Scouts and guides provide ‘mental health boost for life’(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Scouts and guides provide ‘mental health boost for life’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37923133
179 comments
> I've never served in the military, but from the people I know that have, they pretty much learn to take the same attitude.
The phrase used in the US military for this is "Embrace the suck". Which means "The situation is bad, but deal with it."
The phrase used in the US military for this is "Embrace the suck". Which means "The situation is bad, but deal with it."
As an Eagle Scout and former Army officer, one of my enduring life lessons has been "false motivation is better than no motivation."
When you're cold, wet, and tired it helps to pretend you love it. It's infectious, too.
It is actually a good feeling when you realize you're not as fragile as you thought you were. "I would have thought that I'd be miserable in this situation, but I'm actually OK" is a good thought to have.
When you're cold, wet, and tired it helps to pretend you love it. It's infectious, too.
It is actually a good feeling when you realize you're not as fragile as you thought you were. "I would have thought that I'd be miserable in this situation, but I'm actually OK" is a good thought to have.
The same mechanism is probably why studies show that forcing a smile even when you don't feel happy can lead you to slowly become happier.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/smile-it-could-ma...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/smile-it-could-ma...
This result has been cast into doubt by a recent replication attempt, which failed to find any such forced-smile effect.
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/StrackRRR_manuscrip...
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/StrackRRR_manuscrip...
Similar to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
In Ireland we mostly called it "Improvise, adapt, overcome."
Which means "The situation is bad, but deal with it."
The problem with this phrase is that the U.S. military takes it extremes, telling soldiers to suppress inborn capacities for empathy, particularly in regard to civilians and "military-age males" routinely maimed and butchered in the course of its day-to-day operations. Inevitably resulting not only in mental health issues for the soldiers when they return home, but ultimately, failure of the overall mission itself.
The problem with this phrase is that the U.S. military takes it extremes, telling soldiers to suppress inborn capacities for empathy, particularly in regard to civilians and "military-age males" routinely maimed and butchered in the course of its day-to-day operations. Inevitably resulting not only in mental health issues for the soldiers when they return home, but ultimately, failure of the overall mission itself.
This comment made me think back to my childhood. I've never been in any organized outdoor/military groups, but a phrase I heard a whole lot while growing up was "you have to". Things like doing chores or homework were not presented as "should", but rather "have to". My protests were usually met with "yes, we hear you, but you still have to". Pissed me off to no end back then, but in retrospect has been highly valuable in teaching the same attitude towards problems - they don't just go away on their own.
One thing that I got from my time as a scout is to live and work with people I can't stand, which is something that has helped me a lot since that time.
Definitely, even if you hate them you have to work with the rest of your patrol and make your situation as good as possible, whether that be by stringing up tarps, building tripods to hang your stuff on, making an axe yard, or caring for Mike who is having yet another asthma attack/seizure/hypothermia/etc.
I was lucky enough to be in a large, non-religous troop that happened to have a bus & be very well organized (4 Junior Assistant Scoutmasters!), definitely a great experience, only wish I had gotten further than life.
I was lucky enough to be in a large, non-religous troop that happened to have a bus & be very well organized (4 Junior Assistant Scoutmasters!), definitely a great experience, only wish I had gotten further than life.
As a former SM, the goals (Aims) of Scouting do not include getting young men to the rank of Eagle.
The aims of Scouting are: Character development Citizenship training Physical fitness
The methods used to achieve these aims:
http://www.nesa.org/methods.html
Learning to live with others is one of the things achieved via the patrol method. This tends to develop citizenship.
The aims of Scouting are: Character development Citizenship training Physical fitness
The methods used to achieve these aims:
http://www.nesa.org/methods.html
Learning to live with others is one of the things achieved via the patrol method. This tends to develop citizenship.
Not to take away from scouts, but I feel like this study could apply to any group that a child decides to stick with and learn from. Sports teach resilience and the like, as well does joining a music group. My club soccer team during high school was unbeaten for most seasons and ended up state champions, but most of us didn't hangout afterwards or even like each other.
I don't disagree, but for me, since I did not practice team sports, so I got this from my time with scouts.
Still, it's a bit different for the scouts since you will live for extended periods of time together, like 10+ days for the summer outing.
Still, it's a bit different for the scouts since you will live for extended periods of time together, like 10+ days for the summer outing.
Scout specifically get in to nature, and there are several articles/studies claiming there are positive mental health effects of being in nature, so that (or the the combination of that plus what you were saying) could be part of whats going on.
Not really, playing sports doesn't give the "immersive" experience of spending several days at a time in the back country, sports kit doesn't have the meaning attached to it that a uniform does, etc etc. I was a cadet rather than a scout but even decades later it still shapes my thinking.
I dunno, I dumped the Boy Scouts as soon as I started playing sports. It didn't help that there were legitimate, registered sex offenders involved in the leadership of the local troop. But really it was that it was just easier and more fun to just go out in the back country and do stuff on your own than to put up with all the red tape and bureaucracy and fiddle-frigging around that Scouts entailed.
Yeah, except if you are being bullied and nobody steps in to stop it.
> if you fail to pay the bills, you aren't going to die.
I don't know where you live, but in certain places failing to pay your bills means you end up in the cold rain with nothing to eat.
I don't know where you live, but in certain places failing to pay your bills means you end up in the cold rain with nothing to eat.
> I don't know where you live, but in certain places failing to pay your bills means you end up in the cold rain with nothing to eat.
That's still not the same as dying. There are homeless people who still manage to get by for years on, despite having no means whatsoever.
That's still not the same as dying. There are homeless people who still manage to get by for years on, despite having no means whatsoever.
Which brings us to the end of the thought process: different people (are equipped to?) perceive situations differently & react differently. If the scouts prepared me to not be afraid of being thrown out of my home, or the army gave me the means to survive in life threatening situations, I think it's an even greater sign of character, or maybe just discipline and maturity, to recognise serious situations which aren't the same as dying. After all, your training as a soldier or scout will mean nothing, if you haven't accepted that the things it prepares you for are (or will be) actually a problem.
In my mind, that's not a different perspective. It's the same perspective, applied elsewhere.
In my mind, that's not a different perspective. It's the same perspective, applied elsewhere.
Definitely, if I were forced out of my home, I would be able to hit the ground running with minimal fear. I know what to do to improve my situation when I've been dealt a crap hand thanks to scouts, and how to deal with others around me even when they are acting crazy.
Many other people would not make it long term in such a situation, and I'm not trying to imply it'd be an enjoyable life, but I do wish more people had skills to survive the environment just outside their homes.
Many other people would not make it long term in such a situation, and I'm not trying to imply it'd be an enjoyable life, but I do wish more people had skills to survive the environment just outside their homes.
Not in europe.
Well, that depends where in Europe.
the top left side.
you're not going to freeze to death in southern italy
you're not going to freeze to death in southern italy
Being from the top left of Europe and having suffered the consequences of making bad assumptions about weather in Italy in winter ("It's Italy, must be warm") I'd always check.
For example, you might quite easily freeze to death at the top of Mount Etna! (And/or burned to death).
For example, you might quite easily freeze to death at the top of Mount Etna! (And/or burned to death).
[deleted]
[deleted]
I was constantly bullied and harassed in my youth. Anything that was like scouts/guides was even worse. I'm certain I brought it on myself by being different and socially inept, but this bullying certainly didn't benefit my mental health.
You are correct - these are the lessons you learn in the military too.
I've only recently been noticing how applicable the lessons I learned in the Royal Marines are to software development. Thanks for putting it so eloquently.
