Teens 45% less empathetic than a generation ago study shows/what is going on??

[Anonymous]

Why does EVERYTHING have to be SAHM vs. WM? Come on ladies...did the article say that aspect was studied? Because a lot of the research for decades has shown that by teen years, having working moms doesn't really impact kids negatively or positively if the child had high quality care.

And I'm not being defensive, I stayed home when my kids were young simply because it worked better for me and my family and we moved for DH's job shortly after my first was born, it seemed overwhelming to start a job and childcare search while getting used to our new city. But I digress....By implying it is working moms/daycare causing this, it is really misogynistic. It reminds me of the folks in the 1970s who blamed autism on cold, uncaring moms. How sad that even fellow moms think so poorly of each other. It sheds a lot of light to why our teens might be growing up to by less empathetic.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]I think 2010 is a lot different than 1970. We are just coming out of a recession - money is a big factor for people who are seeing the haves and have-nots diverge so drastically. Especially college freshman. Think about how much harder it is to get into college these days. You have to be pretty competitive to get in many places, whereas in 1960, according to some, if you had money, it wasn't too hard to get in. I wonder how this group would compare to those in college just 20 years ago. I think 1970 and 2010 are just very different times. [/quote]

I was in college in 1980's and didn't come from money. I had a scholarship, most of my classmates were middle class. The really smart kids weren't exactly counting money either; they were studying engineering, computers, medicine with an eye to make some break throughs, not so much" how much money can I get my hands on"

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]Why does EVERYTHING have to be SAHM vs. WM? Come on ladies...did the article say that aspect was studied? Because a lot of the research for decades has shown that by teen years, having working moms doesn't really impact kids negatively or positively if the child had high quality care.

And I'm not being defensive, I stayed home when my kids were young simply because it worked better for me and my family and we moved for DH's job shortly after my first was born, it seemed overwhelming to start a job and childcare search while getting used to our new city. But I digress....By implying it is working moms/daycare causing this, it is really misogynistic. It reminds me of the folks in the 1970s who blamed autism on cold, uncaring moms. How sad that even fellow moms think so poorly of each other. It sheds a lot of light to why our teens might be growing up to by less empathetic. [/quote]

How is it mysoginistic to say that the time one spends parenting a newborn has great value and impact on the formation of their basic personality? Also, this is meant to be a discussion, not an attack so try not to knee jerk react so quickly.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]"Have you read the research about child development that says that a child's basic personality has been formed by age 3 ? I know I will get a lot of attacks for this, but is anyone up for talking about how having a newborn to age three year old primarily in a setting where PCG is a HS grad only( average day care worker) and has to split their time on a 1:4 ratio( DC law) that this may result in an infant learning early that many needs go unment....leading to less empathy capacity building, more anxiety and depression, more ADD, etc) ? "

Sounds like a welfare SAHM. What is your point?[/quote]

Re-read above, the point is there and it's not mine. This was part of the research presented. And, no, I'm not a welfare SAHM. I pay about 30K in Federal and 10K in DC Taxes every year.

[Anonymous]

The research paper does not mention childcare changes as a factor. It doesn't even seem to have been considered. OP - where did you even come up with that idea?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think 2010 is a lot different than 1970. We are just coming out of a recession - money is a big factor for people who are seeing the haves and have-nots diverge so drastically. Especially college freshman. Think about how much harder it is to get into college these days. You have to be pretty competitive to get in many places, whereas in 1960, according to some, if you had money, it wasn't too hard to get in. I wonder how this group would compare to those in college just 20 years ago. I think 1970 and 2010 are just very different times.

Yep, I think it's short sighted to overlook the impact of societal forces on kids during all 18 years of their lives. Blaming it all on daycare as someone did earlier is rather jumping to conclusions. The current economy no doubt has an impact.

[Anonymous]

In reading the previous posts, I think there are some who put way too much focus on the earliest period in a child's life (0-18 months) and way too little focus on the entire rest of childhood (18 months - 18 years).

Parents have the strongest influence on their children. A child looks to his or her parents for cues and guidance at every stage, and the parents are no doubt the strongest role models. Of course, other care providers and peers have an impact along the way. But it's nothing like the impact parents have, even if they have far less time with their children than the other influences.

My guess is that the cause here is a change in the nature of parental involvement with their children -- perhaps too much multi-tasking/blackberry/cellphone/TV going on in front of the kids, rather than true, engaged interaction that models empathy.

Self-absorbed, distracted parents tend to raise self-absorbed, distracted children who are low on empathy. It doesn't surprise me one bit that this percentage of the population is growing steadily with each generation.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]

Have you read the research about child development that says that a child's basic personality has been formed by age 3 ? I know I will get a lot of attacks for this, but is anyone up for talking about how having a newborn to age three year old primarily in a setting where PCG is a HS grad only( average day care worker) and has to split their time on a 1:4 ratio( DC law) that this may result in an infant learning early that many needs go unment....leading to less empathy capacity building, more anxiety and depression, more ADD, etc) ? [/quote]

I'm the one you quoted. Are you saying it's pointless to parent our children after the age of 3 because their personalities are already set in stone? As a mother of 4 kids ranging from 16 down to 4, I'd have to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anecdotally, my 7 yo dd is THE most emotional, empathetic person I've ever known. It's kind of excessive sometimes, how she worries about other people's feelings.

She's been in FT daycare/childcare her whole life. She also just started Harry Potter book 5, after finishing the first four books. At 7. So academically she is doing fine.

