‘Two World Syndrome’: How Do Handle Kids With Different Temperaments?

'Two World Syndrome'

Sanjana is always in dilemma, what she calls her ‘two kids, two world syndrome’. The syndrome sinks in everywhere: at dinner, in holiday plans, in the movies slotted for Sunday…both her kids – a son, 10, and a daughter, 8 – have such different temperaments, such divergent tastes that no matter how much she plans, one of them ends up sulking about the food, the vacation, the flick, the book…

In Temperament Tools, authors Helen Neville and Diana Clark Johnson classify children according to their innate temperaments: Pulu Puppy – child of moderate temperament; Camber Chameleon – low energy, highly-adaptable child; Tarita Turtle – low energy, easily discouraged child; Fenler Fawn – sensitive, intense, cautious child; Tiganda Tiger – intense, slow adapting child; Bear Cub Combo – active, intense, easily frustrated, slow-adapting child.

According Helen and Diana, most of the parents know that their children are different from the day they are born. Not so long ago, researchers believed that all children were born the same but turned out differently due to how they were brought up. However, recent researches have shown that children are different from birth and, more important, remain indifferent no matter how they are parented.

Leading temperament researchers Dr James Cameroon has studied thousands of babies and concluded that there are only nine temperament traits, and combinations of these traits can explain the behavior of different kinds of kids. Cameroon says that a child’s basic temperament starts to be obvious in the fourth month; the sooner the parents realize it, the easier it is for them to handle the child.

Dr Sandeep Dhingra, consultant psychiatrist, Indraprastha Apollo Medical Center, says that the most important aspect is to understand the emotional reactions of parents towards children. Some parents might prefer a shy, timid child over an enthusiastic, jumpy child because the former are easier to handle. On the other hand, there are parents who prefer gregarious children because they are cheerful and make the house livelier. But doctor cautions: “Between two kids, deep inside, you might have a preference for one. But never express that openly. If the kids understand they are appreciated or deprecated for their behavioral traits, they start building on it. A shy child would get shyer, a jumpy child jumpier! This might lead to extremes later. It’s very important for parents to maintain a balance.”

Often parents inadvertently create imbalances. Kids notice subtle differences in parents’ interactions with them and decide whether they are loved or not. Some parents think that the best way to handle a child is to constantly reassure him or her that he or she is equally good and loved. But there is a catch here – the parents should not overdo this reassurance bit with one child then the other one might feel unloved! It is a tightrope but the parents would have to walk it.

If you can handle the two-kids, two-world syndrome by making a conscious effort to maintain a balance and not openly express your preference for one child’s behavioral trait, you would steer clear of trouble. But don’t wait for everyday problems to hit the danger zone! If you are getting worried about the situation, go to a psychiatrist for professional help and parenting tips.

Sources: 'Temperament Tools', Times of India, Consultant Psychologists from New Delhi, Xplore Mag.

Pakistan and the War

Published: December 8, 2009

President Obama has articulated a reasonably comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan, but there is no chance of defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda unless Pakistan’s leaders stop temporizing (and in some cases collaborating) and get fully into the fight.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, former President George W. Bush tried to buy off Pakistan’s military leaders who pocketed billions of dollars in American aid and continued to shelter the Taliban. Mr. Obama must demand more while finding ways to bolster the country’s weak civilian leadership and soothe anti-American furies.

In a world of difficult strategic and diplomatic challenges, this may well be Mr. Obama’s toughest.

In his speech last week, Mr. Obama laid down a marker for Islamabad, declaring “we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.” In private, administration officials have been even more explicit, warning Pakistani leaders that if they don’t act the United States will, including with more attacks by unmanned aircraft.

Such strikes have killed several top extremists, but the program is hugely unpopular in Pakistan and Mr. Obama must be judicious about expanding it. That means three things: extremely careful targeting, no civilian casualties or as few as possible, and no publicity.

Drones won’t be enough. Pakistan’s civilian and military leaders must finally be persuaded that this is not just America’s war, it is central to their survival. In recent months, the Pakistan Army has gone after Taliban fighters in the Swat Valley and Waziristan. Yet the Army leadership is refusing to strike at the heart of the Taliban command in Baluchistan Province.

In part, they are hesitating because of legitimate fears of retaliation. But there are also many Pakistani officials — and not just in the intelligence services — that continue to see the Taliban as an ally and long-term proxy to limit India’s influence in Afghanistan. To change that thinking, Mr. Obama will first have to persuade Pakistanis that the United States is in it for the long haul this time. The president sent conflicting messages in his speech, promising Pakistan a long-term partnership “built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect and mutual trust,” but also suggesting that there will be a quick drawdown of American troops in Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama privately has promised Pakistani military and civilian leaders what one aide described as a partnership of “unlimited potential” in which Washington would consider any proposal Islamabad puts on the table. Congress has already authorized a $7.5 billion aid package, over five years, for schools, hospitals and other nonmilitary projects. But this won’t mean anything if it does not follow through and actually finance the program. The White House should also press Congress to pass long-stalled legislation to establish special trade preference zones in Pakistan.

Presuming security needs can be met, President Obama should visit Pakistan so he can tell Pakistanis directly that their fears of abandonment — or domination — are unfounded. Mr. Obama also must keep nudging India and Pakistan to improve relations. That may be the best hope for freeing up resources and mind-sets in Pakistan for the fight against the extremists.

Mr. Obama told a small group of journalists at a White House lunch last week that reducing tensions between the two nuclear rivals, though enormously difficult, is “as important as anything to the long-term stability of the region.” He is right.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/

YES say to GAY by Delhi High Court

State has no business to interfere in people’s sex preferences

- Dilip K. Patairya

Sex and religion have two things in common. Both are better left to the conscience of individuals, rather than permit the state to interfere. This tenet must be our guiding sign when we deal with gays or lesbians, the minority community in India. The state must better leave the decisions regarding sexual relations to the individuals, and put itself to the matters of real importance.

Indian law is heavy-handed when it comes to homosexuals. Section 377 of the IPC declares same sex relationship a criminal offence and those booked under it could land up in prison for 10 years. A life could be destroyed just by an action which is supposedly private. An individual would suffer; his liberty thrown in the dustbin; just because the state decided to poke its nose into his bedroom.

Entering the private lives of people is just like interfering in religious beliefs of the citizens. A state government in India recently introduced some amendments to a Bill regarding religious conversions which would make it mandatory for people choosing other religion to register themselves with the district magistrate. However, the Central Government decided to return the Bill to the state. Of course this was the right step. Religious beliefs should be left to the people themselves. Why should the state dictate them to follow a set of rules? And the same set of mind should be applied when it comes to homosexual relationships.

There have been demands from several quarters for the abolition of Section 377. Even if the detailed review of the Section as a whole takes time, its most objectionable parts should be done away with immediately. The Section is a left-over of the British Raj. Rooted in Victorian way of thought, it is not in sync with the needs of today. The Government must get rid of it and exit the personal domain of sex.

Most of us view homosexuals through skewed lenses. It is time now when we should throw away these misguiding glasses and adopt progressive way to look at the matter.


(Dilip K. Patairya is a political and social commentator. He is associated with several online and offline publications as a freelancer.)