
How Inuit parents teach kids to control their anger (2019) - kevinconaway
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/03/13/685533353/a-playful-way-to-teach-kids-to-control-their-anger
======
gooseyard
The Briggs book referenced in the article is a really interesting read. I
tracked down a copy after several articles like this one appeared shortly
after her death. I assumed that the book primarily focused on child-rearing,
but while that aspect of their culture is certainly an aspect of the book, her
study of the concept of "ihuma" and how it applies to interactions between her
host family and other adults in the same band were even more interesting to
me, and her general observations about day to day life both on and off the ice
were very enjoyable. It's not a tale of adventure unless you're really excited
by cleaning fish, but as a voracious reader of native american culture it
provides a great glimpse into a way of life which tragically would not last
much longer.

~~~
wnscooke
This isn't "Native American", it is Inuit. I am actually not sure which Inuit,
but it is unhelpful to use such a blanket designation as "native american".
Using that term would be like reading a book about Irish dancing and then
telling someone you read a book about "European dancing", or reading a French
cook book and declaring your love for "European cuisine". One day the same
awareness, knowledge, and respect afforded to the nations and people groups of
Europe will be afforded to those on Turtle Island. Not using the label "native
american" when the focus or topic is a specific nation is a good start.

------
6gvONxR4sf7o
Some of the stuff in here is obvious stuff that nonetheless is great to get
reminders of, like leading by example. There was a unique piece that really
intrigues me: Putting on a play/putting on a drama.

"Putting on a drama" seems like a pretty romanticized way to say it, but if I
understand correctly, it's practicing better responses to events that led to
bad behavior. "Johnny, I'm going to steal your toy, and instead of hitting me
like you hit your brother, use your words." That kind of explicit
practice/rehearsal of skills isn't something I'd have thought of, but it makes
total sense as a valuable way to teach and learn.

~~~
duskwuff
And it seems to me that deliberately teaching and practicing these methods in
early childhood -- like in school -- could have profound implications. Right
now, my impression is that public schools tend to take the approach of letting
social skills develop organically through peer interactions. This seems like a
huge missed opportunity.

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
> schools tend to take the approach of letting social skills develop
> organically through peer interactions

I believe this leads to peer-pressure and bullying. Bullying doesn’t have to
be physically violent for it to have a lasting impact on someone’s life.

> This seems like a huge missed opportunity

I suspect it’s by-design - there’s a large chunk of parents[1] who adamantly
insist that schools should only teach the Three Rs and that it’s exclusively
the parents’ responsibility to “raise” children. It’s difficult to advance
this agenda without it being misrepresented as “liberal indoctrination” and
then becoming politically unpopular.

[1]Invariably of the authoritarian-bent...

------
blueicecubes
This was discussed a year ago at length:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19396563](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19396563)

------
organsnyder
My kids heard this story on the air while we were in the car. My then-eight-
year-old remarked, "Yeah, that wouldn't work with us."

------
bobthechef
First, we mustn't discount the importance of properly expressed anger. Just as
there is such a thing as excess or inappropriate anger, there is also such a
thing as deficient and inappropriate anger. What "inappropriate" and
"excess"/"deficient" anger are will require mature situational judgement on
the part of the parent. There's no way around that, and defaulting to "no
displays of anger" is not a true substitute. Anger is in fact necessary to
convey, both to children and adults (though the degree and manner will vary),
the gravity of an injustice and this communication enables remorse,
repentance, seeking forgiveness, and edification. It is one elements in
shaping discipline and character. That doesn't mean flying off the handle like
a madman, of course. Reason should remain intact.

Second, lying to children with silly stories is not a solution. It's one thing
if you tell the child a funny story with the understanding that the child
doesn't really believe it, but rather finds it both amusing to imagine and
comprehends the underlying message. It's an entirely different thing to
outright lie. Lying is never admissible, certainly never noble, and will only
work to undermine trust toward parents and consequently parental authority.

P.S. Is there perhaps an element of romanticism in this article?

~~~
hutzlibu
"P.S. Is there perhaps an element of romanticism in this article?"

Totally. With all the readings about controlling anger, I missed a reference
to the inuit custom of violence towards women.

[https://www.pauktuutit.ca/abuse-prevention/gender-based-
viol...](https://www.pauktuutit.ca/abuse-prevention/gender-based-violence/)

Although, maybe that violence is without anger. Would that be better?

------
opwieurposiu
One Inuit parenting technique that works on my kids. If a child hits you or
bites you, don't yell at them. Instead pretend to cry in an exaggerated way. I
have found this to be way more effective than yelling or timeouts. My oldest
is almost 4, so this might not work on older kids. But then older kids do not
bite very often anyway.

