I would agree with this, Sara. The worst part about the Dommie model of parenting is that the children accustomed to that don't usually get exposed to any other options. The whole pattern is rigidly indoctrinating them into obedience to an all-powerful God and to their parents who are His vicars in their daily lives. In another sense, this kind of parenting can run very rapidly into an institutionalized and lauded form of child abuse.
You have a very real point in this, I think.
thanks for taking the time to write this down.
--A Dad
Very well thought out. Feels right, too.
A very insightful piece. I especially liked the parts addressing how authoritarianism and intense rebellion aganist authority are often linked, even in the same person. It has been a phenomenon I have noticed and never understood very well.
Speaking of David Hackett Fischer, are you going to do the final installment on Albion's Seed?
I'm in negotiations with ourfuture.org to run the existing pieces while I'm on vacation for the next three weeks. If they agree, that would pretty much commit me to write the final (two, actually) installments in late May and early June.
If we don't go that route, I'll try to get to it after the first of June. It's been impossible to find the time while school was in session and I had weekly blogging duties elsewhere, but summer may turn out to be a fine time for it.
I feel that loose end hanging out there. I do.
Great post!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...av=most_emailed
Really well put. People are, to great extents, products of their environments which includes their family structure as youths.
Conservative parents simply do not trust their own parenting skills and need made-up "traditions", laws written according to their own specific personal hangups, and arbitrary/arbitrarily-enfored "rules" to guide THEM. Of course they are going to run their deteriorating households that way; it's all they've got.
I would even say they completely distrust humanity in general and become or remain conservatives out of pure self-loathing. Generalizations? Yeah, sue me.
I often ask some of the Palin nutballs I've met during the course of my site, why do you need the state to tell you what your own children are doing (e.g. parental notification/consent laws) and why isn't that the very "socialism" you spend so much time weeping about?
Invariably, crickets rule the day.
I ran onto this site via an article now up at AlterNet which explores some of the basic philosophical/political underpinnings of conservative vs liberal mind-sets:
http://www.yourmorals.org/
The quizzes are enlightening.
This and the preceding essay are excellent. I grabbed part of the other one for a post of my own, the part in which you take Obama to the woodshed for wimping out.
Like you, I also grew up under an autocratic system which came from both parents. But my becoming an adult Liberal (much to their dismay) was more the result of getting politicized in my formative years than their parenting style. Generally speaking, though, you are correct about the authority/autonomy continuum. I toss this into the thread for a different take on the discussion.
When my wife and I married we looked around at other families with kids and came to the conclusion that how strict or permissive they were has less to do with their childrens' development than whether or not they were consistent. We saw children of strict, conservative families who "turned out well" and others from similar families who were "really messed up." Same was true for kids from permissive families.
We concluded that the operative difference was more about consistency than philosophy. I worked in a cafeteria, able to observe literally thousands of families as they went out to eat. I saw kids who were allowed to order for themselves and others whose well-meaning Mom had to approve or correct every decision. I don't have to tell you which kids seemed to be developmentally ahead in their maturity. (I had a hidden agenda because I was forever trying to move the line faster, but that is beside the point.)
Getting back to parenting, my wife and I decided that it is more important that the child receive unmixed messages than that the messages be either liberal or strict. Same is true of how parents react to their childrens' screw-ups. Sometimes you can be lovingly shocked and disappointed ("...you WHAT??!!"), other times truly sympathetic and supportive ("...don't take it so hard, the teacher doesn't realize she was being an asshole.")
But when Mom takes one tack and Dad takes the other, the result will be that together they will plant conflict in their child that may never be resolved. (We all know conflict because we instinctively learn early which parent will let us get away with stuff and will act as our defense council when we need to persuade the other one. But that's not the kind of conflict I'm talking about. When I say "conflict" I mean serious stuff, like in your illustration of a family member getting drunk and abusive and the rest of the family responding inappropriately.)
Our youngest is now past thirty and the nest is more or less empty (sometimes the canoes go paddling off but need to return for any number of life's little bumps) but over the years we have seen pretty good results. And the Liberal/Conservative divide really seems secondary to the Conflict/Consistency model. I hate to say it, but I know some well-adjusted people came from really ignorant Conservative roots (and never let go, even to the next generation). And I know several cases of really messed up Liberal adults whose philosophy is textbook Liberal but whose lives and those of their children are in a shambles.
