The Rise of Narcissism

I find it amazing that we still as a society push towards creating the self-promoting models year after year and never really reflect on whether or not we are doing the right thing for our children! The push for "self" has become a game that perpetuates itself and soon it will consume our society. It now seems that the successive generations have adopted and embraced narcissism, and we wonder why they are making more and more risky decisions. Almost daily we read articles about "rogue (any occupation)" who have made risky decisions, lost and have been caught. But the truly sad part is, they often taken unwilling and unwitting third parties down with them. Part of being a narcissist is the elevated belief in your own ability and opinions, and that others are inconsequential.

I was reading the article in the American Psychology Association website by Sadie Dingfelder about the link between the self-promotion and the rise of narcissism. She begins by imagining a society where narcissism is rampant and has now become an integral part of the "fabric of that society". A simple reflection on our current society (regardless of where you are in the developed world) and this imaginary state is perhaps closer than we actually believe. A simple browse through the numerous social media sites will remove doubts you have. Then a visit to news sites that gives us examples of excessive risk taking by young executives who have grown up in this age of self promotion, remove any doubts I may have had. The studies mentioned by Dingfelder seem to suggest that narcissism is on the rise. She seems to lay much of the blame with parents and the internet. The ability and notoriety associated with "internet fame" tend to push more and more to publish their daily lives in greater and greater detail. The widespread availability of the internet to do this in developed countries is obviously a decided contributing factor. In previous readings, I have found that current teen would rather be and aspire to be an assistant to a current celebrity, rather than working for a prestigious institution like Harvard.The problem seems to have gained a "life of its own", so much so that it now has its own name - Narcissistic Entitlement Syndrome (NES). In his blog on employment issues, Harrison Barnes examines it and looks at its effects on employment. He identifies the characteristics of those suffering from NES and issues that result in the workplace. Barnes also points out that there is a sense of narcissism in us all, but that the degree differs. If we examine the characteristics that are cited by Barnes then we can perhaps have a greater understanding of the issues and problems. The problem lies not with the development of narcissism, but with its ongoing effects into the adult life. Barnes points out that many of the NES "sufferers" tend to have trouble with maintaining a "healthy working environment and a fluent work history". 

So what can we say are the general about our office narcissist, and how can they be recognised?

1. They tend to be pre-occupied with their own obvious ability, brilliance and power. They crave advancement and success
2. They tend to have a sense of self-importance that is not always supported by their actions and past performance.
3. They tend to lack empathy and can be quite exploitive of others (both in and outside the workplace)
4. They tend to be jealous of others when they succeed or gain recognition, and convinced that others are jealous of them.
5. They tend to require constant recognition and approval, even for minimal/mandatory gains or successes.

Although this sounds and reads like a list of semi admirable traits, together they tend to provide a picture of a self-centred and self-absorbed individual. However, Barnes also points out that these "types" tend to be heading towards a real problem when failure eventually catches-up. Part of the responsibility for creating a coping adult is to ensure that things do not get out of hand in their teens. In early adulthood it may be too late to change the attitudes that are already ingrained. I suppose then it gets down to whether as parents, we are prepared to keep promoting this kind of entitlement and narcissism in our teens?

Beating anxiety or at least trying to cope

I suppose the thing that has become very evident is the way that students react to stress. The number of anxiety cases seems to be on the increase as the stressors change with the times. As a teacher and a parent I wonder how best to help them develop the coping strategies. It really is something that we need to look more closely at. I sought out some possible simple explanation and suggestions and found an easy to read site HelpGuide.org (access here). An amazing note in the articles I have recently read, is that anxiety attacks could be linked with the overprotective or helicopter parent, who could inadvertently provide the triggers that will lead to attacks occurring in their children.

I think that the first step involves deciding and/or acknowledging that thereby is a problem. The problem lies in the self-promotion spiral that surrounds us and them, and knowing that showing any signs would be taken as a weakness. The schadenfreude in all around would soon lets us know that we have "failed' and that is was now well known and circulating. I think that this has really stopped or slowed discussions that really could have helped this problem develop to its current level. I know that students in particular are really concerned about their public persona and very conscious of their place in the world, and am becoming more convinced that it is a cause in the "slowdown of the identification and treatment". How many times have I seen self-denial lead to the problem become larger, is too many to recall! The idea that they are the cause rather than that they have a problem is a distinction that is lost on most teens. Again, the idea of admitting that a problem exists is the first step in actually solving and treating the issue.

Unfortunately panic attacks seem to come in cycles for many, and the triggers can be associated with people or places. This can present problems with students as they associate the school with attacks, making the school a stressor/trigger. The explanation of stressors and the anxiety cycle provided by David Carbonell in his Panic Attacks workbook is shown, and I would suggest that a read of his two articles is definitely worth the time (I have linked them - AnxietyCoach.com and The Panic Cycle for easy access). Carbonell sees the pattern in terms of triggers and responses, and if you look closely you see that it makes a lot of sense. we all associate happiness, sadness and other emotions like fear with positive and negative thoughts and actions that have occurred. We see them as precursors of recurring patterns and not as isolated incidents that can occur in our lives. These attacks produce very real physical symptoms that reinforce the emotion and tend to magnify the anxiety levels.

So the strategies we adopt have to try and "de-link" the feeling with the perceived stressor/trigger. This can be much harder than you think if the teen has bottled up their anxiety and the cycle has been gone through several times. This will inevitably strengthen the link between the trigger/stressor and the anxiety attack. So as you can imagine, identifying and then addressing the problem early is imperative.