~~~
hnick
This works on puppies too. If they get a bit nippy, overreact to the biting.

There's probably a lot of similarity between what works on very young kids and
puppies, at least until they learn to use that brain of theirs better.

~~~
yencabulator
That's the reaction a puppy would get from a sibling or its mom. The fake
yelps immediately stop rough play, everyone looks around for a few seconds
trying to figure out what happened. Then they bow to invite to play / signal
no intent to harm, and continue playing with less biting.

------
hosh
Tangentially related:
[https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/06/09/6169288...](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/06/09/616928895/how-
to-get-your-kids-to-do-chores-without-resenting-it)

Also something from indigenous cultures.

------
choeger
So a large part is to lie? I don't know. I mean, yes, I get angry by my
children, and I don't know any parent that does not. Probably I get angry too
often too early. But I really try hard never to lie to my kids. I even show
them that I am angry because I think that's part of the game. Kids need to
learn that other people have emotions.

But telling stories about horrific creatures to avoid dangerous places? I
don't know. I mean yes, I guess it works, but why not tell them the (horrific)
truth?

~~~
raincom
In the Western culture, lying is primarily connected to deception. In cultures
where Semitic religions have not influenced, lying and deception are not same:
one can lie, without intending to deceive. That's how one has to look at.

One can lie for multiple reasons. For instance, to avoid conflict; or because
one is not in a mood. Deception is one among many reasons.

Why the western culture focuses so much on the unity between lying/falsehood
and deception? This has to do with the secularization of Christianity:
Christian ideas becoming less Christian, more 'universal'. Satan, falsity,
lying, deception--all form the unity in Christianity; in secular thinking,
Satan is pushed out, but the unity between lying, falsehood and deception is
present. This unity does not exist for Inuits or Chinese or even east Indians.
It is part of child rearing practices in China and in India, to teach kids to
lie.

~~~
dragonwriter
> One can lie for multiple reasons. For instance, to avoid conflict; or
> because one is not in a mood. Deception is one among many reasons.

In all of those cases deception is the purpose of lying, the other purposes
described aren't alternatives to deception, they are the purposes for which
one seeks to deceive.

It's true that focussing on this has a nexus with Christian moral theory and
it's influence on secular morality, since Christian moral theory distinguishes
between bad ends sought deliberately as intermediate means to permissible ends
and bad ends which are incidental to acts seeking permissible ends.

~~~
raincom
>In all of those cases deception is the purpose of lying, the other purposes
described aren't alternatives to deception, they are the purposes for which
one seeks to deceive.

That's what Christian morality says. There are other cultures which don't see
the way you see. Western philosophy doesn't even answer the question "Why
truth?"; only Nietzsche raises that question.

In Christianity, truth doesn't need any further justification; truth is its
own foundation, because God is the Truth. Here the dispute is about how
different ways of being in the world; how different cultures are different in
different way, not as a variant of the West. Of course, the west thinks that
every other culture is a variant of itself; in that sense, your answer is
'acceptable' to the people belonging to the Western culture.

~~~
dragonwriter
> That's what Christian morality says.

No, it's a simple fact: each of the examples provided is a further end that
relies on deception in order for lying to further it, not an alternative end
which lying can serve independent of producing deception. Christian (and
Christian-derived) morality assigns particular moral significance to that
fact, which other cultures might well disagree with.

~~~
shard
To deceive someone is to tell them an untruth for personal gain. There are
cases where an untruth is told for the greater good, or for the good of the
listener. In those cases, there is a divergence between lie and deception.

~~~
ehaliewicz2
I never got that connotation from the word 'deceive', I thought it just meant
misleading someone, not necessarily for your own gain. Furthermore, I grew up
christian and was never told all lying was for personal gain.

~~~
shard
To me there is a difference between mislead and deceive. Deceive has a
stronger negative intention behind it. Consider someone saying "I was misled"
versus "I was deceived".

I made no connotations between what I wrote and Christianity / all lying is
for personal gain, so we can skip that part of the discussion.

------
nickelpro
It's easy to shape children so single mindedly when the cultural context of
that child is completely controlled.

