Dopamine Kids: A Science-Based Plan to Rewire Your Child's Brain and Take Back Your Family in the Age of Screens and Ultraprocessed Foods

Dopamine Kids: A Science-Based Plan to Rewire Your Child's Brain and Take Back Your Family in the Age of Screens and Ultraprocessed Foods by Michaeleen Doucleff

While this book makes sense, it has a "snake-oil sales" tone. Everything bad is related to screens and ultra- processed food. Sure, there is plenty of negativity with those. But can we really single them out like that? Books were once "bad" and now they are the solution here. There author comes across as a San Francisco Waldorf mom that is really trying to relate to others. The book is primarily a journey with her and her young daughter as they fight screens and "pood". It is a two-way process. You can't have parents addicted to screens and expect the children to avoid them. It is important to have other activities that can be used and provide the interest.

The book spends time discussing dopamine and how things were wrong. It helps drive desire. The fulfilment can be a downer. Slots are an example of crazy addiction. I was playing a stupid phone came for a bit while playing it. I hated it but was still playing. Just the badness it describes. For food, the processed food gets us all the energy in a hurry. We consume the calorie dense junk food quickly and then come back for more and more. Real food takes more work, but gives a better payoff. The discussions all feel sound. But are we missing part of the argument?

The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness

The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness by Jonathan Haidt

Parents have become extremely protective of children's physical activities, but allowed them free reign on the internet. Girls tend to be driven to social media. Boys to videos and video games. Kids don't have as many experiences, nor take as many risks in the real world. However, they suffer more in the virtual world. The solutions include limiting kids access to internet and screens. Smart phones should not be had until later ages (like high school.) Social media should also be postponed. 13 is too young of an age. And younger children often fake the age. Kids should be given more opportunities to interact and take risks in the "real world". Can we really spin back the digital invasion that has negatively impacted the lives of children?

10 Mindful Minutes

10 Mindful Minutes: Giving Our Children - and Ourselves - the Social and Emotional Skills to Reduce Stress and Anxiety for Healthier, Happy Lives by Goldie Hawn and Wendy Holden

A celebrity wrote a book on parenting. It must be great, right? There is obviously some concern for "authority".  I head "PhD" referenced numerous times, likely as an attempt to provide authority. Other than that, the book mostly says you should pay attention to your kids and practice mindfulness.

Love, Money, and Parenting: How Economics Explains the Way We Raise Our Kids

The authors of Love, Money and Parenting analyze various parenting styles across time and geography through an economic lens. The general conclusion is that income inequality and chance of advancement leads to more helicopter-style parenting. In societies that are more egalitarian, children are able to run free and not given such high demands. 

With inequality, there is a strong desire to give children the advantages needed to succeed. This can differ across cultures. In China, everything depends on academic achievement and the focus is there. In America, academics and extra-circulars are needed to gain access to elite colleges. Thus, parents shuffle children off to many different activities.

Agrarian societies saw children as a key part of the family labor. Families were typically larger and expected to help out. There were typically different roles optimized for age and gender, but everyone helped out.  Even at the start of the industrial revolution, children could continue to help the family by working. Roles continued to be based on specific gender (often with those demanding more brawn for men, and more finesse for women.) There were also different systems of marriage and inheritance that would favor one gender over the other. Today, many roles are knowledge based and are fairly easily performed by males or females.  There is thus a greater demand for more equal treatment.

The authors present a large number of different statistical analyses to identify certain factors that would help identify the cause of parenting being a certain way. There is a little bit of combined analysis. However, it would be interesting to see more on "buckets" of traits that are impactful. It is interesting that there are such extreme differences in parenting style today. From a policy perspective, I think we often confuse cause and effect. We see an egalitarian society in Scandinavia, so we attempt to emulate their non-tracked permissive schooling on a local level. Alas, this merely lets a small group of students fall behind. The permissive schooling is the effect, not the cause. And furthermore, it extends in to the culture, both in and outside the school. 

Ignore It!: How Selectively Looking the Other Way Can Decrease Behavioral Problems and Increase Parenting Satisfaction

Sometimes the simplest way to get a bad behavior to stop is to simply ignore it. Children will often seek the "reward" of attention by misbehaving. They also realize that the behavior can help them gain other rewards in the process (such as a toy a sweet or some other desired object or activity.) Ignore it advocates a simple strategy: Ignore, Listen, Re-engage, Repair. 

Before starting, kids are instructed in the behavior. If they are asking for something, the final answer is given, and nothing is up for further debate. If they continue to wine or complain, the parent does not react at all. The child is simply ignored. Any response that the parent breaks the ignoring. Once the tantrum dies down, the parent continues other steps to build back up the relationship with the child.

There are times when ignoring should not be done. If there is danger of bodily harm, the parent should re-engage sooner. However, parents' definition of "bodily harm" can often be excessively broad today. In public, it is often best to remove everyone to a "private" space to have the tantrum so that the child can be "ignored" without unduly stressing the parent. The strategy is also valid for children with psychological challenges such as ADHD and autism. 