Some suggestions or strategies that might help are:

1. Write them down - having the anxiety trapped inside will tend to magnify it. If you can write down your feelings and anxieties, it will have a cathartic affect and allow you to release some of the anxiety. If we talk it out it can be done relatively quickly, but by taking the time to describe and explain the sensations and feelings will help release some of the tension. This is a classic step in anger management and helps to alleviate that emotion to a manageable level, so it should also work on this emotion as well. 
2. Accept that life is uncertain - there are many of us who over think and plan too much. This will make us a little inflexible and unable or unwilling to handle change. I relate this to instilling a fixed mindset in your child that promotes a real black and white mentality that does not really allow for coping with change. A growth mindset, on the other hand, will allow your child to see challenges for what they are and have the flexibility to adapt to change. Being goal oriented does not mean that you have to have a fixed mindset.
3. Admit there is a problem - is probably the hardest thing any of us to do, little own a teen. Many of us concentrate on the physical symptoms and treating them instead of seeing the root cause is something in our past that makes us over think and worry whenever a certain trigger occurs. The main thing to remember is that the many of us are insecure and have anxiety triggers and that by admitting it and seeking help can we hope to treat the actual cause rather than the symptoms. 

Keeping an Open Mind

I like the concept of student well-being! I know its not new, but the emphasis on it has changed and now we are really looking at the cause-effects and offering possible solutions. Unfortunately, not all parents and educators see well-being and positive education as a good or even welcome addition to a school program. But the benefits in individual and collective creativity, grades and life-long learning seem to suggest that it is! I think there is a confusion that it is really an add-on or window dressing and not really a central theme of the curriculum of any school.


I was sitting in on a meeting about life-long learning and heard a wonderful message. I paraphrase it to be "Your worth is symbolised by your value to others in your community". However, this statement goes against all of the self-promotion ideas and strategies promoted by much of our current society. Some would see this as an idealistic or even trite comment, but if we really value the personal growth and self-actualisation of our children as a real goal, then we can clearly see that it goes right to the heart of the matter. I think that in many ways this has been lost in the rush to self-promote and "push our own barrow" more often than not at the expense of others.  I think that this is a really important lesson for both ourselves and our children.

I find it interesting that major well known curriculum documents like the International Baccalaureate highlight the need for development in this area. Most of the parents I talk to at parent teacher events have a major interest in this document as grades gained from it are a very important factor in their child's education! Little do they realise that it also contains a portrait of what a successful IB student "looks like" as detailed in this learner profile. But are we missing the point the IB wanted to clearly recognise in its documentation?

Perhaps a misconception that goes with the concept of positive education is that we must spend time meditating. We picture our children sitting around chanting mantras, like "om". But before you dismiss the idea, might I point out that "om" could quiet easily signify "open mindedness"? I think that the International Baccalaureate pretty well sums it up in their documents. So open-minded refers to not only addressing and adopting different points of view and learning from others in our community, but actively seeking them out. Surely this would constitute and an important character trait that we would like instilled in our children!

I have included three other learner profile attributed found in the documentation. If we consider all of them, I think we would see them as a central theme for any well-being or positive education program. And this makes me think that if the process and needs were "sold to school communities" in a different way, then the acceptance would be higher. I also think that we can see why it would be advantageous to a child's education for schools to incorporate, employ and embrace aspects of positive education. And I suppose this is why I get back to the idea of open-minded, not only for children but also for the rest of us.

The demands made upon us have increased with our changing society, but they will in all probability be greater on our children than they have been on us. So why do we resist the attempts to give them strategies that will allow them to survive and even thrive? I really see the idea of positive education and the emphasis on well-being as a major step in the right direction.

Did they really say that?

I really sometimes wonder at the logic that is behind certain conversations that I have had with teens during my years of teaching. A fair amount of the time I have to spend with them out of class centres around the logical fallacies that are used in "discussions" between themselves, as they can often to lead to misunderstandings and conflict. I'm sure that this would also be true for most parents. It is important to realise that I am concentrating on teens in my discussion, but as we can all atest it is not confined to them with many adults also indulging in this dubious practice. I also note, with some irony, that it bears an uncanny resemblence to logic that is used by some (or most depending on how closely you follow) politicians. 

I think at times we put some of the conversations we have with teens as "just a stage they are going through" and they will soon grow out of. The whole concept of responsibility and responsible behaviour is yet to fully develop. According to certain brain based studies, teens will not begin to develop in this area until they are in their twenties. The problem is that not only will it affect their behaviour, but also their thinking and communication. So having conversations involving logical thinking can at times be a little problematic. I'm sure we can all relate to the comment the included ' .. but everyone else is doing it ....'. A totally illogical argument that involves this sort of thinking tells us a lot about the state of mind. But in the teen's mind this is a perfectly acceptable response as they try to find their place within the group and be a winner in their and their peer's eyes. I hate to say that I have heard similar arguments from 'adults', and it tends to be 'the sign of a weak argument to follow'.

I was having a really good discussion about the logical fallacies associated with arguments with a family member. She gave me a paper to read to help me understand the topic. It seems that there a list of common argument styles and as I read the paper I realised that they sounded most familiar. It seems that many of the styles are the preferred method of argument of teens, and I'm sure that many will be familiar with most of you. The problem now might be that I will try to label the argument rather than fully understand it. Many of the conflicts occur because the teen does not see or consider the accuracy of their words before they are uttered, and with the 'win - lose' mentality that goes with the self-promotion, using a variety of strategies to be seen as the winner. Now with this being such an important goal, then the truth and accuracy of comments tends to suffer.

One of the more popular methods adopted by our teens is referred to as "ad hominem". This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments, and is perhaps the most insidious of the strategies that are commonly used. It does little to try to refute an idea, but is more focussed on attacking the other person. Having this sort of attitude that allows you to think you are able to be so judgemental, is a really good example of entitlement. Students can quickly find themselves on the wrong end of a bullying situation or worse. This can really change their relationships with others and it becomes imperative for their long term success that we help them. I really think that the best option is to communicate. In many of the cases that I have seen, the teen had little concept of either danger they were in or the actual nature of the verbal attack. But as a teen, especially older ones almost ready to leave home, they realize that ignorance and naivety are no longer viable or acceptable excuses.

