Humans are forever trying to explain what they see, to look at some object or condition and figure out what actions produced that result. It’s called Cause & Effect, and we use it all the time in just about every area of life. We plant five rose bushes. Three of them do really well, one does okay, and one dies, and we immediately set out to explain what happened. These rose bushes got plenty of sun and water, but that one was awfully close to the maple tree, and the dead one, well, that spot must have been too windy. We insist on reasons, even when we’re just shooting in the dark.
Needless to say, we’d be lost without the concept of Cause & Effect. In space exploration, for example, if we didn’t understand the force of gravity and its pull on objects toward the center of the Earth, we wouldn’t know how to build rockets that can be launched into orbit. But sometimes problems can arise when we reverse the process, confusing cause and effect. I have a series of examples, and I plan to write about them a post at a time. But the one that inspires the strongest emotion in me involves parents and children.
Conventional wisdom tells us that children model the behavior of their parents. If a girl acts in a certain way, we need only look at her upbringing to figure out why she does what she does. If a little boy yells and throws toys at playmates, his parents must be violent screamers, and he learned it from them. In other words, the child’s behavior is the effect; the parents’ behavior is the cause.
This, I suggest, is nonsense. At least much of the time.
We all know families with three or more children, and very often the kids have personalities and ways of behaving that are completely different from each other. One is quiet, one is talkative, one is angry, one is carefree. How do we explain this? I explain it this way: Every person is born with the blueprint of a fully-formed personality. If you want to change a child’s natural behavior, you have to exert a lot of force: verbal threats, physical abuse, confinement, or starvation — something extreme. But in most cases of normal, reasonably-healthy upbringing, the baby becomes the child and the child becomes the adult, and they’re all the same person. The apple seed is going to grow into an apple tree and the acorn is going to grow into an oak tree.
How, then, did we arrive at the conclusion that the parents are causing the child’s behavior? I think we’re confused by what we see. For example, there are mothers and fathers who always speak in a calm monotone to their kids. They never raise their voices and they never resort to corporal punishment; indeed, they never even threaten to do so. The parents use only soothing, positive language. They are calm and reasonable. And amazingly, the kids respond: they never act rude or spoiled or destructive or uncontrollable. They are well-behaved boys and girls, apparently because their parents treat them with respect and a rational tone.
I don’t think so. It’s the other way around. Some parents have great success by speaking calmly and reasoning with their kids, because the children themselves are calm and reasonable. The parents have no reason to try any other approach.
On the other hand some kids have personalities that aren’t so agreeable. Their parents may start out trying to be calm and reasonable, but patience eventually wears thin. In those cases the parents might grow increasingly frustrated, angry, loud, and aggressive. Later someone will see the child’s actions, connect it with the parents’ attitude, and conclude that the mother and father caused the kid’s unpleasant behavior. They will also look at the well-behaved children and give credit to the calm, patient, reasonable parents.
I have seen children lying on their backs on the floor at the mall, screaming their little heads off. I have never seen a grown-up do this, so I doubt the child learned this behavior from his parents. I have seen kids at a dinner table spit out or throw their food, fling silverware, and bang their heads on the chair. Again, I have never seen parents do this. If these kids are modeling someone’s behavior, from whom are they getting the example? For me, it’s easier to believe their negative behavior is a natural outgrowth of the personalities they were born with, but for some reason we’ve decided it’s better or easier to blame the parents. When a group of boys commit some violent crime, it must be a result of the way they were raised. If a girl falls into drug addiction or alcoholism, her mother or father must have shown her the way. I know several families in which the parents are torturing themselves because their kids are running wild and getting into trouble.
Any gardener knows that you can plant a hundred identical rose bushes in identical conditions, give them the same amounts of water and nutrients, and they will not all grow at the same rate, or produce the same number of flowers. Further, there’s no way to predict which will do well and which will struggle. In a similar way, I don’t think parents possess that much control over the way their kids turn out. They can exert significant influence early on and along the way, but at some point it’s out of their hands.
We need to stop listening to the television psychologists and the motivational speakers who say that parents are responsible for what their children do. As in many other areas of life, when it comes to this particular Cause & Effect, we don’t have nearly as much power as we think we do.
Mostly Bright Ideas 
Julia Harris
August 3, 2010
Thanks for this. Parents everywhere should read what you’ve written here, the “bad” parents and the “good” parents with perfect children who never embarrass their parents in public.
There is so much guilt and anxiety surrounding the job of parent that it’s a wonder anyone decides to go through with it. If you don’t spend two hours a day of quality time with your kid; if you raise your voice; if you don’t enroll them in sports and crafting classes and guided educational playdates with other children; if you eat meat or don’t eat meat or only eat wild salmon; if you don’t get into the right preschool; if you immunize or don’t immunize or breastfeed or bottlefeed; if you don’t do everything by the book — and that’s assuming you’ve got the right book — then your kid is going to be screwed up for the rest of its life.
