November 19, 2009

Fearless Kids Go On To Become Criminals


so he was wrong?


In trying to understand, you have to follow that path of the reader, not the writer.  Here is what they see.

I.

'Fearless' 3-year olds might be tomorrow's criminals

Children who are fearless at 3 years of age might just be poised for a life of crime.  According to a new study, poor fear conditioning at the tender age of 3 can predispose that person to break the law as an adult. Yet other factors, such as education... also play a role, the researchers concluded....

Specifically, what Gao and his associates set out to determine is whether dysfunction of the amygdala, an almond-shaped mass... leads to an inherent intrepidness and disregard for the law.

Every single one of these sentences is a lie.

II.

The study, Association of Poor Fear Conditioning and Adult Crime, is three pages long in which the word "amygdala" appears 17 times.  However, the study has nothing at all to do with the amydgala.  It measures something that is thought to originate in the amygdala.   To say that "specifically" Gao was studying the amgydgala is like saying that when Fox News reports on Obama, they are "specifically" referring to Hawaii.  Nor does the study have much to do with fearlessness as I'll show.

But the news article links permanently three unrelated words: "fearlessness" "crime" and "amygdala."


III.

The study, started in 1970, tested 3 year olds for a "fear response" and then followed these kids over 20 years.

Two decades later Gao and his team tracked down 137 study participants who had committed serious crimes.  These individuals had shown an absence of fear during testing at age 3, whereas 274 study participants who had grown to adulthood without a criminal record had displayed typical fear responses.
Create your own narrative: "fearless" babies grow up undisturbed by consequence, punishment, or threats to their own safety, and live a life of immediacy and selfishness.

But "fear" has nothing to do with it.  Babies were hooked up to a sweat monitor, and subjected to Pavlovian classical conditioning:   Every time they played a sound (say, "doorbell") they followed it with the sound of a "car crash."  So the babies were conditioned to anticipate "car crash" whenever they heard "doorbell"-- and so would sweat more. 

Sweating upon hearing the loud noise indicated a sense of fear, while no sweat meant the child lacked fear -- that is, had poor fear conditioning.

Not exactly.  Sweating meant they had been conditioned.  By example, all babies would exhibit "fear" when they heard only a car crash.  What was going on here was that some  babies had increased sweat when they heard the doorbell-- i.e. they had been conditioned-- and some didn't.

The false link is to couple "conditioning" with "fear" and then amygdala.  But this paradigm isn't really about fear; and while the amygdala is implicated in fear and conditioning of many different kinds that all fall under the umbrella of "fear conditioning" (e.g. taste aversion, etc), the role of the amydgala is drastically altered depending on what conditioning paradigm you use.(1)   

Apparently, those that didn't respond to the conditioning went on to be criminals.

IV.

Well, that's not exactly true either.


Results
No main effects of criminal offender group or stimulus type  were  found.  A  significant  group-by-stimulus  inter-action  indicated  that  the  criminal  offender  group  failed to  show  fear  conditioning  at  age  3  (F=4.554,  df=1,  409, p=0.033)  (see  Figure  2). The  comparison  group  (N=274) showed  a  greater  response  to  the  CS+  than  to  the  CS- (t=2.852, df=273, p=0.005; d=0.345), whereas the offender group (N=137) failed to show this effect (t =-0.604, df=136, p=n.s.; d=-0.104).

Those three sentences represent the entire body of information and discussion on the results of the study.  The first half of the paper is introduction and methods; the last half is discussion about the amygdala and speculations on the neurobiology of crime that have nothing at all to do with the study they conducted.  Go see if I'm lying.

And, you will notice, the study failed on its primary outcome.  Here's the context: 1700 kids were studied.  20 years later, only 137 had become criminals.  Looking at the original conditioned response data, there was no way to predict which 137 were going to become criminals.  Starting with the criminals and working backwards, they were only slightly less responsive to the conditioning than a selection of controls.

V.


So what do the results mean for individuals with fear conditioning deficits and their loved ones, and for society at large? It's a wake-up call about potential problems, said Gao and other experts in the field. To enhance the proper working of the amygdala, which is believed to reduce criminal behavior in later life, enrichment programs are essential.

