James Dobson On Discipline (And How Children Are Like Dogs)

[Sunstone]

In his book, The Strong Willed Child, James Dobson describes what he did to his dog:

"Please don't misunderstand me. Siggie is a member of our family and we love him dearly. And despite his anarchistic nature, I have finally taught him to obey a few simple commands. However, we had some classic battles before he reluctantly yielded to my authority.

"The greatest confrontation occurred a few years ago when I had been in Miami for a three-day conference. I returned to observe that Siggie had become boss of the house while I was gone. But I didn't realize until later that evening just how strongly he felt about his new position as Captain.


"At eleven o'clock that night, I told Siggie to go get into his bed, which is a permanent enclosure in the family room. For six years I had given him that order at the end of each day, and for six years Siggie had obeyed.


"On this occasion, however, he refused to budge. You see, he was in the bathroom, seated comfortably on the furry lid of the toilet seat. That is his favorite spot in the house, because it allows him to bask in the warmth of a nearby electric heater. . . "

"When I told Sigmund to leave his warm seat and go to bed, he flattened his ears and slowly turned his head toward me. He deliberately braced himself by placing one paw on the edge of the furry lid, then hunched his shoulders, raised his lips to reveal the molars on both sides, and uttered his most threatening growl. That was Siggie's way of saying. "Get lost!"

"I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me 'reason' with Mr. Freud."

"What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!"

"But this is not a book about the discipline of dogs; there is an important moral to my story that is highly relevant to the world of children. JUST AS SURELY AS A DOG WILL OCCASIONALLY CHALLENGE THE AUTHORITY OF HIS LEADERS, SO WILL A LITTLE CHILD -- ONLY MORE SO." (emphasis Dobson's)

"t is possible to create a fussy, demanding baby by rushing to pick him up every time he utters a whimper or sigh. Infants are fully capable of learning to manipulate their parents through a process called reinforcement, whereby any behavior that produces a pleasant result will tend to recur. Thus, a healthy baby can keep his mother hopping around his nursery twelve hours a day (or night) by simply forcing air past his sandpaper larynx."

"Perhaps this tendency toward self-will is the essence of 'original sin' which has infiltrated the human family. It certainly explains why I place such stress on the proper response to willful defiance during childhood, for that rebellion can plant the seeds of personal disaster."

Do you think, like James Dobson, that the disobedience of children might be due to original sin?

Is breaking the will of a child a great way to produce a kid who will grow up to be a follower, and neither someone who thinks for himself nor a leader?

Are people basically bad and need to have their wills broken?

Is it rational to believe that a dog who does not want to go to bed at 11:00 sharp every night secretly believes he is the "captain" of the household?

Is beating a 12lbs dog with a belt a pretty good training technique?

Does James Dobson strike you as the sort of person who would more or less assume that anyone who disagreed with him was "rebellious" and "challenging his authority"?

 

[bigvindaloo]

In his book, The Strong Willed Child, James Dobson describes what he did to his dog:

"Please don't misunderstand me. Siggie is a member of our family and we love him dearly. And despite his anarchistic nature, I have finally taught him to obey a few simple commands. However, we had some classic battles before he reluctantly yielded to my authority.

"The greatest confrontation occurred a few years ago when I had been in Miami for a three-day conference. I returned to observe that Siggie had become boss of the house while I was gone. But I didn't realize until later that evening just how strongly he felt about his new position as Captain.


"At eleven o'clock that night, I told Siggie to go get into his bed, which is a permanent enclosure in the family room. For six years I had given him that order at the end of each day, and for six years Siggie had obeyed.


"On this occasion, however, he refused to budge. You see, he was in the bathroom, seated comfortably on the furry lid of the toilet seat. That is his favorite spot in the house, because it allows him to bask in the warmth of a nearby electric heater. . . "

"When I told Sigmund to leave his warm seat and go to bed, he flattened his ears and slowly turned his head toward me. He deliberately braced himself by placing one paw on the edge of the furry lid, then hunched his shoulders, raised his lips to reveal the molars on both sides, and uttered his most threatening growl. That was Siggie's way of saying. "Get lost!"

