The Cellar - A narcissistic generation?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Parenting (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=30)

- - A narcissistic generation? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19808)

A narcissistic generation?

I put this here, because it's about educating the younglings.

Some time ago, possibly a couple of years, I recall a discussion in the Cellar in which people posited that schools were teaching children that failure was not an option: everybody succeeds. Essentially it was suggested that with this attitude, no child is ever allowed to be last, to fail a test, to be bad at stuff. The emphasis on boosting self-confidence had swung the pendulum too far and created an atmosphere in which kids felt they were entitled to success almost regardless of effort or ability.

I was unconvinced at the time. I felt this was a very negative slant on something that might actually be positive: the removal of intense levels of contest and competition between kids and the fostering of an ethos in which all are valuable, all are contributing.

This morning I read an interesting article on BBCNews, which basically suggests that the above phenonenon is starting to become apparent in our schools. It attributes the philosophy behind it to American teaching ideas which we have apparently adopted here. It suggests that the result is narcissitic children with a sense of entitlement.

I hadn't realised that our countries had such different approaches prior to this. I thought that what was being described in our earlier discussions, was something like what I'd seen in my own country. but viewed negatively. Actually, we'd been doing things differently and hadnt yet felt the full effects of these changes in educational theory and practice.

Anyway, here's the article. I'd be interested to hear if it tallies at all with observations of the American system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7943906.stm

Tis an Age-Old Pickle:

"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for
authority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer
rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents,
chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their
legs, and are tyrants over their teachers."

Or this one?

"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have
no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all
restraint. They talk as if they alone knew everything and what passes
for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for girls, they are
forward, immodest and unwomanly in speech, behaviour and dress."

I am not certain, but I think Plato said these?

I see it as part of the business of dealing with youth. But I also feel that this generation of teens and early 20-somethings are more slothful, less caring, than even MY generation. I suppose that marks me right away with the Old Fogey set, shaking my cane and saying, "In my day we didn't wear our pants to our butt cheeks and we WORKED and we were DAMN happy to have WORK, too!!" The student-workers at my Uni are univerally reviled due to their complete dissimilairities to awake, animated, alert human beings who'd like to cash a pay check now and again. They pratically dare each other to do any actual work.

I think the kids are narcissistic doody-heads for the most part. I also think the kids will be allright.

ah Brianna, you have a wide vision for understanding the human condition.

Dana,I heard this kind of story a year ago. I think it was a news program where the commentator was talking about how we have not taught our kids how to fail or some such thing that leaned toward narcissism.

Ignoring the fact I was bristling at the idea this is a problem from America I highlighted 'narcissitic pupils' then googled it for results. I wanted to find the article I heard a year ago.

I found articles on the subject from 2007,2004 and speculations from child specialists from 1989.
http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive.../distinct.html

So I only confirmed what I already knew. I am boringly pragmatic and not from raw instinct and smarts as Brianna's seem to be. You amaze me sometimes Bri.

{edit}
I was wondering at the distinction between China's and India's high emphasis on excelling in school and why that does not make narcissists of them?

I am also wondering why this is a new idea in the U.K. What was the U.K. school body like before our narcisstic tendencies invaded their psyche's? (sp?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by skysidhe (Post 545416)

I am also wondering why this is a new idea in the U.K. What was the U.K. school body like before our narcisstic tendencies invaded their psyche's? (sp?)

Highly competitive. I recall primary school used to divide us into Houses and have lots of interhouse contests. Prizes for competition and/or academic success only ever awarded to 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. You weren't in the top 3 there was no recognition to speak of. Liberal use of red pens to mark work (this apparently not allowed now as it is considered demotivating), gold stars and black marks, merit and demerit registers. Public humiliation of kids that weren't doing well (not exactly 'sanctioned' as a teaching method but fairly endemic within the system). If, for example, you were struggling with maths or English, you might be put into a 'special class'. There was no real attempt made to mitigate the obvious humliation of such a thing, if anything it was waved about practically like some kind of sanction. Kids were often called stupid, thick, or told they'd never amount to anything. The idea was, I think, to toughen them up and shock them into trying.

Work being handed back in such a way that ensured everyone was aware of how everyone else was doing *rolls eyes*, including very demonstrative returns of F-graded work. Tests for streaming wold rank kids within their class.

