Three Books I'm Excited About Right Now...

 I haven't finished reading any of the following books yet, but felt ready to start talking about them anyway.


Born for Love: Why Empathy is Essential - and Endangered, is written by the same team as The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog.
It follows the brain science, interwoven with many personal stories, about how people learn and develop the essential trait of empathy.  Empathy is woven into the very fabric of our being, but basically, we learn empathy by being loved by our parents (and other caregivers) from the time we are tiny infants. This tends to happen naturally, as our responses as parents are also practically automatic. The consequences of not receiving this normal loving care (such as those raised in orphanages in Russia and Romania) are serious, but can be addressed to some extent. (Not only empathy, but also things like IQ, immunity to disease and physical balance are related to the nurturing most babies receive at a very young age.)

One part of the book I particularly enjoyed was about a woman who founded an organization that helps schoolchildren learn empathy. Just hearing about how this woman grew up was fascinating.

If we are all born for love, Roots of Empathy founder Mary Gordon was delivered into some of the most fertile ground imaginable. She grew up in Newfoundland, in a multigenerational  household that included her three brothers and one sister, both of her grandmothers, and an uncle who was intellectually disabled. Her parents also often took in "strays." Unmarried women who'd gotten pregnant would live with them during their pregnancies, men leaving prison would visit nightly for a free meal. Gordon's father eventually served as the Canadian minister of labor,a dn her mother was an artist. The Catholic family was deeply committed to social justice. AT the dinner table, the rule was that the conversation must focus on ideas - literature, policy, religion, philosophy - not gossip or mundane events. But the table rang out with laughter and spirited debate: this didn't produce sullen resentment.

How to Raise an Adult:  Break Free of the Overparenting Trap and Prepare Your Kid for Success by Julie Lythcott Haims has been a wonderful read so far. The author is a former Stanford dean who has also experienced the challenges of today's parenting norms from raising her own children. This has led to a easy-to-read (with lots of laugh-out-loud and ah-ha moments) practical guide to what's wrong with parenting (and related issues such as the "College Admissions Arms Race"), how it's affecting our children and what we can do about it.

Her suggestions seem much more manageable than overwhelming. To give you a sense of it, here is a list of "How to Let Your Kid Play" (though, in the book, each item is detailed with information and suggestions):

• Value free play. 
• Know your kid. 
• Create agreements with other parents. 
• Offer materials and equipment that foster imaginative play. 
• Let your kid decide how and what to play. 
• Work on creating space between you and your kid.
• Develop a capacity to wince but not to pounce.
• Create a culture of free outdoor play. 
• Get inspired. 
• Encourage change in your community. 
• Model play. 

I figured that even reading some of the crazy helicopter-parenting stories aloud to my kids would help ensure that I wouldn't imitate such behavior. ;)

I am also looking forward to reading her suggestions in upcoming chapters (I'm about half-way through) on teaching life skills, teaching them to think, preparing them for hard work, letting them chart their own path and listening to them. Good stuff!


Dear Professor Einstein: Albert Einstein's Letters to and from Children just arrived in the mail yesterday.  Looking forward to having a little downtime for savoring it. (A girl can dream, right?)

Do You Do Temperaments?

I've been hearing about the temperaments for awhile - you know, sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic and melancholic - but never really paid any attention to them until recently. I know I had a book on my shelf once about it that I didn't get around to reading and just passed it along after awhile. A number of my family and friends would talk about them and I couldn't get straight which word meant which thing.

But a few weeks ago, the topic kept coming up in the randomest places, enough that I started to have a guess of which temperaments I had. During this random streak, I was at a friend's house and she had a copy of The Temperament God Gave Me sitting out from the library. I picked it up and quickly read an overview of one of the temperaments I thought I was - melancholic. Wow. There was an awful lot of "me" on that page, including: "They are skeptical about what may appear to be simplistic labels and categories - such as the four temperaments." (Ha!) - But really a lot more too, including the need to fight to achieve self-confidence and "Ironically, however, although small details can stump them, melancholics can often handle the truly big crises with grace and aplomb."

I went home and ordered the book right away. I haven't finished it, but have found it quite helpful overall. For those of you who aren't familiar with them, the temperaments refer to the part of your personality which is innate rather than learned. I had a sense that some aspects of my personality that were frustrating to me had pros and cons, but this really helped me sort some of them out and stop battling my own nature unnecessarily and try to work with what I have.

Upon further reading, I discovered that the other temperament I had suspected belonged to me - phelegmatic - was actually the dominant one. The section in the book entitled "Discovering Your Secondary Temperament", which describes temperament combinations, including potential pitfalls, was particularly helpful. This paragraph particularly rings true (and I've been working on doing many of these things, especially in recent years):

This temperament combination can face at times a greater challenge to your confidence than other temperaments (especially the choleric or sanguine). For this reason, when you are facing a major challenge or have been given a multifaceted and demanding project, it will be absolutely critical for you to maintain your level of energy and motivation - not to mention your prayer life - to complete the project. You will want to anticipate the way your moods can get you off track and take concrete steps to maintain accountability in order to remain focused and energized throughout the task. Motivational tapes, exercise, a healthy diet, spiritual guidance, and a strong sacramental life will be critical.