I've only recently been noticing how applicable the lessons I learned in the Royal Marines are to software development. Thanks for putting it so eloquently.
This! Its about being responsible for yourself. That teaches worlds of healthy attitude.
One of my Scouts likes long-range bicycling (mountains, centuries etc). He had engraved on the headset of his bike "There's only one way to get home" to remind himself that its all up to him.
One of my Scouts likes long-range bicycling (mountains, centuries etc). He had engraved on the headset of his bike "There's only one way to get home" to remind himself that its all up to him.
"When you're 2 days walk from civilisation, it's pissing down with rain, and you're cold, wet, hungry, and tired, you get a different perspective on life and the "soft" challenges that you face in life back home."
Milford?
Milford?
Pretty much anywhere in New Zealand you can be 2 days walk from civilisation.
"anywhere in New Zealand you can be 2 days walk from civilisation"
good point.
good point.
It might be one of the cases where correlation doesn't imply causation. For an objective study, we would need to assign children to groups randomly. Otherwise, we can miss various obscure selection effects. (For example, if children who are more likely to be scouts, are also likely to be from a particular socioeconomic background).
Definitely. This is exactly the sort of study you strongly expect the causal conclusion to not obtain and disappear in a randomized study/genetically-sensitive design (anxiety and other mental issues are highly heritable, of course), right up there with such classic sociology non-results as 'children whose fathers leave do worse' or 'children who experience corporal punishment have more behavioral problems' or 'children whose mothers drank during pregnancy are stupider', both because the actual randomized studies of things like early-childhood interventions like Headstart show no effects or fadeout and because there is tons of self-selection in who goes into scouting and who is able to/chooses to stay in it. (Most of the kids who joined with me dropped out at some point, and the more troubled ones dropped out earliest.) Like most of these results, I expect most of the correlation would disappear if you compared siblings, or better yet (but harder to find), discordant twins, or used polygenic scores of genetic risk for anxiety disorders. This study couldn't do it because they took a one-week sample of UK births so no siblings and too few twins, but I'm sure a twin registry or the UK Biobank or someone has asked about extracurriculars like scouting.
And oh yes, since scouting tends to be a family thing where if one son is enrolled in Boy Scouts, the other sons will be too, that means any supposed causal effect of Boy Scouts would fall under 'shared environment' estimates from family & twin designs, which measure the influence of all variables influencing entire families such as parenting choices. And shared environment estimates for anxiety and mental health disorders in general are almost always small. So... if taken at face value, the choice of Boy Scouting or not could explain most or all of a family's influence on anxiety! This seems highly improbable, to say the least.
A gwern classic - the second sentence of this wall of text contains 112 words and 14 verbs. I think your tendency to include tons of parenthetical remarks, caveats and every example you can think of, confuses the reader and makes it hard to figure out your essential point.
'I made this comment very long only because I have not had the leisure to make it shorter.'
More details on the study from NewScientist [1]
They analysed data from a long-running study of almost 10,000 people across the UK who were born in November 1958. They found that 28 per cent of the study’s participants had been involved in the Scouts or Guides, and that these were 15 per cent less likely to suffer from anxiety or mood disorders at the age of 50 than their peers who didn’t join. Scouts or Guides were not more likely to come from families of any particular social status. However, people from poorer backgrounds do have a relatively higher likelihood of mental illness – but this effect seemed to be reduced or even removed in those who attended Scouts or Guides.
[1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2112209-scouts-and-guid...
Submitter but not involved in the study
They analysed data from a long-running study of almost 10,000 people across the UK who were born in November 1958. They found that 28 per cent of the study’s participants had been involved in the Scouts or Guides, and that these were 15 per cent less likely to suffer from anxiety or mood disorders at the age of 50 than their peers who didn’t join. Scouts or Guides were not more likely to come from families of any particular social status. However, people from poorer backgrounds do have a relatively higher likelihood of mental illness – but this effect seemed to be reduced or even removed in those who attended Scouts or Guides.
[1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2112209-scouts-and-guid...
Submitter but not involved in the study
There is a selection bias issue here. E.g. if there were some underling genetic disorder that causes anxiety, then that person is less likely to join a group.
Yep, the bias is that all of the scouts came from households that decided to enroll their kid/s in the scouts. This is not a joke, and there is a difference in value systems and other factors that cut across cliché dimensions like socio-economic status.
As a former scout leader, I think there is also another effect at play. In my experience parents often send children to scouts when they don't fit into more mainstream team sports and when children are struggling to make friends elsewhere.
These children are often particularly socially awkward. I'm not an expert but I think that this group of children may be more predisposed to mental illness.
These children are often particularly socially awkward. I'm not an expert but I think that this group of children may be more predisposed to mental illness.
Just curious, what was the size of the city/town that this scout troop was in?
A town of about 50k people, but the troop had a wider catchment area of maybe up to 200k
Yes, this seems likely. Even putting aside fine-grained value differences, a friend of mine put it this way: "Kids of parents who don't care enough go to summer camp, kids of parents who care too much go to scouts." (Referring, mostly, to the average expected levels of parental involvement.)
The study lead was interviewed on R4 this morning, and asserted they they'd controlled for this.
Thanks. Seems they were acutely aware of this; it's the first thing discussed in the paper:
http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2016/10/05/jech-2016-20789...
They're comparing with people who went to other groups, and concluding that there is a quality of scouts and guides in particular that is protective.
I do wonder if there is still selection bias, since you may choose to avoid certain types of group, and attend others.
http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2016/10/05/jech-2016-20789...
They're comparing with people who went to other groups, and concluding that there is a quality of scouts and guides in particular that is protective.
I do wonder if there is still selection bias, since you may choose to avoid certain types of group, and attend others.
Absolutely a huge selection bias.
My daughter did Sparks & Brownies and it ended up being a big clique of kids who all went to the same church & school and in the end she (a hyper sensitive, artistic, intellectual type child and a more solitary, introverted type) hated it and asked to quit it.
I went through the same thing with Scouts when I was a boy.
The kids that remain after the first couple years of cute crafts and silly games are the kids who like following along with group activities, like doing group organization stuff, and deal well with social groups and (often) cliques.
Basically like sports, like a lot of elementary-level school (and a lot of other things in our society) -- the "odd" kids are selected against.
So no surprise there's "good mental health" for people who are good at conforming to the norm. Because that's literally the definition of "good mental health" encoded in the DSM. A disorder there is a deviation from the norm.
My daughter did Sparks & Brownies and it ended up being a big clique of kids who all went to the same church & school and in the end she (a hyper sensitive, artistic, intellectual type child and a more solitary, introverted type) hated it and asked to quit it.
I went through the same thing with Scouts when I was a boy.
The kids that remain after the first couple years of cute crafts and silly games are the kids who like following along with group activities, like doing group organization stuff, and deal well with social groups and (often) cliques.
Basically like sports, like a lot of elementary-level school (and a lot of other things in our society) -- the "odd" kids are selected against.
So no surprise there's "good mental health" for people who are good at conforming to the norm. Because that's literally the definition of "good mental health" encoded in the DSM. A disorder there is a deviation from the norm.
Yeh. The paper claims to have controlled for this by comparing against kids in other groups, I suspect that might not be a very good control. E.g. if your daughter went on to join a different type of group that she did fit in with better, then that's a very clear selection bias. If I'm understanding correctly their control assumes kids just randomly select a group then stick with it.
what about kids who don't do _any_ group
Consider this; if those kids that would normally avoid scouts/guide were now forced to go because their parents saw reports of this study, then the effects could very well be negative, in turn cancelling out or even reversing the reported overall beneficial effects.