What there wasn't, and I think this might be where some of the changes have come in in a positive way, was a parrallel merit system that recognised difference in capacity, potential and kinds of intelligence in kids, Didn't take account of value-added measures either: no recognition for example of a child who came into the school way behind their peers and then dragged themselves up to just behind their peers...that's an achievement worthy of recognition, but it doesn't fit into a 1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place mentality.

I've seen in schools now, there is a tendency to award prizes for everything from having a good attitude to good improvements in reading. I am inclined to think this is probably a positive development, and frankly if we end up with a group of kids who are a little self-centred, that's probably not any worse than the legions of children who've been sent back out into the world with a damaged sense of their own worth under the older systems of teaching.

@ Sky: the reason it says it comes from America, is because it derives from an American school of thought in teaching theory. There has been a conscious attempt to bring in changes in keeping with those theories. It peaked my interest, because some American dwellars had characterised American education in those terms a couple of years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 545421)

@ Sky: the reason it says it comes from America, is because it derives from an American school of thought in teaching theory. There has been a conscious attempt to bring in changes in keeping with those theories. It peaked my interest, because some American dwellars had characterised American education in those terms a couple of years ago.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess I was confusing teaching theory with human development theories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 545421)

I've seen in schools now, there is a tendency to award prizes for everything from having a good attitude to good improvements in reading. I am inclined to think this is probably a positive development, and frankly if we end up with a group of kids who are a little self-centred, that's probably not any worse than the legions of children who've been sent back out into the world with a damaged sense of their own worth under the older systems of teaching.

I remember this too was part of the commentary of which I was speaking. If everything kids do is praised then this is where the sense of entitlement comes from. I believe we are changing course to teach critical thinking skills. The positive reinforcement for some teachers is still there but I think it it is changing starting from the way employers were seeing college grads. The kids who had a sense of entitlement even with good grades were not as hireable as those with critical thinking skills and who had other traits deemed desirable such as community service of some other unique talent and possibly not stellar grades. A trend trickling down so that the schools are beginning to teach children how to problem solve and be good thinkers and observers over the accumulation of gold stars by rote thinking. I know this is a fluid movement and the old standard is still there however I believe it is slowly changing.

I do get what you are saying. A little positive can go along way in comparison to putting kids down.

I hope this makes sense. I have not had to think for a long time. :thepain: That saying use it or lose it is so true.

My thoughts as I write: If I plan to go finish my degree I wonder how I can manage when I can barely put together a concise thought on a webpage.

DanaC: I saw a comedian talking about a kid getting a huge trophy for participating in a baseball league. He asked the kid what it was for and the kid says "because I participated." The comedian says "that just proves your mom dropped you off: hey kid, good job getting out of the car." :lol:

Certainly we want to encourage kids, but I think that encouragement should come with a degree of honesty, such as "well, you know what Johnny? Your talent doesn't seem to lie in baseball, but I noticed a great drawing you did the other day. What are you interested in pursuing? If you're having fun with baseball by all means, continue...you can also invest some time in your artistic skills as well."

Childhood is a time to find out what kinds of things spark your interest, what sort of things you're good at: for a child to never be allowed to fail is not doing them any favors, imho.

I love "paper plate" awards for this reason. Every child gets one, and you can use them to praise true excellence and also to motivate the slackers in a way that isn't too disparaging. it's a happy medium. Kids aren't failed, but for those who aren't the best, their award relates to some other aspect of them rather than their prowess in the task at hand and the coach says how they should apply that skill to the task next year/season.....

Phrase from a grade-schooler"s award certificate:

"has made great strides in sitting still"

Wha?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 545603)

Phrase from a grade-schooler"s award certificate:

"has made great strides in sitting still"

Wha?

Perhaps the child is the unfortunate offspring of a MexicanJumping bean or two. Can't really blame him for that, can we?

sitting down, for this lad, WOULD be tatamount to a certificate-getting bit of recognition. what? You've got something against mexican jumping beans?!

I think he was referring to the pun of making "great strides." If you're looking for a kid who would deserve a freaking medal for sitting still, look no further than the Fobble household...

Report home today from one of mine....

