Already bought The Myth of the Spoiled Child? Then you're excused from reading this adaptation in Sunday's NY Times.
Tina Miller, MA,CFLE stashed this in parenting
There sure is a lot of suffering in the world.
Most people have to deal with adversity at some point.
I could get behind the 1st and 2nd, but I don't think we need to be so harsh, as to not give praise for effort, as in the 3rd conviction.
The first is deprivation: Kids shouldn’t be spared struggle and sacrifice, regardless of the effects. The second value is scarcity: the belief that excellence, by definition, is something that not everyone can attain. No matter how well a group of students performs, only a few should get A’s. Otherwise we’re sanctioning “grade inflation” and mediocrity. To have high standards, there must always be losers."
"But it’s the third conviction that really ties everything together: an endorsement of conditionality. Children ought never to receive something desirable — a sum of money, a trophy, a commendation — unless they’ve done enough to merit it. They shouldn’t even be allowed to feel good about themselves without being able to point to tangible accomplishments. In this view, we have a moral obligation to reward the deserving and, equally important, make sure the undeserving go conspicuously unrewarded. Hence the anger over participation trophies. The losers mustn’t receive something that even looks like a reward."
Tying reward to winning makes it seem like winning is everything.
This flies in the face of self confident kids being the product of un-conditional parental love.
And how does any of this connect to the "happy kids make more successful adults" idea?
What's the success metric for later in life that a childhood of deprivation is supposed to bring?
Unclear. Other than appreciation for what they have, the benefits seem slim.