I'll admit, having lived through 20 years of the "decade of the brain" I didn't fully appreciate the shift in direction modern psychiatry was taking.  They have moved from a "fixed trait," "everything is genetic" bias, to a "neurodevelopmental dysfunction" bias. 

The importance of this bias is entirely social, not scientific, as the science itself is the same, only the interpretation differs.  This new interpretation allows early intervention programs to target the biological aspects, and not the social aspects.  It justifies psychiatry to use its techniques for social change, which it had previously been doing without official sanction.

You say: "Are you insane?  We couldn't do anything about criminality before; now maybe we can.  Why is that so bad?"  Because you can't do anything about it at all.  Because you can't do anything about it at all. You had these same medications and techniques before but they didn't work and you didn't really expect that they'd work.  Believing that they will work now won't change anything.

This is the reclassification of social ills as "neurodevelopmental disorders;" the offloading sociology to psychiatry.

Addressing parental concerns, Benedek added: "Don't be discouraged if your child has early brain dysfunction. It doesn't mean that he or she is going to grow up and be a criminal. The brain can change and grow."

My God, my God.

---

http://twitter.com/thelastpsych






Comments

Hear, hear. And to think it... (Below threshold)

November 19, 2009 7:34 PM | Posted by anon84: | Reply

Hear, hear. And to think it took a psychiatrist to say something!

No, I'm serious. The current direction that psychology is taking cloaks neuro-porn as 'cognitive science'. It's offensive to see such blatant bullshitting. Whatever gets you the grant, I guess...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Like saying "people with bi... (Below threshold)

November 19, 2009 7:38 PM | Posted by Diego: | Reply

Like saying "people with big feet turn out to be great soccer players" I asume.

The bridge between social disfunction and brain disorders then, should it be burnt?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Would it be pessimistic to ... (Below threshold)

November 19, 2009 7:45 PM | Posted by anon: | Reply

Would it be pessimistic to imagine things slowly going to hell over the next few decades? This genes-cause-everything paradigm that's popular (among the general population as well) really does seem to create a huge divide between reality and what people are brainwashed into thinking.

I'm almost too scared to imagine what things will be like in 50 years or so... Maybe when they start purging the genome of what they see as "bad genes". Hopefully this isn't too naive, since I'm not a doctor... but in any case, I can't really see common sense gaining in popularity any time soon...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Well, they'll stone you whe... (Below threshold)

November 19, 2009 9:56 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Well, they'll stone you when you're at the breakfast table.
They'll stone you when you are young and able.
They'll stone you when you're trying to make a buck.
They'll stone you and then they'll say, "good luck."
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Ah! I saw this article and ... (Below threshold)

November 19, 2009 10:40 PM | Posted by kayleighkins: | Reply

Ah! I saw this article and didn't read it. I naturally assumed it was full of shit. I am glad you actually took the steps to tell me exactly why though, very interesting how data is twisted.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Remembering these batman bo... (Below threshold)

November 20, 2009 9:52 AM | Posted by Hiruko: | Reply

Remembering these batman books made me shiver. The rest is just as scary though.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I often hear doorbells foll... (Below threshold)

November 20, 2009 10:32 AM | Posted by James Bressi: | Reply

I often hear doorbells followed by car crashes. Glad to see it's not just me =)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
No surprises here, it's an ... (Below threshold)

November 20, 2009 12:05 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

No surprises here, it's an A. Raine article.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I saw that article referenc... (Below threshold)

November 20, 2009 2:15 PM | Posted by Mae: | Reply

I saw that article referenced in the news and fervently hoped you'd tackle it. Good Lord.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I was going to write about ... (Below threshold)

November 21, 2009 7:58 AM | Posted by Neuroskeptic: | Reply

I was going to write about this myself, you got there first, well done but...

"And, you will notice, the study failed on its primary outcome. Here's the context: 1700 kids were studied. 20 years later, only 137 had become criminals. Looking at the original conditioned response data, there was no way to predict which 137 were going to become criminals. Starting with the criminals and working backwards, they were only slightly less responsive to the conditioning than a selection of controls."