I’ve got two strong-willed kids, and everyone assumes they get that from me. What if they just get that from themselves? They have big personalities because that’s who they are. My husband and I try to stay out of the way of them becoming more themselves, but we do offer instruction on how not to be a jerk to others, how to do things like tie their own shoes and take the dog out when she needs to pee. We give them instructions on how to live as part of something bigger than themselves. And while it’s tempting to look at the mistakes they make as somehow my fault — “If I was a better/kinder/friendlier/stricter/more violent mom, this kind of thing wouldn’t happen” — the truth is, they make their choices and it’s our job as parents to help them make the right ones.
It’s been years since I threw a face-on-the-floor tantrum, and I’m pleased to say that neither of my kids has done that so far. But they have taken shopping carts on wild rides through Target and come close to mowing down little old people; they have fought over who gets to sit in which seat at lunch in the mall’s food court. Sometimes I yell; sometimes I cajole; sometimes I ignore; sometimes I offer them to complete strangers when I see that they’ve been looking at us with pity. In other words, I have gone through everything you describe here so perfectly, and you’re right: At some point, it’s out of my hands, and the only thing I can do is smile like I just don’t care, and then beat the crap out of them when we get home. (kidding)
LikeLike
bronxboy55
August 5, 2010
I’m glad you could relate. I don’t think this attitude will ever catch on, though, because there’s nothing to sell. All of the parenting books work for a certain slice of their audience, in a way that’s similar to how moisturizing creams and exercise machines work: the relatively few positive results are then used to try to sell the product to everyone. As a parent, when the approach succeeds, you credit the book or the tape or Dr Phil. When it fails, you assume it’s your fault because you didn’t follow the instructions correctly, as though you were trying to assemble a pre-programmed robot.
LikeLike
cooperstownersincanada
August 3, 2010
Another engaging and interest piece. I don’t have kids, but you have certainly challenged some of my long-held beliefs about parenting – which I believe is a good thing 🙂
Great work!
LikeLike
bronxboy55
August 5, 2010
Thanks, Kevin. Maybe it’ll come in handy someday!
LikeLike
Amiable Amiable
August 4, 2010
Nature over nurture. That’s what I always say. It’s true of my brother and I, and it’s true of my two sons. And I can tell you that my youngest didn’t learn to eat a live octopus from me – or his father, for that matter. Parenting is a bit of a crap shoot. It’s challenging and entertaining at the same time. Oh, and rewarding … well, maybe not all of the time. Great post. Glad you didn’t see me throwing that tantrum on the grocery store floor when my children insisted on me buying Fruit Loops instead of Cheerios.
LikeLike
bronxboy55
August 5, 2010
I’ve always tried to sidestep much of the credit, as well as the blame. When people commented on the great job I did raising my daughter and what a wonderful person she was becoming, I always responded with something like, “Hey, I’m just trying not to screw things up.” Being a parent is definitely all of the things you mentioned — challenging, entertaining, rewarding — and a few other things we’re probably both too worn out to remember.
LikeLike
heidit
August 5, 2010
Fantastic post, yet again. I agree with you to a point but I do think there are instances where the parent shapes the child. I’ll give an example. I know of a young girl who used to be the happiest little girl–who took pleasure in rainbows and puppies and kittens. Her father is a cynical, sarcastic jerk, who responded to her joy with some pretty nasty comments. As a result, she has become a more cynical young girl, especially around him. In fact, he rewards her when she is sarcastic, which has taught her to be more sarcastic.
When she’s around me, she tends to become the bright-eyed, happy girl she used to be, but at home she is sad and withdrawn. As further proof that the issue is not necessarily her–the man she calls dad is not her biological father and didn’t meet her until she was two or three years old and she spent those first few years as one of the happiest kids I know. It was after he became part of her life that her personality changed, dramatically. In fact, in a lot of cases, she’s just parroting what she’s heard him say.
I realize my example is possibly an extreme example but it does show that it’s not always the child. Sure, there are families where the parents do the best they can and no one understands why the kids turn out the way they do, but there are also parents who squash their kids under the weight of their own problems. I have a friend who works in a behaviour room (she gets kids in grade 1 to 5 who are on their last stop before being kicked out of school). In virtually every case, the children have parents with serious issues of their own and my friend sees grade 1 children doing things (or saying things) that have clearly come from their parents.
I don’t know if it’s nature over nurture or the other way around but I’m inclined to think it’s really a lot of both.
LikeLike
maggieannthoeni
August 11, 2013
I’m replying to your comment even though it’s August 2013 because the observations you give are so essential for us (humanity) to understand. Alfred Adler (contemporary of Freud – they had a falling out) was strong on exploring problems that develop for children due to environment.
