My friend and I discussed this today and are still left without a lot of good ideas for our kids (who are mostly normal), but show shocking levels (to us) of materialism and lack of gratitude.
What’s developmentally appropriate? When is a kid ready to focus away from shiny stuff onto what matters for a good life?
#1: Questions: "What made you feel good today? ... Tell me about it.." (By them telling the story, they relive the experience, and the brain releases the same feel-good endorphins)
#2: Receptors: Even if kids don't understand language yet, they're still hypersensitive to your emotions. By you yourself practicing gratitude in their presence, they'll tune into it and receive the signal.
According to Montessori theory, it's ages 6-12 years old (the elementary years). That's when their mental development is naturally focused on fairness, what's right/wrong, social groups, justice, rules, etc. They begin to show a genuine interest in others, locally and globally. Role models play a huge part in developing their values at this time.
Piaget agrees, but puts it at 7-11 years old.
Both say the beginning and ending ages are an approximation and development occurs throughout, but that's the developmental stage when the brain is particularly sensitive to it.
Just make sure they learn to recognize the value of trans-material assets: one can loose their financial wealth in an instant easily, but their reputation, skills, knowledge, intelligence, health, psychological capacity, inner dignity and freedom of compassion, unconditioned vision and decision-making are less volatile. Understanding this is the first step upwards and is enough for many. Eventually, as the consciousness develops and matures a subject can also recognize these assets are also volatile and seek forth to meet their true self that actually owns these and is the only reliable invariant in their subjective universe.
At the same time try to avoid values dichotomization so the kid won't grow up with a destructive idea of financial wealth being a bad thing to pursue.
If their intelligence seems not sufficient try to make it fun for them to play n-back games like BrainWorkshop, their intelligence will develop stronger and my experience suggests it helps to grok all kinds of stuff (including even transcendental matters!) a lot, in whatever an age (it in fact has enhanced my own mind capacity enough to instantly realize that life in a society is not a zero-sum game and it is usually more beneficial for myself to help others to develop, succeed and strive than to care about maintaining competitive advantage over them and that in whatever an argument the primary objectives are to understand the opponent (whatever bizarre they may sound and regardless to whether or not they're wrong) and enrich your vision while winning the argument is a secondary objective and even happens to be irrelevant in many cases).
> Just make sure they learn to recognize the value of trans-material assets: one can loose their financial wealth in an instant easily, but their reputation, skills, knowledge, intelligence, health, psychological capacity, inner dignity and freedom of compassion, unconditioned vision and decision-making are less volatile.
Your post has good aim but I don't believe this is the case. Financial wealth is relatively trivial to safeguard after a point - particularly more stable forms (if you own a home outright, in a jurisdiction without property tax, it's essentially yours).
By contrast, one could wake up tomorrow suffering amnesia, could be hit by a car, or suffer any number of health ailments that would drastically curtail those "inner" attributes.
How does one "meet their true self" and what exactly is it? Also, the influence of n-back training on general intelligence is anything but uncontroversial.
By observing everything that is not them but theirs (memories and feelings included) and recognizing what remains.
> what exactly is it?
That's you.
> Also, the influence of n-back training on general intelligence is anything but uncontroversial.
How is it controversial? There are at least 2 credible papers proving it works and the empirical experience of mine and of other people I know demonstrates its efficiency.
Put them to work and make them earn things. Understanding the calculus of how much picking rocks out of the garden or how many times you have to mow the lawn for a new doodad is a kind of tethering that persists for many years.
Do you have any evidence for this? I haven't seen any studies into it, but it comes from the same school of Protestant work ethic as many disproven pieces of "common sense".
I had in mind a combination of the Cambridge Summerville youth study, the massive body of research that working more hours isn't good for productivity, and the (admittedly currently ongoing) research into personal relationships which is showing a marked improvement in relationship outcomes for couples who live together before getting married.
I would assume that your best bet is to reflect about your own stance on materialism. Usually children develop in the long run towards very similar personalities as those of their parents.