How do you know? They don't present data on the predictive power of the test. From the graph, it looks like the control kids had marked fear conditioning and the future-criminal kids had zero. Unforgivably, they don't present error bars or variances. But you're just speculating.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I assume you're asking h... (Below threshold)

November 21, 2009 3:53 PM | Posted, in reply to Neuroskeptic's comment, by Alone: | Reply

I assume you're asking how I know it was only "slightly less." I am speculating: but is .02 (the difference between controls and criminals) a significant difference?

It would be helpful, as you point out, to have that information: but the best I can get you is a similar paper... published the same year... by the same authors... using the same 1700 kids... but in a different journal? that stops at age 8 instead of 23. Hmmm.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02176.x

in that study, the mean response (of everyone) was .065 SD .071. So there you go.

That other paper had two other interesting findings: first, actual fear/anxiety (not conditioning) was not correlated to conditioning. Second: at age 8, there was a fairly clear association between conditioning and aggressiveness. Does this association diminish as one ages? Seems so.

So then you have to ask why two separate papers were written, beyond the obvious "for the CV." It is entirely likely that the weak data with adult criminality would have seemed trivial in comparison to the age 8 data; indeed, it may have even been axed. But the whole point of doing this study was to show the effect on future criminality. That's why that paper was in AJP, and the other in a lesser journal.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Good points. Also, it shoul... (Below threshold)

November 21, 2009 6:02 PM | Posted by Neuroskeptic: | Reply

Good points. Also, it should be possible to work out the predictive power of the test from the fact that the ANOVA Group x Condition was p=0.033 for a n of 400; from that you can work out the effect size d, and from that the predictive power assuming normality...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
OK - I know I should stop r... (Below threshold)

November 22, 2009 1:23 AM | Posted by Adrain: | Reply

OK - I know I should stop reading your site as it is only making me increasingly fearful of where we seem to be heading as a society. However like a car crash I just can't seem to look away.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This may be just a conspira... (Below threshold)

November 22, 2009 11:07 PM | Posted by sam: | Reply

This may be just a conspiracy theory, but I believe there is some truth in the following assertions. Firstly, those in power want kids to be fearful, fear is a means to keep people docile and subservient. Whether done intentionally or unintentionally, subjecting a defenseless baby to the most severe trauma it will likely experience in its life (aka circumcision) could very likely restructure the brain to be more fearful, docile, etc.

It would be easy to imagine those in power thinking of ways to justify inflicting such harm when people finally realize how tragic neonatal circumcision is.

BTW, you should write a post about circumcision

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The ability to suggest pred... (Below threshold)

November 23, 2009 6:34 AM | Posted by Z. Constantine: | Reply

The ability to suggest predictive powers as it applies to observation, genetic analysis, and psychological profiling seems to be a constant in dubious science - what does this say about the individuals publishing toward their own fame/infamy and their understanding of the psychiatric apparatchik?

Is bad science requisite or simply a bonus in the pursuit of The Next Big Thing?

I'll second sam - but don't forget fluoride and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impure all of our precious bodily fluids.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
sam: At the tender age of j... (Below threshold)

November 24, 2009 8:51 AM | Posted by Neuroskeptic: | Reply

sam: At the tender age of just 0 years old, I was subjected to the terrible stress of being born. I cried for hours. Days. My whole world was turned upside down. I'd probably have been really traumatized if I was old enough to remember.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
It's bad science, but what ... (Below threshold)

November 24, 2009 9:46 AM | Posted by caeia: | Reply

It's bad science, but what really strikes me about these types of "studies" is that it's designed to absolve society of and responsibility for how our kids are turning out. Its made to comfort the adults, and assure them that if Johnny acts like a hooligan, the blame goes to genetics or brain function; anything other than -- gods forbid -- his moral choices and the moral training he received at home.

