Callooh! Callay!1428010939

blw2 tells us "...I am an ISTJ.." ah yes, ISTJ - The Though Police type - http://www.xeromag.com/fun/personality.html'>http://www.xeromag.com/fun/personality.html As others have noted - between Extraversion and Introversion, neither is intrinsically better. (introverts, please note that we're only conceding that to make the poor extraverts feel better; it's important to them). It's like hair color. If extraversion is like having brown hair, introversion is like having.... a more beautiful color, of course. Extraverts like to think they're better suited than introverts for leadership, networking, counseling, mentoring, and the like. I'll concede that they're more likely to more quickly generate more smoke... more sound and fury... but not necessarily better results. Their style can be more effective on short run things that require quickly energizing and mobilizing to get results fast. But if an introvert knows that the noises that extraverts like to make are required, he can happily make them. It's not that introverts can't do the extravert dance. They can. They just don't do it unless there's a good reason or especially interesting partners in that dance. Introverts don't often flatter themselves with the conceit that they are "natural leaders" as extraverts are more prone to do (introverts flatter themselves with other conceits - better ones, of course). That's because unless there's some reason to be leading - some worthy goal and some reason why they should lead anyone to it... they'd just as soon entertain themselves with their own fascinating thoughts and limit their interactions to limited time with a few others with similarly fascinating thoughts. Introverts aren't all shy. Since anecdotal evidence seems to be the currency in this discussion, here's an anecdote: I spent a couple years in an assignment in which I had six colleagues with non-identical but similar service and educational backgrounds - all veterans of service in the kinds of positions for which many apply and compete but few are selected. This was an odd job in which we served as course directors for seminars to educate others in fields in which we had significant service experience and academic education. We each lectured regularly in our own seminars and in other seminars for audiences that were sometimes small but quite often into the hundreds. Our audiences were unusually capable and experienced people and they had high expectations of our courses; a person uncomfortable with public speaking would not want the job and would not be selected for it. Our effectiveness depended heavily on our abilities to maintain and grow our networks of academic and professional associates qualified, able, and willing to participate in our seminars as guest lecturers. We paid and covered travel expenses of course, but the money alone was not enough to draw the quality of people we wanted and got. People worked for us partly because there was some minor prestige in doing so (and that went both ways - the kind of folks we brought onto our teams also enhanced our courses' prestige) but mostly for the joy of serving in a worthy effort and helping to train and educate an exceptionally interesting audience. So "schmoozing" was a big part of our jobs. We all agreed it was a great job and we enjoyed working with each other, the people we recruited onto our teams, and the students in our courses. But here's the punchline: one day, "they" had us test on the Myers and Briggs Type Indicator. All seven of us tested as INTJ. The "I" is of course for "introvert" which the test indicated was a trait strongly expressed in each of us. I can assure you that not one of us was remotely shy. The Myers and Briggs Type Indicator is an interesting thing. But take the results with a grain of salt. I think acceptance of the results of the test has a lot to do with the Barnum Effect - just like horoscopes and such - they can sound specific but are actually rather vague and mostly flattering - so people want to believe them. If you're familiar with the test, have a laugh and check out the parody profile of your Myers and Briggs type here: http://www.xeromag.com/fun/personality.html The parody of the INTJ may be more accurate and is certainly more fun than the serious profiles.

"Your dead wrong Callooh......" Well of course I'm wrong... and fluffy too, apparently. Fluffy? Who knew? I guess I'll have to watch out for that. I don't envy your experiences with the mothers you describe. I hope your scouts have the good sense to be grateful for you, what you do for them, and your patience in putting up with the grief some parents give you. If you'll accept a hat tip of respect from a hovering smotherer, consider this to be one, for your continuing to do that for which your scouts should be grateful in the face of that about which you (rightly as far as I can tell) complain. But which of the four factors I posited as contributory to the problem you pointed out is wrong? Or are they all wrong? They were, to briefly review: ... that a male can reach adulthood without achieving what has traditionally been known as manhood ... that manhood (as opposed to mere legal adulthood) may often require one to take something other than the path of least resistance or the route to immediate gratification ... that it's easier to get a divorce now than it used to be ... and lastly that women also share some blame for the rise in divorce rates and for enabling some male behaviors that may contribute to male irresponsibility Which of those is wrong - or are they all wrong?

