Meditation

I am not a meditation teacher - or any kind of teacher for that matter. However, I strongly believe that meditation is one of the most powerful tools for clarifying the mind, strengthening your sense of self, and increasing your awareness on many levels: physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual. I meet so many people who, although they have heard of meditation and vaguely like the idea of it, never go near it. There's something cool and mysterious about meditation, as though it's something reserved for monks, or people that have special serene sanctuaries in which they can go and practise it. Or, even if it's something quite ordinary, it's something they "don't know how to do". In the next few blog posts, I want to look at meditation as part of an ordinary modern life.

I'll use some questions to structure this: What is meditation? How do you do it anyway? Where do you do it? Isn't it boring? What about if I LIKE thinking and don't want to clear my thoughts? Is it some sort of New Age or Eastern religious thing? If there are any other questions you think I've left out, please leave comments and I'll happily respond.

1. What is meditation?
I have an admission to make: I meditate sporadically. I do it when and where I can, or when and where I remember to. I don't follow all the precepts taught by my various meditation teachers, simply because if I only meditated in the way they advised, I'd never get round to it. Sure, the more regular my practice, the stronger my sense of equilibrium, my peace of mind, my connection to the simple flow of human experience that brings an uncomplicated joy in daily life. But even an irregular practice is significant.

How, though, shall I define meditation? What do I mean by 'practice'? And why isn't sitting still simply a waste of time that could be better spent doing other productive things?

Here are a selection of some broad definitions of meditation from various internet sites that talk about meditation:

• a state of focused attention through which one emerges into an ever-increasing clear awareness of reality
• techniques that focus the mind and promote a state of calmness so that the mind and body can be brought into greater harmony to facilitate health and healing
• the act relaxing the body and focusing one's mind on a specific target or goal
• a means of focusing the mind to reduce or eliminate conscious thought, to bring the mind to stillness or rest
• to contemplate or reflect in a state of relaxed focus

You will notice an immediate contradiction in these definitions. Meditation is both relaxed and focused. This is the first of many contradictions raised by meditation. Another contradiction: meditation deals with clearing the mind, and yet, through doing so, we bring the mind to sharper awareness.

Don't worry too much about the contradictory nature of meditation. These contradictions are the first of many that you will start noticing as you meditate, and in fact, accepting the difficulties and the contradictions of the world around us is one of the reasons to meditate in the first place. Which brings me to the next topic:


2. Why meditate?
Ah, the crunch. What can it do for you? Well, meditation raises your sense of awareness. It is a a way of practicing recognition and acceptance of yourself and the world around you. This may sound a little odd; after all, most of us believe that we already recognise and accept ourselves and the world around us. But a lot of the time, we live in our thoughts - either our memories of the past, or our projections of the future.

Where does tension come from? Where do your anxieties and worries come from? Are they located in the present? Hardly. Most of our anxieties come from conjuring up various pictures and thoughts of the future, and worrying What if... And those that don't come from the future, come from the past: we recall negative experiences and events and chew over them, on and on. Because meditation brings our awareness to the present moment, it allows us to let go of the past and the future, and in doing so, to realise that we are not living in the grip of their phantoms.

Meditation is a little like exercise: you can't really locate exactly when and how it's benefiting you. When you think about doing it, your mind will produce lots of excuses, lots of better ways you could spend your time. When you actually get round to doing it, you might spend a lot of time having thoughts like This is difficult, This is pointless, I'm not good at this, I'm not doing it properly. And when you've done a bit, you might wonder what all the fuss was about, and whether it's made any difference to you at all. The trick is just to do it and to trust that the benefits will creep up on you gently and slowly. Of course, if you want proof that it's going to benefit you, I can go into all the evidence - some studies, some anecdotal evidence - but perhaps let's leave that for later. For now, let's look at:

3. How do you meditate?
The definitions above may make meditation sound quite obscure. You may also notice that while some definitions consider meditation a state of mind, others consider it an activity or technique. There are lots of ways of meditating, just as there are many ways of preparing a meal.

The simplest way I can suggest is: sit somewhere quiet, close your eyes, and focus on your breathing. You might be parked in your car, sitting on the tube, waiting for someone on a park bench; you can give yourself a few minutes of meditation. Or perhaps you have given yourself ten minutes, or maybe 20, in a quiet place at home. It doesn't matter. Sit, quietly, and relaxed, and listen to yourself breathing for a little while. That's all there is to it, really.

You don't believe me, do you? That's why you're still reading. You want a more detailed guide. OK. Here's a bit more detail:

• Sit somewhere quiet. It can be in the bedroom, the garden, the living room, the balcony, it doesn't matter. The traditional posture of meditation is to sit cross-legged on the floor, on a cushion or mat. If this is comfortable for you, great. But you don't have to sit on a mat or a cushion or a hard floor. If you prefer, sit on a chair. You do, however, want the position to be both relaxed and focused, so make sure your spine is upright, your head facing forward and your shoulders relaxed.
  