"I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me 'reason' with Mr. Freud."

"What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!"

"But this is not a book about the discipline of dogs; there is an important moral to my story that is highly relevant to the world of children. JUST AS SURELY AS A DOG WILL OCCASIONALLY CHALLENGE THE AUTHORITY OF HIS LEADERS, SO WILL A LITTLE CHILD -- ONLY MORE SO." (emphasis Dobson's)

"t is possible to create a fussy, demanding baby by rushing to pick him up every time he utters a whimper or sigh. Infants are fully capable of learning to manipulate their parents through a process called reinforcement, whereby any behavior that produces a pleasant result will tend to recur. Thus, a healthy baby can keep his mother hopping around his nursery twelve hours a day (or night) by simply forcing air past his sandpaper larynx."

"Perhaps this tendency toward self-will is the essence of 'original sin' which has infiltrated the human family. It certainly explains why I place such stress on the proper response to willful defiance during childhood, for that rebellion can plant the seeds of personal disaster."

Do you think, like James Dobson, that the disobedience of children might be due to original sin?

Is breaking the will of a child a great way to produce a kid who will grow up to be a follower, and neither someone who thinks for himself nor a leader?

Are people basically bad and need to have their wills broken?

Is it rational to believe that a dog who does not want to go to bed at 11:00 sharp every night secretly believes he is the "captain" of the household?

Is beating a 12lbs dog with a belt a pretty good training technique?

Does James Dobson strike you as the sort of person who would more or less assume that anyone who disagreed with him was "rebellious" and "challenging his authority"?

Your thread might provoke disapproval of "Christian" methods of raising children. However if your account is accurate, James's methods demonstrate deep insecurity on his part about his role as parent. The assumption that young children manipulate is immature and selfish. The dog is irrational. No wonder with a master like James. James could well learn a lesson in conditioning from Ivan Pavlov. Sigmund would salivate in his presence if treated appropriately. Surely James would be impressed.

 

[Engyo]

Your thread might provoke disapproval of "Christian" methods of raising children. However if your account is accurate, James's methods demonstrate deep insecurity on his part about his role as parent. The assumption that young children manipulate is immature and selfish. The dog is irrational. No wonder with a master like James. James could well learn a lesson in conditioning from Ivan Pavlov. Sigmund would salivate in his presence if treated appropriately. Surely James would be impressed.

To me this indicates the Buddhist concept of "consistency from beginning to end". As the relationship between an all-powerful, jealous and vengeful creator god and his subjects, so the relationship between the patriarch of a family and his "subjects".

 

[bigvindaloo]

To me this indicates the Buddhist concept of "consistency from beginning to end". As the relationship between an all-powerful, jealous and vengeful creator god and his subjects, so the relationship between the patriarch of a family and his "subjects".

What is the "Buddhist concept" you speak of (to you)? There is a parallel between the two positions you speak of but if anything they are consistently ignorant positions.

 

[Sunstone]

To me this indicates the Buddhist concept of "consistency from beginning to end". As the relationship between an all-powerful, jealous and vengeful creator god and his subjects, so the relationship between the patriarch of a family and his "subjects".

I think that's certainly part of it. Another part of it is the notion, which Dobson embraces, that people are born bad (original sin) and must be "disciplined" to conform with religious ideals of goodness, or else they will remain bad.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you think, like James Dobson, that the disobedience of children might be due to original sin?

Sure it might be.

Is breaking the will of a child a great way to produce a kid who will grow up to be a follower, and neither someone who thinks for himself nor a leader?

I don't know if breaking the will of anyone is a good thing.

Are people basically bad and need to have their wills broken?

No.