Huh? I've read in these same forums that helicopter fathers are the scourge of this generation's scouts. But here I read that actually it's a dearth of dads that's the problem. The way you phrase it, "adult men," is standard usage, but it may be inaccurately conflating the two things, "adult" and "men." The problem may be that males are becoming adults, and even fathers in the strict biological sense, but are not becoming men. Manhood often crosses terrain that isn't along the path that immediately offers the least resistance and quickest gratification. But it's much easier to divorce than it used to be. Don't just blame the "adult men" though - "adult women" contribute to rising divorce rates too, and to that old adage about cows vs free milk.

How about... No.

Many extroverts don't "get" introverts. They think introversion is some sort of disorder that must be "cured." A story comes to mind: A farmer in a poor rural third world area wanted a visiting Western doctor to examine and "cure" his son who, although in his teens, had not yet had his first menstrual cycle. You see, everyone in the village, and everyone the farmer had every known suffered from a schistosome infection that caused haematuria such that they'd occasionally notice some blood in their urine. To him, that was normal. But his teenage son had never had noticeable blood in his urine. Somehow, the boy had avoided the endemic infection or did not obviously exhibit that particular symptom. And the farmer wanted to see if the doc could figure out what was wrong with the boy and how to "cure" it. Examine this quote from a post from above: "extroverts will thrive in Scouting, but so can the introverts (and more importantly, become less of an introvert)." It reads a lot like this adaptation of it expressing a parallel idea: "homely and ordinary looking people will thrive in Scouting, but so can the beautiful (and more importantly, become less beautiful)." It seems some confuse introversion with timidity or shyness. They aren't the same. Google might be a friend in this instance - try "introvert misconceptions" and see what Google fishes up for your reading pleasure. But it's helpful for introverts to learn how to wrangle extroverts because extroverts are statistically more prevalent... and extroverts need help.

Yes. You can even retake Citizenship in the Community, if you like.

It's a Saudi Arabian initiative. All sounds nice - as do numerous other such propaganda initiatives that come out of the KSA. http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20110928109610 We don't need it. It's redundant in light of the Scout Oath and Law. We can do the same good without it. Anyway, wearing a patch to announce one's self as a Messenger of Peace seems a little exhibitionist.

Trayvon Martin was apparently the victim of a crime. Zimmerman should be charged and prosecuted for that crime. If we are to analyze crime on a race of perp vs. race of victim basis... and if we choose to assume that crime by perps of race A against victims of race B are evidence of racial animus... well, prevalence of racism against blacks from other races is not likely to be what that analysis shows us.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Square Knot Instructions (without "Right" or "Left"): Short instructions for the quick: Single turn two working ends twice so as to create two bights, each with its ends passing through the other. Long instructions to further confuse the slow: Grasp two working ends and single turn each round the other. Continue immediately into another iteration of single turning the working ends round each other such that the working end that passes under from your perspective on the first single turn also passes under on the second single turn - and vice versa. This will give you two bights, each with the ends of it passing through the other. Tighten and call it a square knot, or call it a reef knot.

One wonders if being a man will ever go coed. Girl Eagle Scouts? Sure. Why not? Coed Boy Scouts? Might necessitate a name change. But please let's always allow chartering orgs to charter sex segregated or single sex units if that is their preference. There are pros and cons to coed activity and to sex-segregated activity. Let's not dictate the choice for all.

It's probably usually small talk, conversation openers that fit the situational context; relatively dull, but friendly. But when tone suggests they're trying to establish relative position in a pecking order... before you respond, even if your own resume is impressive, before you whip it out to compare whose is bigger... ask yourself "What kind of person is this that I should try to impress him, and for what?" If he's trying to establish a pecking order, he may just be a pecker.

