"This was a quick search on bitchute. "
It's hard to go deeper because I think this stuff is patently absurd. I can remember a few occasions of people handing out flyers with this type of stuff in the 90s. There were tabloids like The Enquirer. Now the media technology has gotten much better.

If I stop and imagine how it would be if I believe in the disputed problems, behaviors like having a protest with some violence at the Capitol seem more reasonable. If you imagine the disputed problems disappearing, where the biggest long-term problems are boring things like creeping gov't cost, borrowing, and intrusiveness, maybe you could see how I see the disputed problems as one of the biggest problems because they distract from the things I believe are real problems.

Ok, not a long list and not exclusively or extensively the small slice I've expounded on here, but
"From Neurons to Neighborhoods" has some good references and speaks to a decent introductory amount of it - probably much of it is familiar to you I'd guess. Specifically Chapters 5 and 7, with a deeper emphasis on chapter 7.

That said, chapter 7 goes directly to the "how" question you asked on socialization - mainly by having one or two, maybe three, peers that don't socialize together at once, but do so in pairs consistently.

A love this little quote from it:
"At age 2 and 3, working out play themes with just one other child is challenging. Indeed, as noted by one savvy 3-year-old, “Hunter, me, Juliet (pointing to each). That’s three. I can’t do three.” By age 5, children can often do three and more at a time, keeping track of what roles all are playing, how their roles fit the overall theme, and negotiating conflicts to decide together what is and isn’t supposed to happen next (Garvey, 1990)."

The "I can't do three" just kills me every time. >.<


It also contains this gem/nugget/seed:

"As distinct from play groups, however, efforts to examine the role of early child care experience in young children’s social competence has pro- duced contradictory findings (see Chapter 11 for a fuller discussion). On one hand, preschool children with prior experience with peers in child care have been found to be more involved, positive, and cooperative with peers than preschoolers without such experience (Harper and Huie, 1985; Lamb et al., 1988; Volling and Feagans, 1995) and to engage in more complex forms of play (Rubenstein and Howes, 1983). This is especially the case when children remain with the same group of peers over time (Galluzzo et al., 1990). Indeed, toddlers who establish friendships in child care tend to remain friends right up to school entry, even when the two youngsters are of the opposite sex (Howes, 1983, 1988a; Howes and Phillipsen, 1992).

On the other hand, extensive child care in the first two years of life has been associated with lower social competence and heightened aggression in preschool and beyond (Bates et al., 1994; Haskins, 1985; Schwartz et al., 1974; Vandell and Corasaniti, 1990). The clue to these contradictory findings seems to lie in the quality of care that is provided and, in particular, in the sensitivity of the relationships that caregivers establish with their young charges. Higher-quality child care is generally related to more competent peer relationships during early childhood and into the school years (Holloway and Reichart-Erickson, 1989; Howes, 1990; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, submitted; Phillips et al., 1987a). This is consistent with evidence that infants’ attachments to their caregivers are important correlates of emerging peer relations (Goossens and van IJzendoorn, 1990; Oppenheim et al., 1988)." (emphasis mine)


https://www.nap.edu/download/9824 isa direct download location.

"If biden is very normal then the world is in a lot of trouble."
^^ This is sort of a pithy way of saying what I'm saying. President Biden's public persona is extremely normal, and we're at risk of big trouble.

"Not Mary may well bite back or forcefully push him away and cause him pain or discomfort. And now Johnny cries and a cycle completes. In this example, Johnny has experienced both sides of it. "

other than the typo in the beginning, I just re-read this after voting and wanted to clarify something in this scenario. In my estimation it is at this point the best role for the parent is to have them demonstrate empathy with each other - usually something along the lines of "you say sorry and hug ".

In my opinion that completes the empathy learning function: 1) excessive behavior causes a known unpleasant reaction 2) retaliation reinforces that understanding 3) authority figure pushes them to do something that provides good feelings they then share. Boom, the core of what we generally think of as empathy or sympathy.

I'm not the originator of most of that - only the "I personally suspect" part. so no I've not written much on it. I've got some references here in my archives I am sure though. I'll see if I can dig some out (I store so many references I've considered writing my own reference management software. : ) )

Edit: If memory serves, some key phrases to look for in the literature are "self-regulation" and "adaptive behavior." This is basically what the peer interaction/learning does for them - it lets/makes them practice new means of regulating themselves and their behavior. Basically the window, IIRC, starts around 18-24 months and continues strongly till around 5 overall, then drops off as the core foundation is now there.

Hell, even in later childhood years and then as adults we don't learn better self-regulation through authority figures.

Also, on the personal thoughts side of it, this below represents my personal thinking on it, so have a salt shaker nearby. ;)

I suspect that the reason peers are so effective is largely due to the practice, but also the different roles we serve as parents than peers, as well as the basics of what they know at 2 or so.

At that age the most effective self-regulation tool is crying. They cry, we do something to fix it. It is an externally driven self-regulation - they can't do anything beyond crying to change their status. But in the course of exploring their capabilities around peers, they'll bite (they bite adults too, of course but we don't usually bite back so that connection isn't as strong), strike with too much force, and so on.

This creates a multi-trigger situation. If Johnny bites Mary enough to hurt, Mary cries. Johnny knows what crying means. He knows it means something "not good" - pain, discomfort, an itchy bum, etc. and has a direct connection at a level he understands: a visceral one ( it isn't that Johnny is thinking these things as we do, of course). That is step one. He is building a relationship model on that.

Not Mary may well bite back or forcefully push him away and cause him pain or discomfort. And now Johnny cries and a cycle completes. In this example, Johnny has experienced both sides of it. I use biting as my example because I've personally seen an adult distinction in parenting. All anecdotal, of course, even though it is dozens of cases. However I have noticed that when a child bites a parent or sibling, some parents will literally bite back. In these anecdotal cases I had noticed early on (mom ran a day care in the home 24x7 for years) that when kids were bitten in return, they stopped biting much earlier and quicker than those who were scolded, spanked, or put in the corner or other form of time out.

Nowadays I suspect it is the similarity of the event circle. In a parenting style called "Love and Logic" they emphasize that any "consequence" must fit the infraction. For example, taking away a teen's car keys for getting a speeding ticket fits, but taking away their wi-fi access instead does not.

As parents or caregivers we fulfill the role of the base foundation of safety, security, and comfort. We can serve as models (and do whether we know it or not), but we can't serve as mirrors. Kids in the 2-4 range mimic like crazy. I think that the mimicking and the direct connection to the discomfort or pain is a powerful mechanism; take either away and the efficacy falls off. Add to that the ability to "practice" and the neuropathways repeated practicing produces and it makes sense to me.

And just to make one final highly speculative personal conjecture: I would not be the least bit surprised if we were to find that those who had authority figures rather then peers at that stage of development developed a strong tendency to look to others, such as political authority figures, celebrities, or Marxist revolutionaries; because they learned to stick with external regulation as opposed to self-regulation.

You only prove my point. My premise was valid. Trump stood down.

The only question now is did he do so deliberately for a purpose or did he do so because it was his role (keep the cash cow alive). Only time will tell.

you left out the EXTREMELY HOSTILE PRESS, DITTO FOR THE DEEPSTATE PLAYERS, a dozen or more equally Hostile nations and the fact that 'governor' kemps daughter fiance suddenly turned into a fine mist at 75 mph on a Georgia Highway.

The Census Bureau was REQUIRED BY LAW to provide the Census Data to him that he could have used, but, again, the deepstate killed that notion of OBEYING LAWS by government employees.

There seems to be a few thousand people in, and around DC that have EARNED MILITARY TRIBUNALS TO BE FOLLOWED BY IMMEDIATE HANGINGS OR FIRING SQUAD.

so, yes, we are on the same side.