• Close your eyes. Again, this isn't a hard and fast rule; some illustrious yogis meditate eyes open. But for newcomers to meditation, closing your eyes is a sure way to bring your attention inward.
  
• Focus on your breath. Again, there are millions of ways of doing this, and numerous books are available to tell you marvellous things to visualise, ways of breathing, different patterns of extending either the incoming or the outgoing breath. Again, I think for anyone that hasn't meditated before, it's important to know that none of the theory matters. Listen to your breath. Feel it travelling in and out of your body. Visualise it if you like.
  
• Notice any physical sensations in your body. Notice which parts of your body are warm, and which are cold. Perhaps a leg is uncomfortable or stiff. Notice your body as though you are observing it impartially, gently, the way you would watch a playing child. Don't fight or resist your observations, but don't wallow or rejoice in them either. Remind yourself that you are increasing your own awareness of each cell in your body.
  
• Extend your observations to the world around you. Notice sounds, subtle changes in the temperature, the movement of the air around. Keep bringing your attention back to your own breathing.
  
• Observe your thoughts. Quite soon, you will find your mind wanders onto some topic you want to think about. Your next meal; that thing your mother said; what time the football is on. For many people, this proves to them that they are not meditators. No! The trick here is to notice that you are having thoughts. Notice and observe them. It may sound corny, but for each thought, observe it the way you would observe a child getting fixated on a small object: Look, my mind is wandering towards the football. Picture yourself putting the thought down the way the child would eventually put down the small object. And bring your attention back to your breath.
  

4. Where do you meditate?
You don't need a special meditation room, a Zen garden or a Buddhist temple in order to meditate. A quiet place at home will do just fine. And as I said before, there's nothing to stop you meditating sporadically in the space of a normal day.

It does help to make sure that you're somewhere that pets won't come bounding up to you and curiously licking your nose, but if you choose to meditate in your garden, don't worry if they do. It can also help to set an alarm clock that will let you know after your 5 or 10 or 20 minutes has passed, as you don't want to sit for your whole meditation wondering whether you've been sitting for a minute or an hour. (Sometimes your mind will wander down this How long has it been already? avenue. Observe the thought with the same gentle recognition that you observe other thoughts, and bring your attention back to your breath.)

5. What about other activities that I might find meditative?
There are many activities we might describe as relaxed (sleeping, watching TV, lying in the sun) but which are unfocused. They are not meditation. Similarly, activities that require us to focus (thinking, working, making things) are not necessarily both relaxed and focused They are not necessarily meditation either. Yet it is possible to DO things in a meditative way. I think of this as meditation in action.

Say you are washing the dishes, or chopping vegetables, or changing a plug. While you do it, focus on your breathing. Once you have brought your attention to your breath, notice the details of what you are doing. Notice the weight and texture of the items you are working with. Observe the particularness of the task the way an artist observes the particularness of an apple or a pear as he draws it.

Some repetitive activities, such as running, swimming, and even housework, lend themselves to this kind of meditation in action. The activities themselves are apparently dull - nearly as apparently dull as just sitting. This makes them perfect for focusing your attention on your breath, your body and your surroundings. In fact, even in each mundane everyday task - brushing your teeth, washing your body, preparing meals, you can find many meditative moments.

The nice Onken people...

sent me some goodies in the post and assured me that they're launching new yogurt flavours soon. (This in reply to my earlier letter to Onken.) In the meantime I've discovered that Sainsbury's do a really great hazelnut one. Now I just have to sort out some of the mysteries of supermarkets in the UK including:
- why can't you buy bags of bran in supermarkets here? (the stuff you add to bran muffins)
- why is buttermilk a rarity?
- where do you find ordinary white spirit vinegar?
Funny, all the things you'd find in the most basic general dealer in the tiniest outpost of southern Africa seem to be regarded as oddities here.

Why the anti-vaccination brigade hasn't convinced me

I don't have kids. Yet. But, at six months pregnant, I'm discovering that the path of the parent is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the various parenting-related industries, and the tyranny of other parents. In the past few months, I've learned terms I never heard before: attachment parenting, controlled crying, sleep nazi, elimination communication, baby signing - and vaccination injury.

What is a vaccination injury? A slip of the needle? No, say the proponents of the anti-vaccination lobby, there's more to it than that (1, 2). Their objections to the vaccination industry are somewhat more serious. They regard routine vaccinations as a disturbing extension of pharmaceutical companies and government strategies who would profit from making sure the greatest number of people get injected with their drugs, whatever the risk. It’s a minefield, and a compelling one, especially when you’re a parent and you want the best for your children. What follows are their claims, and a discussion of how seriously we can take them.

CLAIM #1: Children today are sicker - physically, emotionally, educationally and developmentally - than ever before. Since the 1950s, most children have been getting routine vaccinations. In the same time frame we've seen exponential rises in obesity, diabetes, asthma, autism, allergies, ADD and even nutrient deficiencies. Therefore the aggressive vaccination schedule must be (at least partly) to blame.