Bacon

"this is a rich boys short cut to eagle. It is also a lazy parents way out" Odd... rich boys - lazy parents... one wonders how they came to be rich.

Well, this is an interesting point you bring up. I guess there are parents whose active involvement in their sons' development is aimed more at putting honors on them rather than building honorable qualities in them. I certainly can't dictate what you call them; my authority over Helicopter Parenting does not extend beyond HPS1 - and even then I often have to answer to the Wing Commander (although not being the "yes-man" type of subordinate, I do insist on broad authority to run Squadron level activities according to my own judgment rather than hers... and she's OK with that.) I would suggest calling these parents of whom you speak parents who wish for their children to have big hats, but no cattle - or maybe Bling parents... or something like that. From what you describe, there may be some overlap in the behaviors of these parents and those of Helicopter Parents. For example, there are a number of circumstances in which a good Helicopter Parent will be the first person to contact his sons' MBC. One is that the HP happens to be the first to meet someone who'd be a good MB for something the son is interested in or something the parent expects the son to learn - and a good Helicopter Parent is always aware and recognizes opportunities for his son. Another circumstance might be for MBs in which the MBC must be especially competent and reliable for safety reasons - in which case the HP may wish to vet the MBC himself before having the Scout start the MB - for example: let's say a boy has indicated he wants to earn the Scuba MB (or alternately that a good Helicopter Parent has decided that his children should all be SCUBA certified and that since the kid is going to be certified anyway - he wants to add the MB to his Scout stuff. PADI will certify boys as young as 11 as Junior Open Water Divers (they must dive with a pro or a certified parent/guardian if they're 10 or 11 and with a certified adult if they're 12-14 - maybe this is the "Helicopter-Diver" level of certification.) If the boy is only 10 or 11, a good Helicopter Parent is extremely unlikely to allow the boy to do a PADI cert course in a Scout Camp semi-mass production environment. Swimming MB? No problem... the good Helicopter Parent has already taught his sons to swim and to handle swimming emergencies before his sons were scouts anyway... getting the swimming MB is a mere formality - they should do it at camp their first year where it's convenient. But SCUBA, unless the parent is a competent SCUBA instructor, is a different story. Even for an older boy, the Helicopter Parent will likely want a very small, perhaps even private class for his son's diving certification course - not a gaggle of Scouts who don't know each other well. And the parent himself may even want to take the course with the boy as a review/refresher for himself... diving safety, like first aid, and emergency preparation, is one of those things you are never "done" with... it can stand regular review and regular practice - and anyway if the parent doesn't constantly keep up with developments in the field there may be things he doesn't know that have been learned since he was certified back in the days when Jacque Cousteau was a corporal. In such a case, the Helicopter Parent would not only insist on selecting the MBC himself... the Helicopter parent would want to meet and size up the instructor before asking the instructor if, in addition to teaching a cert class for his son and allowing him to attend as a refresher course, he'll register as an MBC so that the class also serves as that purpose.

