short term compliance
* helicopter parenting doesn't deserve it's bad rap
* what we think of as self-control and self-discipline is really just an ability to self-distract
* self-esteem in kids is a good thing
* the goal of parenting and education is empathy and creativity
Spoiling a child should be a good thing, because it means you are meeting the child's needs instead of ignoring them or subverting them.
In the Myth of the Spoiled Child, Alfie Kohn attacks parenting myths espoused by newspapers like the New Yorker, NY Times and the Atlantic and analyses the faults in the studies behind the articles. If you have a conservative political leaning you're going to have a difficult time processing his arguments as he already assumes you're viewpoint is completely invalid (seriously, almost all the bad reviews of this book can be summarized as "I agree with him, but he hurt my feelings"). This book is focused on taking down the liberal "myths" about parenting.
He sees parenting as a blindspot in an otherwise left-wing worldview where traditional belief systems about "spare the rod, spoil the child" still hold sway. This was an excellent counterpoint to The Collapse of Parenting: How We Hurt Our Kids When We Treat Them Like Grown-Ups
From the very start he jumps down the rabbit hole of the myth that the next generation is being ruined by "grade inflation" and "praise" and finds articles about it going back as far as the mid-1800s. When you see how every generation has thought shitty things about the "weak" next generation, it becomes pretty obvious that this is just a meme propagating (and maybe we should be nicer to millenials). There was no golden period of education. The story of declining school quality is a myth.
One of my favourite parts was his takedown of the "Marshmellow Experiment" and how it really shows the effects of how you design a study more than it is an analysis of self-discipline and grit. The Marshmellow Experiment is a ridiculously over-cited experiment that is supposed to prove that ability for delayed gratification leads to future success. Kohn's argument against it is partially reprinted here: http://www.alfiekohn.org/article/smor...
Homework has several negative consequences and no documented positive consequences: http://www.alfiekohn.org/article/reth...
Grades diminish a child's interest in learning: http://www.alfiekohn.org/article/case...
The end of the book is a call to action of asking if you want a child who acquiesces to the status quo or challenges it. Do you want a child who pursues greatness or is a cog in the system?
Alfie Kohn is a proponent of progressive parenting, and many other books like Peaceful Parent, Happy Kids and How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk are influenced by his writing. I really enjoyed this book as I felt like I was getting a better explanation of the psychological studies behind the beliefs in so many other books I read this year.
It's also just kind of fun to see someone unravel beliefs you have picked up in media and haven't really thought critically about.
Short synopsis of his beliefs:
* traditional authoritative parenting is deeply flawed unless your only goal is compliance
* traditional discipline doesn't work, including incentives like rewards and consequences (exception is natural consequences)
* homework in elementary school is useless
* grades don't matter, and are actively harmful to learning
* competition breeds negative behaviours
* parents need to focus on their long term goals for their child's development rather than short term compliance
* helicopter parenting doesn't deserve it's bad rap
* what we think of as self-control and self-discipline is really just an ability to self-distract
* self-esteem in kids is a good thing
* the goal of parenting and education is empathy and creativity
Spoiling a child should be a good thing, because it means you are meeting the child's needs instead of ignoring them or subverting them.
In the Myth of the Spoiled Child, Alfie Kohn attacks parenting myths espoused by newspapers like the New Yorker, NY Times and the Atlantic and analyses the faults in the studies behind the articles. If you have a conservative political leaning you're going to have a difficult time processing his arguments as he already assumes you're viewpoint is completely invalid (seriously, almost all the bad reviews of this book can be summarized as "I agree with him, but he hurt my feelings"). This book is focused on taking down the liberal "myths" about parenting.
He sees parenting as a blindspot in an otherwise left-wing worldview where traditional belief systems about "spare the rod, spoil the child" still hold sway. This was an excellent counterpoint to The Collapse of Parenting: How We Hurt Our Kids When We Treat Them Like Grown-Ups
From the very start he jumps down the rabbit hole of the myth that the next generation is being ruined by "grade inflation" and "praise" and finds articles about it going back as far as the mid-1800s. When you see how every generation has thought shitty things about the "weak" next generation, it becomes pretty obvious that this is just a meme propagating (and maybe we should be nicer to millenials). There was no golden period of education. The story of declining school quality is a myth.
One of my favourite parts was his takedown of the "Marshmellow Experiment" and how it really shows the effects of how you design a study more than it is an analysis of self-discipline and grit. The Marshmellow Experiment is a ridiculously over-cited experiment that is supposed to prove that ability for delayed gratification leads to future success. Kohn's argument against it is partially reprinted here: http://www.alfiekohn.org/article/smor...
Homework has several negative consequences and no documented positive consequences: http://www.alfiekohn.org/article/reth...
Grades diminish a child's interest in learning: http://www.alfiekohn.org/article/case...
The end of the book is a call to action of asking if you want a child who acquiesces to the status quo or challenges it. Do you want a child who pursues greatness or is a cog in the system?