To me his thinking was spot-on. A child is born vulnerable. The child has ‘unique’ personality ‘tendencies’, but the child also is hard-wired to ‘be successful in community’. The child develops sense of ‘rules to follow’ that fit the community environment she/he is born into. The child develops these rules by interacting with cues and feedback from community (usually birth parents, siblings, perhaps grandparents, etc.) The child doesn’t know she/he is doing this.
A large set of factors come into play – including sensitivity to ‘tension’ in the household, or lack of same. It needs to be remembered that parents are grown up but significantly operating by ‘individual world views’ they themselves formed in early years. Environments may vary by time and place for a single family – parents may feel confident during one child’s early years, and be anxious due to economic or other factors when a different child is born.
It’s now becoming more clear also that a pregnant woman’s stress or comfort levels (associated hormones) can play a role in a developing fetus’s brain development. … there are so many factors!
Adler labeled the hardwired ‘need’ to experience successful community as ‘drive for social competency’. By late 20thC his ideas had been developed further. But his point about ‘competency’ gave reasonable explanation for tantrum behavior (for instance). The child needs to experience some level of ‘capacity’ to meet his/her individual need and sometimes ‘acting out’ may become effective.
Adler also insisted that no one – of any age – takes any action, makes any choice, including ‘withdrawal’ or ‘shyness’, that is not bent to satisfying these innate drives.
Many of his insights on rearing children to help them become confident of themselves and their abilities have become standards.
LikeLike
bronxboy55
August 12, 2013
Obviously, the issue is a lot more complex than many people think. And that’s the reason we tend to look for simplistic answers — they’re easier and take less time.
LikeLike
maggieannthoeni
August 12, 2013
The topic “how do individuals and groups develop ‘skewed’ beliefs and practices?” (skewed meaning that thriving is less than optimal; and thriving meaning “we’re all in this together”) is of great interest to me. Only yesterday I caught brief mention that some kind of research may have found a technique that sheds yet more light on issues arising from early childhood experiences. Early distress due to physical abuse, for instance, is stored differently in the brain than distress from emotional abuse, (obviously more complex if both are present!). I hope to track down more info on that today or soon.
During my 20 years teaching young children, I was able to observe subtle facial expression changes on even ‘normally adjusted’ children when they witnessed even small moments of ‘injustice’ or ‘lack of compassion’ from those more powerful in their world, (older students, adults). It’s my contention that entire cultures and subcultures carry assorted ‘subtle’ wounds or shocks that are unrecognized, and labeled as ‘normal’. (The events deliver shocks or wounds to innate impulses of cooperative and generous spirit – impulses which my kids, even in the high-needs community the school served, had in abundance.)
IMO lack of awareness and understanding is how we get broad general cultures that have considerable dysfunction that is not addressed. I’m an idealist – always have been – not because I believe we could reach a utopian society, but because i believe we could have a much more honest and rational one – the rational including acknowledging that we are driven by deep psychological needs. I don’t see how a people or nation can ‘flourish’ in the best sense of the word if we don’t at least become thoughtful and appreciative of this situation.
To further complicate how we might want to approach ‘repair and healing’ – I believe we will have to acknowledge that ‘normal’ even ‘highly successful’ individuals (in societal and career terms) continue to operate on unrecognized ‘assumed to be true’ world views shaped in early years.
My goal is not that we stop everything right now and ‘fix’ ourselves. But that we at least begin to recognize we each have a ‘world view’ shaped before we realized we were shaping it, that we at least become curious about it, that we drop our need to mock and judge one another (except when specific to an action, “It was not helpful to punch so and so in the nose to express your disagreement”)
None of the necessary level of understanding or awareness of ‘ourselves’ was possible to articulate and examine in a reasonably rational manner until the 20thC, and professional understandings that might guide us didn’t mature enough, IMO, until late 20th C.
It’s a long road for humanity to ‘right’ itself … but I can’t think of a better use of the 21st C … and also can’t think of a time when we (collectively) have greater need to come to know ourselves!
Drum solo over … thanks for the space! 🙂
LikeLike
bronxboy55
August 5, 2010
I agree with you that it’s both, and also that very often the parents can have a negative effect on the child’s behavior. I was really reacting to the popular tendency to ALWAYS blame the parents, to make blanket statements such as, “Children model what they see their parents do.” Sometimes that’s true, but sometimes it isn’t.
I hope the little girl you referred to will weather the storm and come out okay at the other end. It seems unlikely to me that this guy can really change who she is; she’s probably doing whatever she needs to do right now to minimize the struggle. She’s also lucky to have someone like you paying such close attention.
LikeLike
partialview
November 11, 2010
Interesting opinion. I largely agree with it. There is just one lingering question. The kids lying on the floor in the mall and screaming their lungs out or throwing spoons around etc. didn’t seem so common ‘back then’. Back then could be when I was a kid, or you, or my father or my grandparents. Why is it more common now? Could it be something in the air?