The author notes that many parents try the strategy and fail. Often that is because they do not fully ignore, but instead give some bits of attention (such as yelling at a kid to quiet down.) There is also a discussion on time outs. Those can be a tool to help provide separation and quiet down. However, they need to be done for the right amount of time. They should also be a time of "no attention". If a parent has to hold a child are repeatedly get them to go back, it is probably not good.

If I Have to Tell You One More Time...: The Revolutionary Program That Gets Your Kids To Listen Without Nagging, Reminding, or Yelling

Amy McCready sells a "Positive Parenting Solutions"service that helps implement many of the policies described in the book. The solutions are based on Alderian psychology. Children are seaking out attention and needs. They see the ways that parents interact and want to participate also. In the past, families had a more hierarchical structure. Dad was the ultimate boss. Mom was fully in charge while Dad was at work. Mom obeyed Dad. Kids obeyed Mom. Today, however, parents are equal. They debate in front of children. Children see this and expect to be participants also.
This book provides a number of tools to help parents raise their children with discipline rather than punishment. Many of the "punishments" make things worse.
The first tool is "Mind Body and Soul" time. Have time dedicated to interacting with the child on their own. From there, use a calm voice and encourage rather than praise. Empower children by training and giving them choices. Decide what you will do and control the environment. Use "When - then" to explain consequences and routines. Let natural consequences play out rather than "saving children". Develop logical consequences for cases where the natural may take too long or be unsafe to carry out. Either or can be used for an option.
Many misbehavior are a result of mistaken goals. They may want undue attention, power, or revenge. Or they may be so far down that they have assumed inadequacy. Dealing with these goals may require conterintuitive actions. Ignore special special requests (after informing children they will be ignored.) Let consequences play out. Invite cooperation rather than bossing. Withdraw from conflict. When a fight does need to be broken up, seek to understand feelings rather than assign blame. Finally, tie all of this together with weekly family meetings where the kids play a role.
It all seems like a good strategy that requires significant discipline to implement. At first, there will likely be some pushback form the kids, but it seems like it will pay off.

The Self Driven Child

In listening to Self Driven Child, two thoughts went through my mind: 1. This is the parenting style that I aspire too, and 2. The school district has tried to pick and choose some of these principles, leaving education as a muddled mess.
One of the authors comes from a test-prep background. Thus, a lot of the examples are of "highly achieving" students that are stressed beyond belief trying to get into dream schools. Thus time is spent emphasizing that parents should not force children into these routes. The child that has their parents manage all the details needed to get into the good college often ends up partying hard and then dropping out. Instead, children should be given more autonomy to make their choices. Advanced schooling may not be for everyone. (One chapter in the book is even devoted to anecdotes from people who have gone down non-standard paths.)
Successful parenting (and leadership in general) involves helping people to make good choices and carry them out effectively. If we force people to do something, they do not develop the skills to make the choices in the future. They may also build up resentment and fight against what we are doing. Instead, a parent should often be more like a consultant. They are there to help the child in the process, but not dictate every detail. (However, there still are general rules and regulations that must be put in place.)
Schools also have a knack for doing many things that are not in the best interest of students. The emphasis on testing leads to students being good test takers, not good learners. External rewards motivate initial compliance, but internal reward systems are needed for long term success. Too much homework often leads to tired students rather than more learning - especially when it is of the busy-work variety.
We want children to be productive, self-driven members of society. We need to treat them appropriately. Even those with learning disabilities and special needs can be self-motivated. It just requires different behaviors.

Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think

Nature tends to win out over nurture when it comes to raising children. So, why are we so stressed out over the job we do parenting? Why do working moms of today spend more time with kids than stay at home moms from the 60s? In trying to focus on children instead of ourselves, we often hurt the children. Modern parents have grabbed too much responsibility for themselves, and it doesn't really matter. Children are most likely to turn out like their biological parents, regardless of how they are raised. Many twin and adoption studies show that genetics plays a significant role in adult behavior. Nurture, alas, provides some short term advantages, but little advantage for adults. These studies were mostly done with first world, middle class parents. Nurture can benefit those that are an extreme poverty. But for most middle class families, it wont make much of a difference. Alas, the book does spend a long time drilling down every facet of genetic determinism. I got the point on the first few examples, and did not need every last study. The economic and societal benefits are presented almost as afterthoughts. Our world needs children to support the elderly. Most of the improvements come through inventions. More people means we have a greater likelihood of more inventions. The "ills" of overpopulation are mostly caused by excessive consumption of resources. Don't reduce the people. Instead, reduce the excessive consumption. In the end, the author does not suggest that everyone should be a Dugger, but that we are capable of adequately raising more kids than we think we can.

Free Range Kids

The media has trained parents to be paranoid, thus depriving kids of the chance to be kids. This book presents a folksy tail of a mom who dared let her tween navigate by himself home on the subway - and live to tell about it. It is fun, entertaining ramble.