It looks like they weren't included in the study because the authors deemed that they were subject to selection bias (correctly in my view).
1. Define mental health in terms of adherence to the mean.
2. Find a group where adherence to the mean is mandatory in order to continue in the group.
3. Success, the group makes you mentally healthy!
a hyper sensitive, artistic, intellectual type child
Most parents think their children are unique. That's why sending them to a group that wears a uniform is so important.
Most parents think their children are unique. That's why sending them to a group that wears a uniform is so important.
Eh, I would say most new scouts are pretty anxious, and they also potentially come with other issues like asthma that likes to flare up, seizures, diabetes, etc. having had to deal with patrol members with these issues, sometimes 2 having one of these issues at the same time out of a group of 6 or 7.
Generally you deal with it as quickly & safely as possible, get the rest of your patrol to rally and do what is needed to get said person into a stable state, while sending one member to alert your assistant scoutmaster so that further help can be at the ready. That doesn't mean you get to shirk off and not go get his asthma meds, or get the guy with hypothermia some wool clothing and figure out a way to get him warmed up in short order (throw 3 people in a sleeping bag, or a warm (but not hot!) shower if you are lucky to have one).
If there is one thing I learned, Cotton Kills!
(referencing its heat wicking effect when wet)
Generally you deal with it as quickly & safely as possible, get the rest of your patrol to rally and do what is needed to get said person into a stable state, while sending one member to alert your assistant scoutmaster so that further help can be at the ready. That doesn't mean you get to shirk off and not go get his asthma meds, or get the guy with hypothermia some wool clothing and figure out a way to get him warmed up in short order (throw 3 people in a sleeping bag, or a warm (but not hot!) shower if you are lucky to have one).
If there is one thing I learned, Cotton Kills!
(referencing its heat wicking effect when wet)
You're conflating 'experiencing anxiety' with 'some underlying condition that increases the tendency to experience anxiety (and it's severity)'. The first cohort is a subgroup of the second.
Or just switch anxiety for depression - i.e. everyday depression and 'clinical' depression are not the same thing.
Or just switch anxiety for depression - i.e. everyday depression and 'clinical' depression are not the same thing.
No, I can definitely tell the difference between the two, I was just trying to give an example of what I experienced in scouting in the US.
On "Cotton Kills", George Boole (of Boolean algebra) died of pneumonia brought on by his wife's superstitious belief that wet bedsheets were the best cure for a chill that was caused by being caught in the rain.
Part of it is you are forced to work through those kinds of issues in a hostile environment (outdoors, in the cold & wet with raccoons, bears, etc depending where your at) with other kids who are apt to get on your nerves after a while. Either you come out a more rounded person who can deal with shit blowing up in your face & making something amazing out of said explosion, or you stop showing up to go on monthly outings.
Just a note, it appears this was conducted in the UK which doesn't have a bear population, and barely has a raccoon population.
Most states in the US have no bears. Even California, which has a Grizzly on their state flag, has the joke "There is one more bear on the state flag that there is in the state of California"
The joke is specifically about Grizzly/brown bears. There are definitely black bears in California.
Yeah, I've only had to interact with bears in Alaska thus far thankfully.
[deleted]
Not only from a socioeconomic point of view, but I would guess that having parents who are involved enough in a child's life to pay for, drive to, and participate in these types of activities is more likely to be a source of a "mental health boost"
This is what I was going to say - suspect this stems from having parents or guardians who cared enough to get you involved in such an activity, and the environment that suggests, rather than scouting directly.
There's a lot to be said for going for a 3-day hike in the wilderness, even if you're accompanied by a parent.
Going with a scout group usually means that you wont be relying on the parent as you want to stay as a member of the group of people your own age.
You'll start to feel tired and sore at some stage, and it may start to rain. But if you've prepared properly (and the scout motto is "be prepared"), then you should be ok.
It's just a matter of getting away from it all, and perhaps embracing the suck as mentioned above.
Going with a scout group usually means that you wont be relying on the parent as you want to stay as a member of the group of people your own age.
You'll start to feel tired and sore at some stage, and it may start to rain. But if you've prepared properly (and the scout motto is "be prepared"), then you should be ok.
It's just a matter of getting away from it all, and perhaps embracing the suck as mentioned above.
It's true - but I scouted for years and still turned out neurotic and anxious - but I had dismissive parents who I only spent a few months or so with throughout my childhood.
This is probably true, and why Oregon just passed Outdoor School for All [0]. It's not exactly the same as scouts and guides but it is a guaranteed week-long outdoor education to every student in Oregon.
[0] http://www.outdoorschoolforall.org/
[0] http://www.outdoorschoolforall.org/
>It might be one of the cases where correlation doesn't imply causation.
This was my first thought. I would bet it has more to do with the kind of parents who would enroll their kids in scouts (either for socioeconomic reasons as you mentioned or maybe just whatever else that means about the type of parents they are)
This was my first thought. I would bet it has more to do with the kind of parents who would enroll their kids in scouts (either for socioeconomic reasons as you mentioned or maybe just whatever else that means about the type of parents they are)
An RCT for this would literally be insane. "Sign up and we might abduct your kid on Thursdays from 7-9pm, as well as 8-10 weekends/year."
Please though, give the researchers some credit. Controlling for demographic factors is sort of the bare minimum for something like this--which they attempted to do by including two "social position" factors in the model.
They also included some factors relating to childhood (presumably pre-Scouts) mental health, which might also help address selection bias.
Please though, give the researchers some credit. Controlling for demographic factors is sort of the bare minimum for something like this--which they attempted to do by including two "social position" factors in the model.
They also included some factors relating to childhood (presumably pre-Scouts) mental health, which might also help address selection bias.
That's true, but that study will probably never happen. You can expect that to be one of the top comments on any article like this on HN. It's a speed vs. accuracy problem though. The correlation between global temperatures and human CO2 emissions doesn't mean causation, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't useful info paired with common sense.
Definitely agree with that. The socioeconomic background does make a difference.
In my city, the schools in the lower economic status did not even have a scouts/guides program and the ones that did were mostly in schools where the middle class/upper middle class kids went to.
In my city, the schools in the lower economic status did not even have a scouts/guides program and the ones that did were mostly in schools where the middle class/upper middle class kids went to.
They did try to compensate for such things, but I always wonder if studies can compensate enough. Two households with the same income can have very different socioeconomic status, which may influence both mental health and the amount of scouting.
They're not using household income though--they're using a score (actually, a pair of scores) that are supposed to capture "class".
This is so common nowadays. Looks like clicks are more important than meaningful information and it is sad that such journalism hits thought to be credible entities like BBC.
This. So many studies fail to even mention this now. Next time you see a study on the health benefits of some new type of exercise for example, it's worth checking that the results aren't explained by the healthy group simply being more inclined to exercise (see also: less sleep leads to a shorter life, anxiety leads to health problems, etc)
Totally agreed - very flawed study.
Did you look at the study?
I'm biased to pile on too social science studies but the study in question made efforts to address these considerations.
From another article [0]:
I'm biased to pile on too social science studies but the study in question made efforts to address these considerations.
From another article [0]:
"On average, scouts and guides were 15 per cent less likely to
have developed mental illness or depression by middle age,
even those from poorer backgrounds whose initial risk was higher."
Wealth correlates with parental involvement but not at 1.0 - in other words, if parental involvement is a confounding variable (most likely given its established effect on mental health), correcting for wealth won't eliminate it.
Who's disagreeing with you? I'm lost as to what you're responding to.
