Demanding parents

[Dildo Argentino]

I posted it simply because I liked it. I am pretty certain it is fair use. An extended review in a magazine may quote that much text. I didn't add anything to it because I thought it was pretty perfect at the time. I still think that.

Faust, are you saying the plagiarism detector said the original text was changed? I'm not 100% sure, but I think I just copied it out of the book. I believe attachment parenting has been a thing for longer than we can remember (I mean thousands of years), and it only went out of vogue briefly. But the truly interesting thing about Sue Gerhardt's book (which is a great book in a number of ways) is that she has a great deal or well-organised neurobiological as well as psychological evidence for these claims. Cortisol has been mentioned recently, for instance (in the how to help mad people thread): she is all over cortisol in that book.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Cool, I know it's been two years so this is probably a moot point, but next time if you just post something like that as an intro, that will likely get your post a bit more interest and a warmer welcome.

[Dildo Argentino]

Cool, I know it's been two years so this is probably a moot point, but next time if you just post something like that as an intro, that will likely get your post a bit more interest and a warmer welcome.

Thanks. Well I can see that now!

[Faust]

I posted it simply because I liked it. I am pretty certain it is fair use. An extended review in a magazine may quote that much text. I didn't add anything to it because I thought it was pretty perfect at the time. I still think that.

Faust, are you saying the plagiarism detector said the original text was changed? I'm not 100% sure, but I think I just copied it out of the book. I believe attachment parenting has been a thing for longer than we can remember (I mean thousands of years), and it only went out of vogue briefly. But the truly interesting thing about Sue Gerhardt's book (which is a great book in a number of ways) is that she has a great deal or well-organised neurobiological as well as psychological evidence for these claims. Cortisol has been mentioned recently, for instance (in the how to help mad people thread): she is all over cortisol in that book.

It was changed but only in regards to a couple of paragraphs were snipped. Its fine, just link to the source next time.

[Dildo Argentino]

I posted it simply because I liked it. I am pretty certain it is fair use. An extended review in a magazine may quote that much text. I didn't add anything to it because I thought it was pretty perfect at the time. I still think that.

Faust, are you saying the plagiarism detector said the original text was changed? I'm not 100% sure, but I think I just copied it out of the book. I believe attachment parenting has been a thing for longer than we can remember (I mean thousands of years), and it only went out of vogue briefly. But the truly interesting thing about Sue Gerhardt's book (which is a great book in a number of ways) is that she has a great deal or well-organised neurobiological as well as psychological evidence for these claims. Cortisol has been mentioned recently, for instance (in the how to help mad people thread): she is all over cortisol in that book.

It was changed but only in regards to a couple of paragraphs were snipped. Its fine, just link to the source next time.

Actually, I think I was foolish enough to type it in from a paper book. What's the norm here? Full academic citation, or is Author-Book-Page number sufficient?

[Faust]

I posted it simply because I liked it. I am pretty certain it is fair use. An extended review in a magazine may quote that much text. I didn't add anything to it because I thought it was pretty perfect at the time. I still think that.

Faust, are you saying the plagiarism detector said the original text was changed? I'm not 100% sure, but I think I just copied it out of the book. I believe attachment parenting has been a thing for longer than we can remember (I mean thousands of years), and it only went out of vogue briefly. But the truly interesting thing about Sue Gerhardt's book (which is a great book in a number of ways) is that she has a great deal or well-organised neurobiological as well as psychological evidence for these claims. Cortisol has been mentioned recently, for instance (in the how to help mad people thread): she is all over cortisol in that book.

It was changed but only in regards to a couple of paragraphs were snipped. Its fine, just link to the source next time.

Actually, I think I was foolish enough to type it in from a paper book. What's the norm here? Full academic citation, or is Author-Book-Page number sufficient?

This is the first time it's come up really, for copyright stuff that's come up I've deleted links to TV shows and Comics that were posted in their entirety before, you know, the obvious stuff they that gets targeted.

There's no rule on this but the done thing is generally quote the name of the author and the work title with a link to where the source was pulled in case people want to read more and to give fair accreditation.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I posted it simply because I liked it. I am pretty certain it is fair use. An extended review in a magazine may quote that much text. I didn't add anything to it because I thought it was pretty perfect at the time. I still think that.

Faust, are you saying the plagiarism detector said the original text was changed? I'm not 100% sure, but I think I just copied it out of the book. I believe attachment parenting has been a thing for longer than we can remember (I mean thousands of years), and it only went out of vogue briefly. But the truly interesting thing about Sue Gerhardt's book (which is a great book in a number of ways) is that she has a great deal or well-organised neurobiological as well as psychological evidence for these claims. Cortisol has been mentioned recently, for instance (in the how to help mad people thread): she is all over cortisol in that book.