And while we are not on the subject:

Have you heard any data from ANY State on how many counties had voter turnouts in excess of 100%

Until this election, THAT WAS WIDELY REPORTED....

this election? silence...

Very interesting, and new to me, although I'm educated and trained in the field. Have you written a book or pamphlet with further explanation? Peer censure vs. parental boundary-setting is a new concept to me.

How so? Did not Trump have the info I had, and more, to conclude the election was fraudulent? Testimony, video, the mysterious systems blackouts, and computer routing captures showing foreign intrusion into the voting systems in key states. Why did he not march with the folks who supported him after the election to protest the fake outcome?

If ever anyone had a TRUMP CARD to play it was Donald Trump, yet he didn't.

My premise, and analogy are valid. Had Trump took a powerful stance (his projected nature, no?) then biden wouldn't be in place, the debt would be much less, illegals wouldn't be flooding the borders, and the perversion of the left to destroy community and family wouldn't e happening. Likely, rioting would have occurred, perhaps a civil war, but no biden.

Please, I invite you to dispute anything I just said. I'm not arguing with you. I just think you haven't though this through as well as you think.

I'm sure. I was an entire housing development along the lake, one entrance and one exit. At the entrance was a very good German cuisine restaurant.

" I'm curious about your definition of "proper socialization" and how it is implemented."

It will sound harsh, but it is what it is. For boys in particular they need to learn boundaries and there is only one way they do it: to go beyond and get corrected - often unpleasantly.

It doesn't have to be physical. Part of it is their peers shunning them when they go beyond the boundaries. Sometimes it is them getting bit back when they bite someone.

Sadly the press, and some researchers who like being in the press, are getting it wrong. They are treating it like those kids already are psychopaths and it is merely detecting them early. When in reality it is them developing and being at some point on the stage of being properly socialized.

At about 2 is when they really start to develop (or not) a sense of empathy and that is priorly most effectively done by them putting their self-centered view against peers with an equally self-centered view. All kids around 2 become particularly focused on what we call "selfishness." Adult corrective behavior (aka punishment or time outs) has minimal effect.

However, peer groups are different. We're not entirely sure why it is (yet at least not that I've seen), just that it is. It may be the crossover of empathy development and direct and immediate feedback from a peer rather than an authority. But we're not too sure just yet.

Fundamentally, a two year old is basically a sociopath - but this is normal. It is through peer socialization that they directly learn what is acceptable and their brains coalesce around those lessons.

Quite interestingly, much of what they need is also found to be particularly helpful for PTSD recovery. They need to engage in social activities where there is interactive social learning - such as biting a kid and they slap you back; as well as physical development such as playing with toys that build mastery and competence - such as getting pushed or "tagged" while walking or running and recovering from it.

I personally suspect there is a link between confidence in one's peer connected physical abilities and the pushing of social boundaries that is the combination that works. Mostly because it makes sense to me but also because it seems to also help those with PTSD with very similar to the same issues.

Add to that the fact that we see the same behavior in animals (felines, canines, simians) and it is pretty solid to me, even if we don't yet fully understand the reasons.

I can give precisely one solid way in which we are better off compared to without. One always has to ask "compared to what" when saying "better."

The economy.

The economy is in worse shape than most are admitting or aware of. We are sitting on inflation the likes of which we saw last in 2008/2009 and 1979-1981 before that. And IMV we haven't seen the worst of it, and there is where right now we are better off. The reduction of drag on the economy that happened due to Trump did put us in a better position to deal with, and likely delayed, the fallout from all that "quantitative easing" and its pending inflationary effects.

None of those last lines starting with "Post Trump" are new. CRT has been being institutionalized for over a decade, for example. The only thing of note in the recent years is the coalescing around the name. It is possible that due to Trump more ordinary people eyes are seeing it for what it is, but he is not the cause of it happening. Most likely he delayed it, and his clear opposition to it combined with the Left's frothing at the mouth over anything he said or supported has given their proponents a feeling of being able to openly say it - which has exposed them to the people who aren't paying attention.