“In the pages that follow, I want to invite readers who don’t regard themselves as social conservatives to reexamine the traditionalist roots of attitudes about children they may have come to accept. And I want to invite all readers, regardless of their political and cultural views, to take a fresh look at common assumptions about kids and parenting. We’ve been encouraged to worry: Are we being firm enough with our children? Are we too involved in their lives? Do kids today feel too good about themselves? Those questions, I’ll argue, are largely misconceived. They distract us from—or even make us suspicious about—the shifts that we ought to be considering. The sensible alternative to overparenting is not less parenting but better parenting. The alternative to permissiveness is not to be more controlling but more responsive. And the alternative to narcissism is not conformity but reflective rebelliousness. In short, if we want to raise psychologically healthy and spirited children, we’ll need to start by questioning the media-stoked fears of spoiling them.”
“Most people who refer to an epidemic of permissive parenting just assume that this is true, that everyone knows it, and therefore that there's no need to substantiate that claim. My efforts to track down data -- by combing both scholarly and popular databases as well as sending queries to leading experts in the field -- have yielded absolutely nothing. I'm forced to conclude that no one has any idea how many parents could be considered permissive, how many are punitive, and how many are responsive to their children's needs without being permissive or punitive. (The tendency to overlook that third possibility is a troubling and enduring trend in its own right.) In short, there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that permissiveness is the dominant style of parenting in our culture, or even that it's particularly common.”
“Hence a report from Harvard’s own “Committee on Raising the Standard”: “Grades A and B are sometimes given too readily—Grade A for work of not very high merit, and Grade B for work not far above mediocrity. . . . One of the chief obstacles to raising the standards of the degree is the readiness with which insincere students gain passable grades by sham work.” Except that report was written in—you saw this coming, didn’t you?—1894.”
"what best prepares children to deal with the challenges of the real world is to experience success and joy, to feel supported and respected, to receive loving guidance and unconditional care and the chance to have some say about what happens to them.”
“Children don’t just need to be loved; they need to know that nothing they do will change the fact that they’re loved.”
“How well you do things should be incidental, not integral, to the way you regard yourself.”
“What provokes particular outrage and ridicule is the idea that children might feel good about themselves in the absence of impressive accomplishments, even though, as I’ll show, studies find that unconditional self-esteem is a key component of psychological health.”
“I think our challenge as parents is to rise above that preference for the child of least resistance and to think beyond short-term success as a criterion—particularly if success is defined by conventional and insipid standards. Don’t we want our kids to be inspiring rather than spend their lives just collecting tokens (grades, money, approval)? Don’t we want them to think in the plural rather than focusing only on what will benefit them personally? Don’t we want them to appraise traditions with fresh eyes and raise questions about what seems silly or self-defeating or oppressive, rather than doing what has always been done just because it’s always been done?”
June 23, 2016
This book is full of brilliant analysis and insight for sorting out what many studies and observations concerned with "modern parenting" are really saying about the state of our children. The author points out blatant contradictions, and in some instances, outright disconnectioins when it comes to criticisms of certain "new" parenting styles.
The author makes sure to back up every statement they make about what does and doesn't produce a child ready for succesful adulthood with: studies, data comparisons, and real life events. I wish I had this book to work from when my son was a child and I was endlessly defending myself against the naysayers critical of my no spanking policy, and friendly nurturing guidance instead of heavy handed discipline choices. I will be gifting and recommending this book often.
I was approved for an eARC, via Edelweiss, in return for an honest review.
The author makes sure to back up every statement they make about what does and doesn't produce a child ready for succesful adulthood with: studies, data comparisons, and real life events. I wish I had this book to work from when my son was a child and I was endlessly defending myself against the naysayers critical of my no spanking policy, and friendly nurturing guidance instead of heavy handed discipline choices. I will be gifting and recommending this book often.
I was approved for an eARC, via Edelweiss, in return for an honest review.
July 6, 2016
I always enjoy reading Kohn's radically progressive ideas which challenge our views of children. This book focuses largely on debunking myths about an existence of "the good ole days" when children knew their place-- it also examines popular buzzword phenomenons in education & parenting, such as "grit". It's a great read, just don't expect it to be a parenting book. It's more of a social psychology book focusing on society's view of children. Kohn is inspiring and makes a great case for working WITH children and supporting them in becoming curious, thoughtful, caring, socially aware, courageous citizens.
July 10, 2014
There certainly was a lot in this book to absorb! I would say it deserves a re-read, and it's the kind of book it would be worth having a copy of for that purpose, or to lend out. The real tragedy is that the people who would pick up and read this book aren't the ones who need convincing, and the people who need convincing aren't the ones who will read this book. Paying close attention to the material herein, and the scientific evidence cited supporting Kohn's position, will be a great resource for the parent who embraces the idea of "working with" parenting.
October 12, 2014
As always, Kohn's insight is appreciated if a bit skewed. I struggled with some confirmation bias reading it. Being a homeschool mom, I've made a lot of sacrifices for my son's well being. This book confirmed that we've done the right thing by him and in that in the long run, he can be a well-rounded, kind and successful kid because of, not in spite of, his upbringing.
May 5, 2014
This is not my favorite book by Kohn, but it makes good points and includes lots of research to support his position. I would recommend Unconditional Parenting or Punished by Rewards before this one.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews