Why Not Fear?

[Jetgirl]

(Mods: I usually hang out in this forum, but this might work better in Philosophy/Morality, feel free to move thread if necessary.)

I've been having a heated discussion with my mother, who has recently declared that she believes I should never have children because I will use "fear tactics" to raise them.

This claim came after I mentioned that children should, in some part, be afraid of their parents.

Now what I couldn't get by her during this conversation (since she metaphorically stuck her fingers in her ears and sang kumbaya for the rest of it) is there are many different kinds of fear. For example:

"Bad" Fear:

• Fear of torture
• Fear of imprisonment
• Fear of death
• Fear of violence

"Good" Fear:

• Fear of failure
• Fear of the unknown
• Fear of disappointing others
• Fear of social embarasment

Now from what I have learned of Skinner and operant conditioning it seems that children generally survive to adulthood by modifying behavior based on knowledge/experience of a combination of both classes of fear. (In part that is, I understand operant conditioning involves a lot more than simply fear.)

When children are little, they do not have the knowledge or experience to properly fear. You have to supply that for them, since learning to fear traffic is too dangerous to do by experience. So parents teach fear of danger, and reward avoidance of danger.

In part, this would mean the adult would have to be a scary creature every once in a while. Since children can't triagulate knowledge properly yet, I see no problem in having my kid stay out of the street because mommy gets scary when they try for it, until they're old enough to cogniate getting plowed down by a semi.

Since my mother is not speaking to me at the moment, and I know some folks on here have also expressed the opinion that fear should not be used as a tool, perhaps someone can explain to me this position.

 

[nvxplorer]

You should define "fear," Jetgirl.

Personally, the items under "good fear" are non-issues with me. I actually enjoy the unknown (though that is a broad term as well).

Fear of death and physical harm is instinctive, but that doesn't seem to be your definition.

 

[ShawnaAnn]

"Good" Fear:

• Fear of disappointing others
• Fear of social embarasment

This is definantly not a good fear.

"Dissapointing others" could be interpretted as "conformity". Social embarassment is just basically the definition of conformity.

Conformity is never good regardless. It sounds like trying to justify motivation by fear... by moving it to the good category. Right?

 

[Jetgirl]

You should define "fear," Jetgirl.

I find the wikipedia definition sufficient:

Fear is a basic emotional sensation and response system ("feeling") initiated by an aversion to some perceived risk or threat.

Personally, the items under "good fear" are non-issues with me. I actually enjoy the unknown (though that is a broad term as well).

There's different kinds of unknowns. I submit that the unknowns that you enjoy you really may know enough about to not fear harm or death from.

Fear of death and physical harm is instinctive, but that doesn't seem to be your definition.

I don't think it is as instinctive as that. Pain is unpleasant, therefore avoided, but one is not born knowing what will cause pain or death.

 

[Jetgirl]

"Dissapointing others" could be interpretted as "conformity". Social embarassment is just basically the definition of conformity.

I'll accept that on a limited basis.

Conformity is never good regardless.

I'd love to see this notion supported.

Would you agree that striving to do well in school in part because your parents would be disappointed otherwise is a good thing?

It sounds like trying to justify motivation by fear... by moving it to the good category. Right?

Not particularly, I arranged the categories by what society seems to see as good and bad fears.

I personally think that fear of pain and death are "good" fears, but not fears that should be inspired by ones parents.

 

[nvxplorer]

Would you agree that striving to do well in school in part because your parents would be disappointed otherwise is a good thing?

If the motivation is love - wanting one's parents to be happy - then it is a good thing. If the motivation is fear - not wanting to be punished - then it is not necessarily a good thing.

Either way, a student should strive for scholastic excellence because it would be advantageous to her. That should be the main motivation. Once the student understands this, the feelings of others become secondary.