"Is doing much better at following directions in the classroom. is now working on this skill in other settings -speacial area classes and math class. Has gained some control over response to frustrating social situations, but still requires much adult support for appropriate social problem solving"

Sigh.

I understand you, Clod. I had to teach one hyperactive nine-year-old in Japan, the only thing that worked was miming nailing his feet to the floor. God knows how his parents (in Japan - Mother) coped. Probably used real nails.

In my experience . . . they know. When I was in elementary school, they had us in different reading groups, and the groups were named after birds depending on which reader we were using (the one with the blue cover was for the "bluebirds" group, etc.), rather than "A, B, C" or "1, 2, 3" or whatever. It may have been somewhat more polite, but everybody knew that some groups were getting "Let's go for a ride! I like to rid in the car!" and some were getting "Susan wasn't sure what her mom would say about the broken vase, so she decided to not say anything."

Like the baseball/softball league my kids play in... up to 8 they give out a little trophy or medal to everybody. (But it just says "Podunk Little League Rookie Division, 2008"... Not "#1 Champions or something like that.) Hell, they barely keep score, much less standings. The emphasis is on teaching the kids how to play--when do you throw it to first? when do you throw it to second? Etc. For the two older age groups, there are playoffs and trophies for the champions and first runner-ups. The kids know the difference between the "thanks for showing up" trophies and the championship ones.

I admit I haven't finished the book (yet), but in "The Optimistic Child," psychologist Martin Seligman says that the problem isn't the idea of building self-esteem, but the way it's done. Bad: Tell the kids they're geniuses no matter how bad they screw up. (It doesn't work and they can tell they've screwed up.) Good: Put them in a position where they can actually achieve something or be successful at something.

oh they know, they just care less because they're still getting trophies anyway. They care, but not as much and maybe not enough to make the extra effort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveDallas

I admit I haven't finished the book (yet), but in "The Optimistic Child," psychologist Martin Seligman says that the problem isn't the idea of building self-esteem, but the way it's done. Bad: Tell the kids they're geniuses no matter how bad they screw up. (It doesn't work and they can tell they've screwed up.) Good: Put them in a position where they can actually achieve something or be successful at something.

I read a study awhile back (sorry, I have no cite, I don't even think it was online) that demonstrated how important it was to build self-esteem in the right terms: they took a bunch of ten-year-olds, and gave them a series of increasingly difficult math tests. After each test, they would review the scores individually. For half the kids, they said things like, "You did well! You must be very smart," and the other half they said, "You did well! You must have worked very hard."

The kids who believed they worked hard for their results continued to do relatively well on the harder tests, while the kids who believed they were naturally smart did more poorly on the harder tests.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 546143)

I read a study awhile back

Was it this one? I found it fascinating -- no less so because I used the exact same techniques on my 33-year-old husband, starting his first semester in graduate school.

"See? You are as smart as those kids!"
- vs. -
"Wow, I guess all that time spent on the homework really helped!"

One gives them actionable advice; the other just encourages them not to look stupid (hard to do when you're taking on something that truly is challenging). It applies to adults just as well as children.

What the hell, here's the whole article.

Quote:

Too Much of A Good Thing?
By Samantha Cleaver

We encourage them, we celebrate them, and we give them stickers and stars. But are we doing more harm than good?
Ask Korean eighth graders, “Are you good at math?” and chances are they’ll say they aren’t. Ask an American, and you’ll likely get an enthusiastic response. In a recent study, only six percent of Korean eighth graders considered themselves excellent math students, compared with 39 percent of American eighth graders. Yet the Korean students scored far better in math than their American peers.

We’ve taught our children since birth to believe they can do anything they choose, from starring in the school play to mastering long division. All that self-confidence, however, hasn’t produced more capable students. The Brookings Institution 2006 Brown Center Report on Education finds that countries in which families and schools emphasize self-esteem for students—America for example—lag behind the cultures that don’t focus on how students feel about themselves.

For decades our culture has concentrated on teaching self-esteem first, learning second. In the late 1980s, a California government task force found no connection between low self-esteem and societal ills, such as drug use, teen pregnancy, and school underachievement. Still, California forged ahead with a self-esteem education plan. Today, raising children’s self-esteem continues to be a primary goal in the classroom, and a goal of parents at home.