"the study in question made efforts to address these considerations"
I'd argue that they didn't make enough efforts.
I'd argue that they didn't make enough efforts.
Are you assuming that or did you look at the research paper?
"We used variables collected at the appropriate sweeps of the NCDS to control for childhood factors which might affect...."
... snip ...
"Family aspiration was estimated from parents desire that their child leaves school at the minimum age, asked at age 11."
There was no judge of parental involvement beyond whether parents had a desire for their children to go to university or get A-Levels.
... snip ...
"Family aspiration was estimated from parents desire that their child leaves school at the minimum age, asked at age 11."
There was no judge of parental involvement beyond whether parents had a desire for their children to go to university or get A-Levels.
This is almost certainly the case. Being a scout/guide strongly correlates with parental income in the US at least – I don't know how it is in the UK. But if that is true, the headline might as well be "Being rich provides a mental health boost for life".
My scouts (was Scoutmaster for 20 years) definitely did not fit the 'rich kid' profile. Farm kids, rural community, parents working 2 jobs or driving a truck.
We went to mountains, deserts, rivers and lakes. We swam in a lake on an island in a lake. We canoed, hiked, camped, cooked, woodworked, laughed and ran.
Our Troop tried to keep event costs down to around $15, so everybody could participate. Succeeded for the most part. And we did regular fundraisers so anybody who wanted to go, had a way to get there.
Scout Troops can be expensive too. Our district has that kind. That can drive the perception of the demographic. But our Troop was top-rated in our District for years. And not because of money. It was because our youth led a very rigorous program, invested themselves in it, and expected a lot from one another.
That's actually the whole point of Scouting - getting the youth invested in something worthwhile. In the process, modeling behaviors and training skills and leadership.
We went to mountains, deserts, rivers and lakes. We swam in a lake on an island in a lake. We canoed, hiked, camped, cooked, woodworked, laughed and ran.
Our Troop tried to keep event costs down to around $15, so everybody could participate. Succeeded for the most part. And we did regular fundraisers so anybody who wanted to go, had a way to get there.
Scout Troops can be expensive too. Our district has that kind. That can drive the perception of the demographic. But our Troop was top-rated in our District for years. And not because of money. It was because our youth led a very rigorous program, invested themselves in it, and expected a lot from one another.
That's actually the whole point of Scouting - getting the youth invested in something worthwhile. In the process, modeling behaviors and training skills and leadership.
Depends on your troop, I know by far we were the best funded troop in our council, but that was purely due to the area we were able to sell christmas trees in. Without that, we would not have been able to get half our troop to go on trips, or get the proper gear (wool clothing, a good pack, tent, sleeping pad, etc) due to a lack of affordability.
I do feel bad for the other troops in our area though, I know at least 2 folded while we were going strong, one got kicked out of the district cause the BSA hates gay scoutmasters, and the other had no place to meet and severe funding issues. Running a troop requires a ton of parental involvement and effort, and outside the Mormons most troops are dying in the US.
It is really quite sad, but I get why. None of the gay guys in my troop could participate in leadership due to the BSA's policies at the time, and in a small troop that is lethal, you need every warm body that is willing to do the fundraising, planning, organizing, paperwork, etc. and they are few and far between
I do feel bad for the other troops in our area though, I know at least 2 folded while we were going strong, one got kicked out of the district cause the BSA hates gay scoutmasters, and the other had no place to meet and severe funding issues. Running a troop requires a ton of parental involvement and effort, and outside the Mormons most troops are dying in the US.
It is really quite sad, but I get why. None of the gay guys in my troop could participate in leadership due to the BSA's policies at the time, and in a small troop that is lethal, you need every warm body that is willing to do the fundraising, planning, organizing, paperwork, etc. and they are few and far between
Our Troop required only a little parental involvement. The youth leadership decided most things. The parents were needed to drive, to serve on the committee (one meeting a month). It helps to have a strong Patrol Leader Council.
The gay youth in my Troop never had a problem taking leadership roles. The BSA national (read: Mormon) policy was no gay Adult leaders?
The gay youth in my Troop never had a problem taking leadership roles. The BSA national (read: Mormon) policy was no gay Adult leaders?
Interesting that you mention rural community, my impression (I was in 4-H) was that rural kids tended towards 4-H and city kids tended towards Scouts.
Many did both. One poor mom with 5 hyperactive sons had them in everything, out of desperation. One 4H fair they submit 50 projects as a family.
> My scouts (was Scoutmaster for 20 years) definitely did not fit the 'rich kid' profile. Farm kids, rural community, parents working 2 jobs or driving a truck.
Stuff like "farm community....2 jobs" tends to obscure actual family income. Do you know what income percentile they were in?
> driving a truck
The median annual wage for a trucker in the US is $73,000.
This is not to doubt your comment -- just to put it in some perspective. Until you compare it to the whole country, you might just be saying that they were at the upper end of the middle class, but just didn't fit an idealized profile of a rich person that you have mentally imbibed.
Stuff like "farm community....2 jobs" tends to obscure actual family income. Do you know what income percentile they were in?
> driving a truck
The median annual wage for a trucker in the US is $73,000.
This is not to doubt your comment -- just to put it in some perspective. Until you compare it to the whole country, you might just be saying that they were at the upper end of the middle class, but just didn't fit an idealized profile of a rich person that you have mentally imbibed.
...drive a pickup truck with a ladder in the back and a sign on the side: Bob's Lawn Service
At least in my area I do not have an impression that scout kids are from richer families than all school kids (which should be a pretty good reference point; a little lower maybe because some of the richer parents take their kids to private schools).
I do see scouts take lots of active outside trips which can help with mental balance. Doing white water rafting, being thrown overboard, fighting elements, being cold and wet, seeing occasional physical injuries and the beauty of the stars in a desert can put minor life disappointments into perspective for a long long time. My 2c.
I do see scouts take lots of active outside trips which can help with mental balance. Doing white water rafting, being thrown overboard, fighting elements, being cold and wet, seeing occasional physical injuries and the beauty of the stars in a desert can put minor life disappointments into perspective for a long long time. My 2c.
Have any data to support that? Anecdotally, the Scout Troops in my area are all fairly blue collar.
Here in Germany it is the same. Being a scout/guide strongly correlates with high(er) parental income, high(er) education and having no migratory background.
(This is not just anecdotal but are findings that the RDP (Ring of German scout organizations) made a couple years ago.)
(This is not just anecdotal but are findings that the RDP (Ring of German scout organizations) made a couple years ago.)
I have observed the opposite in my son's scout troop. None of the kids come from "wealthy" families. Some are very poor in fact. It is all about parental involvement. These kids have parents or grandparents that see the value in having their children involved in an organization focused on character building, team building, being a good citizen, and doing your best in life. Our troop is a beacon of positivity, fun, respect, and focus on doing the right thing.
I recently went to an army reserve training for 13 days.
It was intense but really great. Days were from 6AM to 21pm. I really appreciated how everything was structured and very organized. Pressure was there and could be felt, the purpose was to learn everything a soldier needs to know, so the purpose was clear and well defined. You could not hang there and pretend that you don't understand why you're learning this or that.
Everything was demonstrated, explained and shown.
What I remember from these two weeks is how 3 guys started threatening me because they thought I reported the showers not being cleaned properly, while I was just talking about using flip flops in showers.
Lack of popularity caught up on me, and a guy threw a fake grenade at me, and I went to emergency care but lost no hearing, but could not complete the training, so I came back disappointed, but still happy of those 2 weeks since most of my scores were okay.
