SUNDAY, May 4 (HealthDay News) -- One-third of parents of babies have a surprisingly low knowledge of child development, including basic concepts about what their children should know or how they should act, a new study finds.

For instance, the study found that many parents don't know that 1-year-olds can't tell the difference between right and wrong, and often don't cooperate or share when playing with other children...

A lack of proper understanding of a child's development can cause assorted problems, Paradis said. For example, she said, a mother might expect an 18-month-old child to sit still for a doctor's appointment, even though children that age are normally curious and like to wander around.

"A mom could misinterpret a child's normal curiosity as intentionally being defiant, and could respond with harsh discipline, withdrawal of affection and repetition of that pattern over time," Paradis said. "That could hinder the child's potential for full growth and development."

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_64199.html

100% of children lack facts about parental development.

Since there are no perfect people that inhabit this planet, I find it hard to believe there to beany perfect children, nor will there be in anytime of the near future.

What's the point, Seth? Most new parents don't know a thing about how children develop. Hell, I was lucky and married a woman who got a degree in elementary ed with an emphasis in early childhood development. Without her knowledge, I wouldn't have known a thing as to what to look for. Most parents who have their first child don't know a thing.

Are you suggesting (by posting the article) that only people who know about early childhood development should have kids? What's your point?

quote:

Are you suggesting (by posting the article) that only people who know about early childhood development should have kids? What's your point?

No but I have advocated for specific high school curriculum on parenting. It is the most important job out there. About a year ago a GOP Rep on a state edu committee after considering my idea concluded that it would encourage high schoolers to have children.

quote:

Originally posted by Seth Jackson:
...I have advocated for specific high school curriculum on parenting...

I agree with that concept wholeheartedly, and would add that firearms safety is something else which should be taught on a mandatory basis in schools.

quote:

Originally posted by Seth Jackson:

quote:

Are you suggesting (by posting the article) that only people who know about early childhood development should have kids? What's your point?

No but I have advocated for specific high school curriculum on parenting. It is the most important job out there. About a year ago a GOP Rep on a state edu committee after considering my idea concluded that it would encourage high schoolers to have children.

Who?

quote:

Who?

It was a GOP male rep on the committee for elementary and secondary education. I don't have a record of the e-mail anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by Proud American!:

quote:

Originally posted by Seth Jackson:
About a year ago a GOP Rep on a state edu committee after considering my idea concluded that it would encourage high schoolers to have children.

Who?

Well... that sounds quite plausible... the equivalent of a Democrat protesting that a mandatory photo ID for voters would constitute "disenfranchisement."

quote:

the equivalent of a Democrat protesting that a mandatory photo ID for voters would constitute "disenfranchisement."

Given that you continue to criticize voting rights, is it the case that you would like to resume the debate we had previously? If so fine but if not I would appreciate a break on the gabs.

quote:

Originally posted by Seth Jackson:
Given that you continue to criticize voting rights....

What would probably help you achieve the noble aims you seem to have, or think you have, would be to read what people actually say vs. reading into anything said by anyone what you intended it to mean before you read it.

I have not criticized voting rights.

I have said that it is not unreasonable to require a Photo ID in order to vote.

It is my opinion that voting rights are, as of now, well protected and secure.

It is only you who think not.

quote:

It is only you who think not.

And the Missouri Supreme Court, 69 Missouri Representatives, Justice Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, etc. This is of course about voting rights as thousands of your fellow citizens may have to pay money in order to vote, money for many of which would be prohibitive. If even one person decides not to vote because they can not afford it, any antipathy toward that person and principle that was abandoned in the creation of that event, would be substantially worse than burning the flag.

But I have expressed these views already and you have expressed yours. We disagree. I have suggested that we either resume the debate, which we may have just done, or let it go. I was asking you if you would desist from making snide remarks about my position in a thread that has nothing to do with voting rights.

Seth... read my lips:

THEY ARE PAYING MONEY TO OBTAIN A PHOTO ID.

VOTING IS FREE.

quote:

Originally posted by Seth Jackson:

quote:

It is only you who think not.

And the Missouri Supreme Court, 69 Missouri Representatives, Justice Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, etc. This is of course about voting rights as thousands of your fellow citizens may have to pay money in order to vote, money for many of which would be prohibitive. If even one person decides not to vote because they can not afford it, any antipathy toward that person and principle that was abandoned in the creation of that event, would be substantially worse than burning the flag.

But I have expressed these views already and you have expressed yours. We disagree. I have suggested that we either resume the debate, which we may have just done, or let it go. I was asking you if you would desist from making snide remarks about my position in a thread that has nothing to do with voting rights.

If this had nothing to do with voting and rights, then why did you include the sentence...
"About a year ago a GOP Rep on a state edu committee after considering my idea concluded that it would encourage high schoolers to have children."
It would have been just as effective a sentence had you not included the term "GOP"... but then, you wouldn't have had an entirely different motivation for posting something purporting to be about childhood maturation, would you have?

Didn't think so...

You are real good at subtexts, Seth... and baiting.