Upbringings
I normally find Miranda Devine’s articles contentious, but I do believe she has a valid point in this article: Church and family can save kids.
I’m sure the cynics and naysayers will find flaws in the causal links espoused in the article, but as a generalisation, I think it is quite sound. When moral norms in society fluctuate, what does a child growing up have to grasp upon? Genetics only go so far in moulding people – it is mainly the societal environment that shapes how people think and feel about things in life. What’s “cool” and what’s not.
“Family and spiritual values” sounds like prudish, staid and boring conservatism. Definitely not cool. But as with everything in life, there has to be a balance. And that also means balancing conservatism with the highly iconoclastic tendencies which have accumulated in society over the years, masquerading under the banners of “experimentation” and “question everything with a healthy dose of cynicism”. What do you think?
The response of the babyboomer Left to this epidemic of youth misery has been to blame government and economic rationalism.
You will hear them moaning about the boring 1950s, when they grew up in a war-weary society that valued order, civility, domesticity and tranquillity. You will hear them fondly reminisce about the 1960s sexual revolution, their Kombi vans, their often-still-active ponytails.
Never will you hear them accept responsibility for trashing precious social institutions, destroying taboos, devaluing motherhood or squandering the moral capital built up by their forebears. Now, when their children and grandchildren are suffering the consequences, they see higher taxes as the cure. They seem not to listen even when scientific evidence emerges like a slap in the face to say childhood suffering is caused by a lack of spiritual meaning, an absence of expectations and limits and a breakdown in authority structures.
1:29am (GMT +11.00) tomorrow 
Two words: Simpson’s paradox.
Not wanting to be grouped as a ‘cynic and naysayer’ (thought it might be too late) I’m not going to trash the bizarre associative links the article draws (they do that for themselves quite nicely), but look at it this way…
What has changed in 30 years? Why have people stopped going to church? The answer is simple – which church do you go to? The Bible hasn’t changed in 2000 years but the various Christian denominations of the church have changed heaps in the last 30 years, and the most important change is that they agree on less and less. Who’s going to trust a religion that doesn’t trust itself?
So before going off about how everyone is suffering because they don’t go to church, and saying that parents should force their kids to go to church (that’s what the article is saying essentially), perhaps they should make some comments on the church instead? But noone will, because the church won’t listen … they don’t even listen to the Bible, why would they listen to some journalist?
Apologies to all the non-Christian readers but I don’t know enough about your religions (whatever they may be) to criticize them properly ;p And the majority of Australians are still Christian anyway.
One useful lesson to be drawn from the article is how NOT to use Census and suicide rate data ….
Take note especially how the author jumps from “binge drinking monkeys (aside: I dunno much about monkeys but I never would’ve thought they could binge drink…) stop drinking when they’re raised in a supportive environment (and one should hope equal access to alcohol as a monkey without a supportive environment), and consequently stop being violent and aggressive which they were previously on account of being constantly drunk” to “scientific evidence emerges to say childhood suffering is caused by a lack of spiritual meaning, an absence of expectations and limits and a breakdown in authority structures.”
Actually I’m not sure if the author or the scientists made that jump (one would hope for the sake of scientists everywhere that it was the author), but I have to say it’s really cheered me up for the day … most amusing. One more question – if they really did experiments on binge-drinking monkeys … who paid for this study? ;p
Devine’s article is based on lousy sociology (stereotypes of pony-tailed hippies) and pop psychology (kids need authority!).
In fact, the evidence (most recently from the Lock Group marketing stuff) is that the up-and-coming generations X and Y are more conservative than their parents on moral issues. We’re a generation of kids who set rules for ourselves and live by them, rather than depending on external authority structures like the Church, Marriage, etc.
I’ve long enjoyed reading your blog but I wonder if you realise exactly hoar right-wing Miranda Devine really is…
Gen Y is also the most atomized, individualistic, nihilistic, postmodern generation in the history of Western civilization.
We got a lot going for us don’t we!
Miranda Devine is, and always will be, an ignoramus. She can’t help it – its partly genes and its partly the society around her.
Ok, so we aren’t all church going, boring, conservative dimwits like her, but maybe the reason the “babyboomer Left” did these things which she calls “trashing” etc etc was because they cared about the society they were in – justifiably so IMHO.
I’m glad they did what they did – even if they haven’t achieved everything they wanted (equal pay, peace, universal healthcare and education).
I expect Miranda Devine to claim there are pinks under the beds next.
Not that I’ve read it in any depth myself, but it might be worth checking out the actual Dartmouth report upon which Devine’s personal assertions are purportedly based. They have a fair few contributors from Harvard, Yale and Columbia medical school (among others) which does tend to lend a bit more academic credibility than say, a bunch of armchair sociologists. At the very least, it explains why they have the budget to do those binge-drinking monkey experiments!
http://www.ymca.net/hardwired_report/HW_companion.summ.pdf (a summary of sorts)
(I knew agreeing with Devine was going to open a can of worms… I normally agree with Kingston over Devine, who normally has incredibly deplorable viewpoints. Actually, I think Nate is one of the few here that would sit within Devine’s camp, although I’m not sure if he’d agree with all her reasoning.)