It's wrong on the face of it. For one thing, if humans literally have no control over themselves or their children, then rates of violence should be similar acroos both time periods and cultures. China should have school shootings to the same degree that we do. The equilevlent should have been happening throughout history as well (balanced against the technology of the day of course). None of that bares out -- our American culture within the last 20 years has produced more barbarians than any society out there. There weren't widespread workplace stabbings in Rome, I've never heard of a 15th century englishman bringing a musket to work and then shooting his co-workers. There haven't been widespread school shootings in Canada even, let alone China, Japan, Vietnam, Iran. Doesn't happen.

I don't think it's stress either -- modern life compared to the ancient world is literally paradise. You can expect to live to 80, rather than 40 or so in the ancient world. You can expect a fair trail. You have human rights, and you can expect fair labor practices for the most part. Even Wallmart is a huge step forward from an early 20th century factory let alone a medieval serf's life.

I don't know WHY such conditions are creating barbarians, but unless we fix the problem soon, I think we might witness the Fall of America within the lifetime of our children and grandchildren.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
caela - "There weren't wide... (Below threshold)

November 24, 2009 10:27 AM | Posted by brainchild: | Reply

caela - "There weren't widespread workplace stabbings in Rome, I've never heard of a 15th century englishman bringing a musket to work and then shooting his co-workers."

Et tu Brutus? That seems like a work related stabbing to me! ;-) People did all kinds of brutal and heinous things in the past - public executions and torture of neighbors and coworkers were entertainment after all. If anything, we've gotten less violent and not more (TV just gives us the impression there's more violence and more to fear since we now know what goes on all over the world). Have you attended the dismbowelling of someone in your neighborhood recently because they didn't conform or criticized the president?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
brainchild:Indeed. P... (Below threshold)

November 24, 2009 12:22 PM | Posted by Sfon: | Reply

brainchild:
Indeed. People like to be all panicky about the problems of today or possible problems of the near future. Especially those caused by those darn kids (Stay off our lawns!). But things have always been messed up in some way or another, usually in a much more violent way than today.

Those panicking:
With Freud, psychology finally *entered* the stage of mysticism. Even with the scientific method we just have not had the time yet to even figure out how to tell a bad psychologist or even psychiatrist from a good one. Your average psychologist (those who are not innately brilliant) is wholly incompetent and gets by purely on the assumption that they are an authority and therefore automagically productive.

What I am trying to say is we are not exiting some golden age of mental medicine upon which our society depends, the bar has never been high and only recently existed at all. Child psychology is a good example with its hedonistic "discipline is always wrong because feeling uncomfortable is always wrong" trend. *That* trend has been going on long enough that if this sort of thing can destroy us, it has already been done and we are just too wrecked to know the difference.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sfon - And older people hav... (Below threshold)

November 24, 2009 4:55 PM | Posted by brainchild: | Reply

Sfon - And older people have been freaking out about how dangerous younger people are since ancient Greece. (Cue image of toga clad elderly gentleman yelling "hey you kids, get off of my acropolis".)

To be fair to both psychiatry and psychology, they're really in their infancy in many ways - particularly in terms of actually understanding neurobiology and cognition. The stuff we've discovered within my lifetime - and I'm only middle aged and still allow kids on my lawn - is pretty amazing and has blown quite a few entrenched theories out of the water (though there are those who cling desperately to disproven theories). And, yes, both Freud and Jung were informed by Eastern philosophy and mysticism to various degrees, just as a lot of art and design from their time was influenced by "exotic" Eastern and African influences. Since Freud and Jung are respectively considered the fathers of psychiatry and psychology, I'm not quite sure what sort of pre-mystical psychology you're referring to (or if I've misunderstood what you meant). It doesn't really make sense to make sweeping statements about either psychology or psychiatry (or child psychology) since there are many, often contradictory, theories and practices in all disciplines. Like in all professions, you get people who are excellent at what they do and conscientious, as well as people who abuse their position of trust/power over others. As in all professions that give people power over others and status, narcissists can find these disciplines quite attractive. As do people with empathy and a very genuine desire to help others. They're just people so have a wide variety of motivations regarding why they went into a particular profession.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I too, have zero recollecti... (Below threshold)

November 25, 2009 10:32 AM | Posted, in reply to Neuroskeptic's comment, by canuckistani: | Reply