This argument is the starting point for most vaccine-risk literature (1). Drawing a link between increased vaccination rates and raised illness levels is a fast way to get an emotional reaction out of a parent. Do you want your kid to be sick? No. Do you know EXACTLY what was in that injection? Of course not. Do you see the stats about increased juvenile disease all around? Um, yeah. Feeling nervous yet? Well, yes.

Not so fast. Noticing that two things both happened within the same time frame does NOT imply a causal relationship between them. To do that, you'd need some research that carefully examines the incidence of these diseases and conditions both in groups that were and weren't vaccinated. I've never seen vaccine-risk literature that provides this evidence. At best, you'll get a quote from a paediatrician saying that parents should know the risks, or the name of an article or a book (seldom even an active URL).

You'll certainly never see them point to other major changes that have taken place over the last 30 years: the massive injection of sugar, fat and processed additives into fast food and convenience food, and the aggressive marketing of those products to children (a much better-researched area, and one which IS more convincingly linked to juvenile diabetes, obesity and allergy levels). Or, say, the massive increase in the time kids spend sitting in sedentary and isolated activity watching TV or playing computer games instead of outside developing muscular and social co-ordination through games and activities.

What about autism? Well, a scout around the National Autism Society will get you some of the statistics about autism rates in the UK (3) and possible causes of the little-understood condition (4). Vaccines themselves do not come into it (aside from the suggested link between the preservative thimerasol; see claims 2 and 3 below). Genetics do. But try telling that to someone that watched their child develop autism and believes it was caused by a vaccination. Which brings us to the next point of argument:

CLAIM #2: When you meet the parents of a child who mysteriously developed regressive autism within 2 to 3 weeks of his/her MMR vaccination, it's hard to discount their story as anything but 'proof' of links between vaccines and autism.

Once the literature has frightened you with juvenile disease stats, it’ll point you in the direction of a family whose child reacted badly to the MMR vaccine, and, typically, who developed regressive autism within a few weeks of their vaccination. Is it heartbreaking? Yes. Is it frightening? Yes. Does it provide sufficient evidence to link the vaccines to the condition? Unfortunately not.

Around 95% of children are vaccinated in the first 2 years of their lives. Regressive autism, which occurs in around 6 out of every 10 000 children, usually becomes evident around 18 months. What is the probability that this is going to happen within a few weeks of a vaccination? You do the math. It doesn't make the individual cases any less upsetting for the families of autistic children. Three medical studies (one of which has been officially retracted by its authors) have claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism Twenty-three medical studies have refuted this link, finding no convincing links between the vaccine itself and the development of the disorder (12, 14).

Still, faced with their personal tragedy, parents whose children developed autism within weeks or months of receiving a vaccination tend to draw the conclusion that there is a link. They find other parents in a similar situation, and conclude further that autism rates are on the rise. In fact, they are not. Before 1980, about 1 in 2,500 children was diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorders. Today, the figure is closer to 1 in 250. The subtle fact behind this stat, however, is the fact that the increase in diagnosis comes from a broader definition of autism, and wider recognition of symptoms rather than an actual increase in incidence. (5) The incidence of regressive autism - the type of autism allegedly linked to the MMR jab - has not changed.

Furthermore, while the more widespread recognition of autism may mean we see a rise in actual case numbers, it does not prove links between vaccines and autism rates. In fact, in recent studies, Hiroshi Kurita, of the Zenkoku Ryoiku Sodan Centre in Tokyo, said genetic factors were the most important cause of autism, but "no study has ever clarified the rising prevalence of pervasive developmental disorders from this aspect" (6).

CLAIM #3: Vaccinations may contain dangerous stuff.

You will find these very broad claims about the dangers of 'animal proteins' and 'animal virusus' in most vaccination risk literature. These sorts of statements are so broad they barely contain any useful information. Yes, vaccines are cultivated in animal cells. Some vaccinations, including MMR, influenza and yellow fever vacs, are made using hens' eggs. (Strict vegetarians might have an ethical problem with this, which is a separate issue.) But where exactly are medical researchers supposed to cultivate vaccinations? Which precise dangers are these fearmongers referring to? Trying to pin them down to evidence usually leaves blank trails.

The one closer-to-accurate point made under this point is that vaccinations contain toxic chemicals. The culprit here is mercury - specifically, a compound called thimerasol, which is 50% ethyl mercury (a derivative of organic mercury) by weight and has been used as a vaccine preservative since the 1930s. Thimerasol was commonly used in the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis shot), as well as vaccines against hepatitis B and haemophilus bacteria. By the early 90s, these were both routine vaccinations for American infants. (9)

Studies into the use of thimerasol have not shown it to have any safety risks, but it came under the spotlight in the late 1990s in the midst of environmental concerns about mercury-tainted fish and worries that increased vaccination schedules for American infants might mean that they were getting exposed cumulatively to dangerous mercury levels.

Although organic mercury is indeed a neurotoxin, thimerasol contains ethyl mercury in such trace quantities per million parts of the relevant vaccines that most vaccinologists are convinced that there is no danger of mercury poisoning from it. Most cases of mercury poisoning require levels of mercury hundreds to thousands of times higher than those to which routinely vaccinated infants are exposed. There is simply no research that conclusively links the preservative to any known danger.