I remain an old-school Sixties Liberal and have to bite my tongue at times because my wife and I don't agree on many issues political. But when it comes to our family, what we want them to remember of us is adult behavior and mutual respect, and those are values that fit both Liberal and Conservative models.
What a pile of warmed-over Freudian crud!
Freud was a pervert jew too!
Whether or not Freud held to the ethnic religion of his people is irrelevant, Josef.
Might I take it by that spelling that you are as much of a Jew hater as Josef Dzhugashvili?
Pavel,
Our new friend has left a slime trail across most of the threads. When given a choice between a "pervert" (of any particular faith, not just the Hebrew variety) and a gobshite like Josef, I will take the pervert any day.
Lemme guess, Daddy was a gentile?
"All those petty white goyim, ah dey goyim, dey are so authoritarian, they seek to molest you-vitz. Oy veh" Are you wringing your hands right now?
You have to realize that some people don't grow up surrounded by jewish neurosis, jewish drunks, or jewish child molesters. Or strange, not even stereotypes, but everything white is satanic beliefs akin to your cousin jewish neocon bloggers views on the Arab world. This blog orcinus, in fact, liberalism, represents just a different riff on neoconservatism. Because who are the neocons fighting but Islamic "patriarchy", Islamic "authoritarians", Islamic "white privilege", Islamic evil white people. The wars in Afganistan and Iraq are surragate wars against evil white people. The neoconservative is the liberal. The liberal use of our armed forces, for jewish corporate ends.
But Hannah Arendt, Alice Miller, David Hackett Fischer, and George Lakoff have all argued persuasively that what our parents teach us about power has a resounding effect on how we relate to power as adults.
No doubt, all are jews. Very similar to the names on the pages who drummed and sounded the horns to the Iraq and Afganistan wars. But they're "experts", and I'm just a goy. Right?
Your entire article is pro-war. As is any article that casually demonizes an entire people with lies. You have been revealed as another neocon. No wonder fellow neocon Dave took you aboard as co-blogger.
This article is pure anti-white hate based on jew neurosis projection.
Mrs R,
I'm guessing that your article was cross-posted at StormFront or some other WN cesspool. That would explain the arrival of the droolers.
I prefer this response to these Stormfronter Yahoos:
Hey, you Nazi fuckers....remember what happened the last time you got cute?
http://www.45thdivision.org/
Camp...Elbe_River5.jpg
Pavel,
Next time the Elbe might be the Mississippi.
I just made the mistake of phoning a friend in Portland OR to tell him about this article. It's 12:55 EDT as I write this. He really needs to read this.
By the way, I concur with your idea that religious conservatives in particular are raised with the idea that their minds and bodies are not their own. I grew up around people like that, and I was appalled at how their parents refused to let them be alone at any time, and how barren their rooms were. (To this day, I don't trust people who don't own lots of books.) If you're never allowed to be alone, except for sleeping anxiously with your hands outside the covers (and your parents will check), and further, that your upbringing tells you (sometimes literally) that your interior monologue is really the Voice of Satan, you're going to come out the other end a little bit messed up, or maybe a lot messed up.
I think that's also why RWAs are perfectly okay with war and executions, but not with abortion, because if God and the State tell you to go kill people, that's fine, but perish forbid a lowly woman (who is owned by men, the State, and God) should be able to decide what to do with her own body.
Gregory, as much as it pains me to admit it....you may be right.
And Interrobang, I made a little thought experiment by mentioning to various people at church the fact that the Soviet Union outlawed homosexuality and abortion. I was unsurprised to hear them refer to the Soviet method of dealing with gay and abortion as morals and ethics without God. I think that can speak for itself on the benefit of Dominionism. It is totalitarian at its core.