I don’t know much about Miranda’s previous writings or her personal beliefs, but judging the articles that was written, I for the most part, agree.
Let’s bear in mind, that she isn’t writing entirely from her own personal experiences, but is basing much of her writings on the Dartmouth Report.
Before everyone starts commenting, PLEASE take a read of the Companion Summary, this will at least ensure a some what more educated debate (if only a little).
I’ll go on to state my stance, not on the defence of Miranda Devine, but rather the Dartmouth Article (Companion Summary).
IN RESPONSE TO Bonhomme de Neige:
Indeed, the article does reflect the benefits of Authoritative Communities (AC), of which churches are a significant subset.
Whilst Bonhomme may postulate his own opinions on why AC are ineffectual, (and the perceived problems with the church); the fact remains, people that have attended or are raised under the coverings of AC tend to live happier and healthier lives than those who do not.
In regards to the slur on “binge-monkey” experiments; animal experiments do tend to carry a signifcant amount of weight behind them, especially when making a point on physiolocial/psychological responses to various stimuli. The point of this animal study was to strengthen the arguement that nurturing environments lead to a more enriched life. Following on, a lack of nurturing environment does tend to lead to childhood suffering, and mental problems.
Naturally, parents and AC are in the best position to offer good nurturing environments.
I recommend Bonhomme take a read of the Companion Summary.
IN RESPONSE TO fineliner:
Yes, I totally agree with his/her statement: “We’re a generation of kids who set rules for ourselves… ”
However, I totally oppose the belief, that we are a generation “smart” enough, or “virtuous” enough, to set our own rules.
Without absolute morals, everything is acceptable.
Yes, the article elucidates that morals are best learnt from parents and AC.
OK, I was just making some tongue in cheek half-joking comments before, but I’ll make some serious arguments for Tuggles’ benefit.
1) The binge drinking monkeys. The Companion Summary explains the experiment in more detail, and the gist is that monkeys predisposed to aggression etc. who are nurtured by /especially caring mothers/ turn out better monkeys. I don’t see the link to ACs at all, just parents.
2) Point b above that (page 9 of the CS). This section asserts (that was a carefully chosen word, since no evidence for these assertions is presented) that children raised in stressful environments are less emotionally stable than those who aren’t. I’m prepared to accept this assertion but again where is the link to ACs? The CS itself admits that parents are the most important factor.
3) Points e and f (point e starts p.12). Point e is once again a series of assertions and generalisations with no evidence of any sort presented (I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, it may well, I haven’t researched, but I suspect these people did the research and if evidence existed they would mention it). For example, I’ve never once thought any of these: “Where did I come from?
Why am I here? What’s my connection to other people? How should I live? What should I
do?” during my adolescence, yet they state it as a given fact. Moving on to point f, they mention studies that show a correlation between:
* regular sex in married couples (read: regular exercise) and good health, vs. … the alternative presented in the CS isn’t “lack of regular sex” but “high-conflict relationships” (what about the relationships that aren’t high-conflict where there isn’t regular sex?). So in relationships where the husband regularly gets drunk and assaults the wife (these would account for the majority of high-conflict relationships) their health is poorer than that of couples who don’t abuse each other, most likely don’t abuse substances, and exercise regularly (which is the key factor behind rapid healing of wounds). I think I’ve laboured this point enough, moving on…
* “religious practice correlates with improved overall
health…” etc. The key word here is correlates with. I’m prepared to believe that those who regularly go to church are on average healthier, live longer, etc. than those who don’t. Associative vs. causative relationship, read about it in any 1st year stats/regression textbook. I bet those who go to church on average eat more spinach than those who don’t too, so does that mean spinach causes you to be more religious? Of course I haven’t presented any evidence for the above assertion about spinach, just like the CS and Devine’s article. Same thing with the link between church attendance and reduced substance abuse for adolescents. This is called “adverse selection” – those who don’t go to church ALSO abuse more substances. Funnily enough, churchgoing adolescents don’t do drugs, probably because their parents would skin them alive if they did and got caught and they know this. Which might be the same reason they go to church – forced to by parents. So here we have an example of Simpson’s paradox – two effects appear to be related but really both are caused by an underlying 3rd effect which isn’t being examined.
* The HIV study. This may be the only piece of statistical evidence in the whole summary. However vital details aren’t provided once again – what were the errors for the survival rate estimates? What methodology was used to estimate them (something established like Kaplan-Meyer or their own methodology? If so what was it?)? What was the sample size? What other variables were controlled for? What was the difference in survival rate estimates and at what level is it significant? Inquiring minds want to know.
The rest of the CS seems to focus on the importance of the above “scientific case” which I won’t bother to read becaus the brunt of my argument is that their “scientific case” … isn’t.
Stu, can we make this input bigger, or scale to window width?
Footnote: my examples (eg. the parents’ role in Simpson’s paradox) aren’t to be taken literally… instead of forceful parents any of a huge number of other factors could be substituted into that example to make the same point. So take them as such.