<p>I don’t think mental illness or even spoiled rottenness has anything to do with being a singleton. However when family dynamics aren’t healthy, and the lone child in the family bears the weight of that, the effect can be more intense than if it had been evenly distributed so perhaps that is what some are referring to.
But… It is also not unusual for one child in a family of several, to be considered the “problem child” and for them to serve the same purpose.</p>
<p>Hard to say what has exacerbated the behavior whether it be environmental or organic, but from the descriptions it is not going away on it’s own and since it is getting worse under current drs care, it seems reasonable to get more information from an outside evaluation</p>
<p>GF, why wouldn’t it be relevant? China is probably the premier place in the world to study only children for obvious reasons. And did you really expect me to spend $33.95 to provide you with the full article? The one page does provide a summary of the findings. PMK asked for data. As far as I can tell, we have not spent any US tax dollars on this issue lately, at least my initial search did not turn up anything.</p>
<p>Any data on the subject of “onlys” should be relevant to American life/culture… China has its own issues that do not affect us. The variables for that kind of study does not relate to us at all. So since there is no data that you can find, then you are just making up you own generalizations.</p>
<p>greatlakesmom, thanks for the book suggestion. We will definitely pursue it. My D is clearly one who can control herself (and take care of herself) outside the family environment. She is feeling sad now that she has squandered her break from school. She needs to make the connections as to why/how that happened and how she is the one who needs to change. Over the past two years, I have seen many developmental/cognitive improvements and have determined that change will/can come about only when she decides it is times. She is, as best I can tell, a respectful roommate, if for no other reason than that she feels strongly about others respecting her rights–to a clean apartment, to quiet study time, etc. There is little question in my mind that taking her out of school–the place where she both functions best and from where she derives her greatest self-esteem, both from her grades and her EX work–unless I or her doctor beleived her life or health were seriously at risk. I do not believe we are at that point.</p>
<p>She has expressed remorse to me for her recent outbursts but needs to make the step to taking responsibility for it. I don’t think she is quiet there yet but she has made much progress over the past 12 months.</p>
<p>Thanks for all the support and suggestions.</p>
<p>Hmm, that is an interesting perspective, that studies done on human beings in other parts of the world CAN’T be relevant in our society. I would say that is being at least as biased as those who say there is no difference (especially negative differerences) in the behavior of onlys. Seems like we have MORE opportunity to spoil our onlys than the Chinese do, given the higher standard of living standard in the US compared to China (esp. in 1986). Why would the variables there not affect us? Two parents + 1 kid. I’m not saying there can’t be reasons why that study wouldn’t apply here. But jumping to the conclusion that it CAN’T apply because it is a different culture doesn’t make sense.</p>
<p>To me, it stands to reason that overindulging anything (a child, a puppy) can result in conditioning that creature to expect everyone to overindulge it all the time. Humans aren’t stupid, they are pretty darned smart. Again, kudos to the parents who didn’t overindulge their onlys, and lots of parents have sense enough not to. But this attitude that it can’t happen seems silly to me. Most of us with more than one kid would admit that the first one got more stuff, attention, photos, etc. than any subsequent kids, and the attention to #1 was halved (if not more than halved) when #2 came along. So… if #2 never comes along to break the cycle AND the parents don’t watch themselves (and all their well-meaning relatives), bad behavior can result.</p>
<p>It isnt an issue that the data CAN’T be used, it’s just that China has a different way of life. I’m sorry, but one study from China in 1986 really doesn’t prove anything. Even one American study from 1986 wouldn’t prove anything eithwe. It’s not a matter of being biased, but the fact that they are a different culture, have different social values, and live different way of life needs to be taken into account here. And that’s what psychologists do, they take into account where the people being studied are from and the social, political, and cultural values that exist in said society. It’s not that their lifestyle is bad or good, it’s just a different way of life, and that is something that DEFINITELY needs to be considered when talking about these kinds of studies. It’s an inherent, but also cultural influence that can change the outcome of the study, which also accounts for different results from different types of cultures. </p>
<p>All in all, just because a kid is an only child doesn’t mean he or she is spoiled, trust me. </p>
<p>-Daughter of Milkandsugar, only child posting here</p>
<p>I never said that every only is spoiled. Or even that the majority are. Or that if people aren’t onlys, they can’t be spoiled. But it stands to reason that the conditions are ripe for “more spoilage” for onlys. Kid of M&S, I totally believe your mom that you are not spoiled! And it probably gets annoying when people assume that you automatically are. No offense intended.</p>
<p>If you look, there was also a Finnish study cited in the same post. They have quite a western lifestyle there (my D spent a summer there, speaks Finnish, and plans to study there next year, so I am very familiar with their culture). Certainly they are not as culturally distant from the US as China.</p>
<p>I agree that a different culture MAY introduce differences that invalidate a study. But I am not sure what those would be in those case, and so far no one has given any specific examples of differences in Chinese culture that might invalidate that study. If there are studies showing the opposite in US (or more western cultures, or China), please post them. I am genuinely curious to see.</p>
<p>RE52, it sounds like your D is going in the right direction, and she is lucky to have a caring family to help. Keep the faith!</p>
<p>Milkandsugar’s D-- it makes me sad that you, or anyone, would have to justify their own goodness against ignorant insults. I’ve sympathized with my D when she said people were mean about her being an only child, but I’m really finding my own first example of what she’s talked about right here on this thread. And I’m almost glad to see the open prejudice-- I’ll be more understanding of it in when she faces it in the future.</p>