My sense is that there is an issue of historical/cultural heirarchy at work in the two spheres. ( of less authoritative or more authoritatian) - from the influence of religion, kings, whatever. Of course, there is a silver lining available in surviving the raising of being brought up in extreme authoritativeness, and that is that hopefully one will understand how truly screwed up it is- and transcend to the side of enlightened parenting with some authentic understanding. One of the great crimes of the colonization was the state asserting religio-boarding school discipline on Indian children, whom previously had a very natural, teach by example sense of community rearing: we're still very damaged by that. The ones most damaged have a very difficult time admitting to cultural trauma- the saddest lesson ever learned was the missionaries teaching of self-loathing, something they did quite well. That's the nature of authoritative patriarchy. Thank you, Sara
I teach in a state u in a bible belt state, and often get students who would probably be more comfortable in bible colleges, but here they are in the heart of the big city big campus secular Babylon. These students were usually reared in authoritarian fundamentalist homes, and they exhibit a strange combination of aggression and passivity. They aggressively attack ideas that conflict with their worldview, but passively accept things like... Dad coming to registration with them and overriding what the advisor says they have to take (that is, requirements) -- "They teach evolution in this biology class? She can't take that!"-- and in a few cases, suddenly withdrawing the student from school. (The students are going to be over 18, almost always.)
Sometimes they tell the most amazing stories about their homelife, like Dad forcing Mom out of the house because he discovered she had taken a job, or Dad (it's always Dad) abruptly taking the family away from their church and founding his own church centered on some seemingly trivial theological point. Or a sister who started wearing makeup and was thrown out and never heard from again.
Thank goodness, these are pretty extreme (though every semester, I get a few students with this sort of family), but it's easy to see how they would be appalled by the whole secular academic environment and teachers who challenge them to think and make logical arguments and base conclusions on evidence.
Fundamentalism plus authoritarianism -- the results can be mindblowing.
I am reminded of Chief Seattle's description of Christianity: "Your religion was written on tables of stone by the iron finger of an angry God".
That sounds like a RWA dad to me.
Kids of lib parents end up with no direction. I know quite a few who ended up joining the White nationalist movement. We give them some real meaning in their lives. They see their parents, who are just into their own petty enjoyments and "being nice," those "liberal" Oprah watching souls like overcooked spaghetti, limp, tasteless starch, parroting what they heard on the television.
Children, racism is bad, m'kay? And by "racism" I mean white people, m'kay?
And Sara, I remember you forcing your kid to watch a work of overwrought, propagandistic, massively overblown fiction, "Schindler's List" which is in black and white so people think they are watching "actual footage of the Holocaust."
You admitted it right on this board. Now that's child abuse right there. I understand you think it isn't, but it most certainly is.
I especially liked the parts addressing how authoritarianism and intense rebellion aganist authority are often linked, even in the same person.
Liberals make up the management class, "conservatives", the laborers.
There is no doubt in my mind that Sara and Dave are or have been shift managers for some depressing shit-pay corporate outfit. It's in their scummy condecendingness they toss upon all of America. "Who the fuck are you? Do you actually think your somebody?" is the best response to Dave or Sara's bullshit. Something they have probably heard thousands of times whenever they aired their opinions in public, attributing such outbursts to "authoritarian" upbringing of course.
As I understand it, there are three basic types of upbringing, not two. There is, for want of better terms, Strict Father, Nurturant Parent, and Permissive. Most people mix up NP and Permissive, but they are not the same.
Yes I am a Great Fan of the Man of Steel Josef Stalin, however I just got my user-name from a random name generator, Nazi name generator.
http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/...s/namegen/3966/
However I am more of a National Bolshevik type and do in fact feel at home with zionist hating leftists talking about Marytr Rachel Corrie or David Icek as I work to bring about the Imperium.
PS Good posts anti-zionist
National Bolshevism? You're kidding, right? Nazism was intended to eliminate Bolshevism as an intended Manifest Destiny shooting not for Seattle-San Diego but Volga-Archangel. Jesus, this just gets stupider and stupider.
so people think they are watching "actual footage of the Holocaust."
Hah, what? Where did you get that notion from? Does anyone really believe "actual footage" exists?
However I am more of a National Bolshevik type and do in fact feel at home with zionist hating leftists talking about Marytr Rachel Corrie or David Icek as I work to bring about the Imperium.
Bullshit
There is no doubt in my mind that Sara and Dave are or have been shift managers for some depressing shit-pay corporate outfit. It's in their scummy condecendingness they toss upon all of America. "Who the fuck are you? Do you actually think your somebody?" is the best response to Dave or Sara's bullshit.
This commenter reveals more about their own personality through this fantasy than about Dave or Sara.
If you're interested in discovering your parenting style based on the latest research, please check out the Parenting Style Application by Signal Patterns on Parenting.com.