However, around 1999, there was a spike in reported cases of regressive autism in the US. One of the hypotheses put forward to explain the sudden increase in the number of cases was the widespread use of thimerasol as a preservative in several vaccines plus the presence of higher-than-usual mercury levels in fish consumed by pregnant mothers (11). Although the link was, at most, an untested hypothesis, in 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service urged vaccine manufacturerers to remove the preservative from their vaccines, and advised pediatricitions to postpone hep B shots. Inevitably, anti-vaccination crowd leapt on the story with more triumph (and lawsuits) than was warranted by the evidence. They did not focus on the cost of the decision, which created vaccine shortages and led some babies to become infected with hep B.

Today, most vaccines are free of thimerasol anyway, as manufacturers quickly sought to free their products from the much-maligned mercury derivative despite the fact that the claims have NOT been substantiated in any conclusive way. (7, 9)

CLAIM #4: Vaccine injuries/deaths are underreported; many children have adverse reactions to vaccines. Immunisation programs either ignore or suppress these reports, assuming that "it is good to sacrifice the wellbeing of a few for the many".

The most common reactions to vaccination is some itching or swelling at the site of the injection. This IS a common side effect of the vaccination itself, with no lasting ill effect. Yes, a vaccine does involve injecting toxins into a healthy child in order to stimulate an immune reaction. Many parents will balk at the prospect of injecting toxins into their healthy child's body: why introduce a risk of any sort into a perfectly healthy child?
Dr Stephen Basser, in his excellent analysis of the arguments put forward by high-profile campaigner against immunisation, Dr Viera Scheibner, points out that ‘the paradox of a successful immunisation program is that the more widespread immunisation becomes the more attention will be given to vaccine-related illness’ (15).

Vaccination, like any medical procedure, does carry an element of risk. One in every million children immunised can have a more serious reaction known as anaphylaxis (severe allergic reaction) to the vaccine (10). Basser says:
“I am prepared to agree that, like any medical procedure, there are occasional individuals who suffer a seriously adverse reaction to immunisation. This reality, though, is not an argument for cessation of all immunisation, just as the occasional tragic outcome from coronary bypass graft surgery is not a valid argument for stopping all such surgery.”

Anti-immunisation advocates like to wave this point away, calling it mainstream propaganda, designed to value ‘herd immunity’ over individuals whose lives get placed at risk. However, if you look astutely at the evidence (and Basser does), it becomes evident that the risks faced by unvaccinated children are greater than those faced by vaccinated children. The only factor that reduces their risk of catching contagious diseases is the rate of vaccination amongst their peers.

Conclusion
There are articles, there are reports, there are studies, and there are arguments. The only material about vaccination that can really tell you what works and what doesn’t are the studies. The rest offer little more than invective. The studies are all available (14) – many of them online – but they aren’t what you’ll find on the anti-vaccination sites. What you’ll find there is a blurry mix of emotion from parents of mentally and physically ill children, pseudo-science and ill-substantiated arguments. The one point they have right is that parents have the right to be informed about the risks they’re taking when they vaccinate. Where they fall terribly short is in overlooking the far greater risks that parents take when they don’t.

References

1. The National Vaccine Information Centre website, February 2009.
http://www.nvic.org.

2. The Vaccination Risk Awareness Network website, February 2009.
http://www.vran.org

3. How many people have autistic spectrum disorders? National Autistic Society, May 2007.

4. What causes autism? National Autistic Society, May 2007.

5. Autism rates 'not rising'. BBC News. 15 February 2001.

6. Autism could affect twice as many children as previously believed. The Independent, 14 July 2006.

7. Doing the right things for the wrong reasons. www.blissfulknowledge.com

8. A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccination and Autism. New England Journal of Medicine. November 7, 2002.

9. 'The Not-So-Crackpot Autism Theory' by Arthur Allen, published in the New York Times, 10 November 2002.

10. NHS Immunisation information. February 2009.

11. 'Autism Rates Drop After Mercury Removed from Childhood Vaccines' published in Medical News Today, 3 March 2006.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/38784.php

12. 'Mercury and autism: a briefing,' the National Autistic Society, March 2006. http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=115&a=3227

13. Offit et al. ‘Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System?’ published in Pediatrics, 1 January 2002.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/1/124

14. ‘MMR vaccine does not cause autism’. A full list of the 23 medical studies that refute the link between MMR and autism, and the 3 articles that claim a link (1 of which has been officially retracted by its authors). This is as a downloadable .pdf file from:
http://www.immunize.org/mmrautism/index.htm

15. Basser, Dr S. ‘Anti-immunisation scare: the inconvenient facts’. Published in Australian Skeptics, Vol 17 No 1.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1997/1_immunise.htm

16. Allied Vaccination Group
http://www.vaccine.org/

Facebook-free

I wonder how many people went and killed their Facebook accounts after yesterday's article in the NY Times (1) about how difficult it is to get out of the site's sticky grip. Perhaps nearly as many as the time that the Guardian took a look at the guys behind facebook (2), and what they're doing with the profit and power they gain from all our incessant social networking.

I've been meaning to get round to it, but somehow it was easier to log on and check my Warbook level than it was to opt out. It's been a while already since the constant barrage of status updates lost their lustre. The latest sleep and poo updates of friends with newly borns; the latest hangover and party updates from those still on the rave circuit; the American Psycho quotes. Occasionally funny or thoughtful; mostly banal.

Eventually, though, I decided that for every reason to use Facebook, there is somewhat more compelling reason not to. Feel free to add yours to the list.

Reasons to use Facebook:
1. It's fun. Well, for about a month or so. While you get unexpected emails from old school and varsity friends you've always wondered about.
2. It's cool and funny. You can track who's connected to whom. While they throw the occasional sheep at you.
3. It's useful for mobilising groups. You can set up an event and invite a bunch of people along. As many or as few as you like. You can publicise big events. In other words, you can be clever and use it for networking.
4. You can avoid work and other stuff. Facebook provides premium work-avoidance opportunities. Spend hours posting notes and photos, and playing Warbook or Scrabulous. If you can bear the slow download times for the heavily framed FB pages.
5. If you're a software developer, you can get loads of people using your applications really fast.
6. You like feeling like you're part of the wired generation.

Reasons to quit Facebook:
1. You've had enough fun. You've remembered that there's a reason you lost touch with some people. You don't actually care about your colleague's newborn's latest nappy change.
2. It's not actually that cool or that funny. Actually, it's boring and a waste of time.
3. If people actually want to invite you to something, the ones that matter tend to have your phone number or email address.
4. You're wasting more time on it than you'd like to admit.
5. You're not a software developer, are you?
6. You've heard enough about FB's dubious privacy policy (or lack thereof), and you're starting to get uneasy about quite how much personal information they have about you, and quite how much revenue your internet traffic is generating for the sites owners.

Still, there were so many reasons to put it off. Not least the groups and events applications. How will I know when the next extraordinary flash mob event is? What if a bunch of people I know are organising, I don't know... a house party. Yes, well. Maybe they'll get in touch via email or phone. Maybe I just won't know about the next Big Underground Happening. I'm sure I'll find something to fill the time.

References

1. Aspan, Maria. New York Times, February 11, 2008

How Sticky is Membership on Facebook? Just Try Breaking Free

2. Hodkinson, Tom. The Guardian, 13 January, 2004.
With friends like these...

3. How to break out of Facebook's sticky grip.
http://www.wikihow.com/Quit-Facebook

4. Jason' Preston's somewhat more subversive approach - getting out of it by violating the terms of service.

5. Randall, David and Richards, Victoria. Facebook can ruin your life. The Independent, Sunday 10 February 2008.

Five reasons to stop saying"Good Job" - an article by Alfie Kohn

NOTE: An abridged version of this article was published in Parents magazine in May 2000 with the title "Hooked on Praise." For a more detailed look at the issues discussed here, please see the books
Punished by Rewards and Unconditional Parenting.

Para leer este artículo en Español, haga clic aquí.

Hang out at a playground, visit a school, or show up at a child’s birthday party, and there’s one phrase you can count on hearing repeatedly: "Good job!" Even tiny infants are praised for smacking their hands together ("Good clapping!"). Many of us blurt out these judgments of our children to the point that it has become almost a verbal tic.

Plenty of books and articles advise us against relying on punishment, from spanking to forcible isolation ("time out"). Occasionally someone will even ask us to rethink the practice of bribing children with stickers or food. But you’ll have to look awfully hard to find a discouraging word about what is euphemistically called positive reinforcement.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, the point here is not to call into question the importance of supporting and encouraging children, the need to love them and hug them and help them feel good about themselves. Praise, however, is a different story entirely. Here's why.

1. Manipulating children. Suppose you offer a verbal reward to reinforce the behavior of a two-year-old who eats without spilling, or a five-year-old who cleans up her art supplies. Who benefits from this? Is it possible that telling kids they’ve done a good job may have less to do with their emotional needs than with our convenience?

Rheta DeVries, a professor of education at the University of Northern Iowa, refers to this as "sugar-coated control." Very much like tangible rewards – or, for that matter, punishments – it’s a way of doing something to children to get them to comply with our wishes. It may be effective at producing this result (at least for a while), but it’s very different from working with kids – for example, by engaging them in conversation about what makes a classroom (or family) function smoothly, or how other people are affected by what we have done -- or failed to do. The latter approach is not only more respectful but more likely to help kids become thoughtful people.

The reason praise can work in the short run is that young children are hungry for our approval. But we have a responsibility not to exploit that dependence for our own convenience. A "Good job!" to reinforce something that makes our lives a little easier can be an example of taking advantage of children’s dependence. Kids may also come to feel manipulated by this, even if they can’t quite explain why.

2. Creating praise junkies. To be sure, not every use of praise is a calculated tactic to control children’s behavior. Sometimes we compliment kids just because we’re genuinely pleased by what they’ve done. Even then, however, it’s worth looking more closely. Rather than bolstering a child’s self-esteem, praise may increase kids’ dependence on us. The more we say, "I like the way you…." or "Good ______ing," the more kids come to rely on our evaluations, our decisions about what’s good and bad, rather than learning to form their own judgments. It leads them to measure their worth in terms of what will lead us to smile and dole out some more approval.

Mary Budd Rowe, a researcher at the University of Florida, discovered that students who were praised lavishly by their teachers were more tentative in their responses, more apt to answer in a questioning tone of voice ("Um, seven?"). They tended to back off from an idea they had proposed as soon as an adult disagreed with them. And they were less likely to persist with difficult tasks or share their ideas with other students.

In short, "Good job!" doesn’t reassure children; ultimately, it makes them feel less secure. It may even create a vicious circle such that the more we slather on the praise, the more kids seem to need it, so we praise them some more. Sadly, some of these kids will grow into adults who continue to need someone else to pat them on the head and tell them whether what they did was OK. Surely this is not what we want for our daughters and sons.

3. Stealing a child’s pleasure. Apart from the issue of dependence, a child deserves to take delight in her accomplishments, to feel pride in what she’s learned how to do. She also deserves to decide when to feel that way. Every time we say, "Good job!", though, we’re telling a child how to feel.

To be sure, there are times when our evaluations are appropriate and our guidance is necessary -- especially with toddlers and preschoolers. But a constant stream of value judgments is neither necessary nor useful for children’s development. Unfortunately, we may not have realized that "Good job!" is just as much an evaluation as "Bad job!" The most notable feature of a positive judgment isn’t that it’s positive, but that it’s a judgment. And people, including kids, don’t like being judged.

I cherish the occasions when my daughter manages to do something for the first time, or does something better than she’s ever done it before. But I try to resist the knee-jerk tendency to say, "Good job!" because I don’t want to dilute her joy. I want her to share her pleasure with me, not look to me for a verdict. I want her to exclaim, "I did it!" (which she often does) instead of asking me uncertainly, "Was that good?"

4. Losing interest. "Good painting!" may get children to keep painting for as long as we keep watching and praising. But, warns Lilian Katz, one of the country’s leading authorities on early childhood education, "once attention is withdrawn, many kids won’t touch the activity again." Indeed, an impressive body of scientific research has shown that the more we reward people for doing something, the more they tend to lose interest in whatever they had to do to get the reward. Now the point isn’t to draw, to read, to think, to create – the point is to get the goody, whether it’s an ice cream, a sticker, or a "Good job!"

In a troubling study conducted by Joan Grusec at the University of Toronto, young children who were frequently praised for displays of generosity tended to be slightly less generous on an everyday basis than other children were. Every time they had heard "Good sharing!" or "I’m so proud of you for helping," they became a little less interested in sharing or helping. Those actions came to be seen not as something valuable in their own right but as something they had to do to get that reaction again from an adult. Generosity became a means to an end.

Does praise motivate kids? Sure. It motivates kids to get praise. Alas, that’s often at the expense of commitment to whatever they were doing that prompted the praise.

5. Reducing achievement. As if it weren’t bad enough that "Good job!" can undermine independence, pleasure, and interest, it can also interfere with how good a job children actually do. Researchers keep finding that kids who are praised for doing well at a creative task tend to stumble at the next task – and they don’t do as well as children who weren’t praised to begin with.

Why does this happen? Partly because the praise creates pressure to "keep up the good work" that gets in the way of doing so. Partly because their interest in what they’re doing may have declined. Partly because they become less likely to take risks – a prerequisite for creativity – once they start thinking about how to keep those positive comments coming.

More generally, "Good job!" is a remnant of an approach to psychology that reduces all of human life to behaviors that can be seen and measured. Unfortunately, this ignores the thoughts, feelings, and values that lie behind behaviors. For example, a child may share a snack with a friend as a way of attracting praise, or as a way of making sure the other child has enough to eat. Praise for sharing ignores these different motives. Worse, it actually promotes the less desirable motive by making children more likely to fish for praise in the future.

*

Once you start to see praise for what it is – and what it does – these constant little evaluative eruptions from adults start to produce the same effect as fingernails being dragged down a blackboard. You begin to root for a child to give his teachers or parents a taste of their own treacle by turning around to them and saying (in the same saccharine tone of voice), "Good praising!"

Still, it’s not an easy habit to break. It can seem strange, at least at first, to stop praising; it can feel as though you’re being chilly or withholding something. But that, it soon becomes clear, suggests that we praise more because we need to say it than because children need to hear it. Whenever that’s true, it’s time to rethink what we’re doing.

What kids do need is unconditional support, love with no strings attached. That’s not just different from praise – it’s the opposite of praise. "Good job!" is conditional. It means we’re offering attention and acknowledgement and approval for jumping through our hoops, for doing things that please us.

