The "Oops - that's not me" syndrome

Even before we start investigating the development of children, two caveats of sorts about psychology and humans are needed.

1. The uniqueness of psychology

Psychology is a social science. Social sciences are the only sciences where the investigator is of the same species as the investigated.

If you think about it, rocks do not study rocks. Atoms do not study atoms. Dinosaurs do not study dinosaurs, etc.
People do study people and this leads to potential problems in the "doing" of psychology.

We all come to the observation and study of people with our own “biases” based on our culture, background, age, sex, race, etc. This is wrong or bad - but it is an important factor to consider when reading about, looking at, and studying people.

We tend look at "other" people through our own eyes – we cannot help doing so - but we have to be aware of this factor.

As an aside, we tend to do the same thing when we look at other living species…How many of us have said “my dog is sad,” “my cat is happy,” or “my bird looks interested.” And – we tend to do this with inanimate objects as well…You don’t have to answer publicly - but how many have said things like: “That light turned red just to get me.” Or “It rained today because I had planned an outdoor event.” And how many of us attribute nasty characteristics to our cars when they fail to do as we wish? Your DVD palyer? or VCR? You might think of similar ideas you have had.

If it is this easy to attribute feelings and intentions to non-humans - live or inanimate - can you see how much easier it is to attribute characteristics to humans?

2. The uniqueness of humans

When reading about research findings we are often tempted to say “but my family is/was not like that.” Or “that happened to me and I grew up okay.” You are correct, your family is/was not like that and you did/do make different decisions, but that does not mean the research is not correct.

Research results are the culmination of people studying many people. Research results reflect the “average,” not the specific. You should know that in statistics there is a factor called the standard deviation and it reflects the variance around the standard or norm. For example, the average IQ is 100 but there is a standard deviation of about 15 [depending on the test used] which means that the average IQ is anywhere between 85 and 115.

Most of what is studied in humans falls into a “normal” distribution – with a standard deviation. Therefore you can be somewhat different from the characteristic noted and still be “normal.” Or it is entirely possible that you and/or your family are very different. That means you fall outside the standard deviation. That is not a “bad” thing – and it may be a very good thing – like an IQ of 150 is outside the norm but is considered a “good” number. Nothing about research findings indicates bad v. good....all research does is point out an average range and variations....differences have no goodness/badness values!


So when you read about research, remember it’s all about the numbers….not the individual children or families.

Your kids; my kids

This blog is not and can not be about how you should/could/would raise your child....Why? Because your child is yours and mine is mine. I didn't want anyone telling me how to raise mine and I won't think of telling you how to raise yours. What I can do though, is suggest ideas, raise questions, and mention what research shows about children.

Parenting skills require thinking - about the child, about yourself and about the interaction between you. Add in a spouse, other children, pets and life - and you get a more complicated scenario. I'll do my best to keep the "scenes" as simple as I can when first introducing topics but then will raise questions about the influences of the "added" effects.

Also because much of what I will be writing is based on American research, what I say will be more true of American kids than kids around the world. Some information from other countries will appear so that we can see the differences in child rearing and ask if any of it makes a difference..and since we are a country of many types of families, some of what we learn from other cultures may explain your or your neighbor's in-home culture.

Growing Children

Many years ago I wrote a book called Growing Children. My co-author, Freda Rebelsky, and I have been asked how people can get copies as it is out of print. We tried to interest some publishers in re-printing it but there was no interest. Maybe because it was a paperbound book and only 70 pages of text... [read cheap to do and can't sell for $100]. So with blogging abounding I decided to do a blog with the same name and as I hold the copyright I will publish some of it here and add more..

If there is a ground swell of interest in the book as a book, I can make it into a pdf file and offer it for sale here -

and in the interim you can read my blog for free -

I recently taught an online course in lifespan development and one thought that ran through my head was that there is a lot more information available all the time and seemingly each year a new edition of a book appears and the costs are around $100. Yes we learn more about development all the time - but does that mean we need to keep re-doing book? Isn't there some part of development that more or less stays consistent? Or isn't there basic information for people who are not going to be psychologists in the academic world...

I think so- Psychology for the non-psychology major....for the parent, the high school student, the engineer, the CEO, the HR person etc...anyone who wants information without the list of the studies that led up to the information.

That is what Growing Children was originally intended to be - it was a small textbook on child development for the non-psych major and now it will be the blog for whoever wants to know about child development...