W. Joseph Wyatt is Obsessing

John Rosemond

Straw man: A disingenuous rhetorical device in which one accuses another of something untrue, then goes on to demonstrate that the false accusation (supposedly true, mind you) is in error. Wyatt is a master of the aforementioned. For example, I do not “eschew” positive reinforcement. I simply state what current research has demonstrated: to wit, that positive reinforcement is not as effective in dealing with misbehavior as punishment. As for Wyatt's citations of research, please note that not one of them is less than 21 years old. Within the past few years, Baumrind and Larzelere have put considerable research foundation underneath my position. I have repeatedly, in my columns and books, encouraged parents to praise - albeit conservatively - positive behavior. I have said that if a child does not perceive an adult as fundamentally approving, the adult's discipline will not work.

Innuendo: A disingenuous rhetorical device of the “when did you stop beating your wife?” sort. Wyatt is obviously convinced that there are a good number of child abusers out there who consult my writings for state of the art abusive techniques. He's convinced that I am a nefarious influence. He has no proof, of course, not a shred. He simply thinks so. Why? Because he doesn't like my approach to child rearing. Therefore, I am dangerous. Yes, I think that's hysterical, in both senses of the term. He says child abusers wouldn't come forward and admit that they took their lessons from me. No? I would think I'd be the perfect defense: Rosemond told 'em to do it. I've been writing my column for 26 years now. Not once has anything of this sort come to my attention. Quite the contrary, I have received countless letters from parents thanking me for giving them direction when all else had failed, including professional counseling. Is this to my credit? No, because I am simply passing on what pre-modern parents knew to be true without reading parenting books.

Wyatt is correct that Diana Baumrind has repeatedly said she does not advocate spanking. Nonetheless, this very open-minded individual's research into parenting styles reveals that parents who occasionally spank rear the most well adjusted children. Furthermore, her research also reveals that parents who say they do not believe in spanking are likely, in private interview, to reveal that they have indeed attacked their children in physical rages. It seems, and Baumrind says as much, that parents who occasionally spank are less likely to abuse than parents who do not believe in spanking. For anyone wishing to follow up on this, I also recommend the research of Robert Larzelere. In this regard, I have repeatedly emphasized that spankings more than occasionally delivered will be ineffective.

Wyatt is correct that I employ parent testimonials a great deal. He thinks this is stupid, obviously, because he amusingly lumps me together with Carnac and Jeanne Dixon. I might add the Supreme Court and Jesus Christ. Testimony is a valid form of proof and has been recognized as such for all of recorded history. In my estimation, when it comes to human behavior, anecdote is more revealing than research. The best research in the social sciences has not confirmed anything other than what has already been revealed in anecdote, after all.

To take out of context: A disingenuous rhetorical device which involves lifting a quote out of a larger work and presenting it as wholly representative of the larger work. For example, Wyatt again maintains (four pages, and he says absolutely nothing new!!!) that I believe ADD is caused by television. No, since 1978, I've said what others, including psychologist-author Jane Healy (The Endangered Mind, Failure to Connect), are now saying: exposing the developing nervous system to even moderate doses of television risks compromising the brain's ability to develop a long attention span. Combine premature exposure to electronic media with culture-wide parenting practices (promoted by psychologists and other mental health professionals since the 1960s) and you've got a mess, part of which is being called attention deficit disorder. ADD is a symptom, not a disease.

Wyatt says I paint the “post-modern psychological child-parenting field as monolithic.” He obviously doesn't understand the term post-modern. Psychology is a secular religion. One believes in it by faith. I don't have any such faith. Wyatt reveals his misunderstanding of my pre-modern worldview when he says that he and I agree that feeling better (self esteem) is a matter of doing better. (Because I've promised myself I'm going to keep this relatively short) I'm not going to go into why I believe that vew is corrupt (see Bob Dylan, Slow Train Comin') except to say Wyatt has faith in psychology. My faith is stored elsewhere.

Return Home