More simply, public schools and Youtube would break this sort of conditioning
in short order. It only works if you only expose a kid to that singular
unified world view until they lose easy plasticity. And as a personal note, I
don't think that reserving kids to a single world view like that is net good,
even if you view numbed anger as benefit (which I also don't).

~~~
fao_
> More simply, public schools and Youtube would break this sort of
> conditioning in short order.

Ehh? I've been exposed to decades of stimuli and yet I still have feelings and
emotions that were created in my childhood, and it is difficult trying to
unlearn them.

> even if you view numbed anger as benefit (which I also don't).

I know someone whose parents are unable to control their irritation, they are
in their 50s and 60s and they will spend 5 - 10 minutes shouting at the tablet
simply because it is slow, etc. I and their other friends agree that their
parents are essentially emotional children in the ways that they present. It's
not a happy situation for anyone in the vicinity. Part of living in this world
is learning to control some of your reactions and find more beneficial and
productive ways of dealing with your feelings that satisfy you, and do not
hurt other people in your surroundings.

Unfortunately, my friend's parents were traumatised early in life by their own
parents, and never sought help. Never saw a therapist that would help them to
deal with this stress in non-harmful ways.

Anger isn't necessarily a bad thing, for example in a revolutionary sense it
has been vastly productive, but when you're screaming about throwing a
computer through a screen because you misclicked something or because it is
slow to load, then it is childish and should be controlled, because it is
unpleasant for everyone.

------
bch
CBC interview/documentary from Ideas with Paul Kennedy “Never in Anger” parts
1 and 2 -

1)
[https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2263114454](https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2263114454)

2)
[https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2263120301](https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2263120301)

------
trhway
leading/teaching by example. Show, don't tell. I wonder though what selection
pressure made for anger to be a non-beneficial trait in the Inuit society. In
our typical society anger, while definitely not always, is a beneficial trait
frequently and sufficiently enough to be practiced by many. It seems that in
Inuit society anger is almost never a beneficial trait and thus is actively
suppressed (so behavioral adaptation while curiously not fully selected out at
biological level - probably the key here is "to control anger" in the sense of
being in control, not eliminating completely, so that means an ability to
deploy only when needed in a very controlled/measured/managed fashion. So may
be by showing no anger while it is clearly supposed be there the Inuit parents
teach not a "no anger" (which would be a lie as the other commenters pointed
out), and instead they teach of how to be a master of your anger instead of a
slave to it).

~~~
gameswithgo
Harsh enough environment that people who couldn't keep their cool probably
left, or died, was my guess.

------
fireattack
I always find this kind of title weird.

Coming from a relatively "homogenous" (for lack of a better word) ethnicity, I
think I can see a point to generalize something like "this is how X people
teach their children math", but "control anger"? This seems to me a very
personalized thing that varies wildly from family to family.

~~~
moate
Why? This is the "hard skills are real, soft skills aren't" dynamic I see so
often (Hello, I'm the PM in a room full of Engineers).

Your first mistake is that teaching itself is very personalized and varies
wildly from family to family. If we're willing to accept the premise that
there are some commonalities among families from the same culture, then how
they teach social skills important to that culture would likely be at the top
of the list of things that would exist

~~~
fireattack
> there are some commonalities among families from the same culture

My exact point is this: I can't think of any commonalities for "(teach the
kids) how to control anger", not for my culture at least. Maybe Inuit people
are different.

~~~
moate
A little necro-posty on my part, but I think this is worth mentioning:

I'm an American from a white Midwestern family born in the mid-80s. I can tell
you that in my upbrining things like "time out" or being sent to my room or
being forced to apologize when I hit someone were part of the techniques used
to help teach me how to control my anger and be pleasant to people. From my
observations, these things were being taught in school as well as reinforced
at home. This is part of how my culture taught me how to control my anger.

However, I know that other people with different backgrounds may have had
other punishments (physical abuse, being made to write out their feelings,
etc). There are all sorts of social skills that cultures value and try to pass
on. "How to behave when you're angry" is at the very top of that list.

I promise you, there are cultural differences between how you were taught to
handle anger as a child and those of people raised in different backgrounds.
They just don't seem novel to you. Without knowing more, I can't point to
specific examples but the larger point is that cultures pass on social skills,
not just language.

------
dwohnitmok
The article seems fairly problematic.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/b0so4h/how_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/b0so4h/how_inuit_parents_teach_kids_to_control_their/eihcuf8/)

EDIT: Well this is proving to be a pretty wild ride. As far as I can tell both
this post and its replies (by TheAdamAndChe and ebg13) are getting voted down,
which is very surprising to me (I would've expected either/or not both).

That leads me to believe there's something wrong with my link.

Does HN know something about my link that I don't?