So like usual, those types of programs are great, but unless you prevent people from behaving like predators, people won't take is seriously.
It was intense but really great. Days were from 6AM to 21pm. I really appreciated how everything was structured and very organized. Pressure was there and could be felt, the purpose was to learn everything a soldier needs to know, so the purpose was clear and well defined. You could not hang there and pretend that you don't understand why you're learning this or that.
Everything was demonstrated, explained and shown.
What I remember from these two weeks is how 3 guys started threatening me because they thought I reported the showers not being cleaned properly, while I was just talking about using flip flops in showers.
Lack of popularity caught up on me, and a guy threw a fake grenade at me, and I went to emergency care but lost no hearing, but could not complete the training, so I came back disappointed, but still happy of those 2 weeks since most of my scores were okay.
So like usual, those types of programs are great, but unless you prevent people from behaving like predators, people won't take is seriously.
On the flip side I personally found the Scouts to be a safe haven for bullying that, when it happens to a child at the wrong time, will wreck their mental health for years to come.
Yeah, I agree that the Scouts can be a bad place for that kind of things, which is why I think it might not be good for all childrens.
(I had been a Scout for a few year and got a lot of benefits from it, but I know that my brother bullied a lot the younger scouts, so this is a real problem)
(I had been a Scout for a few year and got a lot of benefits from it, but I know that my brother bullied a lot the younger scouts, so this is a real problem)
I help to run a Scout group in the UK. All adult volunteers receive anti-bullying and child safeguarding training. In my experience - bullying is not tolerated in 'these times'.
But for sure, do what you think is best for your kids.
But for sure, do what you think is best for your kids.
'these times' being the crucial distinctor.
I was a cub in the early '90s in a deprived ex-mining town in the UK. Fighting and bullying were rife.
My parents were warned by other parents they knew not to send me to the scout troop, as it operated more like a gang than a troop.
I was a cub in the early '90s in a deprived ex-mining town in the UK. Fighting and bullying were rife.
My parents were warned by other parents they knew not to send me to the scout troop, as it operated more like a gang than a troop.
Both my brother and I were scouts in France in the 2000s, so it is fairly recent, but the situation might be different to the one in UK, the organization and the authorities being different. There is not a strong emphasis on bullying protection (as far as I know since I never been on the organization side of things), perhaps because there are different priorities or because it is not perceived as being a widespread problem.
I don’t have kids yet, but I think that scouting is a good option. Still, the experience one child will have will vary wildly from one scout association to the other and one local organization to the other, mostly because it depends a lot on the people he will end up with.
Also congrats on your engagement ! I always had a lot of respect for those who helped run our groups.
I don’t have kids yet, but I think that scouting is a good option. Still, the experience one child will have will vary wildly from one scout association to the other and one local organization to the other, mostly because it depends a lot on the people he will end up with.
Also congrats on your engagement ! I always had a lot of respect for those who helped run our groups.
I was a boy scout in the late '70s and early '80s. Loved it, and although I was too young to care at the time, my son will probably not join because religion. Yes, they have a "non-religious promise" now, but you're still subjected to it. I don't care for it, and my son will (like I did) get to choose for himself but (unlike me) without being forcibly subjected to the propaganda.
All that said, scouting has changed since I did it. We had a pretty heavy focus on pioneering (my favourite memory is being given an hour to build a suspended platform 2m above the ground before a fictional flood came), first aid (still invaluable today) and orienteering. These days it's the above as well as everything from computers to being a chef and performing arts.
All that said, scouting has changed since I did it. We had a pretty heavy focus on pioneering (my favourite memory is being given an hour to build a suspended platform 2m above the ground before a fictional flood came), first aid (still invaluable today) and orienteering. These days it's the above as well as everything from computers to being a chef and performing arts.
What country did you have that experience in?
I'm an atheist and a Scout leader in the UK. When writing my programme I always include a spiritual component to it but leave it non-religious. We definitely discuss and explore different religions (in past year visited a Mosque, an Abbey and a Synagogue to learn about their cultures) but never focus hard on a religion or even suggest that holding a religious belief is necessary to be a Scout.
Recently at an event where I renewed my promise I took the Atheist promise which is as follows:
I promise that I will do my best Uphold our Scout values Do my duty to the Queen Help other people And to keep the Scout laws
I find the majority of Scouters I meet, despite saying the original promise follow this non-denominational one throughout their Scouting. We promote the "worldwide family of Scouts" more than a religious grouping.
If you do look for a Scout group for your son, make sure to talk to the leader there. Different groups approach the issue differently so try to find one that suits you and lets your son avoid being 'forcible subjected to the propaganda' though it can be good for a young person to experience it and make that decision for themselves.
I'm an atheist and a Scout leader in the UK. When writing my programme I always include a spiritual component to it but leave it non-religious. We definitely discuss and explore different religions (in past year visited a Mosque, an Abbey and a Synagogue to learn about their cultures) but never focus hard on a religion or even suggest that holding a religious belief is necessary to be a Scout.
Recently at an event where I renewed my promise I took the Atheist promise which is as follows:
I promise that I will do my best Uphold our Scout values Do my duty to the Queen Help other people And to keep the Scout laws
I find the majority of Scouters I meet, despite saying the original promise follow this non-denominational one throughout their Scouting. We promote the "worldwide family of Scouts" more than a religious grouping.
If you do look for a Scout group for your son, make sure to talk to the leader there. Different groups approach the issue differently so try to find one that suits you and lets your son avoid being 'forcible subjected to the propaganda' though it can be good for a young person to experience it and make that decision for themselves.
> I promise that I will do my best Uphold our Scout values Do my duty to the Queen Help other people And to keep the Scout laws
Well I'm an atheist and a republican, so that wouldn't work for me.
Well I'm an atheist and a republican, so that wouldn't work for me.
Being an atheist is expressly OK in the UK Scout movement (in fact, I'd say it's probably true of a decent majority of our adult and young members), and there's nothing in the scout values that people promise to uphold which require religion in any sense.
The duty to the Queen bit is a little bit more tricky. I'm a republican (and a scout leader) and concluded I was happy to follow the wording. The reason being that it doesn't define the scope of the duty, especially not in terms I would find problematic. The traditional scope of the duty is to keep the peace and not commit treason, both of which are required by statute law in any case. I don't see it as incompatible with wanting a change in the country's constitutional arrangements. And certainly the Scout movement wouldn't insist otherwise.
The duty to the Queen bit is a little bit more tricky. I'm a republican (and a scout leader) and concluded I was happy to follow the wording. The reason being that it doesn't define the scope of the duty, especially not in terms I would find problematic. The traditional scope of the duty is to keep the peace and not commit treason, both of which are required by statute law in any case. I don't see it as incompatible with wanting a change in the country's constitutional arrangements. And certainly the Scout movement wouldn't insist otherwise.
Luckily they also thought about that! You can replace both the religion and reference to the Queen with:
"To uphold our Scout values, to do my duty to the country in which I am now living"
"To uphold our Scout values, to do my duty to the country in which I am now living"
I'm in the UK, former Cub and later a Scout. My daughter has just joined the Brownies, her promise doesn't have anything about God in it but does include something about the Queen. I'd be much happier if it were the other way around; turns out my (small r) republicanism is stronger than my atheism.
My father and I went to cub scouts when I was younger. Very quickly in the first session the religious focus arose and my dad said, "Ok, we're outta here." (We are jewish/atheist)
It's a shame to make something like this religious because I think I would have really enjoyed everything else about the scouts. I'd do the same with my children in the future if the tone is the same.