Flame away for "bragging" if you like, but I am just saying that daycare may or may not be a factor in how kids turn out, but in her case, she turned out OK. Hard for me personally to imagine daycare is the root of the problem. Of any problem.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Why does EVERYTHING have to be SAHM vs. WM? Come on ladies...did the article say that aspect was studied? Because a lot of the research for decades has shown that by teen years, having working moms doesn't really impact kids negatively or positively if the child had high quality care.

And I'm not being defensive, I stayed home when my kids were young simply because it worked better for me and my family and we moved for DH's job shortly after my first was born, it seemed overwhelming to start a job and childcare search while getting used to our new city. But I digress....By implying it is working moms/daycare causing this, it is really misogynistic. It reminds me of the folks in the 1970s who blamed autism on cold, uncaring moms. How sad that even fellow moms think so poorly of each other. It sheds a lot of light to why our teens might be growing up to by less empathetic. [/quote]

How is it mysoginistic to say that the time one spends parenting a newborn has great value and impact on the formation of their basic personality? Also, this is meant to be a discussion, not an attack so try not to knee jerk react so quickly. [/quote]

It is misoginistic because it puts all the burden on the mom and makes "kids are screwed up" the mom's fault. There is never a mention in these discussions on how much the dad works, his attitudes, time and energy spent on the kids. It's always mom works so kid in daycare or without care of mom = screwed up kid.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Why does EVERYTHING have to be SAHM vs. WM? Come on ladies...did the article say that aspect was studied? Because a lot of the research for decades has shown that by teen years, having working moms doesn't really impact kids negatively or positively if the child had high quality care.

And I'm not being defensive, I stayed home when my kids were young simply because it worked better for me and my family and we moved for DH's job shortly after my first was born, it seemed overwhelming to start a job and childcare search while getting used to our new city. But I digress....By implying it is working moms/daycare causing this, it is really misogynistic. It reminds me of the folks in the 1970s who blamed autism on cold, uncaring moms. How sad that even fellow moms think so poorly of each other. It sheds a lot of light to why our teens might be growing up to by less empathetic. [/quote]

How is it mysoginistic to say that the time one spends parenting a newborn has great value and impact on the formation of their basic personality? Also, this is meant to be a discussion, not an attack so try not to knee jerk react so quickly. [/quote]

It is misoginistic because it puts all the burden on the mom and makes "kids are screwed up" the mom's fault. There is never a mention in these discussions on how much the dad works, his attitudes, time and energy spent on the kids. It's always mom works so kid in daycare or without care of mom = screwed up kid.[/quote]

and to add, the research never says this, it is these discussion boards only, so it's moms putting down moms. And yes, in a discussion about empathy, it is sadly ironic.

[Anonymous]

I'm amazed how many people on this board are so quick to believe this research that "proves" that today's teenagers are less empathetic. Bullshit. First of all, the typical college student forty years ago was rich, white, male and extremely privileged. Almost none of them were facing crippling student loans on graduation, because college just wasnt that expensive. It is very easy to favor "finding a life philosophy" when you have no real concerns that you will always have a roof over your head. Second, forty years ago every generation expected to better off than their parents, and generally they were. Today's teenagers face the likelihood that they will actually be worse off than their parents. Today's typical college student is much much more likely to come from a working class or poor background, there are many more single mothers and underprivileged minorities in that group as well. They face skyrocketing costs for college, and thus huge debt payments when they get out, not to mention huge health insurance costs. It is very easy to want to "help people" when you have a safety net to fall back on. But when you yourself expect to have to 100% support your family and eventually your parents, and your degree is almost meaningless (unlike in 1970), the responsible thing to do is to make as much money as you can, not work on your "philosophy". And make as much money as you can is likely to not be vast riches, if you are a typical college graduate, but rather a modest middle class salary. Only the privileged would think that wanting to make money makes you not empathetic.

[Anonymous]

I'm a family child care provider and a mom to a teenager. My teenager was in daycare until I started my own daycare. She is very empathetic for the most part, but then there are times that she's pretty self-centered. I remember being the same way as well. Overall, however, she is a very caring person.

I see a lot of children and parents of those children who are so completely self-imvolved and have no regard for the feelings and well-being of others. I don't know why it happens because it's not happening here. I really can't believe that the reason that teens are less empathetic is because of their daycare situation. I've seen kids from daycare centers who have grown up to be caring teens and I've seen kids who had a SAH parent who have turned into teens who only care about themselves. Of course, I've seen the reverse happen as well. I think that really the most important factor is and always will be the influence of the parents/guardians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Day care? Really? That gave me a chuckle. Day care has nothing to do with it.

A certain degree of empathy is inherent, but the rest is taught. I think it's more likely that you've got helicopter parents focusing their energy 100% on their kids, and the child grows up thinking s/he's the center of the universe.

Spot on. And people are so wrapped up in themselves these days, how often are they giving back to those in need in meaningful ways?

[Anonymous]

Any Pediatricians out there?? Pipe up please. A child's brain adds more neurons and brain mass in first two years of life ( doubling in size) than at any other time in the human life span.The quality of interaction during that period, just like nurtrition, greatly affects how that child does or does not develop. While a child's love of sport or science may develop much later their basic personality is formed by age 3. So yes, the type of envirnoment a baby or toddler spends 10 hours a day in has a great deal to do with their foundation in life.

Guess everyone on this board thinks day care is the very best envirnoment for a baby, that seems to be the consensus and noone's teen is any less empathetic than they were as a child....whoever is this study talking about???