The underlying model developed by our team of psychologists reveals an underlying complexity far richer than just 'strict' or 'relaxed' classifications.
And what's particularly interesting is that you can take the test for a spouse and see where potential conflicts might lie and get advice on how to deal w/them. You can also compare results to your friends'.
David -- Is there any science behind it? As I said above, the scientific community divides parenting into three dimensions, not two.
"... it's easy to see how they would be appalled by the whole secular academic environment and teachers who challenge them to think and make logical arguments and base conclusions on evidence."
Hence, their hatred/fear of/disdain for education ...
"complexity far richer than just 'strict' or 'relaxed' classifications"
I don't think "authoritarian" = "strict" and "liberal" = "relaxed" as you seem to imply here. You are using very colloquial/common-sense terms to replace very academic, precise terms, and doing so in a way that disregards and/or trivializes the point that was being made in the first place. By entering the discussion this way, you show a certain disingenuousness that you may or may have intended ...
Sara, I'd be interested in hearing your thought on the apparent paradox between your description of liberal vs. conservative law philosophy ("the conservative worldview is far more obsessed generally with the issue of control -- when in doubt, clamp down hard and fast [...]. The liberal worldview tends to trust people and the world in general...") and the fact that the gun control debate tends to break along with opposite lines, wherein the typical "liberal" position is to be more controlling/less trusting.
LOL IRL, anti-zionist is the funniest troll here yet.
Ethr, that's a truly great question.
Lakoff makes the point (which I repeated early in this post) that both frame sets operate in most people simultaneously, though most of us will generally lean one way or the other most of the time. As I noted, people at all ends of the spectrum will tend to go authoritarian on issues where they don't feel very much in control, and more liberal on issues where their confidence is higher.
The gun control issue is the classic American urban/rural split. Rural folks feel an easy sense of control with firearms. We're raised with them (I fired my first gun at the age of five), we're proud of our ability to use them safely and well, and we rely on them as an essential tool for controlling vermin and bagging food as well as home defense in remote areas. And so we feel, well, liberal on this issue, regardless of our politics in other areas.
Urban folks, on the other hand, have an entirely different experience with firearms. In their world, the only people with guns are criminals; and the only thing that happens when guns are used is that people die. Guns in densely-packed cities are a major danger -- and one urban folks feel very out-of-control about. As a result, they'll tend to go for authoritarian solutions to the problem, regardless of their politics in other areas.
Both camps are making absolutely accurate assessments of what's appropriate for their own situations. The city folks are legitimately scared of guns, for good reasons. The rural folks are legitimately not scared of guns, also for good reasons. The trouble starts when scared urbanites (who tend to be generally politically liberal) try to do the authoritarian thing, which is impose the laws they find necessary on rural America-- which finds those laws not only unnecessary but more than a little insulting.
The Democrats have very wisely backed way off this issue. It took them 20 years, but they finally figured out that this was one of the biggest divides separating them from rural America, and they'd best leave it be.
Which is why it's so ironic that the right wing is so up in arms about "Obama's gonna take our guns." As if a guy who's facing two wars, a climate crisis, an incipient pandemic, and the biggest economic crisis in the nation's history is going to give his time and attention to that?
This was a truly fascinating article and I agree with the commentary above about the problems with classical terms as applied to parenting. My wife and I are quite liberal in that we want our kids to have say in what courses they take and how they are going to direct their own lives. Other than that we are incredibly strict. No or very little TV, very little computer time, time at the mall with friends is supervised (peripherally). But the main thing that people see when they interact with our kids is how thoughtful, polite and independent they are, which was our goal. As they get older they get more responsibility (with the accompanying accountability) with the assumption that they will first be responsible for themselves, and eventually, will be responsible as parents.
I guess my main point is that "liberal" is not equal to "relaxed" at all.
It's interesting to me that so many people assumed that "liberal parenting" included "relaxed," even though my description of it in both posts didn't include that idea at all.
In fact, I was making the exact opposite point: that liberal parenting is about logical and natural consequences -- which is to say, the kind of accountability that the world is likely to dish out if you can't find it in you to discipline yourself. (And, as we all know, nature and society can be damned strict in how they hold people accountable for their actions.) The difference is a matter of trust: we trust that if we put our kids in learning situations, they'll probably be smart enough to draw the right conclusions (with help from us -- gee, did you notice what happened there? -- as needed).