Is it rational to believe that a dog who does not want to go to bed at 11:00 sharp every night secretly believes he is the "captain" of the household?

No.

Is beating a 12lbs dog with a belt a pretty good training technique?

No. He should be investigated for animal abuse. Beating a dog is a crime, and it's his own fault that the dog doesn't obey.

Does James Dobson strike you as the sort of person who would more or less assume that anyone who disagreed with him was "rebellious" and "challenging his authority"?

Absolutely.

 

[sojourner]

I have a teenager that sounds a whole lot like that dog. He has decided that he is in charge of his mother and I, as well as the household. It has taken extreme measures and discipline in order to get him to deal with his self-destructive willfulness, non-compliance, obstructive behavior, overblown sense of entitlement and control issues.

While I would not place the same religious emphasis on "original sin" as James Dobson, I have seen firsthand what the human will can do to destroy itself and those close by if left unchecked. Human beings have an incredible innate power of will that, if left unchecked, may develop into kids (and adults) gone wild.

 

[Jaymes]

The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction.

That is truly a scary sentence. No wonder the dog reacted so terribly... if someone was coming at me with body language that said "I'M GOING TO BEAT YOU" I'd be scratching and snarling as well!

Do you think, like James Dobson, that the disobedience of children might be due to original sin?

No.

Is breaking the will of a child a great way to produce a kid who will grow up to be a follower, and neither someone who thinks for himself nor a leader?

It's a great way to discipline kids if you want beaten, timid, psychological messes.

Are people basically bad and need to have their wills broken?

No. Anyone that thinks this shouldn't have kids.

Is it rational to believe that a dog who does not want to go to bed at 11:00 sharp every night secretly believes he is the "captain" of the household?

Maybe if you're a nutcase. :areyoucra

Is beating a 12lbs dog with a belt a pretty good training technique?

No. Beating a dog isn't going to show you it you're boss, it's going to show it you're a psychopath that randomly beats it at 11 pm.

Does James Dobson strike you as the sort of person who would more or less assume that anyone who disagreed with him was "rebellious" and "challenging his authority"?

Now that you mention it, he does.

 

[BrandonE]

James unfortunately understands neither dogs nor children in my estimation.1 And I say unfortunately not so much for his sake, because there are many like him who understand neither. The unfortunate part is that so many who would otherwise behave in a way that their (likely correct) intuition led them are instead listening to a man who claims deep knowledge but has none.

Notes:
1 He's given away his ignorance of dogs by the third sentence, which considering that the first two were expository is actually quite a feat. Dogs are not by any means "anarchistic" in nature. If he knew the first thing about dogs, he would know this.

 

[Engyo]

What is the "Buddhist concept" you speak of (to you)? There is a parallel between the two positions you speak of but if anything they are consistently ignorant positions.

These Buddhist concepts are constructions from Chinese and Japanese Mahayana traditions, and it is a combination of several:

Non-duality of body and mind;
Non-duality of self and environment; and
The karma generated from thoughts, words, and actions.

In other words, because this is the way that Mr. Dobson understands the universe to operate, then this is understandably the type of actions and behaviors he displays in his own house and with his family and pets. In Mr. Dobson's understanding, God treats him this way, doesn't he? Isn't Mr. Dobson threatened with eternal destruction should he not behave as God wishes him to? Then what could possibly be wrong with Mr Dobson treating his family the same?

 

[Mystic-als]

I'm a cat person so I almost expect my PET to be independant and do it's own thing. However with every single cat I have had they have done exactly what I asked. If I just ask it in the right way. This means mouldng myself to change and NOT expecting the cat to change it's nature to accomodate me. Now with a dog it's much easier. It only seeks one thing. Love from it's "superior" (us). And if you offer love it will respond. A dog however is no CHILD. And even to relate the two is sick. The complexaties are soo different that it's the same as likening an ant to a steel cup.