It was changed but only in regards to a couple of paragraphs were snipped. Its fine, just link to the source next time.

Actually, I think I was foolish enough to type it in from a paper book. What's the norm here? Full academic citation, or is Author-Book-Page number sufficient?

This is the first time it's come up really, for copyright stuff that's come up I've deleted links to TV shows and Comics that were posted in their entirety before, you know, the obvious stuff they that gets targeted.

There's no rule on this but the done thing is generally quote the name of the author and the work title with a link to where the source was pulled in case people want to read more and to give fair accreditation.

I also recommend putting the whole thing in quote tags, so that there's no confusion. The formatting I see most frequently is something like this:

---------------------

I believe attachment parenting has been a thing for longer than we can remember (I mean thousands of years), and it only went out of vogue briefly. But the truly interesting thing about Sue Gerhardt's book (which is a great book in a number of ways) is that she has a great deal or well-organised neurobiological as well as psychological evidence for these claims. Cortisol has been mentioned recently, for instance (in the how to help mad people thread): she is all over cortisol in that book. Here's an excerpt:

Those who lack self-esteem and the capacity to regulate themselves well may become very self-centred adults. Without effective and well-resourced emotional systems, they cannot behave flexibly or respond to others' needs. They tend to be rather rigid, either attempting not to need others at all, or needing them too much. Because they have not had enough experience of being well cared for and well regulated, their original baby needs remain active within. In adulthood, this can in some cases be experienced as a kind of compulsion to get others to meet those needs. People who constantly fall in and out of love, who are addicted to foods or drugs of various kinds, who are workaholics, wo are endlessly demanding medical or social services, are seeking something or someone who will regulate their feelings at all times. In effect, they are searching for the good babyhood that they have not yet had. From promiscuous celebrities to welfare shirkers, such people often provoke exasperation in others who wish they would 'grow up'.

The paradox is that people need to have a satisfying experience of dependency before they can become truly independent and largely self-regulating. Yet this feels counter-intuitive to many adults, who respond to the insecure with a punitive attitude, as if becoming more mature and self-regulating were a matter of will-power. It can be hard to tolerate dependent and self-centred behaviour in adults who should be able to recognise the inappropriateness of their behaviour.

But it is not simply a matter of will-power. Even if will-power is invoked to bring about better behaviour, often this comes in the form of a 'false self' who tries to live up to others' requirements to act maturely. Unfortunately you cannot will genuine empathy for others, or a caring attitude to your own feelings, into existence. Imitating these postures is not the same as drawing on an inner experience of them. These are capacities that are internalised through experiencing them first-hand, from having had relationships with people who respond to your needs, help to regulate your feelings, and don't make premature demands on you to manage more than you can manage.

Good timing is a critical aspect of parenting, as well as in comedy. The ability to judge when a baby or child has the capacity to manage a little more self-control, thoughtfulness or independence is not something that books on child development can provide: the timing of moves in living relationships is an art, not a science. Parents' sensitivity to the child's unfolding capacities can often be hampered by an intolerance of dependency. This is partly cultural and partly the result of one's own early experience. Dependency can evoke powerful reactions. It is often regarded with disgust and repulsion, not as a delightful but fleeting part of experience. It may even be that dependence has a magnetic pull and adults themselves fear getting seduced by it: or that it is simply intolerable to give to someone else what you are furious you didn't get yourself. Often, parents are in such a hurry to make their child independent that they expose their babies to long perios of waiting for food or comfort, or long absences from the mother, in order to achieve this aim. Grandparents only too often reinforce the message that you mustn't 'spoil' the baby by giving in to him.

Unfortunately, leaving a baby to cry or to cope by himself for more than a very short period usually has the reverse effect: it undermines the baby's confidence in the parent and in the world, leaving him more dependent, not less. In the absence of the regulatory partner, a baby can do very little to regulate himself of herself other than to cry louder or to withdraw mentally. But the pain of being dependent like this and being powerless to help yourself leads to primitive psychological defences based on these two options.

Most adult pathways are more elaborate versions of these primitive responses. The dual nature of the defensive system seems to be built into our genetic programme: it's either fight or flight. Cry loudly or withdraw. Exaggerate feelings or minimise feelings. Be hyper-aroused or suppress arousal. These two basic strategies also underpin the insecure styles of attachment - the avoidant and the resistant. Whichever way the individual turns to find a solution (and these strategies may be used consistently or inconsistently), he or she will not have mastered the basic process of self-regulation and will remain prone to being overdemanding or underdemanding of others.

From http://www.amazon.com/Why-Love-Matters-affection-shapes/dp/0415870534/

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Link and/or attribution can go either before or after the block quote.

I don't think there's any formal guidelines, it's just a popular informal convention that helps avoid confusion.