I haven't come close to finishing the book yet, but have found it quite helpful so far. The book is written by a licensed marriage and family therapist.

 

Let Your Yes Mean Yes and Your No Mean No

Originally posted to Chez VH, February 14, 2011 -

Don't you love this bit from yesterday's Gospel?

Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,' and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.

Can you imagine how much heartache, misunderstanding and general contentiousness could be avoided if people actually followed that?

I think it's an antidote to a substantial piece of what ails our materially prosperous modern culture. It's a pet theory of mine that when people lack genuine hardships in their lives, many of them have a tendency to fabricate their own hardships through complex interpretations and second guessing of what other people say and think and things like that (I am certainly guilty of this at times too!). If you're not fighting for your life or working your tail off, it's very easy to fall into hyper-sensitive self consciousness.

Besides keeping ourselves busy with worthwhile tasks, I think a necessary part of surviving our modern culture is to make a concerted and consistent push towards simplicity (and that this gospel is a great place to start).

What do you think?

Quote of the Day: Science/Technology and Human Development

Cross-posted from Unity of Truth

Yes, we humans have a tendency to go to extremes. Here's a reminder from the Holy Father of where to find the balance (or at least not find the balance!) with regard to the uses of science and technology to benefit mankind...

Technology, viewed in itself, is ambivalent. If on the one hand, some today would be inclined to entrust the entire process of development to technology, on the other hand we are witnessing an upsurge of ideologies that deny in toto the veryvalue of development, viewing it as radically anti-human and merely a source of degradation. This leads to a rejection, not only of the distorted and unjust way in which progress is sometimes directed, but also of scientific discoveries themselves, which, if well used, could serve as an opportunity of growth for all. The idea of a world without development indicates a lack of trust in man and in God. It is therefore a serious mistake to undervalue human capacity to exercise control over the deviations of development or to overlook the fact that man is constitutionally oriented towards "being more". Idealizing technical progress, or contemplating the utopia of a return to humanity's original natural state, are two contrasting ways of detaching progress from its moral evaluation and hence from our responsibility. (Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate)

God Doesn't Wish us to be Anxious

I recently quoted a part of yesterday's second reading, but thought it was worth returning to the entire passage - which seems so relevant to... well, just about everything. Here's the reading in its entirety (Philippians 4:6-9):

Brothers and Sisters: Have no anxiety at all, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, make your requests known to God. Then the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Keep on doing what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me. Then the God of peace will be with you.

Magnificat Magazine also had this related tidbit in their evening prayer for last night:

Cast all your worries upon [God] because he cares for you. (cf. 1 PT 5:7)

Anxiety focuses our attention on ourselves. Saint Paul proposes that we drive it out by turning to God in prayer "in all things." Then we will be ruled by the peace that frees us to bear good fruit through love for God and our neighbor.

It's so easy to get carried away with worries. Even when no huge crises loom over us (or perhaps especially when no huge crisis looms over us - crises have a way of putting everything into perspective!), we worry about whether we're doing everything we're "supposed" to do for our children and for our families and even for the world. The expectations are often outrageous!

We have to turn to God in simplicity and trust and remember that he doesn't want us to all be cookie-cutter images of some other family that seems to be doing everything perfectly (which is likely an erroneous impression from a distance anyway). What we're supposed to do is keep plugging away, doing the little things with love and continue being there for our children, and not be anxious about appearances.

I've always found it comforting to reflect upon the diversity of the saints. Our modern way of thinking confuses and twists us into, for example, being disappointed if a child isn't able to stand up to the paradigm of what modern society admires in a young person. The modern world admires strength, physical beauty, brains, popularity (not all bad in and of themselves of course). Our faith shows us something else - that God works with human weakness to bring about His beautiful will whenever and wherever we choose to cooperate with Him. I think it's when we start to mistake ourselves for the architects, rather than the workers, of His plans that we fall into anxiety.

Beating the Winter Blues

Now this is an idea I have to plan each year on the Monday after Daylight Savings Time begins. Probably another one in the coldest most-blah part of winter would be a good idea too.

Yesterday we took a break from school and had another family over. We had a picnicky potluck (somewhat limited by all of our Lenten observances, but VERY nice all the same), watched Ben Hur (the littles watched something else and played in the another room) and enjoyed lots of laughter and each other's company.

And if you happened to be in our area and saw two moms and a bunch of kids jumping up and down on the deck outside at one point (and laughing and high-fiving each other), there really is a very sensible and refined reason for it all. You see, we went outside to enjoy a little sun (the very, ahem, moderate temperature of 32 degrees, combined with sun and shelter on the south side of the house was awfully nice, even in stocking feet) and somehow discovered that when we stomped or jumped on the deck, the icicles under the deck broke off and crashed to the ground with a very satisfying glass-breaking sort of noise.

The silliest part, really, is that I didn't plan this in relation to Daylight Savings Time at all (Daylight Savings Time didn't enter my head at all until I saw Danielle Bean's reminder on Sunday Morning), but it was really a perfect day for such a get-together.