This point, you’ll notice, is very different from a criticism that some people offer to the effect that we give kids too much approval, or give it too easily. They recommend that we become more miserly with our praise and demand that kids "earn" it. But the real problem isn’t that children expect to be praised for everything they do these days. It’s that we’re tempted to take shortcuts, to manipulate kids with rewards instead of explaining and helping them to develop needed skills and good values.

So what’s the alternative? That depends on the situation, but whatever we decide to say instead has to be offered in the context of genuine affection and love for who kids are rather than for what they’ve done. When unconditional support is present, "Good job!" isn’t necessary; when it’s absent, "Good job!" won’t help.

If we’re praising positive actions as a way of discouraging misbehavior, this is unlikely to be effective for long. Even when it works, we can’t really say the child is now "behaving himself"; it would be more accurate to say the praise is behaving him. The alternative is to work with the child, to figure out the reasons he’s acting that way. We may have to reconsider our own requests rather than just looking for a way to get kids to obey. (Instead of using "Good job!" to get a four-year-old to sit quietly through a long class meeting or family dinner, perhaps we should ask whether it’s reasonable to expect a child to do so.)

We also need to bring kids in on the process of making decisions. If a child is doing something that disturbs others, then sitting down with her later and asking, "What do you think we can do to solve this problem?" will likely be more effective than bribes or threats. It also helps a child learn how to solve problems and teaches that her ideas and feelings are important. Of course, this process takes time and talent, care and courage. Tossing off a "Good job!" when the child acts in the way we deem appropriate takes none of those things, which helps to explain why "doing to" strategies are a lot more popular than "working with" strategies.

And what can we say when kids just do something impressive? Consider three possible responses:

* Say nothing. Some people insist a helpful act must be "reinforced" because, secretly or unconsciously, they believe it was a fluke. If children are basically evil, then they have to be given an artificial reason for being nice (namely, to get a verbal reward). But if that cynicism is unfounded – and a lot of research suggests that it is – then praise may not be necessary.

* Say what you saw. A simple, evaluation-free statement ("You put your shoes on by yourself" or even just "You did it") tells your child that you noticed. It also lets her take pride in what she did. In other cases, a more elaborate description may make sense. If your child draws a picture, you might provide feedback – not judgment – about what you noticed: "This mountain is huge!" "Boy, you sure used a lot of purple today!"

If a child does something caring or generous, you might gently draw his attention to the effect of his action on the other person: "Look at Abigail’s face! She seems pretty happy now that you gave her some of your snack." This is completely different from praise, where the emphasis is on how you feel about her sharing

* Talk less, ask more. Even better than descriptions are questions. Why tell him what part of his drawing impressed you when you can ask him what he likes best about it? Asking "What was the hardest part to draw?" or "How did you figure out how to make the feet the right size?" is likely to nourish his interest in drawing. Saying "Good job!", as we’ve seen, may have exactly the opposite effect.

This doesn’t mean that all compliments, all thank-you’s, all expressions of delight are harmful. We need to consider our motives for what we say (a genuine expression of enthusiasm is better than a desire to manipulate the child’s future behavior) as well as the actual effects of doing so. Are our reactions helping the child to feel a sense of control over her life -- or to constantly look to us for approval? Are they helping her to become more excited about what she’s doing in its own right – or turning it into something she just wants to get through in order to receive a pat on the head

It’s not a matter of memorizing a new script, but of keeping in mind our long-term goals for our children and watching for the effects of what we say. The bad news is that the use of positive reinforcement really isn’t so positive. The good news is that you don’t have to evaluate in order to encourage.

---

Copyright © 2001 by Alfie Kohn. This article may be downloaded, reproduced, and distributed without permission as long as each copy includes this notice along with citation information (i.e., name of the periodical in which it originally appeared, date of publication, and author's name). Permission must be obtained in order to reprint this article in a published work or in order to offer it for sale in any form. Please write to the address indicated on the Contact page at www.alfiekohn.org.

What are you thinking when you do it?

I spent December in South Africa with Nikolai. It was his first visit to SA, and although I was eager for him to see my home country and everything it had to offer, I was all too aware of the many things he'd see which would have him shaking his head and thinking, thank the Lord I live in Britain. Like so many South Africans, I've learned to smooth over the rough edges of my country with a fat dose of pride and optimism. I wanted Nikolai to see the best the country had to offer, although I was gritting my teeth in anticipation of the questions about the insistent poverty, unemployment, crime. But the one question that came up over and over on our trip was not about racism or poverty. It was about health. Specifically, the invisible spectre of HIV. Why was it invisible? Where was it lurking? And why was it still so threatening - why, in more than 10 years of knowing exactly how the disease is transmitted and how to avoid it, why are people still getting it?