It's a shame to make something like this religious because I think I would have really enjoyed everything else about the scouts. I'd do the same with my children in the future if the tone is the same.
There's alternative inclusive scouting organizations that don't include a focus on religion.
Funny, here in The Netherlands, my son recently joined as I also had fond memories growing up with the scouts. I don't remember anything really religious except building the make-shift christmas church with the animals and a renegade priest in the woods.
I was actually disappointed that God was left out of the vow (I am catholic) with my son, perhaps I should have asked. I don't know where you live, but do you really think the in your opinion bad things, the frequency of socalled forced prograganda, outweigh the beneficial things like playing outdoors and hiking in nature?
Regarding religous education, you can't choose if you don't know what 'religion' entails. You can't explain it to your child as you have an anti-religious stance (which I fully respect), so he will have to find out for himself anyhow later on if 'choice' if something you value (or not). FWIW, I consider religion a metanarrative and vocabulary for the existential dimension of life, like playing mystical Nordic LARP stories. The sooner a human learns to speak or aprreciate it (in whatever form) the better imho. A vow to the Akela and the troop, fine... it's a vow to community values not to some sort of demi-god or god.
https://twitter.com/fsiefken/status/741687278796431360
In almost all countries the reference to God is mandatory, but in the Netherlands it is not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_Promise#Alternative_prom... https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belofte_(scouting)
Of course if you're not a member of the "World Organisation of the Scout Movement" you can do whatever you want :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_Promise#Alternative_prom... https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belofte_(scouting)
Of course if you're not a member of the "World Organisation of the Scout Movement" you can do whatever you want :-)
If it helps, I was an atheist in the Scouts and the only time religion remotely came up was at the swearing in. I just treated it like the promise to the Queen. This was around seven years ago. We also did _lots_ of pioneering/orienteering.
> "still subjected to it"
I'm a den leader for cub scouts in the US. In our pack, we leave the directly-religious requirements up to the family to accomplish in whatever way they see fit (i'm fine if that includes doing nothing). Beyond that, any other would-be religious aspects are really just "be a good human" without any specific references.
At least 1/3 of my oldest son's den is not Christian.
I'm a den leader for cub scouts in the US. In our pack, we leave the directly-religious requirements up to the family to accomplish in whatever way they see fit (i'm fine if that includes doing nothing). Beyond that, any other would-be religious aspects are really just "be a good human" without any specific references.
At least 1/3 of my oldest son's den is not Christian.
You want him to choose his own path but are keeping him from interacting with others who share a different world view to yourself? It seems more like you've chosen the philosophical and theological positions for him and want to lock him away from other influences.
That would appear to be "religious [fundamentalist] atheism".
Hiding our kids from other ideologies to me is like hiding them from danger (using knives say) - they need exposure to it in order to learn a good approach and how to handle it.
FWIW I was an atheist cub scout (UK), atheist Scout, agnostic Venture Scout, and ultimately a Christian cub leader... but I'm almost certain the exposure to Christian ideals in Scouting had nothing to do with my conversion. The closest we got to theological influence was as teenagers badgering our leaders as to why we had to make a promise to a God we didn't believe in.
Groups vary of course, in the UK the greatest influence is probably the individual leader. Last I knew leaders had to be monotheist, I expect that's changed now.
The church parades of my youth would convince anyone that Christianity were baloney.
tl;dr don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
That would appear to be "religious [fundamentalist] atheism".
Hiding our kids from other ideologies to me is like hiding them from danger (using knives say) - they need exposure to it in order to learn a good approach and how to handle it.
FWIW I was an atheist cub scout (UK), atheist Scout, agnostic Venture Scout, and ultimately a Christian cub leader... but I'm almost certain the exposure to Christian ideals in Scouting had nothing to do with my conversion. The closest we got to theological influence was as teenagers badgering our leaders as to why we had to make a promise to a God we didn't believe in.
Groups vary of course, in the UK the greatest influence is probably the individual leader. Last I knew leaders had to be monotheist, I expect that's changed now.
The church parades of my youth would convince anyone that Christianity were baloney.
tl;dr don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Depends what troop your son joins, the strong surviving troops that have more than a dozen scouts & stable funding are either filled with atheists & have a few openly gay scouts, or are run by the Mormons. I know in my patrol alone 3 to 4 of the scouts were atheists (myself included) and it was not an issue. A well run troop is there to teach you life skills and morals to live your life by, like not torturing POWs, not force or encourage you to adhere to a religion.
I would be more fearful of a poorly run or Mormon troop myself, but attending a meeting or two and talking to the Scoutmaster/Assistant Scoutmaster will definitely let you scope it out and get a reading before you give your son a choice of getting involved. I would not deny my own son the opportunity I had in scouting assuming the BSA makes it through the next decade, since it definitely helped me form into the accepting, caring & compassionate person I am today.
I would be more fearful of a poorly run or Mormon troop myself, but attending a meeting or two and talking to the Scoutmaster/Assistant Scoutmaster will definitely let you scope it out and get a reading before you give your son a choice of getting involved. I would not deny my own son the opportunity I had in scouting assuming the BSA makes it through the next decade, since it definitely helped me form into the accepting, caring & compassionate person I am today.
[deleted]
Not sure it make sense. How to choose/decide about religion (or the opposite) without knowing about it. It's like refuse to send him to elemental art/math/chemistry class until he choose the university himself.
And the another thing, you have enjoyed it (as a whole package), yet you deny this from your child? Sounds a bit strange.
Knowing about it and be a subject to it differs quite a bit.
That's right, there are quite a few thing in the world, that you need to experience (to really understand), because knowing about it is not the same. Like poverty (disability etc), one might know about it, but until experience it one might look those down. You need to be exposed many things as a child to gain experience, because as an adult you will be much more closed to new things and have less time. + this is safe.
How does this account for more anxious /less well adjusted kids not becoming scouts in the first place due to the difficulty they already have in being part of heavily conformist group activities ?
I'm going to say that the study probably did uncover the truth. I was in the USA Boy Scouts, and one thing I noticed (and disagree with) is the unspoken limitations placed on participants. For instance, what's the highest assignment one can have as a Boy Scout? Junior Assistant Scoutmaster. The Scoutmaster is always very firmly in control. In Scouts, I learned not to expect to rise to the top, indeed, not to even have ambitions to do so, as this is just not possible. This is probably good for all but a vanishingly small number of people: virtually everyone will not be in command, but will be at most a middle manager. It's probably good for your mental health to not be disappointed when your ambitions to become President, or General or CEO are revealed to be impossible. If you learn "your place" instinctively, you won't spend effort trying to be someone that the system just won't let you be. Good all around, I say.
> "For instance, what's the highest assignment one can have as a Boy Scout? Junior Assistant Scoutmaster. The Scoutmaster is always very firmly in control."
It sounds like you were in a Boy Scout troop being run with a Cub Scout mindset, rather than one operating according to the official rules and goals. I've never seen JASM described as the highest job assignment a scout can hold; most people would say that's the Senior Patrol Leader, while JASM is a transitional job for experienced scouts to learn how to step back from being a direct leader to being a mentor who helps enable the boys to lead their troop.
It sounds like you were in a Boy Scout troop being run with a Cub Scout mindset, rather than one operating according to the official rules and goals. I've never seen JASM described as the highest job assignment a scout can hold; most people would say that's the Senior Patrol Leader, while JASM is a transitional job for experienced scouts to learn how to step back from being a direct leader to being a mentor who helps enable the boys to lead their troop.
Yeah. SPL is the highest position a boy can have. JASM is just a position for older scouts to transition to a more adult mentor role as they're approaching adulthood.