Open to Correction

Many thanks to Amy Welborn for writing a great blog post about an important topic - defensiveness regarding critique and criticism. This defensiveness she writes about makes it really hard for me as a reviewer because often even the littlest points or even clarifications can be taken for serious criticism or even condemnation - which makes me second guess whether I should mention this little thing, whether it will be taken too seriously, etc. I should mention that it's not just authors who can be sensitive, but readers don't necessarily make a big distinction between, say, some ideas for improving future editions of a particular book and grave reservations regarding the overall point of view of the author.

Ideally, a book review should be open and honest about various sorts of criticism. I know that I very much appreciate positive reviews that aren't afraid to give the potentially negative side of things as well (another fine line here, though - you certainly can get too nit-picky). When I read this sort of review it helps me in a number of ways.

1) The willingness to critique - as long as it's fair and reasonable - often gives the reviewer more credibility in my mind - because the review tends to be (or at least seems to be) more well-thought-out, balanced and objective. Somehow it gives more weight to the positive points made when the reviewer is willing to explore the negatives too - I get a stronger sense that they really mean what they say.

2) I have a better idea of the details of the resource I'm looking into - after all, I could just go to a book catalog to find the general, glowing details.

3) Finally, I think that a reasonable willingness to correct is more charitable to the author and even to the book itself than either ignoring the material or simply giving up on the details and condemning it. If someone is willing to take the time and bother to sort through the ins and outs, recognizing what is good and correcting the errors simply makes more of these books more usable, more worthwhile. And it doesn't tend to hurt the reviewer (sames goes for the reader, later on) to go through the process of making such distinctions.

I suppose the medium of the Internet makes this harder since, without the tone of voice, it's hard to get the sense of "Well, there's just this little thing I think I should mention..."

On the other hand, it takes a certain amount of gumption to stand up to the ideas in a book and not just write catalog overviews when there are other issues to be addressed. I have to admit that I'm not always up to the task myself.

Anyway, here's Amy's blogpost that I was referring to...

One of the most irritating thing about discourse, something that gets exaggerated, it seems, on the Internet (like anything else) is hyper-defensiveness. That is to say that to critique any aspect of any phenomenon amounts to a full-scale attack on that phenomenon.

For some, it seems, it is all or nothing.

Or perhaps there is just a fear that if one aspect of a phenomenon can be critiqued, that means that the whole enterprise is called into question.

Read the rest here

By the way this post isn't meant to be a rant about reviewing books, more a thinking through of some aspects and the challenge of keeping things in balance. I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic.

Thought for the Day

from Fr. Thomas Dubay, Authenticity...

We may distinguish two types of knowing: one is particular, specific, thing-centered, while the other is fundamental, deep, ultimate, person-centered. Examples of the first are the molecular structure of water, the sum of the angles of a triangle equaling 180 degrees, the location of Chile in South America and the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo. Examples of the second are moral decisions, the ultimate purpose in life, the thirst of men for happiness and the quest for God.

The research-study model for the attainment of truth is effective for the first level of knowing. A proud, avaricious, lustful person can through sheer study reach an extensive knowledge of things. He can learn precious little about persons, nothing about God - nothing, that is, that transcends the mere data level of books and lectures.

Deep, ultimate, person-centered knowledge is achieved through love, genuine love. And love is achieved only through conversion from an opacity resulting from the original fall.

Part of what I was trying to say in the previous post...

was simply that engaging the world is an excellent place to get perspective which keeps us from getting too petty and caught up in taking ourselves and our lives too seriously.

What Students Owe Their Teachers

I've been dipping somewhat informally into Fr. Schall's Another Sort of Learning and really liked this tidbit:

...to be a student requires a certain modicum of humility.

Yet to be a student also requires a certain amount of faith in oneself, a certain self-insight that makes a person realize that he can learn something that seems unlearnable in the beginning. This trust in the teacher also implies that the student, if he has trouble understanding, makes this known to the teacher. Teachers just assume that everything they say or illustrate is luminously clear. A student does a teacher a favor by saying, "I do not understand this". But the student should first really try to understand before speaking. To quote Augustine again, students should "consider within themselves whether what has been explained has been said truly."

The student ought to have the virtue of docility. He owes the teacher his capacity of being taught. We must allow ourselves to be taught. We can actually refuse this openness of our own free wills.

UPDATE: An anonymous commentor reminded me that Schall's Another Sort of Learning is available online here. He (she?) also recommended A Student's Guide to Liberal Learning which is available online here. Thanks!

Another Example of that Balance Thing...Or Lack Thereof

Just happened upon this quote last night from Salt of the Earth by Cardinal Ratzinger (another book that's taking me a long time to finish, but that I'm enjoying very much)...

You are right. There has been a collapse even of simple religious information. This naturally forces us to ask: What is our catechesis doing? What is our school system doing at a time when religious instruction is widespread? I think that it was an error not to pass on more content. Our religion instructors rightly repudiated the idea that religious instruction is only information, and they rightly said that it is something else, that it is more, that the point is to learn life itself, that more has to be conveyed. But that led to the attempt to make people like this style of life, while information and content were neglected.