I too, have zero recollection of my snipping sometime after I was squeezed out

However, I still wince when I think aboot the day roughly 4 years later when I hurtled face first down a hill (don't really remember why) at a construction site into a pile of old lumber full of rusty nails and that nail is larger than life heading straight for my right eye - shudder/shiver - it passed between my eye and the socket without so much as a scratch to the eyeball

almost lost the same eye 17 years later playing raquette ball - I hit the ground like a bag of rocks and when I finally got my eye open, I could see the blood pumping into it

still got it

then there's the 20 stitches in my leg from a 24 foot ladder fall or the 10 stiches in two finger tips from a table saw or the little chunk of a thumb I heard hit the floor from a utility knife (funny, all these other events and this one I passed out fer a wee bit)...

circum what?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Ceaser was assinated for po... (Below threshold)

November 25, 2009 6:43 PM | Posted, in reply to brainchild's comment, by caeia: | Reply

Ceaser was assinated for political reasons. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the Cho/Columbine/Fort Hood type of shooting (in the past it would have been stabbing) which isn't common in other areas, or other eras. We've taken the random killing to high art.

Now I will concede that there were pretty gruesome punishments in the past. (And yes the Romans were quite good at them), but I think this happened for more practical reasons. They didn't have CNN, so public executions proved that the people convicted were actually being executed. Secondly, they didn't have much in the way of prisons. If you don't have a place to lock up prisoners for a 10+ year sentence, you had little choice but to execute.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
caeia - Sure Caesar's death... (Below threshold)

November 26, 2009 1:42 PM | Posted, in reply to caeia's comment, by brainchild: | Reply

caeia - Sure Caesar's death was political but it's still a workplace death murder and it could easily be argued that most workplaces murders are political in at least a personal sense. There's nothing particularly random about the mass killings you mention, in retrospect they're not random and mass killings rarely are. Mass murder is NOT new at all, what is new is global 24/7 news coverage that obsessively focuses on and sensationalizes violence so that people who watch lots of TV start to feel that the world is more dangerous than it really is. Easy access to automatic weapons also helps push up the body count, and the 24/7 news coverage can inspire copycats. Back in the old days, people who wanted to make a large public impact as they enacted their revenge used poison. Or incite a pogrom.

You may feel more afraid and imagine the world is more dangerous but the reality is, statistically speaking, the world and our society are actually getting safer. Yes, I know it doesn't feel that way - particularly if we've always lived in a safe society - but feelings are just feelings based on beliefs that can easily be inaccurate (which the belief the world is getting more dangerous is).

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Ok brainchild, I bite, name... (Below threshold)

November 27, 2009 5:29 PM | Posted, in reply to brainchild's comment, by caeia: | Reply

Ok brainchild, I bite, name one Roman massacre commited by a stressed out Roman worker, 'cause I don't know of any.

I don't by any streach think that we're the worst that's ever been, or that we aren't getting a scewed view from the news. What I am suggesting is that compared to other eras we seem to be making a lot of people into killers. Our society, IMO has been slowly loosing cohesion, probably from the 1950s or so. I don't think that's irreversable, and as far as the conquest of disease and technology and creature comforts, we have it better than any society that has ever lived. I just don't see any point to ignoring a major problem by pretending that what other societies were doing was worse. We are slowly dissolving our social bonds to each other, and hopefully we can reverse these trends before it gets bad.


Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
caeia - "I just don't see a... (Below threshold)

November 27, 2009 7:13 PM | Posted by brainchild: | Reply

caeia - "I just don't see any point to ignoring a major problem by pretending that what other societies were doing was worse."
"Our society, IMO has been slowly loosing cohesion, probably from the 1950s or so."

Funny how some people forget segregration and lynching to romanticize the 50s in America as a time of peace and social cohesion. And let's not forget how rape victims were treated (if they even reported being raped.) Going back a bit further in American history, slaves rising up and killing their masters would be a perfect example of violence in the workplace. (Not that all your examples are actually of workers going postal.) It's a bit like how people like to pretend sexually abusing children is something new that didn't happen in the 50s (when the reality is that the "cohesive" society of the 50s just pretended it didn't happen.)