But as with all things involved in a teen's behaviour I wonder how much is learned and its source? I find that when they use this form of argument, they are usually very emotional and really have no intention of seeing either logic or reason when talked to. I'm sure that parents could relate to conversations involving this about some other classmate or friend that somehow has angered them. I believe that the real reason is the result of self promotion and the 'push to be a winner' gone wrong. As responsible adults we need to help them through this period and discuss the problem, as it will help them immensely when they try to develop new relationships and try to maintain existing ones.

Try to provide strategies that will help:

• It's ok to have disagreements, some you will win and some you will lose
• It's not ok to make personal attacks in arguments as you will harm the relationships you have with friends and partners
• It's not ok to use stereotyping as part of your argument as not all members of a religion, culture, race or gender are all the same
• In an argument address the issues and not the individual as the argument is about something you care about 
• Use logical arguments and include specifics
• Most importanly, sometimes its ok to simply walk away from an argument

Over stressed or simply anxious?

So what is the difference between being over stressed and just being anxious? I suppose this is a hard thing for all of us to recognize and even acknowledge there is a difference between the two. One of the bi-products of our self-promotion culture is the wonderful thing called anxiety and stress. I suppose if success is our "ying", then failure (real or perceived) is our "yang"! It has become a real stigma to be seen as struggling or anxious about something! It feels like the skeptics and doubters are there waiting for a sign of weakness, as they see weakness in the same way as we see failure. This only serves to increase the feeling of anxiety and drive the cycle. It is not a big step to go from over anxious to being depressed. 

One of the biggest stressors in our lives in uncertainty and unfortunately it seems to be an integral part of it! So the best option is develop the skills and strategies to handle stress and maybe even use it in a positive way. It's a given that a small amount of anxiety or stressors are in our life and give us a bit of edge and push us towards our goals. But it seems that we don't all respond to it in a positive way. Without sounding too much like a 'broken record', much of the problem lies squarely on our shoulders. Fully understanding the urge to 'protect our child' and removing stress when we can from their lives, we are missing an incredibly good opportunity to turn it into a meaningful teaching moment. At a younger age, they seem to have a resilience and be able to bounce back. Setbacks are soon forgotten as they simply get on with their life. It is more our reaction or response that acts more as a lasting memory. If we create a 'protect and isolate attitude', then stressors are seen as things to avoid and soon avoidance strategies are adopted by your child. This can lead to negative attitudes and behaviors surfacing. As a teacher, I see the avoidance strategies surface almost on a daily basis, and much of the problem would have (or could have) been solved if a 'growth mindset' has been adopted. By this I simply mean that the parent or caregiver had taken the time to non-demonise the anxiety and/or stressor. This would have provided the child with the all important strategy and get them on the path to resilience. Probably one of the greatest gifts you can give your child is the strategy of resilience, but unfortunately it seems a gift not too often given.

The Guardian article (click here) gives us some insight especially in terms of university students in the UK, and in many ways the results are fightening. If there statement about the increase in the rise of anxiety is correct, then it becomes more obvious that we as a society are doing something wrong! If there are that many students acknowledging levels of clinical anxiety then how many others are suffering either in silence or 'self medicating or treating'? Bells ring and they toll that we are underpreparing our children for change, challenge and in the end the chance of long term success.  

The Age of Entitlement

The hidden cost of helicoptering and self promoting is the development of entitlement. By constantly having a white night coming to the rescue whenever a situation is too challenging, we ingrain habits in our children. The idea of self worth becomes distorted, and more importantly the concept of the worth of others totally changes. Teens will soon develop the behaviour patterns and habits of a 'learned helpless'. But the downside soon develops in that they expect and in some cases demand the same consideration from all around them. The language and demeanor becomes aggressive and the relationships with others suffers, sours, becomes toxic and eventually disintegrates.

We are the source of many of the habits of our children as well as providing a moral and ethical compass. The language, attitude and postures we adopt are soon mirrored. The helicopter squadron around our children provide a picture of constant support and a view that the self-promotion is fact. This is promoting a very skewed view of the world, and more importantly a very dangerous moral and ethical compass. 

These students are fed with the idea of elitism and enter the closed mind view of things. In this context I am referring to the moral and ethical closed minds, although they can also easily have the closed mindset associated with intellectual development and growth. Closed minds are not open to change and see things as static and in some cases "black and white". But inevitably, the result is them being a winner. If we also take into account the accelerated tendency to socialize, a very toxic situation can occur. I refer to the classic situation that accompanies the release of college positions early in the final year of school. The 'entitled' are soon crowing about their success and often decrying and denigrating the success of others. After all, the whole point of being entitled is that it does not apply to all others. I have often seen this situation become very toxic with the fighting and confrontations  (usually verbal and digital, but occasionally physical) that occur. Again it seems to involve the "winners" expressing their pleasure and displeasure at the allocation of the college offers. In the worse case scenario it seems the entitled are also able to be the be extremely judge mental!

Again it seems that the parenting style seems to have a lot to do with the feeling of entitlement. Helicoptering creates the inevitable - a feeling that everything will be done for you, and more importantly, that you will always get what you ask for. There is no real growth in self. It also works against the idea of growth mindset in many ways, and this will have its own problems in the future. Eventually the "by then young adult" arrives at a situation either in terms of work or college where the self-worth attitude cannot be reconciled with the performance levels. Unfortunately not everyone in the workplace or wider society will have the same tolerance, and there will undoubtedly be conflict.

An interesting online article "16 signs you have a Sense of Entitlement Complex" by Aletheia Luna asks whether or not you are entitled? It provides us with reasons for and outcomes of as well as a list of signs that indicate the onset of entitlement. It appears that we all have a tendency to feel entitled, but to what degree. I would advise reading the article (linked above) as it gives a bit of insight into entitlement. I think the most telling symptoms is the use of emotional blackmail at the first sign that something is not going their way. I'm sure we can all relate to that!   

Risky behaviour

I keep reading if all the 'risky behaviours' that are part of the college students life. This if course causes consternation in the parenting community, but I wonder how much is to do with being 'overprotected and under prepared'? The concept of residence and its development has been a concise the theme in my blogs. I think that observations in my many years of teaching have shown me that some students are lacking in this, and I think the blame lays squarely on our shoulders. By that I mean parents, as they should be the providers of this important skill.