Senior Patrol Leader, Junior Assistance Scout master, what's the difference, really? If a use a military, rather than a business metaphor, a boy can be a non-commissioned officer at best, not even a lieutenant.
The point that you are refusing to understand is that what you describe and apparently experienced is at most a common failure mode. It is not what the program is intended to be, and it is not representative of a typical troop with properly trained adult leadership. I'm sorry you had an asshole scoutmaster who couldn't internalize even the first half hour of the training he was supposed to receive before serving in that role.
I don't think I'm making my point, or you're deliberately mis-reading me. I had at least decent scoutmasters, and some were very good. I was an Eagle scout. I worked 3 summers at Great Rivers Council's Camp Thunderbird. I worked 3 summers at Philmont Scout Ranch, as a Range and at Cimmaroncito. I was in the Order of the Arrow. I've seen more scouts and scoutmasters in more situations than almost everyone. Most scoutmasters are good, a few are very good, and virtually all of them are trying hard.
I guess I should say that I gained a lot from Scouting, and Scoutmasters. Hopefully, I passed on some knowledge to the Scouts I interacted with as a camp staff member. Hopefully those Scouts gained a lot from their experiences. But all of that was outside the bounds of the Patrol Method, and at least secondary to it. The true message of Scouting appears to be "know your place". The "learn your place, and get better at things to serve the upper crust" is a problem built into Scouting at its very beginning, and imbues it to this day.
I guess I should say that I gained a lot from Scouting, and Scoutmasters. Hopefully, I passed on some knowledge to the Scouts I interacted with as a camp staff member. Hopefully those Scouts gained a lot from their experiences. But all of that was outside the bounds of the Patrol Method, and at least secondary to it. The true message of Scouting appears to be "know your place". The "learn your place, and get better at things to serve the upper crust" is a problem built into Scouting at its very beginning, and imbues it to this day.
That's exactly the correct analogy, and yes, for Boy Scouts that's true.
Venturing, on the other hand, is entirely youth-led, with the adult playing the role of a coach.
Venturing, on the other hand, is entirely youth-led, with the adult playing the role of a coach.
[deleted]
I was in cubs, I was bullied out of it. Any social club can go both ways.
Maybe bullying someone provides a "mental health boost".
I'm being a bit facetious but there seems to be at least a correlation.
Bullies live happier lives.
I'm being a bit facetious but there seems to be at least a correlation.
Bullies live happier lives.
Thinking about it I'm not sure they all do. If that sort of behaviour is validated enough and they come out of school with next to nothing, which is the case for many bullies in the UK, they will definitely get a sharp shock when they step into the real world.
On the other hand, some go on to head large companies and make billions where their behaviour is idolised as the way to get great things done.
On the other hand, some go on to head large companies and make billions where their behaviour is idolised as the way to get great things done.
I don't know about this, a lot of bullies bully out of their own inner pain.
Not really: http://www.today.com/parents/study-bullies-have-higher-self-...
> the study by researchers at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, also found that bullies had the lowest levels of depression, the highest levels of self-esteem and the highest social status.
> The study supports the evolutionary process theory that there is a biological explanation for bullying because bullies gain benefits from being aggressive. That is contrary to the theory that bullies are often exhibiting this type of behavior because they have difficult home or school lives or have been the target of bullying or harassment themselves.
Most speech like that is just rationalizations that bullied people say to feel better.
> the study by researchers at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, also found that bullies had the lowest levels of depression, the highest levels of self-esteem and the highest social status.
> The study supports the evolutionary process theory that there is a biological explanation for bullying because bullies gain benefits from being aggressive. That is contrary to the theory that bullies are often exhibiting this type of behavior because they have difficult home or school lives or have been the target of bullying or harassment themselves.
Most speech like that is just rationalizations that bullied people say to feel better.
High self-esteem is what I was referring to, in essence.
High self-esteem is not equal to sound mental health. Psychopaths have high self-esteem.
Not every bully is a psychopath. Unwarranted self-esteem leads to problems in life whether it's high or low.
High self-esteem is not equal to sound mental health. Psychopaths have high self-esteem.
Not every bully is a psychopath. Unwarranted self-esteem leads to problems in life whether it's high or low.
The comment I was responding to mentioned bullying as a response to "inner pain". If the study I quoted is accurate that is not the case.
I'm not going to dwell into self-esteem and socio/psycopathy labels.
I'm not going to dwell into self-esteem and socio/psycopathy labels.
As someone who came from a single parent family of two boys... I am 40, I have had depression for much of my life. We didn't have much money when I was growing up. I was in the scouts and did the Duke of Edinburgh Award. The single biggest lessons I learned from both are:
1. When you have nothing left to give, sometimes will power and discipline are the only things left in your toolbox that will get you where you need to go.
2. Self reliance - as someone noted earlier in the thread about a cyclist "there is only one way home." It also gave me the skills and a sense of confidence in my ability to survive without any of the trappings of city life. If shit falls to pieces, as having depression has proven to me it can and has and could again, I know I'll survive, regardless of anything - because I have the skills, the will power and discipline to survive the worst.
So... I have a sample size of one that goes against the grain of this research. Of course, being 15% less likely doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
1. When you have nothing left to give, sometimes will power and discipline are the only things left in your toolbox that will get you where you need to go.
2. Self reliance - as someone noted earlier in the thread about a cyclist "there is only one way home." It also gave me the skills and a sense of confidence in my ability to survive without any of the trappings of city life. If shit falls to pieces, as having depression has proven to me it can and has and could again, I know I'll survive, regardless of anything - because I have the skills, the will power and discipline to survive the worst.
So... I have a sample size of one that goes against the grain of this research. Of course, being 15% less likely doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Reminds me of a great Rachel Carson quote:
“A child’s world is fresh and new and beautiful, full or wonder and excitement. It is our misfortune that for most of us that clear-eyed vision, that true instinct for what is beautiful and awe-inspiring, is dimmed and even lost before we reach adulthood. If I had influence with the good fairy who is supposed to preside over the christening of all children, I should ask that her gift to each child in the world be a sense of wonder so indestructible that it would last throughout life, as an unfailing antidote against the boredom and disenchantment of later year…the alienation from the sources of our strength.” ― Rachel Carson, The Sense of Wonder
“A child’s world is fresh and new and beautiful, full or wonder and excitement. It is our misfortune that for most of us that clear-eyed vision, that true instinct for what is beautiful and awe-inspiring, is dimmed and even lost before we reach adulthood. If I had influence with the good fairy who is supposed to preside over the christening of all children, I should ask that her gift to each child in the world be a sense of wonder so indestructible that it would last throughout life, as an unfailing antidote against the boredom and disenchantment of later year…the alienation from the sources of our strength.” ― Rachel Carson, The Sense of Wonder
This is a counterpoint article to this:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-introduces-nat...
The NCS is being beefed up to become almost mandatory for young people. Whereas UK Scouting has quite rightly pointed out they they've been doing this for over 100 years already.
I can first hand (and second hand via my daughter) validate that being an active Scout brings many benefits to the child, and helps shape their identity for life.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-introduces-nat...
The NCS is being beefed up to become almost mandatory for young people. Whereas UK Scouting has quite rightly pointed out they they've been doing this for over 100 years already.
I can first hand (and second hand via my daughter) validate that being an active Scout brings many benefits to the child, and helps shape their identity for life.
I also got a lot of benefits from my years as a Scout, as did my brothers, but I think that it might not be a good fit for all children and some might not get any benefits from it.