<p>Ignorance is the operative word. It is interesting that inparent has to keep posting to justify his reasons that “only’s” are more RIPE for spoilage. RIDICULOUS.</p>
<p>Wow, the mama bears are out in force to protect their cubs. By the way, I am a she, not a he. I am amazed that you can’t even acknowledge that the potential exists for some only children to be badly behaved because they have been indulged, and the possibility of over-indulgance is higher with only children. I think you sound like you are so “politically correct” and so invested in your own kids that you can’t accept that there may be some truth IN SOME CASES to the adages about this. Haven’t seen you guys come up with any studies saying it isn’t true, only anectdotal evidence… You can describe me as ignorant if you wish, but PMK challenged me to give some evidence. I have done so, but you have not. And I am not sure why I am the ignorant one here, since no one has yet made any specific points about WHY Chinese culture would invalidate that study, nor any comments at all on the validity of the Finnish study.</p>
<p>GF & M&S, I would not make the automatic assumption about any only, it was the OP who said her child was an over indulged only. I have not made any assumptions or comments specifically about your children, and wouldn’t dream of it without meeting them.</p>
<p>One can scour the internet and find articles and research that debunks the myths about only children. Some are below.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Th OP did not mention in her first post that here daughter has ADD and OCD and is on medications. That was mentoned in several posts later. I suspect that is the real reason for the OP’s daughter"s behavior, not that she is an only.</p>
<p>Often it is the youngest child that is spoiled and indulged.</p>
<p>I am a youngest, and I totally accept that many youngest are spoiled and indulged. Just because I am one (and I have one, everyone on this thread does, I assume!) doesn’t mean I can’t accept that the stereotypes probably have some basis in fact. One of my kids is super bright, and has the social awkwardness that often goes with that. I am not offended when people assume that might be the case. I am not sure why your fur is so ruffled over this. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.</p>
<p>Regarding the links you provided, they seem to mostly be summaries and generalizations, not actual references to studies. Two of the links are to the same site. One says, “Hundreds of studies”, but does not actually give any details (but it says 20/20 did gather a group of onlys and ask their opinions - - hardly an unbiased sample). The one called “The Only Child” says that results are mixed in the studies on what they call affiliation and peer popularity (which I think are closest to what we are discussing here). I don’t dispute the potential advantages onlys have in intelligence and achievement, it matches what I said above about it being common sense when two parents can focus their attention on one child.</p>
<p>Seems to me that you are quick to look for any evidence that OPs own analysis of the situation is flawed because somehow you think it reflects badly on your own only. She knows her kid a whole lot better than you do… kudos to her for recognizing it as a factor instead of assuming “not my little darling”.</p>
<p>Stereotypes exist for a reason – because they have some basis in fact. I’m an indulged “baby” and I can see aspects of the stereotypes in all my kids. It’s not the entirety of who they are, of course, but it is there, and some of it is actually a good thing. There are two kids on my daughter’s team for a project who are onlies. One is the stereotype personified and the other is the exact opposite. The dynamic between them is fascinating because, for whatever reason, they push each other’s buttons more than one might expect.</p>
<p>Milkandsugar, I wouldn’t try to fight this fight-- there’s a clear prejudice trying to justify itself with bits and pieces of received info (A study from the time when Pluto was still a planet, showing that only children in China at that time were more likely to become gay? lol) You’re not likely to prove anything to intparent, any more than you could prove to a racist that such and such race doesn’t fit their stereotypes. (OP long since left this behind and started thinking of her D’s true difficulties and how to resolve them–and things sound like they’re working well!) </p>
<p>But as I said before-- now I know that there truly is a prejudice out there. I’d have taken it with a grain of salt before. I see why my D feels so hurt when she hears things like this, and I won’t think her so oversensitive as I did. I’d be hurt too, and angry to be considered morally inferior (isn’t that what ‘spoiled’ and ‘selfish’ mean?) to others, not for anything I did but for a reason beyond my control.</p>
<p>Seems to me the prejudice is on your side, GF. No one said YOUR only is spoiled. Only that it is likely statistically more likely that he/she would be because of the configuration of adults/kids in her life. You refuse to admit that such a statistical possibility exists, even when the links you provided say that the results of studies in this area are mixed. By the way, humans discovered that the earth was round while Pluto was still a planet, too. Does that make it wrong? Logic does not seem to be your strong suit here… should we throw out every scientific study from before 2006?</p>
<p>YES, intparent, the mama bears are out because it’s hurtful to the children you’re stereotyping and you’ve not proven anything.</p>
<p>“Stereotypes exist for a reason – because they have some basis in fact.”
I beg to differ, zoosermom. Stereotypes exist because ignorant people perpetuate them, whether in regard to race, social class, or birth order. The only thing that stereotyping accomplishes is to hurt people. Good job to those of you doing the stereotyping because it seems that you’ve accomplished just that.</p>
<p>Oh my goodness what a bunch of delicate flowers! Some of us just have a different perspective or a thicker skin. I recognize aspects of certain stereotypes in myself and in my children. If my statement of that fact bothers you, you really need to assess why. My views of myself and my children have absolutely nothing to do with you or your feelings.</p>
<p>Why do you assume that stereotypes have to be negative? Aren’t you making an assumption there, Gwen? If asked, I’d say that my oldest daughter is very nurturing. Stereotype. Positive. My middle daughter is more independent. Stereotype. Positive. My younger child is more affectionate. Stereotype. Positive. One of the children in daughter’s group: leader. Stereotype. Positive. The other only in the group: spectacularly articulate. Stereotype. Positive.</p>