Unfortunately the idea of 'being prepared' has changed somewhat over the years. Once being ready to leave home meant that we had the skills needed to survive independently. So the parents 'taught' their children the basic skills and strategies to become resilient. So we are sending off teens not fully trained  in making decisions and adjusting to new situations they will encounter. Is it any wonder that we read and hear about far too many incidents of risky behaviour occurring? The under prepared wobbly and shift course enjoying what can be their first instance of 'unstructured and in many cases unsupervised play'. A dangerous mix if the internal boundaries have not been set by years of practise. 

Now it seems, for many, that being prepared revolves more about pushing the self promotion without allowing for the self actualisation to occur. A generation of 'entitlement' can be gained by 'following the route and ticking off the boxes'. The self belief is not matched by the ability, and for the first time self doubt arises. Being suddenly independent at this time makes them feel even more adrift and poor decision making can easy step in. We know that the community and surroundings of any person will have a marked affect on behaviour, especially considering the "peer effect". Things that they would normally not contemplating doing in one situation are fair in a different one. So throwing a group of teens together in a largely unstructured environment can quickly lead to greater risk for the unprepared. 

I mentioned the social and emotional importance of play throughout a child's life in another blog. The 'unsupervised' (by adults) and unstructured play allows them to see the boundaries that exist in terms of safety, and children quickly respond and develop their own 'moral and social compass'. Surely it is preferable to have them experiment at a younger age than in the adult oriented domain of colleges? I remember the bruises and scrapes associated with this, but I also remember having a series of boundaries in place at a relatively early age. But in saying this I will point out that I always had to provide details about where I was and who I was with. So although I was not always in the company of adults, I had the loose tether attached which allowed me to still be in some form of 'contact'. And all of this was in the days before mobile phones!

But on the "flip side" studies of the brain show that maturation of the various levels develop or mature at different times. So the region responsible for controlling impulses and risky behaviour is not fully developed until late teens and beyond. This of course will be a generalisation and the 'time of onset' will probably vary. The brain is pliable and if we make the connections and re-enforce them, perhaps we can assist in the development of this important region. However, it is a hard thing to "teach" with many teens exposed to the facts, but that does not in any way guarantee that they will not try risky behaviours. I do think that providing alternative outlets for their adrenaline search is a good way to provide safer alternatives.

There are lots of helpful hints and advice sites to be found on the web, but I was taken by the simple and straightforward approach found on the Australian Parenting website, and I also like the reminder that if you are really concerned contact a professional.

Moody behaviour and beyond

Just how is this whole self-promotion push by society affecting our teens? An interesting article by Richard A. Friedman in the New York Times makes for a good read. I think it gets to the point where our children are undergoing pressures that are stretching their resilience levels to breaking point and that is presenting problems now and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. So the resilience skills that we should be integrating into their lives takes on an added importance. And of course, all is done to make them 'winners'.

We all know from experience how the moods of teens seems to be variable to say the least. The physical and emotional changes they are going through these years makes us believe that mood changes are simply part of life. This is worrying in many ways as the pressure may be greater than we percieve. We simply put off these behaviours to being part of the normal and not signs of a possible disorders, including depression.

The ability to recognise these behaviours is a bit more of a problem. Many of them are often confused with typical adolescent behaviors by parents and teachers. It's not a question of looking but of the turmoil that most teens go through. Far too often we seem to provide simple one liners to try to sort through the problem as they "grow out of the stage they are going through". We really don't understand depression all that well and think that by being positive we can have them come out the other end. I think that more by good luck than good management most of the mood swings are just that. Perhaps a look at the section of the Mayo Clinic website on Teen Depression would enlighten us a little more on what to look for. If we recognize the signs, there is a chance that we can help. 

A major problem here for both parent and child is the stigma attached to depression by society. It is seen as a symptom or sign of failure. Something to be shunned and hidden from public view, and I think that this a major reason for not recording and/or treating it. It is more the embarrassment of the parents that is slowing everything than our understanding of treatments. This only serves to have the child hide and ignore the symptoms rather than seek treatment. Our actions impact on our children in all sorts of ways, but our attitudes also leave a long lasting impression.

Seeing the long term effects of depression leaves a lasting impression. Once happy and enthusiastic become withdrawn and sullen. I wonder if early intervention strategies would have made a difference because the damage can already be done. The depression does not go away and affects the person all throughout their life. However it seems that some of our teens do not really see a future and the repercussions of that are devastating to all close to them.

It has been part of my later experience to find students in the recent cohorts who have been diagnosed. This seems to be a later day problem. But it is more likely that it is making an appearance more due to changes in diagnosis and acceptance. I do wish that view expressed by society would change to be even more inclusive.

I really wonder if

• I would recognize the signs of depression?
• I provide the support needed to depressed students?
• the presures on students are the cause or maybe the "straw that breaks the camel's back'?

Overprotected and underprepared

It was quite by chance that I bumped into this article on over parenting. I see it (over parenting) all of the time and the problems that come from this are rather marked. It really is not a "new" situation and I have previously referring to the been children being put into "cotton wool" for protection. Again, I understand wanting to do the best for your child, but is cocooning them and making them avoid risks and risky situations really the best option if we want to instill resilience? know this theme has been a constant thread in much of the mainstream media of late.

It's amazing isn't it, the recurrence of resilience as a objective of both parenting and teaching, and yet so many of our children leave for college with only small supplies! This leaves them unprepared and 'unarmed' in terms of coping strategies for the new adventures that lie ahead.

The rise of the helicopter parent really has diminished a very important strategy in a child's learning - play. The idea of uncontrolled (by adults) play seems like a very risky concept to many. But really it's a great learning opportunity, especially for social growth and risk assessment, that simply goes begging. We know that children learn best by doing, but instead we pass on our wisdom to them. It goes against good practise but we persist. By play children learn quickly what us dangerous, what is safe and probably more important, boundaries that exist between the two.