According to current statistics available on the Internet, by 2005, approximately 10.8 of all South Africans over the age of 2 were living with HIV. Prevalence differs widely according to racial groups: around 13% of black South Africans carry the virus, whereas 0.6% of white South Africans, 1.9% of coloured South Africans and 1.6% of Indian South Africans carry it. Figures also vary for the different provinces:

Province	Number surveyed	Prevalence %
KwaZulu-Natal	2,729	16.5
Mpumalanga	1,224	15.2
Free State	1,066	12.6
North West	1,056	10.9
Gauteng	2,430	10.8
Eastern Cape	2,428	8.9
Limpopo	1,570	8.0
Northern Cape	1,144	5.4
Western Cape	2,204	1.9
Total	15,851	10.8

(Figures taken from http://www.avert.org/safricastats.htm for 2005)
Around 600,000 people per year die from the virus. That's around 1.2% of our population dying annually of HIV.

Now, Nikolai's unusually well-informed, and he asks questions. He wasn't all that surprised that the disease is not visible among the affluent, educated still-mostly-white suburbs of Cape Town. But out in the rural areas, he asked, do people know how it's spread? Yes, I said, I believe they do.

There's enough information available in every clinic, every hospital, every doctor's surgery, to tell them. Despite the government's attempts to deny the pandemic, there have been the efforts of the Lovelife campaign, and the TAC's drives to increase awareness. You don't need special access to special information to know that HIV is a deadly virus. You don't need to live in a particular suburb or city to know that you can prevent it by using condoms when you have sex. The information is out there. The country is awash in condoms, leaflets, billboards. Why, then, is the disease still spreading so fast?

We didn't meet anyone on the trip that could answer the question. It was only a couple of days after Nik had left, that I was having lunch in a little cafe in Kalk Bay, overlooking the Indian Ocean. The waitress was a cute twenty-something black girl, with funky dreads and a T-shirt with a photo of Nelson Mandela and the logo from the 46664 concert. Under the logo, in big letters, the T-shirt said: "ASK ME ABOUT HIV/Aids".

I pointed at the T-shirt. "Do a lot of people ask you about that?" I said to her. "About HIV and Aids?" She looked at the T-shirt as though she'd just remembered she was wearing it. "No, I think you're the first, you know."
"Why're you wearing it?"
"I used to work for Lovelife, you know," she said. She had a lovely clear husky voice. "We used to talk to people about Aids."
"And do you know anyone that has it?" I asked.
"Oh, yeah, lots," she said.
"Do they know about the disease? I mean, do they know how it's transmitted, and how to stop it from spreading?"
"Oh, yes, people know all about it. The thing is, their attitudes. Even though they know how you get it, they have this attitude that it can't happen to me. And then, a lot of people that have it, they have this idea that they should spread it."

So is that what it is? A combination of knowing the facts plus not caring? Is that enough to infect hundreds of thousands of people? What I want to know is, who are you? Are you having unprotected sex freely, or is someone forcing you? Are you admitting to yourself what's going on? What are you thinking when you do it? If you're reading this, please write and let me know. Cause I'm finding it very difficult to understand.

All in a day's work

I was on a plane to Belize, on my way to an author workshop, reading an in-flight magazine article about some high-flying London investment banker. Reading it made me think that when I grow up I should don black court shoes and expensive corporate couture and earn tons of money for brandishing something mysterious called power. Of course, I shouldn't. And here's why.

I'm here in Belize working with a team of teachers. That's one of the things I do for money (there are several): get teachers together and coax publishable textbooks out of them. It's sometimes fun, and occasionally it takes me to out-of the way places like Belize. (Map below for those of you that think I'm talking about somewhere in France.) But that's not why I shouldn't become a corporate ballbuster like Nicola Horlick.

Thing is, I heard today that one of my authors won't be able to complete the job. "There are serious problems at his school," said one of the others. The others looked up, with grim expressions, nodded and shook their heads with the kind of concern that tells you this is something a touch more serious than petty thievery or bullying or cheating on tests. In South Africa that expression means that the school is having issues with heroin or tik. In the US it means that a kid came to school armed with an automatic rifle. In Belize, however, we weren't talking drugs or homicide. We were talking...

"Demon possession."
I look carefully at the faces around me to check whether they're having me on. But no.
"Several of the children at the school have been possessed," I am told. "The demon seems to be near to the pit latrine," he adds helpfully.

He's not kidding. The school has been closed for several days, entire community in an uproar. It made national news. (For the article, click here.) Children have been hospitalised. A high-profile exorcist has been brought in at great expense (8000 dollars, I am told); the money has been raised from the concerned Belizean public. After all, what can one do when your community has been stricken with a nasty demon? Collect some cash and pay to get it taken out, that's what. The exorcist reportedly found a box containing - surprise, surprise - some dolls with pins stuck in them, and some sand with "a very particular odour". To prove that she wasn't "a mock", as my source called it, she led some representatives from the school to a graveyard, where she showed them some sand with a similar odour (although, being older, it obviously had a different colour).

Of the ten Belizeans in the room, not one had any degree of scepticism about the story. I wondered whether mine was written all over my face. Or whether they could see the other thought: you just don't get that in boardrooms in London, man. You just don't get that good voodoo shit up there on the 47th floor.

Belize
(the tiny country between Mexico, Guatamala and Honduras)