I don't think it is reasonable to hold Trump to task for what the Biden Administration explicitly reversed. At best it is basic idolatry and figurehead prominence. We tend to focus on the figureheads and ignore the critters who actually implement and push these things, or fail to stand up to them. The Republicans not meeting his stand on immigration and border control, or having a backbone at all really, are why Trump did what he did via EO which can then be reversed by the next one - just like the "Mexico City Policy" flips back and forth every time partisan control of the WH does.

Are we better off on that front? Debatable. We won't see that until we see if the public forgets over the next 1-3 years.

Trump basically did what I expected him to: act as a lightning rod for the politicians and powers that be to expose themselves for what they are - in both parties. But that is only 25% of what is needed. It is up to the people for the remaining 75% and I think the jury is still well out on that one.

That said, I fully agree his COVID response was terrible, just not for the reasons the Left claims. instead because he did too much of what they wanted. I do think that had it happened a year earlier we probably wouldn't have seen it - either from him or them.

I still have plans on him being the Speaker of the House in 23-24.

A SOLID MAJORITY OF new hard core conservatives IN BOTH THE House and Senate.

It would be THE BEST CHANCE TO PUSH REPEALS OF BAD AMENDMENTS to the Constitution, and push a couple new ones like HARSH PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF OATH OF OFFICE as well as TERM LIMITS!

He can run for President in 2024 and sign the New Amendments out to the States for Ratification.

End the BATF and sell the rights to them name to a convenience store chain.

you based your reply on a false premise.

That may have been some, but there was a huge amount CIA (OSS) brought in between 1946-49 under assumed identities, that were sequestered. There was a lot of debate as to who was in that crowd.

I lived a few miles from Brookhaven Lab on Long Island. There was a German town in Yaphank, about 10 miles away, where those scientists lived lakeside.

Lol, hindsight is always 20-20. Were you better off when you were 40?30?20? Sure you can assess that now and make conclusions but tomorrows promise cannot be known, as it should be.
Trump folded at the poker table with a royal flush in hand. That action assured biden and all that comes with him. It is Trumps action/inaction at the end of his term that permitted biden, that caused us to be much worse off. Agree?

I've long believed and said that if boundaries aren't set at the time a child begins to crawl, it will be too late. I'm curious about your definition of "proper socialization" and how it is implemented.

Yes, and Paperclip had a very dark side to it, that was not disclosed, much more than Werner Von Braun.

I Think the REAL QUESTION IS?

Would you have preferred Hillary?

We dodged a bullet, and ended up back in front of the firing squad. But we know how far we have fallen. We are being drugged/poisoned from China. They are destroying us by supporting the LEFT. But we are destroying ourselves at this point.

I dream of writing a book called 10,000 patriots.
Where 10,000 like minded individuals, armed with guided reason, sacrifice everything, and "remove" the scum from office,
one at a time. Publicly. The rules are laid bare, and we barely make it through 2,000 when government starts to change out of fear.
And upon the realization that those first 10,000 patriots each fired up thousands more.
Because our way of life became more important than life itself, things were slowly righted.

You are correct and election integrity will be our only savior. But it must be identified first with at least a modicum of transparency and the complete ban of any discussion fraud by the media at large must be fought.

"...we must realize there is no John Galt and the culture is moved by the binary choice in elections." Nicely stated, Tavolino. Now, if only we can be sure the election process isn't being tampered with...

There are key point of Objectivity that I cannot entirely agree with which is why I am a Conservative. Even so, Rand was a visionary who holds my respect.

It’s always darkest before the dawn. We are in an “Uncivil War” our side is on the offensive. Audits , Hunters laptop, tarmac meeting, security leaks, the border, the China virus, censorship, BLM , Lafayette Square, HCQ, great reset, Durham .... nothing is working for them.
The end will not be for everyone.