Children have more smarts than we give them credit for. Yes, they may have a hiccup or two along the way, but the learning will be much more powerful that the moments of embarrassment that come with them.

I believe that some of the resistance that parents have in allowing their child to engage in this unsupervised play, is the stigma and embarrassment associated with failure. If a child slips up and has problems or is slightly injured during the play, the parent is somehow seen as a failure (as a parent). So rather than going through this "social stigma", they choose the option of control. We all seem to miss the idea the word fail is really an acronym for "first attempt in learning". I have often seen this in social media and see benefits in adopting it in discussions with children. The word, fail, itself has no stigma apart from the one we apply to it, and our children will soon pick up on this and thus it will be passed from one generation to the next. I think the major flaw with this overprotective thinking and mantra of the helicopter squadron is that our children out off their "uncontrolled play" until they are away from parents at college. Surely the risks are much greater and the falls much harder there than they would have been at a younger age. Again, you are robbing your child of opportunities to develop resilience, and we all realise how importance that is to "winners".

I think that the social skills learnt in play are also at times overlooked by parents. Admittedly we can see the best and worst in interactions between children, but by experiencing both they soon develop a better understanding. Children will form their own moral compass and borders regarding the behaviour that is and is not OK for certain situations. Parents give the basics of 'right and wrong' and what us acceptable in different situations. They will use and modify these as they move between the different social occasions. Children will adapt their behaviours to suit the people they are with, acting one way when with friends while another with family and yet another when in new places. Surely having been exposed to as many different social situations as possible will better prepare them for being away and surrounded by strangers at college! Society has so many different personality factors that our children will come in contact with during their lives. Why stop them from learning because we feel uncomfortable? Their coping skills will be enhanced. So, why deprive our children of this opportunity? The control factor (of the parents) is the obvious factor that comes to mind - they do not feel comfortable in these situations and that is quickly messaged to the child.

It makes me wonder if:

• I allow enough play or do I interrupt and think I am enhancing learning?
• I would let my children learn by doing?
• we as a society don't put a greater emphasis on play?
• as a teacher I promote play as a means of learning?

Positive role models and teens

Its a real pity that a society that pushes the idea of self-promotion does little to provide the necessary role models for the students to aspire. The value of positive role models in the development of positive attitudes is obvious. If we provide positive examples then we quickly establish the patterns we want to instill and re-inforce. But just as positive models establish positive patterns, then negative role models establish negative ones.

We have already seen that our society actively supports and pushes the "self-promotion and winning". We readily make and promote role models that we hope will inspire our children and "produce winners" but I really wonder how successful we have been? Surely being responsible for promoting and making our models, we must take into account the successes and failures. After all, these models are what we say we want out children to not onlt aspire to, but in some cases, to also become. We really cannot take a back seat in this process as we have been actively pushing, pursuing and holding them up for our chilren to emulate - this means that the 'bouquets and brickbats" will fall towards us.

So what do teens look for in a role model? I found an interesting blog 'What is a Role Model? Five Qualities that Matter to Teens' by Marilyn Price-Mitchell, PhD that helped me better understand. She lists the qualities she found in her study of teens were that they have:

1. Passion and Abilty to Inspire
2. A Clear Set of Values
3. A Commitment to Community
4. A Selflessness and Acceptance of Others
5. An Ability to Overcome Obstances

While the list above is not being really surprising, Price-Mitchell then went on to compare the difference between teen choices and those of adults. In somewhat of a shock it seems that teens ranked commitment to community above that of the adults. This came as a bit of shock when we consider the stereotypical teen!

I followed on and read her subsequent blog on 'How Role Models Influence Youth Strategies for Success', and was most pleased to see that children with growth mindsets aspire to more positive role models than students with "fixed or prevention mindset". It appears that the benefits of a growth mindset are really greater than just increased creativity and improved results.

All of this makes me wonder if:

• I promote good role models?
• I would be a positive role model?
• I push the growth mindset enough in my students?
• Is the idea of "winners" changing?
• our children see "winners" in the same way as we do?

A slight case of deflection

I think that over the years the most perplexing question that comes up concerns bullying. I have been amazed at the identity of the students who have been engaged in one form or another. The time at school is a time of uncertainty for most as they also navigate puberty. Strategies are needed and adopted by students and if and/or when they prove successful, they become the fallback option. I am suggesting that deflection onto another student has become one of these strategies, and amazingly it is even gaining greater acceptability among the student cohort

The identity and stereotypic image of a bully has begin to change. No longer is it only the alpha males of females and other members of the cool brigade - I realise that I am stereotyping here, but I do believe that many of the bully types are promoted by the wider society. I have noticed that in the past few years, that many who I would have previously considered to be likely victims have now become bullies. I think that the pressure to conform and other peer group pressures have made it easier for these students to quietly slip into that mode. I think that it has become a defence mechanism rather than a genuine wish to become a bully. In a way it goes back to the winners and losers debate that forms the basis of this blog.

The aim of most students as they go through their time at secondary school is to remain "as invisible as possible". Bringing attention to yourself, can be an unwanted and unwise. After all no one really wants to be a target. The obvious solution to many is to deflect and disappear. By deflection, I mean to provide an alternative target. However, this does have costs to both themselves and the new target.

The costs I refer to are chiefly of the moral and ethical kind. It is very easy to justify doing something even when we know it is wrong. If we were a previous "victim", them we have a good understanding of what it means and "feels like" to be bullied. It becomes easy to justify in your own mind the decision to deflect rather than be bullied, and I wonder what my decision would be in a similar situation? In their own minds, there is not an ethical problem, but in some we see empathy and ethical considerations rise and this can be problematic for them. Friendships and alliances built up can just as quickly disappear and this tends to have students live and think for the day - rather than planning for longer time periods. I suppose the survival instinct kicks in much faster than the empathy drive.

I really do wonder:

• how prevalent the deflection process is?
• how many go from being bullied to being a bully?
• if this is a temporary solution to a problem and not an ongoing condition?
• if being a bully equates to being a winner?