Downplaying grades, praising children for minimal effort, or using neutral-colored green or purple pens to comment on written work seems harmless enough, but we may be taking away the sense of satisfaction and pride that comes from genuine achievement. Jason Walsh, a special education teacher in Washington, D.C., witnessed this firsthand during his school’s fifth-grade graduation ceremonies. Some students received as many as 14 different awards. “The majority of the students didn’t know what their awards really meant,” says Walsh. The honors “didn’t reinforce a specific achievement—but a sense of entitlement and of being great.”

The long-term impact of this rah-rah mentality is already apparent. In 2004, according to Jean Twenge, author of Generation Me, 70 percent of American college freshmen reported their academic ability as “above average.” But, once ego-inflated students get to college, they’re more likely to drop out, says Twenge, when their skewed sense of self and overconfidence affects their ability to make decisions.

A growing contingent of experts agree that in the classroom, self-esteem should be an outcome, not a method. “Self-esteem,” says Robert Brooks, Harvard Medical School faculty psychologist, “is based on real accomplishments.” It’s all about letting kids shine in a realistic way.

Feel-Good Academics
There is a correlation between self-esteem and grades; studies have shown that high grades do lead to high self-esteem. But rather then praising children for every effort along the way, we should encourage them to focus on achieving particular goals and applaud that achievement. The danger of too much praise is that children may turn their focus to how good they feel and how to get more praise, rather than on what they’re learning. “All children should be held accountable,” says Karen Bernstein, music teacher at Howard B. Mattlin Middle School in Long Island, New York. “We shouldn’t worry about setting boundaries for kids because of their feelings.” In her classroom, Bernstein makes children responsible for their actions, so that when they do achieve, “they feel good.”

If a student’s confidence isn’t built on their actual abilities, failure can be devastating. Walsh worries that his students’ sense of greatness may lead to a “psychological crash and burn” because they don’t understand why they failed. Walsh’s hunch is on track, according to experts; children who work solely for praise don’t feel intrinsic satisfaction. Even if a child feels competent, says John Shindler, associate professor of education at California State University, it’s not real competence if it’s rooted in constant praise. Furthermore, students absorbed with their own sense of self often have difficulty completing difficult tasks. One study shows that adolescent girls have lower self-esteem than adolescent boys. When confronted with a low score, the girls are more likely to work to improve their performance, while the boys are more likely to give up and change activities. “The real issue,” says Rick Weissbourd, who teaches at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, “is getting kids to develop a sense of self-efficacy, along with real competencies and skills. Self-esteem will follow.”

What Teachers Can Do
The latest findings on self-esteem can be dispiriting for teachers. After all, who wouldn’t want to make students feel good about themselves? Rather than tear down your “Shoot for the Stars” poster, reassess your priorities. Make sure that your primary focus is on student performance and improvement, rather than how kids feel about themselves. Emphasize effort and specific character traits, such as persistence, helpfulness, and consideration.

Students need to see that achieve-ment is related to the effort they put out. Establish clear expectations and rubrics that students can use to achieve the outcome, with effort as one of the criteria for success. If a student has trouble with large goals, says Bernstein, break the task into achievable chunks.

It’s all about realism, adds Twenge. Instead of focusing on how great the students are, highlight students’ real strengths. Teach them that none of us can be good at everything all the time. Weissbourd recommends that for each child in your class, identify three of his or her strengths and then make a plan to highlight those strengths.

Ask your students, what can they learn from this situation? What can they contribute? What do they want to achieve this week, month, or year? Then help them create goals and a way to achieve those goals.

Focus on actions and real character traits, not “special” and “great.” The best kind of praise, says Weissbourd, “communicates a specific achievement and the importance of effort in that achievement.” When you correct children, focus on what the child can do better next time, and show them how.

Don’t shelter children from failure. Children who are shielded from failure are not prepared to deal with adversity. When students fail, tell them exactly why and provide clear ways for them to succeed the next time. To break the ice, suggests Brooks, tell your students about a time when you failed in school, and how you recovered.

A Classroom Full of VIPs
Of course, you are working with children who have already been raised in a self-esteem world. They may think that they deserve recognition regardless of how they perform, and believe they should be considered first. Kids who act out don’t have poor self-esteem, says Twenge. Instead, they often think that they’re the most important person in the room and that everyone else is getting in their way.