Authoritarian parenting doesn't trust you any farther than it can throw you. It will tell you right up front what the right conclusions are, and what will happen to you if you even try to test them -- and you are expected to follow that rule, without any further experience or discussion. As a result, you never get to find out for yourself where the real-world boundaries and consequences of your actions are.
A quick example: At 18 months, my daughter discovered she could climb up on the back of the sofa, and use it as a balance beam. (The sofa wasn't all that tall -- maybe 30" off the carpeted floor.) One day when my mom was visiting, D was entertaining herself this way while we sat nearby and talked. My mother kept trying to jump up out of her chair to pull the baby off the sofa, but letting me be the mom, restrained herself admirably.
Finally, she spoke up: "Aren't you going to stop her?"
"Nope," I replied. "The first time she falls off, it's going to hurt a little -- and she's going to learn something about how gravity works. She's a smart kid. She'll only do it once."
My mother, to her credit, laughed and laughed.
I could have spent the next six months doing the authoritarian-mom thing and protecting her from the lesson, which would have frustrated both of us and resulted in no learning. Or I could simply let her have the lesson -- falling 30 inches is scary, and you get bumped up pretty good -- and learn from it, and move on.
"She's a smart kid -- she'll only do it once" became a sort of parenting mantra for me after that. If they weren't likely to suffer serious bodily harm or incur property damage from some experiment, I usually let them give it a try. It's how we figure out how the world really works, and learn to trust our own judgment -- something you can never learn by somebody making a pile of rules and threatening you.
One of those right-wing parenting books Sara alluded to was written by a guy named Reb Bradley and prominently promoted at WorldNetDaily:
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.a...asp?
ITEM_ID=939
His main tips: "1) Keep your objective in mind – subjection of their will, 2) Require quick obedience, and 3) Teach your children to obey without being told 'why.'"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=...ew&
pageId=37738
Bradley has also written a book claiming that "liberalism is the natural condition of the human heart and for people to be capable of self-government, they must be trained against their own nature" and called Obama voters immature:
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/
st...ndimmature.html
Wow. Thankyou for this article. I had never been able to articulate this to myself, but my parents operated that way a lot. Without the religion, and because they thought it was best, so it wasn't a bad childhood. But it definitely explains why we clashed and it definitely explains what I have been trying to un-learn myself as an adult. Thankyou.
Of course there are the nutty rightists like a family member of mine who asserted with absolute certainty
"Liberals don't teach their kids ethics."
And he's not interested in counterexamples. He knows. And he's only in his early 30s. Don't even try to reason with him on this.
It's interesting to me that so many people assumed that "liberal parenting" included "relaxed," even though my description of it in both posts didn't include that idea at all.
"Liberals don't teach their kids ethics."
these are examples of what I was saying about people confusing liberal upbringing with permissive upbringing -- they are not the same thing at all.
Liberals have rules and conservatives have rules -- they are different systems of thought and different aims, but they both have rules. Permissive is where there aren't much in the way of rules. How can you learn wisdom that way?
Kim what my relative would insist is that liberals turn their households into democratic (small "d") free-for-alls, where no boundaries are drawn.
Yes, he does confuse liberal with libertine, but he doesn't see it as confused. Nothing you say can convince him of anything other than the idea that liberals produce spoiled brats who are promiscuous, drug-using, authority disrespecting, Godless heathens.
I think that's also why RWAs are perfectly okay with war and executions, but not with abortion, because if God and the State tell you to go kill people, that's fine, but perish forbid a lowly woman (who is owned by men, the State, and God) should be able to decide what to do with her own body.
Bingo! Killing is a male prerogative.
Sadie.....did you ever stop to read about the Amazons of Dahomey? Or the female concentration camp guards? Or how one of America's first female heroes murdered Indians?
Killing may be a male perogative now, but women are just as capable at it as men are. They aren't a panacea to the world's ills. Those ills are too powerful for either gender to arrest...
Yes there are female heros out there.
Leni Riefenstahl and Eva Braun immediaely come to mind!
why, they remind you of your whorish mom?
liberals produce spoiled brats who are promiscuous, drug-using, authority disrespecting, Godless heathens.
I'm two for five here. My kids aren't spoiled (they have nice manners, and are kind) and they don't use drugs.