P.S if I saw him beating the poor little dog I would have shown him the true meaning of a beating. It would have been him crawling up and down the walls

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

These Buddhist concepts are constructions from Chinese and Japanese Mahayana traditions, and it is a combination of several:

Non-duality of body and mind;
Non-duality of self and environment; and
The karma generated from thoughts, words, and actions.

In other words, because this is the way that Mr. Dobson understands the universe to operate, then this is understandably the type of actions and behaviors he displays in his own house and with his family and pets. In Mr. Dobson's understanding, God treats him this way, doesn't he? Isn't Mr. Dobson threatened with eternal destruction should he not behave as God wishes him to? Then what could possibly be wrong with Mr Dobson treating his family the same?

Engyo! :rainbow1: Thankyou for this.

 

[michel]

In his book, The Strong Willed Child, James Dobson describes what he did to his dog:

"Please don't misunderstand me. Siggie is a member of our family and we love him dearly. And despite his anarchistic nature, I have finally taught him to obey a few simple commands. However, we had some classic battles before he reluctantly yielded to my authority.

"The greatest confrontation occurred a few years ago when I had been in Miami for a three-day conference. I returned to observe that Siggie had become boss of the house while I was gone. But I didn't realize until later that evening just how strongly he felt about his new position as Captain.


"At eleven o'clock that night, I told Siggie to go get into his bed, which is a permanent enclosure in the family room. For six years I had given him that order at the end of each day, and for six years Siggie had obeyed.


"On this occasion, however, he refused to budge. You see, he was in the bathroom, seated comfortably on the furry lid of the toilet seat. That is his favorite spot in the house, because it allows him to bask in the warmth of a nearby electric heater. . . "

"When I told Sigmund to leave his warm seat and go to bed, he flattened his ears and slowly turned his head toward me. He deliberately braced himself by placing one paw on the edge of the furry lid, then hunched his shoulders, raised his lips to reveal the molars on both sides, and uttered his most threatening growl. That was Siggie's way of saying. "Get lost!"

"I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me 'reason' with Mr. Freud."

"What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!"

"But this is not a book about the discipline of dogs; there is an important moral to my story that is highly relevant to the world of children. JUST AS SURELY AS A DOG WILL OCCASIONALLY CHALLENGE THE AUTHORITY OF HIS LEADERS, SO WILL A LITTLE CHILD -- ONLY MORE SO." (emphasis Dobson's)

"t is possible to create a fussy, demanding baby by rushing to pick him up every time he utters a whimper or sigh. Infants are fully capable of learning to manipulate their parents through a process called reinforcement, whereby any behavior that produces a pleasant result will tend to recur. Thus, a healthy baby can keep his mother hopping around his nursery twelve hours a day (or night) by simply forcing air past his sandpaper larynx."

"Perhaps this tendency toward self-will is the essence of 'original sin' which has infiltrated the human family. It certainly explains why I place such stress on the proper response to willful defiance during childhood, for that rebellion can plant the seeds of personal disaster."

Do you think, like James Dobson, that the disobedience of children might be due to original sin?

Is breaking the will of a child a great way to produce a kid who will grow up to be a follower, and neither someone who thinks for himself nor a leader?

Are people basically bad and need to have their wills broken?

Is it rational to believe that a dog who does not want to go to bed at 11:00 sharp every night secretly believes he is the "captain" of the household?

Is beating a 12lbs dog with a belt a pretty good training technique?

Does James Dobson strike you as the sort of person who would more or less assume that anyone who disagreed with him was "rebellious" and "challenging his authority"?

Actually, this is an aspect which I agree is valid.

I have been thinking about this recently (mainly because we have had a rush of programmes on Television lately about how to stop Dogs from behaving badly, and how to train them.

Looking at the basic rules between the two, they are remarkably alike.
If a dog seeks attention, as long as there is nothing wrong, don't give it to him (same goes with a child).

Reward good behaviour, but ignore bad behaviour. The same - it works with both.