~~~
rovolo
Any discussion of parenting and Native peoples needs to include the context of
the Indian Residential Schools. The state (Canada and the US) would force
Native children to attend boarding schools with restricted parental visitation
rights (legally compulsory in Canada 1894-1948, and de-facto compulsory for
the 20 years before and after). The schools would punish the children for
'acting Native' (wearing traditional clothing, not speaking english, etc). It
was a program of forced cultural assimilation (sometimes called 'cultural
genocide') which was supported by saying that Native parents were bad
influences on their children.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_sc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system)

Any attempt to remove Native children from their parents needs to acknowledge
the use of children by the government to attempt to wipe out Native culture.
Around a quarter of Native children were removed from their homes in the US by
child protective services and permanently placed in non-Native homes. This was
such an issue that the Indian Child Welfare act requires that Native tribes
and Native family have the first opportunity to claim custodianship over
Native children removed from the home.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Child_Welfare_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Child_Welfare_Act)

So for the comment you link to, I have the following objections:

\- Native people were raised in government schools (until 1970) which used
corporal punishment regularly. They're criticizing parenting styles which the
government taught parents as kids.

\- Canada and the US have a long history of removing lots of kids from Native
parents. Of course Native leaders are going to care about CPS rules

\- The SSC guy is completely ignoring how shitty White Canadians have treated
Native people when he compares abuse rates between Inuit and "Western" (White)
populations. This reeks of a long history of calling Native people "savage".

~~~
dwohnitmok
Hmmmmm now we're getting somewhere if this is the heart of the objections.

However, this seems like it's covered by

> Also, the Inuit have changed a lot recently as they get influenced by
> European culture (but NPR did their interview with Inuit this year, who talk
> as if they're describing the present).

Granted I'm sure you'd find this far too lenient in terms of phrasing,
something more like "Traditional Inuit culture was both destroyed by what was
effectively Western cultural and actual imperialism and retroactively viewed
and criticized through a warped Western lens."

But the basic essence of that is still addressed by Scott's comment. It may
not be the way things used to be, and it may not be the "fault" of the Inuits
at all, nor may it even be the right perspective to view Inuit culture.

Nonetheless the empirical observations made in this article seem to be in
direct opposition to multiple other sources of data we have. That seems bad.
More specifically it suggests the article is suffering greatly from selection
bias and its conclusions are therefore suspect.

~~~
rovolo
> Nonetheless the empirical observations made in this article seem to be in
> direct opposition to multiple other sources of data we have. That seems bad.
> More specifically it suggests the article is suffering greatly from
> selection bias and its conclusions are therefore suspect.

Yes, the article is overly broad if you take it to mean 'all Inuit', but I
don't think that's a reasonable reading of the article. This is a 'feel-good'
story talking about ideals of child raising in an Inuit town. Scott objects to
this narrative, so he collects negative evidence to debunk the article. He
isn't picking neutral counter-evidence, he is exclusively saying that Inuit
abuse their kids and each other:

\- "protesting Canada's anti-child-abuse policy": this cannot be discussed
without the context of history mass child-separation by the Government.

\- Interviews of "how things were in the traditional old days.": This book
interviewed elders in 2000, which means they grew up in the Residential School
era. The white culture approved of corporal punishment at the time, and the
residential schools used most corporal punishment than average. Scott is
focusing just on the existence of spanking, and is ignoring the ideals the
interviewees express.

> Ilisapi: Some of us tended to take out our frustration on our children when
> it was our husband who we were angry at. Even if the child had done nothing
> wrong, if he made one small mistake, we took out our frustration on him. If
> children were treated like that, they could be damaged. It was their spouse
> they were angry at in the first place but they took their frustration out on
> their child. That is not the way to treat a child. It is not good.

...