Parents do many stupid things in the name of "safety". Some of the concerns are shown to be total crocs. There has never been a case of somebody tampering with Halloween candy in an attempt to injure children. (The only "documented" cases were of family members often trying to use it as a ruse to collect insurance.) Yet, parents are still restricting Halloween activity. Ironically, they are encouraging more "junk" candy rather than healthy. The candy companies benefit by this false sense of danger and are thus in no hurry to fight it.

Other fears are more often grounded in "poor" math. There is an infinitesimal chance of a child being kidnapped on the way home from school. However, these kidnappings are sensational news stories. Even people that act rationally, knowing they are rare still justify driving their children. They could never live with themselves if their child happened to be the one in ten million that had something bad happen. Of course, the odds of being injured in a car accident are much greater than the odds of being kidnapped. And the consequences of inactivity. Hmm... Pollution... And what about the congestion and the potential harm caused to other pedestrians. The world just becomes a much worse place because of people's inability to properly judge the likelihood of rare events.

There are plenty of people who know this. However, they are still afraid to do things out of fear of what "other people may think". I have even heard that from neighbors. Sure school is only half mile away from home, and walking over a pedestrian freeway bridge makes walking not much longer than driving. But, they don't want to let the kids walk themselves because they are afraid of what other parents would think of them. Sigh. In example was given of a mother of a young child that asked the lady behind her (with two young children) to watch her child while she ran to get something. The second mother was later flabbergasted. "How could the first mother have trusted a total stranger? What if I would have kidnapped her child?" Of course she didn't kidnap the child, and she new she wasn't the type to do it, yet she judged the other mother as bad because she was trusted. Huh? Even had she been villainous, she would have had a difficult time trying to kidnap a child while managing two others. Irrationality at its best.

And sports. Instead of playing, kids spend more time in organized sports. However, in organized sports, they spend more time sitting around. And there is the matter of being driven there, and only competing for a few hours a week. Oops.

In some cases the busybodies are well meaning, but cause huge overreaction. The Danish mother who parked her infant-containing stroller outside a restaurant is a great example. The busybodies thought is was a great travesty to do it. Think of everything bad that could happen. Oh yes. Plenty of bad things could happen. Passerbys could call the police. The police could send you to chail. Child protective services could be called. Yep. Lots of bad stuff. All caused by our paranoia.

Perhaps relaxing the paranoia is the key to solving our government financial crisis. We just need to back off on the regulation and official "support" in society. Let kids run around. Close the streets off near school. Why not prevent parents from approaching the school grounds. (Hey, that would even help the paranoid - no adults getting near the kids.)

The author does, however, go schizo in a few places. She has a long rant against "formula-feeding guilt". People that are fed formula turn out fine. But, she highly favors seat belts and helmets. "you never know". However the more apt thing is that people have succeeded with the worst possible upbringing. If we worry to much about things, we wont necessarily make life better for the kids. However, we will make it miserable for ourselves, which in turn can make life worse for the kids.

It is time for society to back off!

Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother

This book gained plenty of notoriety when an excerpt was published in the Wall Street Journal. This excerpt seemed to make its way around every parenting community, often with signs of disgust with a parenting style that seemed to border on child abuse. The book, however, is much more balanced than the excerpt would have you believe.

The author is second generation Chinese. She was raised in America in a very Chinese style by her Chinese immigrant parents. She noted that first generation immigrants tend to struggle to obtain success that their children can build upon. Their children, however, tend to slack off, leaving the third generation not achieving as much as their ancestors. She is determined not to let that happen to her children. Thus, she chooses to raise them in a very strict Chinese fashion.

She lives in an area with a small Chinese population. She is also married to a non-Chinese Jew. Thus, she tends to overcompensate in the strictness of her Chinese parenting. She demands hours per day of studying and practicing musical instruments. She demands success in everything, even down to the quality of the birthday cards that her children make for their parents. Social activities for the children are seriously limited so that they can focus on their achievements. She pushes them to great heights, and doesn't accept "no" or "I don't want to" as an answer. Her first daughter thrives in this regime. Her second daughter, however, gives her trouble.

While her second daughter ends up following most of the prescribed routines, she does so somewhat reluctantly. Eventually, while on vacation in Russia, she violently rebels. (Good thing this wasn't Nebraska or child services would have been called in.) The author relents and lets the daughter stop devoting so much time to violin. The daughter takes up tennis, and excels there. She credits the strong drive and worth ethic that her mother instilled.

One key insight she has is that tasks become "fun" only after you have devoted enough time to become good at it. Parents that let children give up too soon deprive them of the chance to get good enough to enjoy the activity.

I wonder how different the book would have been if the author had lived in Cupertino instead of New Haven. In Cupertino, Chinese-style parenting is the norm, while "western-style" parenting is the oddity. Would she have tried to out-Chinese the Chinese parents? Or would the greater community enabled her to become more complacent (or even more "western") in her parenting style. Perhaps we can have a follow up of somebody raising a child the "western way" in Cupertino.