If a dog (or a child for that matter) is behaving badly (having a tantrum), distract him (for dogs, by chucking down an empty plastic bottle full of stones ; the noise and surprise is enough to ditract the animal long enough for him to forget what he was doing)

Both Dogs and children often take the lead from an owner (or parent); something happens (for example a thunderstorm); with both children and dogs, the reaction you have (fear, or couldn't care less), is the one that will usually determine the other's reaction.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think James Dobson needs to watch a few episodes of Cesar Milan as "The Dog Whisperer." Then he'll get an idea of how to train a dog to happily submit without brute force. Milan has the same philosophy as Dobson as the importance of establishing who is the Alpha-Male, or pack leader, in the household. But Milan's methods are far from the means that Dobson suggests for those purposes. Beating a dog with a belt is something that Cesar Milan would never do.




I part ways with Dobson with his philosophy toward raising children. Our teenager is "at that age" where he thinks he knows it all, but he helps around the house, and we think he speaks respectfully to us. Out of all four of our kids, our second oldest probably is the only who would be considered "docile," and his actions probably preferred in a Dobson household with his quiet nature.





The attitude Dobson has toward infants has little in common with many new mothers (I breastfed exclusively, and I never thought my babies were "manipulating" me in any way).




Not all Christian parents feel that Dobson is correct, however. There is the attachment-parenting community that has mostly been lead by Dr. William Sears (a Christian), whose series of books based on his experience as a pediatrician and a father of eight kids has sort of been unofficially dubbed as the Bible of baby-care and child-rearing. One of my favorite books by him was always, "The Discpline Book" where he discusses at length age-appropriate measures for discipline that always ensures that respect goes both ways.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[bigvindaloo]

These Buddhist concepts are constructions from Chinese and Japanese Mahayana traditions, and it is a combination of several:

Non-duality of body and mind;
Non-duality of self and environment; and
The karma generated from thoughts, words, and actions.

In other words, because this is the way that Mr. Dobson understands the universe to operate, then this is understandably the type of actions and behaviors he displays in his own house and with his family and pets. In Mr. Dobson's understanding, God treats him this way, doesn't he? Isn't Mr. Dobson threatened with eternal destruction should he not behave as God wishes him to? Then what could possibly be wrong with Mr Dobson treating his family the same?

Having thought about this, I am still confused by your assertion of Buddhist concept here. Is this concept you speak of "ignorance"?. If not, I have to say non-duality of mind and body or self and environment are not Buddhist. "Karma" is not defined here. If I am right in my confusion, isn't James wrong in his ignorance (even though he is consistent)?

 

[bigvindaloo]

I think that's certainly part of it. Another part of it is the notion, which Dobson embraces, that people are born bad (original sin) and must be "disciplined" to conform with religious ideals of goodness, or else they will remain bad.

Are dogs born bad or is it only humans? Or is will bad? Will bad behaviour treated badly result in more bad behaviour? Yes. Will a dog treated badly as a puppy bite adults when grown? Yes. Hello James.

 

[jamaesi]

Wow. No really, just WOW. That's what we like to call abuse here.

Do you think, like James Dobson, that the disobedience of children might be due to original sin?

Nope.

Is breaking the will of a child a great way to produce a kid who will grow up to be a follower, and neither someone who thinks for himself nor a leader?

It's a great way to really mess up a kid, that's about it.

Are people basically bad and need to have their wills broken?

Certainly not.

Is it rational to believe that a dog who does not want to go to bed at 11:00 sharp every night secretly believes he is the "captain" of the household?

No, the poor dog might be sick or cold or have sore joints and want to be near the heat.

This whole "certain spots" where the dog is allowed or not allowed to be to show that you are boss is complete crap. Alpha dogs do NOT have physical struggles for dominance, they use physiological/ritualistic methods and the respect from other dogs to benevolently keep their role as alpha.