As self appointed Commander of Helicopter Parent Squadron One, I have to tell you that this promotion to the ranks of Helicopter Parenting that you claim for your son is invalid based on the information you've provided so far. None of what you describe qualifies him to claim the title Helicopter Parent. For starters, he is not the boy's parent nor do you let on that he is the boy's guardian. Unless there's some parental type relationship, I'm afraid your son is disqualified from serving as Helicopter Parent for that Scout. Also the behavior you describe is NOT the behavior of a Helicopter Parent. In fact, the behavior you describe contains three serious violations of the UCHPJ, which serves as the guide for appropriate Helicopter Parent behavior. Those violations are: 1 - Failure to have the Scout earn all the MBs he "needs" early in his scouting "career." 2 - Quibbling with the MBC. 3 - Failure to sufficiently monitor the Scout's work and challenge him to exceed requirements Let's discuss these violations a little: First there's violation number one - This Scout is nearly 18 years old and is still earning MBs? Still "needs" MBs? No son of a good Helicopter Parent would be in such a situation. Helicopter Parents know that ideally a Scout should be "done" earning MBs that he "needs" before he ever pins on Star. That way the Scouts "career" as a Star, Life, and Eagle scout is focused primarily on learning to be - and being - responsible for more than just himself - he should be thinking of ways to help others - service, responsibility, leadership - not MBs. He can earn MBs but he doesn't "need" them; they're incidental electives by that point. Any Helicopter Parent worth his salt will motivate his son to complete or nearly complete all required MBs by the time the son reaches age 14. If he's still a 1st Class Scouts at age 14, that's perfectly OK... as long as he has earned most of his required MBs and is ready to starting putting a lot more attention and energy into service projects and service in PORs. Next there's violation number two: Quibbling with the MBC over whether or not the report to be submitted should be written or verbal. Helicopter Parents do not quibble with MBCs over the interpretation of MB requirements; to do so is disgraceful and undignified; one does not quibble with junior personnel. A good Helicopter Parent lets the MBC do his job and if the MBC is seriously deficient, he removes his sons from the MBC's MB program... he does not quibble. And he does not spend a lot of time correcting the MBC... he delegates that responsibility to the appropriate level... just as the General does not spend a lot of time quibbling with the Captain; he's got Colonels who have Majors to handle that for him. I certainly did not become Commander of Helicopter Parent Squadron One by quibbling with MBCs (I did it by inventing the thing and appointing myself commander - but that's a whole nother story). The only time you might say I quibbled with an MBC... that MBC was me. Now here's a little confession... while I am confident that I am good Helicopter Parent, there is one area of Helicopter Parenting where I have not excelled... in fact far from it; and that is being my sons' MBC. The shameful truth is that although each of my sons has earned more MBs than he is years old, I have only been MBC for one of their MBs and that was at their SM's request. It was for that MB that I nearly succumbed to the temptation of quibbling with the MBC (myself, that is). This is because in addition to being MBC for my own sons, I was also MBC to several other Scouts for this MB. (yes this was one of those dreaded organized MBC classes that Helicopter Scouters warn us are corrupting the purity of the "uphill in the snow - both ways" school of MB involving adult association with the least conveniently available adult imaginable - but that's also a whole nother story - so quit trying to get me off on tangents and pay attention, please.) So anyway for the other scouts, if they met the requirements as written, I signed them off. But when it came to signing off my own sons I... um... well... darn it, I know they can do better than that... for my sons I didn't want to add to the requirements exactly, but, you know... just sort of "interpret" them to be a little more exacting that some folks might read them to be. In the end though, I resisted that temptation - my sons met the requirements as written and as I figured most would interpret them, so I signed them off just like I did the other Scouts. Lastly, there's that third violation: Failure to sufficiently monitor the Scout's work and challenge him to exceed requirements. A good Helicopter Parent would have been well aware of the requirements for that MB (because it's a required MB and it covers material that a Helicopter Parent knows is important. Such a parent, seeing a requirement to submit a report would want the report submitted to him (the parent) as well... and he'd insist that the Scout write a thorough written report and be prepared to deliver it as a verbal report as well - that way, however the MBC "interpreted" the requirement, the Scout would have nailed it and be ready to reproduce or redo or handily demonstrate that he knows his stuff and has done his homework.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Nothing about enjoying Air Conditioning one week precludes one from being outdoors another. Nothing about being academically proficient precludes one from being proficient in other areas. "Camp Nerd Scout" Great idea for a name BadenP. It might inspire some of the scouts who attend to follow in the footsteps of great nerds who developed things like this internet we're using. Ζήτω σπασίκλες!

The JMHO expressed above sounds about right. All the ado was really just practicing the EDGE method. EDGE - Excoriate, Denigrate, Give 'em Heck, Enervate

Indeed. It fits. Both of us. Very stylish. And agreed it is a "it is a positive thing to try and get our Internet, computer game generation scouts tied into doing so e needed advancement towards getting their Eagle Scout." ---to quote back an opinion whilst wearing this fancy new hat of judgment someone on the forum just gave me. (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Do they allow sheath pencils at this air conditioned encampment? Google "air conditioned eagle encampment"... and we find one at Camp Lanoche, Florida, June. And we see its purpose is NOT to "get Scouts to Eagle Scout without having to impose undue outdoor activities" It's for 1st Class to Life, ages 13 to 17 to work on academically oriented MBs. Maybe Scouts who attend it do outdoor activities in other times and places? The MBs they work on for this one are: Citizenship in the Community Citizenship in the Nation Citizenship in the World Communications Family Life Personal Management Much of many Scouts' work on these is done in comfortably climate controlled quarters.