You can't address or resolve a problem if it's not identified and understood. So far all you've described is that you feel afraid and perceive the world to be dangerous and violent than you did when you were younger or back in the olden days. I'd suggest you watch less TV and actually get involved in your community if you feel socially detached and have become afraid of the world.

I suggest you check out Steven Pinker's Ted talk on the matter of violence throughout history...
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html


Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
BTW, I'm not saying that it... (Below threshold)

November 27, 2009 7:22 PM | Posted by brainchild: | Reply

BTW, I'm not saying that it isn't worth investigating and understanding why violence happens. It is, that's how we can figure out how to prevent it when possible. What isn't useful is watching Fox News 24/7 and getting nostalgic for a violence free time that never existed.

Some stats on murder in the US from 1950-2007 (you'll notice that rates have dropped to near where they were in the 50s by 2007, despite the fact that automatic weapons didn't exist back then).

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
"Since Freud and Jung are r... (Below threshold)

November 28, 2009 6:19 PM | Posted by Sfon: | Reply

"Since Freud and Jung are respectively considered the fathers of psychiatry and psychology, I'm not quite sure what sort of pre-mystical psychology you're referring to (or if I've misunderstood what you meant)."

By "mysticism", I was referring to more of a way of approaching things instead of specific beliefs. That of wanting to examine something, but instead feeling it out since too little light has yet been brought to the subject for the former. Freud and Jung stood out not for being correct, but simply for trying in earnest. Both were alive as recently as the 20th century. A lot of human history happened before that.

As for those generalities, I feel they do fairly reflect the whole. I believe it says something about the whole that it is incapable of telling the difference between help and harm, effective and ineffective, competency and incompetency. How often can that be said of other professions, especially other areas of mainstream medicine? I don't see this changing until detailed and accurate models of at least 'normal' and 'healthy' are fleshed out.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sfon - I'm having a hard ti... (Below threshold)

November 29, 2009 11:22 AM | Posted by brainchild: | Reply

Sfon - I'm having a hard time understanding the point you're trying to make, can you please explain further.

Sfon - "By "mysticism", I was referring to more of a way of approaching things instead of specific beliefs. That of wanting to examine something, but instead feeling it out since too little light has yet been brought to the subject for the former."

What does this even mean? Particularly in relationship to Freud?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Fearless kids live creative... (Below threshold)

May 16, 2010 4:21 PM | Posted by took a little meds: | Reply

Fearless kids live creative and fearless lives at times. They try to act fearless when really they just need extra attention. Their balance boundaries and struction needs a little work a round. They need additional nurturning. I pity the parent who dont recognize it. It's a lot of wasted energy spanking a child everyday especially if they are not responding to the attention getter. the parent instead, need to figure the likes and dislikes and develop them to be creative in the areas of interest and expell the extra energy they have in that creativity. Have you ever seen a fearless child who wasnt creative.

My grandmother said when I had my first born, "get to know your children and know them well so when something is wrong or different you will notice." You have to treat those fearless kids different to generate creativity in the extra energy and ideas that unfold in their minds. Just like you to deal with the shy child to bring out the energy and ideas. Love your children and show them you do, pray and be positive and listen to them, they will reveal themselves. Ps, I can always tell when my kids were hiding information from me and sometimes I already knew what it was.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I read the post. I am sweat... (Below threshold)

January 27, 2011 5:10 PM | Posted by thecommonflu: | Reply

I read the post. I am sweating.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
This is such a great resour... (Below threshold)

June 23, 2012 7:08 AM | Posted by André Lenox: | Reply

This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing websites that understand the value of providing a quality resource for free. It is the old what goes around comes around routine. Did you acquired lots of links and I see lots of trackbacks??
ImpressionLink

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Modernist moral entrepreneu... (Below threshold)

September 27, 2013 3:45 AM | Posted by Cyafe: | Reply

Modernist moral entrepreneurial crap.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Post a Comment


Live Comment Preview

September 30, 2014 15:52 PM | Posted by Anonymous: