Value Development & the Games we Play

The myth of the cherry tree is probably the only myth I know about America's founding (or was Paul Bunyan in there somewhere too? #lumberjacklife). America's bootlicking of George Washington gave Mason Locke Weems the occasion to cash in a fat check with the ole cherry tree myth. 

Weems tells us that George's dad surprised George with a hatchet one day (I guess this was an acceptable gift for a 6-year-old back then). George took the hatchet to his father's favorite cherry tree, damaging it so badly it would never recover. George's father asked everyone who did it, and George, holding the hatchet at the time he's asked (reducing the value of his admission in my opinion), confessed in his famous line, "I can’t tell a lie, Pa; you know I can’t tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet.” 

This story shows a great response when children act according to personal values. George's dad, after the confession, has a whole prodigal son moment, welcomes his son in his arms, and tells him that his heroism is worth "more than a thousand cherry trees" (which I can only guess is expensive). 

In my last post, I explained how shame and imaginary guilt are reinforced by corporal punishment. I also suggested that leading kids to develop legitimate guilt is the ideal, but I didn't go into how to achieve this. So let's explore how to raise more George Washingtons (mythical Washingtons... I believe the real-life one has been cancelled for slave ownership). 

But first, definitions:

• Legitimate guilt — feeling bad because of internal values. Example: "I shouldn't lie to my dad about fucking up his tree because I believe lying is bad."
• Value — the relative importance that an individual places on an item, idea, person, etc. that is part of their life. These feelings are unique to the individual. Example: "Telling my dad the truth is more important to me than avoiding punishment for my actions."

A friend told me that kids cannot develop personal values because they do not have enough life experience, and I agree. For example, a kid with no dating history might not have the best toolset to decide how to choose a romantic partner. He has no experience to judge if his gf feigning interest in him is good or bad. But shit. Don't we all know some adults who've gone on many dates who are still clueless? That's because life experience is not enough; we must examine our experiences if we want to develop values. 

Side note: not every life experience is helpful or necessary, and limiting a kid's life experience in some ways is not always bad. A kid might not need to join a cartel, for example, to gain enough experience to develop healthy values. Perhaps this is why movies and books are critical. The experiences of others in dangerous situations can help us form values around hypothetical situations we may never encounter. Hence the famous line from Karens everywhere, "if your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump too" (ew).

So if kids can't develop personal values because they lack life experience, why are you writing this post, Spencer?

While kids do not have enough life experience to develop values, the way parents raise them determines whether they will choose values for themselves or accept whatever values they see around them. The parenting examples below demonstrate this.

Parenting Example 1: Brother hits sister because she stole his toy truck. Parent smacks him and tells him he's rotten. Son feels ashamed of himself. Son fears parent. Son decides to only hit sister when parent is not around. After all, he's just a rotten kid.

Parenting Example 2: Brother hits sister because she stole his toy truck. Parent asks son, "how would you like it if she did that to you?" Son feels a legitimate sense of guilt, apologizes to his sister, and moves on. He's still a kid so he will probably hits his sister again at some point, but little by little his values improve.

The parent in the first example laid down an unquestionable law and reinforced it in the same manner as the son who smacked his sister. The parent is no better than the child. The parent in the second example gave the son some space to examine his life experience. The first parenting method appeals to the child's fear, the second, to his reason; and reason-based, personal values are longer lasting than fear-based values. 

When I was younger, no matter how much I protested, my mom would insist that I find whatever word I was having trouble spelling in the dictionary so that I could learn for myself. If she had done all the work for me, the spelling probably wouldn't have stuck in my memory. I wouldn't have learned for myself. I think parenting is a balancing game between teaching ones child and letting ones child teach himself.

Let's look at another species that plays a similar game: birds. In order to continue their species, birds must devote time and resources to providing for their naked, blind, helpless young; and this poses existential crises for our bird friends. While it's more favorable for parents to mate with as many partners as possible to continue their species (hawt!), it's more favorable for their offspring's survival to receive care until they are ready to be on their own. So parents have to play a game of deciding how much energy they devote to their young.

Unlike birds, our species has less to worry about in the realm of physical survival. But in the realm of emotional and mental survival, I'd argue parents play a balancing game in response to different, modern threats like anxiety, depression, and suicide.

On the one hand, parental neglect might enable the child to have a vast array of experience, but the child could expose himself to toxic values that he may adopt with no parent to guide him. On the other, an overbearing parent could lead the child to reject all of their parent's values and find himself in a nihilistic space where he feels disoriented and purposeless. I think good parents find a balance between these extremes that enables their children to have support while also encouraging them to find their own path forward—a daunting task, no doubt.

Parenting is fucking hard, no parent is perfect, and I respect all parents out there who are doing the best they can. The fact is, most of us run on autopilot most of the time when it comes to our values, and that's not always bad. It's impossible to think of every value for oneself at all times and be some kind of value machine. I think what's important is that parents help their kids find that guiding light within that can help them with the relevant problems they confront in life.

"Love that journey for me." - Alexis

-Schitt's Creek