"...but we don't ban pencils." Not even sheath pencils?

This is silly. Why ban sheaths? A sheath isn't a hazard, it's a safety precaution. If we want to nano-manage what personal equipment scouts carry, it'd be more sensible to require that knives have sheaths rather than prohibit it.

"or are we informally preaching racism" Yes, it does seem that someone is preaching racism. Someone seems to have lower expectations of citizens who haven't learned to function well in English. Someone seems to assume that folks who speak a different language must be a different race and must be lacking something that might enable them to remedy their linguistic isolation from the rest of the country. Someone advocates policies that will enable their continued linguistic isolation within the USA. It seems like someone would like to keep certain people down and do so under the guise of "helping" and "welcoming" them. "most of the early explorers to the Americas did not speak English, let alone the Native Americans." I hope no one is suggesting we adopt the early explorers' attitudes toward interaction with other cultures. A person can be a good person no matter what language(s) they speak or don't speak. But a good citizen of the USA functions well in English. If there are US citizens interested in BSA but who don't speak English well enough to participate, teaching them is a service opportunity.

The only knots emblems I recognize on sight are the ones Boy Scouts wear to indicate they earned AOL as Webelos, and to indicate they've earned their "Emblem of Faith." But those are easy to recognize because they're the only knots I've seen scouts wear. Some adults are knot wearers others are not wearers of knots they could wear if they so chose. I tend not to notice knots on adults much unless someone is wearing a whole knot of them. Among the adults I've met who wear a plethora of gewgaws, the gewgaws threw an apparent lack of substance into starker relief in a few cases... but only a few. So knots don't make the man, but plenty of good ones do wear them. And long may they enjoy doing so - in numbers culled a bit for the sake of uncluttered decorum.

We could have him walk down an aisle lined on either side by troops' real scouts. As he walked by the scouts would rip the patches off his uniform. At the end of the line would be the SPL; he would confiscate the offender's hiking stave, snap it in two and throw it on the ground. Then the entire troop would ceremonially signal of its rejection of the boy by collectively turning their backs on the former scout as he was escorted away from them, never to be welcomed into the fold again. Then again maybe we'd want to know more before taking the perfunctory disciplinary measures described above. Maybe it'd be appropriate to consider: "What rank is this?" "How long has this kid been a scout?" "How old is he?" "What's he like?" "Does this seem like a juncture at which being a little stern might provide a valuable lesson?" "Does this seem like a juncture at which gentle admonishment is more appropriate?" We might also ask ourselves... "Selves, why are we talking to ourselves?... but as long as we are, let's ask ourselves some other questions about this situation... like: are we being asked to award this kid a college degree? a Ranger tab? a license to operate heavy equipment or practice some skilled profession? Or are we being asked to award him a Boy Scout rank... Boy Scouts.... hmmm, that's got boys in it don't it? Are boys known for their highly developed pre-frontal coritices? For their superior cognitive function? Or are they often a bit squirrelly? OK, squirrelly or not, Boy Scouts ought to be teaching boys to be men who don't lose their records... but while they're learning that, they're still boys." There must be enough corporate memory between the boy, his fellow scouts, adult leaders, and his parents to recreate the kid's records.

Scouts of all levels are the cowboys in this rodeo; we're the clowns. So get down off your high horse and let's keep 'em safe and keep their show rollin'. Cub Scout Scouters looked down on? I can't figure that. Even if it promised rock-star prestige, complete with a bevy of nubile groupies, I'd balk at returning to Cub Scouts as anything other than a guest to give a beleaguered DL a respite from the routine. But it ain't because I look down on them, it's because I'm not up to it.