When a child is disruptive, you need to figure out why the child is acting that way and work with them to fix it. William Ricks, a teacher in Sussex, Virginia, asks his students to walk with him in the hall to talk with them about their behavior. “I try to find the root of their attitude,” says Reid, “and then I talk to them about humility.” Addressing students’ needs is crucial for behavior and academics. Once students’ “social and emotional needs are met,” says Bernstein, “they will be more likely to work harder.”

Focusing on praise and avoiding riticism makes everybody feel good. But children who have high self-esteem may become rude and uncooperative when they’re criticized. Still, “don’t try to protect students from failure,” says Jennifer Crocker, Claude M. Steele Collegiate Professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan. Instead, when we make failure a learning experience and not a threat, the student’s self-esteem isn’t on the line, and they’re more open to taking constructive criticism.

Young children are naturally narcissistic, and teaching them self-esteem keeps them focused on themselves, instead of thinking about others. “Narcissism separates you from other people,” says Twenge, while true “self-esteem brings you into connection with other people.” In the long term, narcissism has been linked with aggression and poor relationships, while connecting children to other people has a positive affect on behavior. And, says Crocker, children learn more when they’re supportive of others.

More important than self-esteem, says Weissbourd, is a child’s maturity, or the ability to be aware of other people, coordinate other people’s needs with their own, and regulate intense feelings. By rewarding our students’ social successes, such as helping their peers, being good community members, and listening, we increase their genuine self-esteem and improve their behavior. Allowing children to help around the classroom, says Brooks, increases their “realistic self-esteem [because children are] making a positive difference in the life of someone else.”

Walsh has worked with students who have inflated egos and no sense of responsibility or respect. Too much self-esteem, he says, “creates a sense of entitlement. I’m not saying that children don’t need reinforcement, but you have to make sure that you develop a realistic, practical, and consistent behavior plan.” When we focus on building students’ self-control, sense of belonging, and competence, we create more self-esteem than we do if we dole out constant praise. “Genuine self-esteem,” says Shindler, is “a set of unconscious self-beliefs, formed over a lifetime, reflecting our perceptions and abilities, our ability to love, and how we attribute causality for the events in our lives.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 545394)

It attributes the philosophy behind it to American teaching ideas which we have apparently adopted here. It suggests that the result is narcissitic children with a sense of entitlement.

Do you believe that?

What, that it results in narcissistic kids? Depends on how competently the theory is implemented. It certainly doesn't have to. I think the theory is sound, but the practitioners havent been consistent in the application of it. Even if it does have that effect, it's probably better than churning out large numbers of kids with a stunted sense of their own worth, which was a feature of the old system imo.

[eta] as a kid I didn't 'fit in' much with my peers. I was bullied badly, by kids and in a few instances by teachers. It was my good fortune to be naturally academic, naturally able to excel in areas that tended to bring in merit stars and high scores. I got lots of praise, for things that actually came very easily to me. I didn't have to work at reading and writing, I didn;t have to work at spelling or adding up. It all came to me like swimming to a duckling. Being praised for that stuff had a dual effect ( I believe). Firstly it mitigated some of the damage my education was doing to my self-esteem (I never had self-esteem problems until the bullying kicked in around the age of 7 and had never been 'shy'). Secondly, it taught me a very dangerosu lesson: it taught me that I could skate through on natural ability and still win acclaim...bad, very bad. Acclaim becomes much harder to find when the work gets harder and the work ethic you should have learned never quite got through :P

The praise they heaped on me for hitting full marks on every spelling test was unearned. The kid who sat up half the night with his mum learning words that just wouldn't stick and managed somehow to get 7 of 10 right; he deserved that praise and acclaim.

At the same time, I was not very sporty. I didn't have good hand to eye coordination, though I had a belter of a rounders hit when I was on target and could throw a ball long distances. I didn't really like being active with all the other kids. The teachers who taught us games and sports cold have brought out of me some kind of appreciation of sports: instead they completely reinforced my self-image as 'not physical'. If I tried and didn't succeed, I was lambasted and mocked, or simply disregarded. Must be how some kids felt in English and maths. If I could be so moulded by that experience to the point that I still hate sports, what abot the kids who were being mocked or disregarded, or bullied and harangued when it came to the basics, like reading and writing?