If a dog bullies his way to the top then the other members of the group will soon take away his status. No one likes a dictator, not even dogs.

Now lower ranking dogs and dogs that are not sure of their place in the pack- they scrap and have fights. (Also the lower ranking dogs tend to "haze" newer members to the pack, like puppies after they're four months old.) This is another reason alpha dogs don't have physical fights, they are secure in their positions, if they were to physically squabble that would instantly lower their rank.


And that thing about the spots and not letting dogs on "people places/thrones!" to show them they are lower ranking is, again, false. My dog sleeps on my bed but when I ask him to do something- he does it! Dogs don't really have this concept, and even if a lower ranking dog is sleeping in a place that is a nice spot to sleep an alpha dog usually won't bother and just sleep somewhere else. Alpha does not mean dominate, more of "in control of situations and resources"- most alpha dogs AREN'T the strongest (in terms of sheer force) dogs.

If you want to show a dog you are alpha- control the resources. Before you feed the dog ask him to sit. Before you give the dog a treat ask him to sit. Before you let the dog outside ask him to sit. See a trend?

I depend on my dog to hear for me, help me get around, retrieve objects for me, and to protect me (some of my handicap friends have been physically threatened or attacked for asking for something like a seat on a bus . It makes me feel safer to know I have my "partner" with me most of the time- having a German Shepherd with me tends to get people to back off.)
He depends on me to make good choices in taking care of us. I really think he's getting the raw end of the deal, but he's happiest when he has a job to do, be it taking care of me, or herding my chickens around the yard and guarding them from 'coons, or just making sure the sofa is hairy enough.

Is beating a 12lbs dog with a belt a pretty good training technique?

Beating ANYTHING with a belt is never a good training technique.

Getting your dog's respect does not come from beating him. It comes from taking care of him and training him. (And I don't meant by Milan's "training"- anyone who uses choke chains, flooding, physically "smacking" the dog (Tsst! The T is for TEASING), and alpha rollings immediately loses my respect.)

If the dog is being doing something wrong, ignore him and don't reward the bad behavior. Same goes for kids, a lot of the "bad" things they do are just for attention. Let them know that when you are behaving you are more likely to be rewarded with a snack or parental attention.


It's not your job to be a "boss" it's your job to be a leader.



"I cannot think of many learning situations where I want my learning dogs responding with fear and lack of motion. I never want my animals to be thinking social hierarchy. Once they do, they will be spending their time trying to figure out how to move up in the hierarchy."
-Dr. Ray Coppinger -- a biology professor at Hampshire College, co-founder of the Livestock Guarding Dog Project, author of several books including Dogs : A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution n a recent article in the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) newsletter

Does James Dobson strike you as the sort of person who would more or less assume that anyone who disagreed with him was "rebellious" and "challenging his authority"?

Pretty much.

 

[Engyo]

Having thought about this, I am still confused by your assertion of Buddhist concept here. Is this concept you speak of "ignorance"?. If not, I have to say non-duality of mind and body or self and environment are not Buddhist. "Karma" is not defined here. If I am right in my confusion, isn't James wrong in his ignorance (even though he is consistent)?

BigVindaloo -

Respecftully, nonduality of body and mind, and nonduality of self and environment, are Chinese Mahayana Buddhist concepts; they come from the T'ien -T'ai school originating with Chih-ih. I merely mentioned karma, rather than defining it, as these two concepts along with the concept of karma are what is used to derive the "consistency from beginning to end" that I mentioned.

To put my point in other words: Since this "destruction as a consequence of disobedience" is a big part of what comprises Mr. Dobson's worldview, and it is how he expects to be treated, I don't find it hard to understand why he would have no problems treating his family and pets in the same fashion. I am not judging his decisions; I wouldn't choose as he has, but I am coming from a very different worldview and understanding of how the universe works than Mr. Dobson is.

 

[lunamoth]

"What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast.