Personal observation - I cannot provide a study for that. As far as I can tell parents (or who ever raises a child most of the time) is the reference point for personal development. That either manifests in emulation or rebellion - depending on the quality of the relationship and the phase a child is going through. But in the long run the similarities outweigh the differences. A bit like a photo and its negative - both convey the same information but look very different.
I used to work in informal education with children ages 5-18. I never studied child development but the 5-7 year old kids had to be given a structure just to do basic things like sharing. These kids will straight up lie about things, too. The 5-7 year groups needed staffing levels somewhere around 3:1.
It wasn’t until the middle school groups (age 12-14) that you really saw kids with what looked like genuine concern for others, and we ran staffing levels more like 6:1.
I am not an expert on this subject matter but I suspect much of the required structure for younger kids is only a necessity due to constant restrictions and monitoring that's been put in place by modern society. In other words, we are not giving enough space to develop on their own terms and explore their surroundings.
I grew up in the 80s and 90s and remember spending a lot of time unsupervised going about wherever and doing all sorts of wild things well before I was 7 years old. Looking back now as a parent it is absolutely terrifying to me what I was "allowed" to do. Then again when I think about the Norma in countries like Japan (where it is not uncommon to see kindergarten kids walking home by themselves and crossing streets and intersections), I am reminded that kids can develop independently to a great tune than we give them credit for. I don't know about Japanese kids materials levels but I've noticed that they are typically given more freedoms to act independently and spend a lot more time on outdoor and social activities. If I had to guess I'd say they are a lot less materialistic than their Western counterparts.
As for my own child, I try to let him be independent even at 1 year. For example, we have a TV stand that any parent would be terrified if their kid climbed on it. I was terrified at first but then with some observation and secret supervision I let him climb it. To my surprise he quickly learned how to turn around and get down safely. There was only a single time when he fell from it sideways unhurt, but now he goes up and down like a pro without any supervision. I can leave the room knowing he will always get down fine. To what effect independence will have an impact on materialism remains to be seen but I suspect one of the commenters is right on the money with mirroring behavior and values.
Yes, children should absolutely be given enough space to develop on their own terms and explore their surroundings. However, to be blunt, the rest of the comment seems like it’s mostly feelings that you’ve developed based on your personal experiences (which are valid!) rather than a more measured assessment of our society.
My experience with Japanese children is limited, but when I worked in informal education we had a number of groups of high school students from Japan, and when I was in college there was a large group of exchange students from Japan. Some of my American friends went on to become full-time teachers in Japan… and some of the Japanese people I knew went on to become full-time teachers in America. My impression is that if you think that Japanese children are “given more freedoms to act independently” then this is probably a result of your cultural bias around what it means to be independent. The phrase that usually gets thrown around is “出る釘は打たれる”, which means “the nail that sticks out is hammered down.” There is generally a lot of structure in the lives of Japanese children. As for materialism—your mileage may vary. The Japanese people I’ve known haven’t been exceptionally different from Americans when it comes to broad aspects like materialism. Japan definitely has its share of brand-conscious consumers.
And this is a song and dance we’ve heard before. “If I only raise my child using principle X, then they’ll grow up to be great people.” There is no secret technique to raising better children, there’s just a million little things and a lifetime of effort.
> I am not an expert on this subject matter but I suspect much of the required structure for younger kids is only a necessity due to constant restrictions and monitoring that's been put in place by modern society. In other words, we are not giving enough space to develop on their own terms and explore their surroundings.
It's mentioned by Piaget that kids are inherently ego-centric at that level, and likely won't share. It think it's a generally relative thing for them to be very self-centered at that age.
If you don’t think “shiny stuff” is needed for a good life just deprive your kids of it. You’ll find out in a decade or two whether you were right or whether your kids just resent you. If you have > 1 kid, then this is the perfect time to run an A/B test.
What’s developmentally appropriate? When is a kid ready to focus away from shiny stuff onto what matters for a good life?