Slow Parenting

The whole idea of slow and steady seems to be lost on many of us. Life is hectic, yes, but does it really have to always be that way? Have you ever seen or heard someone rushing and totally planning the whole day for each and every day of the family holiday? I wonder how many of us have to learn how to relax?

The article on slow parenting made me stop and wonder what I was doing! The interesting thought

that I got out of it was that the parents are really the ones who cannot stop and use their children as an excuse. I think the quote beside says it all. We have lost the real purpose and push of parenting and are in danger of ruining the lives of our children. I like the comment by Honore, that children are now being "project managed" rather than parented. But at what cost? When you consider the rise in incidence of depression and self-harm, surely it is time to reconsider our approach as it is obviously not working.

I suppose I reflect back on my childhood and think of the most important thing my parents gave me - the value of time. We learnt how to relax and the importance of both "family" and "me" time. How quickly we forget that time is something that cannot be used again!

We live in a highly scheduled routine and seem to find it difficult when taken out of the "zone". The last holiday I had, I really felt that I only began to fully relax mid-way through. If it is that bad for us, what must it be like for our children? We are successfully creating a new generation of "workaholic" like individuals who believe that time spent doing nothing, is time wasted. This whole precept goes against the underpinning notions of mindfulness and well-being. Leisure is really a learnt art form and we as adults have not really passed on the secrets. The real problem with our actions is that a whole generation has no idea what to do when they actually have leisure time!

The outcomes of this are self evident and so well pointed out by Carl Honore - but I think that the micromanaging of the children has a lot to do with this problem. I think it is almost a case of parents being unable or unwilling to trust their children with the precious gift of time. Without some form of support rather than an imposed structure, they do resort to substance abuse and other negative behaviours. It is almost a given as they have been given little or no real practise by their parents. Perhaps then it is time to resort back to really teaching our kids the value of time and leisure. Are the consequences of letting them slowly have more 'me or leisure time' that dangerous given the options? Surely guided leisure is a solution to the problem as it will allow us all the opportunity to slow down.

I really wonder if:

• I encourage my boys how best to use leisure time?
• I over manage and regulate the time too much?
• I have lost the ability to relax and really slow down?

Overparenting

This has become a huge problem in many schools. Parents by definition are concerned and caring about their child. But has it become too much? Perhaps it has really become the time of the helicopter parent! I was reading a most interesting article on over parenting and the responses of schools. The article examines two new books (How to Raise an Adult by Julie Lythcott-Haims and The Gift of Failure by Jessica Lahey) written by two educators who are also parents. This makes it a good read for both parents and teachers.

As teachers, we often receive calls or message concerning our students. We all have heard about projects left behind, lunches coming, sports gear coming for an after school game, and a variety of others. But of late the reasons and extent of this seems to be increasing and it makes me wonder about the resilience of the generation!

Lets just examine a couple of cases that come to mind that occurred over the last 12 months. In Hong Kong we are very much a "society of helpers". This can be taken in many ways, but I refer to the fact that many children have a helper who effectively manages their life. Sitting in my office, I see a helper arrive with a lunch box for a 11 year old. Not really strange when you think about it, but when I chatted I found out that she was sent with "fresh" food and wanted to deposit it directly into the child's locker. This was not going to be an isolated occurrence, but likely to be a daily one! A chat ensued regarding locker security and leaving the lunch box at our guard's office for collection.

Perhaps the most interesting "coincidence" was that a group of parents decided to make a visit to the same city as their children during our experience program. The trip is designed to help the children develop some independence and resilience strategies. I was leading the trip and had advised the parents that it would be counterproductive to have them visit or contact the students during the trip, but I suspect that regular calls and conversations formed part of the student's "free time". One teacher who accompanied me on part of the trip, had an urgent call from a parent on the morning of their departure from Hong Kong asking her to transport "an emergency supply of sweets" for her child.

The reason I bring these up is that the opportunity for the students to develop all important skills. I think it also sends a message to the child about trust and the fact they are not able to make decisions. One of the goals of the trip was to provide a safe environment for the child to "make mistakes" and learn strategies that will assist the development of resilience. In essence you put up walls and say that when this problem occurs use this method only - the child is not able to use their curiousity and creativity in providing an alternative that maybe a better solution.

It almost seems as if the idea of making a mistake in abhorent. Taking a risk in terms of trying to solve a new challenge is surely one of the gifts we wish for our children? But by the same token, don't let me see you failing! The concept learning from our mistakes seems to be something we wish to keep from our children and I think we do them an injustice by doing so. I think the picture says it all - failure is a state of mind for teh fixed mindset. But for the growth mindset, failure is a chance ot learn. I think if you google the lives of many of the greats of the past (in whatever field) you will find that they had the growth mindset. They tries and failed, but they kept on trying!

I wonder about:

• the long term effects of overparenting?
• how overparenting affects the resilience of a child?
• whether we are hindering or developing resilience skills in our children by overparenting?

Caring and compassionate youth?

I know in some of my later blogs I have been concentrating on the Adam 1 (materialistic, ambitious) and Adam 2 (moral, altruistic) philosophy described in "The Road to Character" by David Brooks. I found it an interesting read, and in general some thought provoking ideas came to might as I reflected whilst taking in his point of view. I think the most obvious thing I got was I suppose at a young age we are all to absorbed with ourselves to see anything but the need to self promote and accumulate personal gain - not too surprising when you consider the capitalistic society we belong to. Obviously it is an area of schooling and society in general that perhaps needs a closer inspection.

From: Volunteering in Hong Kong blog

But then as we become older, and as he put it feel an emptiness and wanting inside us, we find the time to reflect and think of the answer. I suppose we could refer to this as the luxury of age, thinking about others a little more as we progress. The number of cases of philanthropists who develop the strong Adam 2 philosophy (you could almost say compunction or passion) at "middle age" must make their peers and friends wonder if it really is a 'mid-life crisis'.  In some ways I think they could be right! Lets consider just one case here - John Wood the founder of Room to Read. (picture from Volunteering in Hong Kong blog) If you glance at his bio, you find that he was an executive of Microsoft - obviously a strong example of Adam 1 personality. You could not achieve the level of success without it. He found himself at a crossroad and chose the service option to move forward with in his life. But is it the case that Adam 2 is only for the mature and older members of our society?