OK, so something similar happened while I was training my dog as a puppy. Yes, if you do not establishyourself as the alpha dog of the family pack the puppy/dog will assume that he is the alpha and start to dominate. This is not a good situation and usually ends up with the dog being 'eliminated' in one way or another, but...

"But this is not a book about the discipline of dogs; there is an important moral to my story that is highly relevant to the world of children. JUST AS SURELY AS A DOG WILL OCCASIONALLY CHALLENGE THE AUTHORITY OF HIS LEADERS, SO WILL A LITTLE CHILD -- ONLY MORE SO." (emphasis Dobson's)

CHILDREN ARE NOT DOGS! Any shred of credibility Dobson held in my mind as an authority for child-rearing has gone swiftly and completely out the window.

"t is possible to create a fussy, demanding baby by rushing to pick him up every time he utters a whimper or sigh. Infants are fully capable of learning to manipulate their parents through a process called reinforcement, whereby any behavior that produces a pleasant result will tend to recur. Thus, a healthy baby can keep his mother hopping around his nursery twelve hours a day (or night) by simply forcing air past his sandpaper larynx."

What Dobson suggests here, not responding to a crying infant, is the perfect way to create a psychopath. I am not kidding. It has been very well established that not responding to a baby's crys will break the cycle of trust that is the essential foundation for all future interpersonal relationships. If a child crys and it's discomforts are not met in a timely manner the child will eventually either disconnect or will not learn that the world is safe and that it can count on its parents/caregivers to meet its needs. This leads to something called ATTACHMENT DISORDER, which as the child grows manifests as a huge battery of manipulative and antisocial behaviors.

Attachment disorder can be mild or severe, a child can be more or less prone to having their trust broken, but whatever the circumstances, when it is severe these kids turn into those humans we label 'monsters' or 'evil' because they lack compassion and empathy. All other people are just viewed as means to their personal ends, whatever that might be. Jeffery Dahmer and many other sociopaths are considered to fall into this catagory of disorder.

There is some truth, I think, in the idea that in older children jumping to meet their every whim, want or demand leads to spoiled (and unhappy) kids. But above Dobson is talking about infants and young children, not five-year-olds. A five-year-old is approaching the age of reason and should be able to wait a bit more. But a baby? No way. For a baby a wet diaper or the beginnings of hunger are no different than a life or death situation in their little minds.

"Perhaps this tendency toward self-will is the essence of 'original sin' which has infiltrated the human family. It certainly explains why I place such stress on the proper response to willful defiance during childhood, for that rebellion can plant the seeds of personal disaster."

Hogwash.

Do you think, like James Dobson, that the disobedience of children might be due to original sin?

No, at least not the way I think about original sin.

Is breaking the will of a child a great way to produce a kid who will grow up to be a follower, and neither someone who thinks for himself nor a leader?

What Dobson describes above is a great way to create a sociopath.

Are people basically bad and need to have their wills broken?

No. But, many people are basically strong willed (it's a good thing, related to intelligence) and need to be 'civilized' by observing models of compassionate action and being loved and respected themselves.

Is it rational to believe that a dog who does not want to go to bed at 11:00 sharp every night secretly believes he is the "captain" of the household?

A dog? See my explanation of dominance and the alpha dog above. Do you really mean a child? A child needs to learn to respect the household rules, and hopefully those household rules are reasonable and upheld with respect and compassion, rather than fear and punishment.

Is beating a 12lbs dog with a belt a pretty good training technique?

If you want to have a mean dog.

Does James Dobson strike you as the sort of person who would more or less assume that anyone who disagreed with him was "rebellious" and "challenging his authority"?

I think he's an ***.

 

[lunamoth]

Ha ha! I actually got a warning for posting my last message above, I assume for using questionable language. And calling Dobson an animal that begins with the letter a, ends with s, and has an s in the middle, and is well-known for its inablity to qualify for membership in mensa, is actually pretty strong language for me.

luna