LikeLike
bronxboy55
November 11, 2010
I think there are two separate issues. We probably didn’t see that behavior back then because parents didn’t tolerate it. Parents now let their kids get away with things — but that isn’t the cause. The behavior happens first, and then we either allow it or not. My question is, where does the behavior come from in the first place?
(On the other hand, we didn’t have malls back then. So maybe it’s something in the mall air.)
LikeLike
partialview
November 16, 2010
I do sometimes think that the genes are mutating. Mall air (mal-air) might have something to do with it, after all. Forgive me, I tend to lean towards the unexplainable, which more often than not brings me to the possibility that suggests the misuse of the laws of nature. It is such an intricately frustrating topic, because one keeps unveiling new aspects. But coming back to the feisty and ill-behaved children, my observation shows that most parents do so much to restrict this conduct, but to no avail.
I know of several people around me who are woeful about the tabooing of corporal punishment. They feel a little of that goes a long way in showing the child the right behaviour. I certainly don’t endorse it, but why I mentioned it is because like so many other issues, we might probably be looking in the wrong direction. Parents are blamed for straying children (or one black sheep in the family) even when the poor couple is trying their best to keep the child within the limits of decency. I agree the tolerance of bad behaviour has gone considerably up, but feel that that may not be the only reason for the overwhelming rise of bad behaviour itself.
Your suggested view is that personalities are formed before parents can influence behaviour. That of course is right. If Tommy has the aggressive streak, he will be just that and his sister Mandy will be what her innards (!) direct her to be.
I’d like to add a little to that.
Starting from pregnancy, the child is exposed to various kinds of stimuli and its responses and behavioural patterns begin to form from then on. Since our stimuli have increased manifold, the parents can only do so much in controlling what the child is exposed to. All that we feel and do gets out there in the air, I think. And is then free to change the ‘vibes’ around for everybody. Back then, the vibes weren’t so abrasive as they are today. So.
Do you think my theory has got some logic in it? Have I been able to explain it, even?
LikeLike
bronxboy55
November 16, 2010
I think your theory has a great deal of logic. The last two or three topics we’ve discussed all seem to fit together (although in a hard-to-pin-down way). You suggested that subtle signals are racing (or flitting) around our axons and dendrites. Maybe this activity is very sensitive and reacts to stimuli we may not even consciously notice (the vibes). And so we keep going off looking for the cause of things, but we keep looking in the wrong places. We’re controlled by our “innards” and by what we pick up through our senses, consciously and unconsciously. That could be why so much of what we do — and so much more of what other people do — seems so hard to understand. And then back to war: It could be that we’re all born with the tendency to protect ourselves and be aggressive toward others, but then society puts enough pressure on our minds that we learn to control those impulses. So we’re all walking around with these repressed needs and eventually the pressure builds to the point of eruption and we go to war as a way of release. Or we yell at the driver in the next car.
So what do you think now? Have we gone off the deep end? (Another one of my mother’s sayings.)
LikeLike
Michael Gulotta
August 26, 2014
Good blog, Charlie. Even if I have a different worldview than all that has been posted here, I think it is exciting that people are asking tough questions, and not embracing all that modern psychology has, at least thus far, concluded.
I agree, we all seem to be born with a self preserving, self centered drive. We don’t all express that the same way, though. Some are compliant, desiring to get their way by preserving peace. Others are more forceful to get what they desire, and try to control others in order to get their way. And even when they succeed, in many instances they are still not satisfied. Others live for the praises of others, and will go to great lengths to hear people tell them how great they are. Yet, it seems that no matter what the personality one is born with, the one common thread is that we, at least, begin with a overwhelmingly self centered drive. Yet, not everyone remains that way. Look at Mother Teresa, Amy Carmichael, George Muller. Some people actually develop a stronger drive to be sacrificial than to be selfish, even though they struggle with both. This doesn’t seem to fit well with the foundation of Modern Psychology; evolution.
If we were consistent with Evolutionary thinking, why would we have an issue with, Genocide or going to war and killing thousands or millions, who, some would say, are just dancing to their DNA? Maybe its all just nature’s way of ridding the planet of too many people?
What is it in us that causes us to look for reasons, meaning, purpose, design, if the universe really is the result of evolutionary processes like Freud and others assumed? Why has “nature” built this into the human race, if it serves no function in aiding “natural selection” and in fact, seems to oppose it?
Where do we come up with the compulsion to help the helpless, take care of the elderly who can no longer fend for themselves, save the life of a baby who has lost an arm through a botched abortion. Most parents probably want to raise children who will be a benefit to society? But why do they want that? Could it be that our reasons, even, have a self centered cause?
LikeLike