> Tipuula: Yes. When they are finished crying and are feeling better, that is
> a good time to talk to them. You need to explain the situation. Let them
> know you do not like spanking them but what they did required discipline.
> Once they understand that, they will feel closer to the mother or the
> father. Things are completely different today. We only reprimand our
> children verbally because _we are not allowed to use physical discipline
> with our children anymore._

\- "(some of these are adult abuse statistics rather than child abuse
statistics, but if adult Inuit never get angry or act impulsively, why are
they doing all this abusing?)": This is straight-up character assassination.
This is the point which I most object to, not because the abuse statistics are
wrong, but because it is being used to discredit the ideals of a community.

------
mberning
You can witness something similar in many rural areas, specifically where
people are surviving off the land. Rarely does mother nature or anything else
cooperate with plans or expectations. People just get used to it and develop a
very workmanlike attitude.

------
dragosmocrii
I had to read the title a couple times to make sense of it. I was reading
"Intuit Parents", thinking it was some new product...

------
TristanDaCunha
Highly counterinuitive.

------
tzs
> Winter temperatures could easily dip below minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit

Trivia: you can omit "Fahrenheit" after -40 without introducing ambiguity. -40
F == -40 C. (You can assume it is not K or Ra because those place their 0
points at absolute zero so -40 K or -40 Ra is not possible).

~~~
0_____0
That's clever, but you're going to confuse readers and interrupt the flow of
the article if you omit a unit where people expect one.

~~~
nicky0
Hence "Trivia".

------
perfmode
it's funny how the world works

> a Harvard graduate student made a landmark discovery about the nature of
> human anger.

the article doesn't credit the inuits with the discovery.

> By contrast, Briggs seemed like a wild child, even though she was trying
> very hard to control her anger. "My ways were so much cruder, less
> considerate and more impulsive," she told the CBC. "[I was] often impulsive
> in an antisocial sort of way. I would sulk or I would snap or I would do
> something that they never did."

but instead credits Briggs, who is the one exhibiting primitive behavior and
being exposed to the higher path

~~~
nix23
Does not seam to work very well either:

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/23/canada-
indigen...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/23/canada-indigenous-
murder-victims)

~~~
Scaevolus
Do you have any evidence that those murders occur _within_ their communities
by people raised like this?

~~~
nix23
>Do you have any evidence that those murders occur _within_ their communities
by people raised like this?

No, do you have any evidence that they are NOT raised like this?

~~~
Scaevolus
The Inuit are around 4% of Canada's Indigenous population, so I'd be surprised
if many of the people committing those murders were raised with this
particular traditional Inuit anger-management strategy.

~~~
nix23
"Inuit make up only 5% of Canada’s population, but in 2018 they made up 22% of
the country’s homicide victims."

>so I'd be surprised if many of the people committing those murders were
raised with this particular traditional Inuit anger-management strategy.

So what do you wanna really say with that?

~~~
shadowfiend
The article you linked talks about indigenous people being murdered, not
committing murders.

So what do you wanna really say with that?

~~~
nix23
Murdered by white Canadian males...that's what you wanna say?

[https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/ppvx8g/a-closer-look-
at-n...](https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/ppvx8g/a-closer-look-at-nunavuts-
notoriously-high-murder-rate-324)

~~~
kube-system
That article doesn't support your claim that this parenting style doesn't
work, if anything, it refutes it:

> Nunavut has the highest per-capita murder rate in the country, but
> statistics can be misleading.

> Nunavut is in line with the national Homicide Survey: a large percentage of
> murders are committed when the assailant is under the influence of alcohol.

> if you took another area similar in housing shortages and alcoholism, you
> would have a similar crime rate.

> "It's a little unfair to look at Nunavut and the crime rate that it has and
> sort of assume that it's all Nunavut's fault," he said.

The geographic and economic uniqueness of Nunavut are gigantic uncontrolled
variables in your assertion that the cultural correlation is causation.

~~~
nix23
>your claim that this parenting style doesn't work, if anything, it refutes
it:

What claim?

But this is what we have ATM:

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/23/canada-
indigen...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/23/canada-indigenous-
murder-victims)

~~~
kube-system
Your parent comment in this thread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23930146](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23930146)

~~~
nix23
That's not a claim but rather questioning the efficiency.

But sure it's not that easy, if you destroy one's culture, trow them into
another world and let them barely "survive" other factor's play into the hole
thing.

------
ponker
Inuit people have terrible life outcomes with disease, alcoholism, and
suicide, and while there might be a lot of reasons for this, I would still
take any of their examples with a grain of salt.

~~~
viburnum
Yeah it’s not great for your society when you’ve been conquered.