 

[theeyesoftammyfaye]

Would you agree that striving to do well in school in part because your parents would be disappointed otherwise is a good thing?

i wouldn't wholly agree. growing up, i was told that doing well in school, getting good grades, etc. should be something i do for MYself because i should respect myself and my abilities. my parents never ONCE asked for my report card from middle school on (in elementary school, we had to have them signed by our parents) - but instead told us all that if we felt comfortable sharing our grades with them, we should. if we didn't, we shouldn't. however, not once did my brother, my sister, or i NOT give them our report cards. we always did our best because we wanted to do it for ourselves, not for our teachers, parents, etc. we were never pressured to perform academically or athletically - but instead were allowed to choose our own way. here, i must point out, that we have all done very well in school, and all three of us were very involved in extra-curricular sports & activities.

i think attempting to use fear to instill a sense of duty and/or morals in a child is an extremely negative thing. instead, i feel that children should be allowed to "come into their own," urged to excell for themselves and not anyone else, and given love no matter what path they choose.

not to be hokey, but i was watching a woman on wifeswap the other day talk about her thoughts towards her children. she said: "if my child came to me tomorrow and said "hey mom, i'm a gay garbageman. and i'm HAPPY." i would say "you know what? i'm happy for YOU." "

and that's pretty much how my parents approached us. love and respect is infinitely better than fear and intimidation.

 

[Jetgirl]

If the motivation is love - wanting one's parents to be happy - then it is a good thing. If the motivation is fear - not wanting to be punished - then it is not necessarily a good thing.

I fail to see the difference between wanting one's parents to be happy with you and fearing their disappointment.

In none of this am I assuming that the disappointment will be grounds for some sort of punishment.

Either way, a student should strive for scholastic excellence because it would be advantageous to her. That should be the main motivation. Once the student understands this, the feelings of others become secondary.

But you have to start somewhere. Children are not born knowing that it is personally fulfilling to succeed in academics. On the contrary it seems for a good number of grade-school and high school students the fear of disappointing their parents (or being disciplined by them if they fail mightily) is what keeps them straight.

I know I wouldn't have put quite so much effort into laboriously outlining my entire 9th grade history book if the only person would be disappointed by a "C" was myself. It took a couple more years to learn to do it entirly for myself, and I encounter people daily who seem to have never learned it at all.

 

[Jetgirl]

instead, i feel that children should be allowed to "come into their own," urged to excell for themselves and not anyone else, and given love no matter what path they choose.

How would you use this approach to handle a small child who is on the verge of wandering into traffic, or trying to grab things off a stove?

Would it not be reasonable to attempt to instill some fear of the dangerous objects?

not to be hokey, but i was watching a woman on wifeswap the other day talk about her thoughts towards her children. she said: "if my child came to me tomorrow and said "hey mom, i'm a gay garbageman. and i'm HAPPY." i would say "you know what? i'm happy for YOU." "

I would probably feel somewhat the same.

and that's pretty much how my parents approached us. love and respect is infinitely better than fear and intimidation.

I don't see those two things being mutually exclusive, could you explain how you see them as such. It is reasonable to be at least somewhat intimidated by people who have 25-30 more years of experience with the world than you do.

 

[nvxplorer]

I fail to see the difference between wanting one's parents to be happy with you and fearing their disappointment.

Mincing words muddies your argument. Using this rhetoric, people can be said to "fear" any and all unpleasant outcomes. This would be stretching the definition of fear to be meaningless. I certainly hope my co-workers arrive to work today, as I don't wish to be overburdened, but I do not fear that they will possibly call-in.

In none of this am I assuming that the disappointment will be grounds for some sort of punishment.

Then please elaborate.

But you have to start somewhere. Children are not born knowing that it is personally fulfilling to succeed in academics. On the contrary it seems for a good number of grade-school and high school students the fear of disappointing their parents (or being disciplined by them if they fail mightily) is what keeps them straight.

Likewise, many students/children excel despite barriers, including poor parenting.

This would rightfully be addressed by a psychologist.

I know I wouldn't have put quite so much effort into laboriously outlining my entire 9th grade history book if the only person would be disappointed by a "C" was myself. It took a couple more years to learn to do it entirly for myself, and I encounter people daily who seem to have never learned it at all.

I suspect, as you've implied in previous posts, that your current success has indeed been personally motivated.

 

[Anovah]

Seems like it should be possible to fear consequences without fearing or feeling threatened by your parents.

The child wandering in the street might not be afraid of their parents but they know there will be consequences for disobeying.

Fear the consequences, not the parents themselves.

 

[nvxplorer]

Seems like it should be possible to fear consequences without fearing or feeling threatened by your parents.

The child wandering in the street might not be afraid of their parents but they know there will be consequences for disobeying.

Fear the consequences, not the parents themselves.

