PSYCH-The Catcher In The Rye/The Gift of Failure

The following information is used for educational purposes only.

The Catcher In The Rye

By Sandeep Gautam

Jan 1, 2012



Steve, in his article ‘The Gift of Failure', implies, that trying to inculcate self-esteem in your children is counter-productive and has done an entire generation a disservice. Also he seems to be critical of parents who try to protect and facilitate their children and would rather prefer parents that prepared their children for an unpredictable and inhospitable world.

While I agree with the broader thesis that overprotecting your children or never exposing them to challenges is counterproductive and harmful, I do have some concerns in the way Steve makes his case and the sort of parenting style - an off hands/ spectator parenting style, if I may speculate, - that he implicitly encourages.

Firstly, research in child attachment shows that children need a secure base of attachment and a trustable, and not capricious or unpredictable, relationship with a primary caregiver to become secure in their later relationship styles and to explore their environment properly. For e.g., a child who is securely attached is more likely to explore his environment more fully if the primary caregiver is nearby, than if he is absent or not available. Of course this doesn't mean, not providing any space to your child to become independent and autonomous, but at a critical stage in childhood it's better to just be there when the child needs you.

They need to be able to count on their parents/ other attachment figures unconditionally and their interaction with parents/ primary caregivers should not be modelled like that with other relationships they may encounter in the future- unpredictable or capricious. As a matter of fact those children, whose parents do exhibit such unpredictable/ capricious behaviour, lead to very insecurely attached children, which have later immense problems in adjusting to the world.

But one may counter that the attachment research I am alluding to is more pertinent at the infant/ toddler stage but not in early/ middle childhood or teenage stages. In these older childhood states perhaps its better not to give unconditional love, regard and efforts to instil self-love and self--esteem. Perhaps here an off-hands approach is better. Let the child fall / fail and learn.

Consider a toddler learning to walk; the parents cannot avoid all falls he will have; and neither is the child discouraged by any falls he may have; this is primarily because the child has already seen many older child develop walking skills and knows that he can also learn to walk- its only a matter of trying, and failing, for a few times. Yet the parent takes adequate precaution that while the toddler is learning to walk, he doesn't get seriously hurt- he is always watched on and protected.

A toddler is by nature resilient; but as he grows older he starts failing and not rebounding back. Serious thought will lead us to find out that the reason is that he never knew the meaning or label of ‘failure' earlier- he was trying to walk- something didn't work and he tried again. He knew others have done it and so too can he. He was confident. As he grows older he is started to be labelled a failure; he flunked a maths test and is given a fail grade; without adequate modelling or exposure to people like him who have flunked maths test but later become prodigies in maths, he internalizes the failure and stops trying.

The problem is not self-esteem; if anything self-esteem or ‘confidence no matter what' is the solution. The problem is labelling something/ someone a failure. If anything, once labelled a failure, the child needs a lot of unconditional love, support, encouragement and self-love and self-esteem to keep trying despite repeated failures to overcome the challenge and master the skill.

Thinking in terms of victories or failures is immensely counterproductive and that is why rank system in classes were replaced with grade systems and trophies given for just showing up- for the courage to take the test - or perform on stage- rather than for only winning or succeeding.

Failures are not to be encouraged per se, it's not ok to say that let the child fail more- as long as society doesn't have adequate safety nets and instead promptly starts labelling such children failures, those failures are counterproductive. Let the children stretch just beyond their comfort zone and be there to guide and facilitate, or scaffold their learning; if you really care about your child. Exposing them to failures, expecting more and more and encouraging them to take more than they can chew, or challenging them beyond their abilities such that they constantly keep failing, will only lead to scarred and bruised children who may become ‘learned helpless' by constant exposure to failures without adequate safety nets in terms of endowing in them a ‘growth mindset' rather than a ‘fixed mindset'.


With the inculcation of growth mindset- which praises efforts -for just showing up- rather than praises inherent talent - or winning the game - one can create that adequate safety net for children, where they can take challenges head on, and on failing not internalize, generalize or make permanent attributions about their ability or start viewing themselves as a failure.

A superficial, off-hands approach to parenting, with the noble intentions, of making your child fit for a dog-eat-dog world, will only backfire and lead to broken and depressed children.
Another safety net is exposing to people who have been there- done that- failed earlier and risen again. Failure, as is, is very common; we don't need to create more failure opportunities than are already available. If failure, without an adequate safety net was good, students going from high school to college and suffering setbacks in the first term would have become more resilient and fit for the world.

Unfortunately, research by Timothy Wilson, shows that such students, if not intervened properly, get from bad to worse grades as semesters progress. However, exposing them to other students which had failed earlier and had later regained good grades, restores their confidence - and that confidence leads to later competence - they actually increase their scores later as semesters progress.

It is imperative to understand that confidence comes first and competence later- the converse view that Steve promulgates is more in line with fixed mindset: I aced the test, that's why I am good; let me not venture for more difficult tests or I might be exposed. A growth mindset however has confidence first and foremost and ability only follows later with efforts put in place.