But just because we tend to here of this more in the mature adult group, does in no way mean that our teenagers are self-absorbed egotists. I was at a meeting recently discussing better options that we could adopt to encourage our students to engage in meaningful, local and lasting programs of service. One of our guest speakers was indeed approaching societies version of middle age and involved with a non-government organisation operating in Hong Kong. I think that many present (including myself) considered him to be model of the late bloomer Adam 2. But we soon found out, this was definitely not the case as he had been involved in meaningful service programs continuously since graduating from college, and indeed extending back into his time at school. So it seems that we can have youth show fantastic examples of Adam 2 behaviours and continue them into and even throughout their adult lives.

So maybe them the original premise that we are all too self-absorbed during our formative years needs a closer look, and perhaps a re-think. Part of the International Baccalaureate program that operates in schools is the compulsory CAS (or Creativity, Activity and Service) component. I applaud the notion of a program that instills the ethos of service into school age students, but found that the application and "selling" of the program to be more than a little problematic. I noted with some amazement the battle that raged in some of my students between the materialistic, ambitious side in competition with the moral, altruistic side. It became abundantly clear that the materialistic and ambitious side was so well entrenched that altruism was not going to have much of an opportunity to win, or even participate. In some cases the white flag of defeat was raised before the battle commenced and it ended up taking on the role of a competition with many to ensure that it was completed to a suitable and meaningful level. I had foolishly thought that the positive reward of having examples of altruism on a college application would have spurred the willingness and application at least to some level. However, I was amazed at the gusto and genuine manner in which some of the other students pursued this component of the course. They freely gave that most important part of service, time, to ensure that an ethical and moral component was clearly evident in their program. So in a nutshell, the Jury is still out and I cannot make an all encompassing conclusion.

I suppose now I really have to wonder:

• if the push to be materialistic is so strong, why don't all youth suffer
• why some youth have such a well developed sense of morality and altruism while others do not?
• if altriuism and morality is really a province solely of the aged?
• if I have indeed contributed to the moral growth of my students and children?

Learning to win

It's a really strange fact in life that we will be both winner and loser at some point(s) in life. The truth is no-one is good at everything, so I suppose it helps us keep a balance. The concept of resilience helps us understand this a bit more.

I tend to equate our move through school/life much like progressing through a computer game. School (and life for that matter) is like a game and has different skills to master on each level we encounter before we can really successfully progress and conquer the challenges of the next level. The levels start easy and the complexity and difficulty gradually increases. The most important difference existing in this analogy is the that levels in life go on forever, we never seem to reach a point where we have total mastery. So I suppose the important thing is to continue progressing, and that means we must see the progress for what it is - a movement towards an end but never quite reaching it. 

Attaining mastery each at each level doesn't equate to being a winner. Moving onto the challenges of the next level is probably a more accurate and better indicator! So the greater the degree of resilience, the more likely that you will have a better 'win-loss' record, and the more levels you will show mastery of.

Our role as a guide becomes critical at this time for if we are to help our children (or students) become winners, we must first help them develop resilience. But they must learn from each and every win AND loss along the way, as that will be their source of resilience. Our role is the help them cope effectively with every win and loss. The language we use from an early age must instil confidence without promoting the notion of a finish line. We must be genuine with rewards and constructive with our criticism & advice. Wins must be recognised and loses never ignored. Educationalists refer to this as creating a growth mindset.

If we instil the right sort of attitude in our children they will continue moving and gaining the skills that will make life a little more manageable. This will allow them to face the challenges that come along and realise that they have the skills to conquer many of them. A blog article by Evoke Learning will help you better understand resilience in a school context and offer a few strategies too.

I suppose that we need to ask ourselves

• Am I assisting my child in gaining resilience?
• Am I acknowledging their success in a positive way?
• Am I assisting them with their learning from their losses?

The moral dimension

I recall watching a Television show that was part of the British comedy series 'Yes Minister' (or it could have been 'Yes Prime Minister') with this rather catchy title for one of the episodes. After laughing at the antics of the minister and his entourage as they muddled their way through another of life's challenges, I noted that in the end they accidentally made a decision based upon moral considerations. I think that in the life of many of my students that is also the case, with moral decisions being made by accident rather than through purpose. How art imitates life! It almost appears that we and thus they are beginning to lose their moral compass.

In the last blog, I outlined the push to self-promote that permeates our society. It seems that we are surrounded by people trumpeting their successes at even the simplest of tasks and expecting excessive congratulations and applause. With examples everywhere, and constantly in front of them, is it any wonder that our children adopt these habits and behaviours? I think that, at times, we have forgotten that we don't have to make everything a contest and prove that we are "fantastic". The most disturbing factor is perhaps overlooked - the fact that once it is on public display it is there and remains for all to see. With the constant push to out do others, risks and other factors are forgotten in the rush to self-promote. Winners can become losers quite quickly as fads and fashions change.

The pitfalls that accompany the rush to self-promote can be rather spectacular. Self belief and self-worth are different things and at times the lines become blurred. This is especially true for adolescents who are still engaged in learning the game called adulthood. The impetuous push towards gaining the fame and adoration they think is theirs can quickly lead to risky situations being part of their "plan". Being constantly told that you are 'special' now has its costs - you have to "put up or shut up". This can be a very trying time as failure leads to all sorts of self-doubts. With some sort of moral support internally, then any "fall from grace" might be a little more manageable. But the long hard look at themself that results, is one that can lead to a real moral crisis situation. Suddenly losing their super status can have a disastrous effect on self-esteem that we as a society have long built up.