Agreed. Additionally, positive reinforcement should be employed.

 

[Anovah]

It is reasonable to be at least somewhat intimidated by people who have 25-30 more years of experience with the world than you do.

I think that fear comes less from the realization that they have more experience and more that they are twice their size and strength.

Ever watch that Nanny 911 show. I know, it's cheesy, but I get sucked in. There's a lot of good tips in there and one I thought was interesting is that it was not recommended to stand over your child and shout, but rather to kneel down to their level and speak in a low tone speaking voice. This way you're able to show the child you are serious and mean business without instilling fear (and they also seemed to pay a lot more attention when spoken to in that manner).

I think I might see the argument you're trying to make. A bit of fear can be quite healty, but it's in my opinion that you should trust your partents, not fear them.

 

[Silent Bob]

"Good" Fear:

• Fear of failure
• Fear of the unknown
• Fear of disappointing others
• Fear of social embarasment

It all depends on the child and how the parent deals with it but I am a person who is plagued by all of the above fears. All my life I have seen my peers beeing able to achieve more, move on faster, take more risks and be much more social.

I have fought against all these "good" fears and I continue to do so but in the end of the day there is not a single thing I wouldn't give to get rid of all these fears and be able to live my life. You want to f up you kids? Fine but take it from experience, try and f them up without making them afraid of their own shadows.

I too think that kids need possitive feedback rather than fear and punishment. Maybe teaching them to avoid cars is a good thing but teaching them that embarasment is to be feared can lead to agoraphobia. Think again what you want your kids to become.

 

[StMatthew2429]

*MOD HAT ON*

***Thread moved from General Political Discussion to Ethics and Morality as it is more appropriate, THANKS!***

*MOD HAT OFF*

 

[gwenmead]

Hmm.

I don't honestly know if there's really a healthy way to try to use fear to keep children in line. I'm not inclined to think there is, but I don't know.

What little I remember of child development though is that you'll probably go through a period of time when your kids are very young that they will just automatically operate under the belief that "mommy mad = don't do X", because for awhile that's just how a young brain works.

There are probably going to be times where your kids just are afraid of you anyway too. I mean you'd be perfectly within reason to yank a toddler out of the road and yell "NO!!" at them, if they were about to run in front of a car; they'd probably be scared, but I'd hope in that case that their fear would be secondary to your wanting to bring them into safety.

I really don't know. My mom used fear as a parenting tool. All it really taught me was to be afraid of everything. Her, life, other people, failure, making mistakes, you name it. I'm so afraid now that it often paralyzes me. (I'm currently working with professionals to find out for sure whether or not I have an anxiety disorder.)

That's the potential problem that you might end up with if you use fear to raise your children. Do you want to run that risk?

 

[Mling]

Well, if the child learns that mom get's scary when he goes in the street, he hasn't learned to stay out of the street. He's learned not to let Mom catch him when he goes in the street. If he isn't old enough to understand that car+child=squish, than he isn't old enough to be playing near the street unsupervised. Some manipulation of the environment (preventing the dangerous situation in the first place) can reduce the need for manipulating the child (making the child afraid of the dangerous situation, so he will avoid it himself.)

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

I don't see how saying what will happen when a given action is done, like the outcome of that action is using fear to persuade people. That's not what God is doing...He is trying to keep us from harm.

It's harmful for a parent to not tell their children what will happen when they do certain actions...like jump out in the road, or abuse drugs and etc....that's what God does for us...He tells us what will happen for our own good rather than letting us stay ignorant and thus perish.

 

[wanderingone]

Depends on what you mean by fear. It's appropriate to teach children that it's dangerous to walk into traffic, it's not appropriate to make them afraid of cars and streets and traffic lights.

It's appropriate to teach children a hot stove can be dangerous it's not appropriate for them to be afraid of a pot or a hot cooked meal.

Instilling fear isn't the right idea when helping children learn to have a sense of the danger in their world, you can learn to be cautious in potentially dangerous situations without being afraid of everything.

 

[ShawnaAnn]

I'd love to see this notion supported.

Well, believeing the world is flat was also a notion of conformity. I suppose conformity is a good thing if it doesn't get you killed socially or physically.

How much is too much? It's really up to the person to decide. I take it back, conformity is not always a bad thing. But ya know. Too warm, too cold.