There is a lot of research on power of beliefs- how a group of students told that they are A grade students would actually get A grades (and same is true in workplace- the employees randomly put on fast track do actually get on fast track) - this is proof enough that confidence, belief and self-confidence come first- competence only follows it.

While Steve is right in drawing attention to the larger problem of overprotecting our children or not exposing them to challenge or encouraging them to stretch beyond their comfort zones; a layman interpretation of ‘failures are good' and ‘inculcating unconditional self-love/self-confidence/ self -esteem is bad' is totally counterproductive and would do disservice to a whole new generation.

Failure is not a gift; but the real gift is the attitude we can inculcate in our children to face the inevitable failures that will come their way and the self-esteem/ confidence in them that they can develop skills / competence, no matter what their current level, by constantly keeping on trying and learning and trying again (and perhaps never thinking of a failed trial as a failure)
While it's important to prepare the children for the road, it's equally important to prepare the road for them. Unless society provides safety nets that doesn't lead to labelling a child as a failure, or exposes them to adequate role models, we are better off, if we do not expose our children to ‘failures', but only to ‘trials and experimentations'.

Until we reach that ideal world, where failure is not looked down upon, and does not lead to labelling and internalization, we may be better off protecting our children from needless failures by exposing and facilitating them to challenges that lie just beyond their comfort zone, but are not too difficult or stretched.

Source: www.psychologytoday.com

****************************************************************************

The Gift of Failure


By Steve Baskin

Dec 31 2011


When talking with the parents of our summer campers, I often talk about the many ways that children grow at camp; discovering themselves while away from their parents' shadows. I love the chance for campers to challenge themselves and feel the excitement of triumph. I also love watching them learn to cope with disappointment and even failure, because this will teach them to deal with adversity later in life.

During one such conversation with one of my favorite camp moms, she shared this story.

Her son had decided to clean his room (a shock in and of itself) and he had come to his trophies and ribbons. His mom arrived to see that he had created two piles: one large and one small.

"What are the different piles?"

Pointing to the small pile, he said, "those are the awards from the tournaments and meets that I won." He then dismissively pointed at the larger pile, "those are the ones I got just for showing up. I am throwing them away."

When she shared this with me, I pictured all the well-meaning organizers and coaches who had arranged unearned awards for his entire life in an effort to give him greater self-esteem. Clearly, it did not fool him.

The self-esteem movement has done an entire generation a deep disservice. It started with the best intentions. In 1969, Nathaniel Brandon wrote a paper entitled "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" that suggested that "feelings of self-esteem were the key to success in life". Hearing this, many people started to find ways to confer confidence upon our children. This resulted in competitions where everyone gets a trophy and no one actually wins. "New games" attempted to engage children without any winners or losers.

The parents who embraced these efforts did so out of love and with the most noble of intentions. The only problem is that these efforts simply do not work. Self-esteem is not something conferred, it is earned through taking risks and developing skills. When children stretch themselves, they expand their sense of their own capability and then feel confident to tackle the next challenge. Confidence comes form competence - we do not bestow it as a gift.

Relatedly, we also spend too much time protecting our children from any pain or adversity. We hate to see them struggle and we suffer when they suffer. But the same loving envelope that protects them from pain also protects them from growth.

In her book Blessing of a Skinned Knee, Dr Wendy Mogel suggests that children insulated from unpleasant situations or challenges become less capable to deal with adversity. She notes that college deans are seeing a growth in incoming "teacups": students so overprotected by their parents that there are effectively incapable of functioning in the new (and parentless) world of higher education. They encounter adversity and "chip like a teacup".

Harvard Psychiatrist Dr. Dan Kindlon writes in Too Much of a Good Thing that parents often focus on making sure their children avoid pain and disappointment. As a result, they often fight their children's battles for them and insulate them from difficult experiences. In his private practice, he observes that these children feel less capable and are more likely to struggle in relationships and with challenges. They also can feel guilty when they are not feeling happy.

By protecting our children, we do them a double disservice. First, we insulate them from experiences that can facilitate growth and resilience. Second, by actively protecting them, we send them the message that they are not capable of coping on their own.

I think much of this problem comes from the having the wrong goal of parenting. If we see ourselves primarily as protectors and facilitators, we see challenges as potential sources of discomfort.

Instead, we should see ourselves as preparing our children to be independent, confident and capable. We should protect less and instead seek out experiences that will develop their resilience and optimism. Here, I define optimism as the belief that an individual's actions can affect his or her circumstances and that difficult situations are temporary.

We must prepare our children for a world that is often unpredictable and even inhospitable - that is the gift of resilience.

We must also provide them with a philosophical framework that enables them to understand that even if everything is not ideal, life is still worth embracing with joy and excitement - that is the gift of optimism.

In order to do this, we need to allow them to struggle and strive without us. We must also allow them to occasionally fail. It is not fun, but it could be the greatest gift we provide them.

To quote Dr Mogel one final time, it is our job to prepare our children for the road, not prepare the road for our children.

Source: www.psychologytoday.com