I know that adolescents overall have a good understanding of what is morally and ethically acceptable, but at times this get lost in the push for 'fame'. So in many cases the things that should be done for moral reasons are done by accident. We used to talk about the moral growth of our students and children. Unfortunately, we seem to have quantified it like all things in life in terms of 2 hours of charity or raising so much money. This has changed the whole way our society thinks about the moral growth of our youth. College applications all seem to value the moral and service which is commendable. However, that has soon become changed into a competition to provide the most or best examples of service. But by changing service into a competition, it has lost its humanity! The movement away from real service to "lip service" came quickly and continues unabated. To a generation of our youth this has become the real meaning of service, compassion and morality. So much for the moral dimension.

The moral dimension is so much more - and will allow your character to "deepen" from the shallowness that usually accompanies the selfishness of the self promoted. Some refer to this as being "grounded" - in terms of attitude. The inner strength that comes from the reflection allows greater resilience for times of moral crisis. So I suppose I am in a dilemma about why its value is

The idea of moral growth is highlighted by when a crisis occurs. I think that Brooks sums it up really well and tells us that we really aren't preparing them well by simply doing this. The true moral test comes when there is a dilemma that means we have to "stand up and be counted". It may well go against the push for self-promotion and require some real thought. The easy option will always be a favoured option - to go for social acceptance and be seen to "win" is much more cool that doing something that is morally right. This is why it is a moral dilemma and in most instances, I'm afraid to say that morals will finish second.

I wonder:

• why as a society we don't value the inner moral aspect of our character?
• why it is so important to over emphasise the self promotion?
• why self promotions is held in higher esteem by societies than showing moral strength?

Are winners really grinners?

I suppose I had to come back to this point at some stage in the blog. I've skirted around the idea of what parents want and what kind of young adult we were "producing". So maybe we needed to think a little more about what we really wanted. It wasn't until I started reading "The Road to Character" by David Brooks that things started again to clarify and solidify in my mind.

I liked that Brooks sees us all as a duality of materialistic, ambitious side in competition with the moral, altruistic side. He refers to the materialistic side as "Adam 1" and your altruistic side as "Adam 2". As I was turning the pages I found this mirrored the observations that had initially made me start this blog. The emphasis (by parents, some teachers and schools) on the materialistic, ambitious side of a students behaviour is pushed during their time at school. This is the mechanism that creates the so-called winners. We already have adolescents that have a unique view of the world and way of thinking, and then push them towards gaining materialistic goals. Everything they do at school and at home is all about self-promotion. But are we perhaps being a little short sighted? At present we end up creating huge egos that can and often are self-indulgent and entitled. We praise all gains and glorifying them regardless of importance, and then wonder why we have students who consider themselves "8 foot tall and bulletproof". This is an expression I have often heard which relates to the extreme risk-taking version of students/adolescents that embrace this narcissistic attitude and lifestyle.

The funny thing is society rewards the "Adam 1's" of the world, but seems to look disappointingly at the "Adam 2's". It seems that the economic side has gained much more ground than the moralistic. I do not deny in any way that there has to be part of you which embraces your "Adam 1", but reading any social or printed media seems to strongly suggest that as a society we have given a little too much import to them and increasing the number of our youth aspiring to emulate. Brooks also tells us that a study of middle school girls showed that the vast majority would rather be a celebrity's assistant than be president of a prestigious institution like Harvard.  

To me it shows how short-sighted we have become in thinking about what is best and what we want our children to be like in the future. If we again consider the happy, well-adjusted and successful version that many parents want, then surely a more long term plan needs some serious thought. It seems that we "train" or children from an early age to be self-promoting and self-absorbed so that they have material success. So from where I am sitting, the materialistic and ambitious side is winning the battle (if not the war).

I now wonder:

• sort of message I am sending to what my children and my students?
• why we place soo much emphasis on fame?
• if famous now equates to famous later in life?
• what happens to our youth after fame disappears?

The Importance of Positive Feedback

Feedback, I suppose that has been the bane of my existence as a teacher. I don't recall how many different ways I have explored to try to make my feedback as meaningful as possible to both my students and their parents. It all changed a couple of years ago when I was fortunate enough to be able to go to Project Zero at Harvard University. At the conference I was asked my reasons for attending and the one I mentioned was feedback. During one of the sessions during the week, I listed to a speaker tell us about a "ladder of feedback". It was really quite simple and made sense to me and also seemed to fit the positive psychology initiative at my school. I have now been using this with my students and been most pleased with their response.

A modified version of the ladder of feedback

Simply put, the method centres around four basic steps - I have paraphrased in my explanation below.

1. Clarify
2. Value 
3. Offer concerns
4. Suggest

Now when you read it like this it sounds oh so simple. But really it involves a change in the way of thinking. I found that this took more time than the traditional approach to feedback, but I became aware that my students were actually reading and thinking about it. It is even

As proposed in the positive psychology mantra, we all have character strengths that we use, although some are used more and with greater skill than others. So the ladder of feedback looks for the positives or strengths before offering constructive improvement strategies. Everyone does something well and deserves praise and being valued. This is the central theme. Clarifying offers the opportunity to begin to communicate. But it is imperative to use terms that are as non-judgemental as possible. Posing a question as "I wonder .... starts the conversation off in a positive way. If we follow that with praise (or what we value in their work, action, etc.), we set the tone for meaningful dialogue. Both parties in the conversation are now talking and listening! Offering concerns in a positive way will now be more easily accepted and hopefully adopted by your child. The final step is to make some positive suggestions.

I bring this up because I feel that it could also offer a change in the tenor of conversations in the home as well. It is far too easy (as a teacher or a parent) to slip into the "elevator of feedback" and go straight to the top levels and denigrating the efforts of our students/children.

I think that the key to the whole process is effective communication. Far too often we are all guilty of focussing and concentrating on the results rather than the process. It tend to force our focus on the negatives and forgetting the positives that are there. It is explained by our busy lives but the damage that is done to the self image and resilience of your child can lead to other problems.

It makes me wonder if:

• I use the elevator of feedback more than I should?
• I could ensure that I value (the effort) as much as the result?
• I could take the time to find the positives and praise the strengths?