The other three are relative. By my lights, they're not promiscuous, either -- my almost-19-year-old is active, but a seriously serial monogamist. A conservative would find it horrifying that we don't interfere with her love life; but it's hers, and she makes incredibly good choices in this area, so we've never seen a reason to get involved.
As far as respect for authority: we're going through a little patch with my son right now, but he's 16 and pushing against the fences is sort of his job right now. As noted in the first post, we've recently given him a pretty thorough wing-clipping, which seems to have straightened him out nicely. Neither one of them has the least bit of use for petty tyrants -- regardless of what uniform they're wearing -- but they came by that honestly enough on both sides. Again, a conservative would consider this a problem; but I consider it a sign that I've raised people competent to democracy.
Their relative Godfulness or Godlessness is between them and God, and thus none of my business. My 16-year-old goes to church every week. His sister doesn't.
In my view, the teen years are a provisional adulthood. My kids are empowered to experiment with pretty much every aspect of adult life, within guidelines set by us to keep them safe. The last thing I want is for a kid to turn 18 without a clue about how to manage sex, drinking and drugs, driving, money, and the rest of it on their own. That's where the fundie kids I know often got off-track, because their parents "protected" them right out of learning the things they needed to know to run their own lives.
One more thing: In all fairness, I need to note that my very favorite parenting books were written by a conservative psychologist who's popular in Evangelical circles, Dr. John Rosemond.
Rosemond is very moderate. His parenting style is incredibly respectful of the kids and their learning process. His advice for raising teens, in particular, is simply the best I've ever seen (basically, give them enough rope to hang themselves -- a little bit, just to see what it feels like). His liberal cred is actually pretty good, except that he does advocate limited spanking, which is probably the only reason he's in bad odor with progressive parents.
I suspect his identification with the moderate right has to do with the fact that a) he's in North Carolina and b) it seemed like a better market for his books. For a parent like me who was trying to make peace between authoritarian ghosts and the need to do something different, though, he hit me in exactly the right place.
No, Jeronimus, child abuse (or adult abuse) is making someone watch the Holocaust movie Shoah - *at one sitting, without a bathroom break*.
The movie is some 12 hours long, and all talking heads.
All parents need a NOW! tone of voice, for danger and emergencies. It helps if the NOW! tone of voice is used infrequently, so the kid isn't accustomed to hearing it. It has to be different from mere discipline. Liberal parents have this tone of voice, as well as conservative parents. Kids need to be directed in house fires, stopped in their tracks from running across the busy street, etc.
NancyP -- interesting that you mention that "Now" tone of voice. My incredibly oppositional step-son surprised me by obeying instantly that one time I used it on him. But, yes, it's important to reserve it for when it's needed.
After, I put my arm around him and thanked him for hearing my tone of voice. He never did ask why it was important to leave right then -- it wasn't obvious. I guess that's trust.
My upbringing was pretty nearly classic Dr. Spock -- as liberal as you can get.
Well said, Mrs. R.
Your's sounds like my sister's family even down to approximate children ages. Both her boys still go to Methodist church as far as I know though Melany said she plans to return to the UU's when the boys begin to make their own spiritual decisions.
This post is integrated with some truth, but more experence related opinions as it should be. Afterall it is a personal blog put in a public forum. It wasn't written to be an authoritative document. I do agree that a parent cannot be solely authoritarian and have an equally balanced child. All parents owe their children protection and safety and it appears your childhood was laced with many negative experiences. None of these experiences or scenarios come close to the Biblical framework of child raising so if there is a claim you were raised in a church going home I am sorry for the hypocrisy you experienced. I almost sensed a bit of the Obama quoted stereotype in your descriptions of the conservative parent, but done in a more eloquent and lengthy fashion. I personally claim neither the label of conservative or liberal, because it appears all such molds have gone in extremely unbiblical directions. If you are a book reader and it appears you are there are some good resources on how to be a good parent. Bringing up Boys (Dobson), Dare to Discipline (Dobson), Shepherding a Child's Heart (Tripp), Be Strong and Courageous (Yount). They offer extensive research and a lot less in the opinion area.
A most excellent set of points Mrs R Perhaps another person who has learned a great deal both professionally and personally in this area Phillip Zembardo talked about his recent work in The Time Paradox that also addresses many of the issues discussed.
Commenting by HaloScan