I don't get the impression of 'almost mandatory' from the article, but I still prefer the scouts to anything the UK government is offering.
I greatly enjoyed my time in the Scouts as a kid in the US. Unfortunately, when I moved to France and joined the scouts there, I found it to be a hotbed for far-right beliefs that I was deeply uncomfortable around.
There's something about getting a bunch of guys out in the forest that brings out the worst in us I suppose. People who I would otherwise assume to be nice talking about ethnic cleansing positively.
It's a strange, macho environment that I didn't expect after such a fun time in the states...
There's something about getting a bunch of guys out in the forest that brings out the worst in us I suppose. People who I would otherwise assume to be nice talking about ethnic cleansing positively.
It's a strange, macho environment that I didn't expect after such a fun time in the states...
That is really quite sad, outside the Mormon run troops, most are very accepting here in the US, that being said it can get pretty fucked up pretty quick conversation wise. Making me think back to singing "Killing the baby seals" & jokes about the handy ole multicolored abortion scoop & coat hanger, but all in good jest usually.
I do imagine having a few openly gay scouts in our troop and good leadership did keep things from skewing far right, its hard to advocate against a race or orientation when you spend hundreds of hours with people of said race or orientation over the course of a year doing constructive things.
We had a great scout here from Hong Kong on exchange, so not all scouting programs outside the US suck! It may just be a bad troop too, the Mormon troops in the US are like a whole different organization policy wise. Very clannish.
I do imagine having a few openly gay scouts in our troop and good leadership did keep things from skewing far right, its hard to advocate against a race or orientation when you spend hundreds of hours with people of said race or orientation over the course of a year doing constructive things.
We had a great scout here from Hong Kong on exchange, so not all scouting programs outside the US suck! It may just be a bad troop too, the Mormon troops in the US are like a whole different organization policy wise. Very clannish.
Chronic depression guy here. Was in scouts. Had depressed episodes just as much in as out. I remember one time I was close to suicide, and watching everyone else enjoying themselves made it worse. Would not recommend. I think people with depression wouldn't have gone voluntarily, but I was kind of forced. If you're going through depression scouts is the last fucking place you want to be.
Maybe those who develop it in later years have less chance because you're less likely to join if you're prone to depression in the first place? Mehbeh?
edit: I was never bullied. Had some fun times, but mostly struggling to keep head above the pits of darkness. Good parents. Lucky guy. I always appreciated my position from an abstract point of view.
Best way to describe it: Fatigue is an emotion (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3323922/). You can only work through fatigue for so long. That's what it's like with depression, except sleep doesn't refresh you. Wake up and it's still there. Crippling.
Maybe those who develop it in later years have less chance because you're less likely to join if you're prone to depression in the first place? Mehbeh?
edit: I was never bullied. Had some fun times, but mostly struggling to keep head above the pits of darkness. Good parents. Lucky guy. I always appreciated my position from an abstract point of view.
Best way to describe it: Fatigue is an emotion (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3323922/). You can only work through fatigue for so long. That's what it's like with depression, except sleep doesn't refresh you. Wake up and it's still there. Crippling.
Worth pointing out that this refers to Scouting in the UK. While other scouting movements are based on the original UK scouting movement, there are notable differences between all the scouting movements so this doesn't necessarily apply to other movements. Regardless, good to see some solid press for scouting, gave me some of the best experiences of my life and via Gang Show introduced me to performing arts which plays a huge role in my life.
This must vary from country to country. The adventures I participated in with scouts were not even remotely as adventurous as some school trips and holidays.
All I remember from Scouts (USA, 1980s) was continuous fund raising. It was all about learning how to sell candy bars and T-shirts every month. I don't recall ever going on any actual outings in the woods or learning how to tie knots--there was never time amid the constant fund raising.
Link to the paper:
http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2016/10/05/jech-2016-20789...
http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2016/10/05/jech-2016-20789...
Interesting article. I just featured a guest on my show talking about computational psycholinguistics and using Language as a Window to the Brain. He became interested in the subject after reading about the famous "nun study" predicting dementia.
https://soundcloud.com/user-925097294/michael-covington
I spent a lot of time in Scouts learning close order drill, indoors. Seriously. Not much use, although definitely true to the "muscular Christianity" that gave rise to Scouting. However, I spent plenty of time in the woods when I didn't have to go to Scouts in the indoor community hall, so that was good. The Hitler Youth movement was modeled after the Scouts, so it would be interesting to see a study there...
I recently heard some advice from foreign students in the Netherlands, to not mention ones time in the scouts to Dutch co-students.
Apparently it's looked down upon enough that it's best to keep it quiet, especially if you're trying to get a room in a house rented by students.
Can a Dutch person comment on this? Is this true, and if so, why?
Apparently it's looked down upon enough that it's best to keep it quiet, especially if you're trying to get a room in a house rented by students.
Can a Dutch person comment on this? Is this true, and if so, why?
Dutch scout here, I've been a scout since I was 7 and I'm now 28 and a cub scout leader (kids aged 7-11).
Being in scouting can be perceived (in NL at least) as for nerds/geeks or 'corny' (don't know what is a good translation for the Dutch 'oubollig')
Especially when the kids hit puberty (the scouts/guides age), this negative image thing among school peers can be a reason for kids to quit. When I was that age, I didn't really care about much of that sort of talk and really enjoyed my time at scouting. Although there definitely was a negative image among school peers.
The image is changing for the better though. I certainly would not hide it.
I heard some nice stories from the scouts/guides at high school telling they hiked through the woods for the weekend with a backpack and went canyoning etc, while their non-scout peers only played video games inside.
When I was older and went to university, I noticed a lot of people did scouts when they were little kids. Not sure why they quit.
The social aspect is definitely a plus in some professions.
Being in scouting can be perceived (in NL at least) as for nerds/geeks or 'corny' (don't know what is a good translation for the Dutch 'oubollig')
Especially when the kids hit puberty (the scouts/guides age), this negative image thing among school peers can be a reason for kids to quit. When I was that age, I didn't really care about much of that sort of talk and really enjoyed my time at scouting. Although there definitely was a negative image among school peers.
The image is changing for the better though. I certainly would not hide it.
I heard some nice stories from the scouts/guides at high school telling they hiked through the woods for the weekend with a backpack and went canyoning etc, while their non-scout peers only played video games inside.
When I was older and went to university, I noticed a lot of people did scouts when they were little kids. Not sure why they quit.
The social aspect is definitely a plus in some professions.
Thanks!
I remember more details: this was about the 'instemming' (in Delft), a sort of interview you need to go through to get a room. So I suppose being uncool could be a factor there.
I remember more details: this was about the 'instemming' (in Delft), a sort of interview you need to go through to get a room. So I suppose being uncool could be a factor there.
Never been to such a night, but apparently it helps if you have a washing machine or dishwasher or stuff like that to bring into the student house.
There are some student-scout groups in some Dutch student cities, maybe Delft has one too.
There are some student-scout groups in some Dutch student cities, maybe Delft has one too.
I'm Dutch and have spent several years as a scout myself, and know several others who have done the same. I've never seen anyone getting looked down upon for that. Perhaps you'll be made fun of if the scouts in your country include merit badges and you keep showing them to everyone, but in that case you kind of deserve it...
The general rule of thumb to use with correlation studies like this is any result under three fold is not likely to hold up in a randomised study. The correlation between smoking and lung cancer is 15 fold.
Think how many variables are involved in this? I just don't accept it.
Defund all 'social research'. This article is should be proof enough of all the money and opportunity lost, not to mention harmful influence on policies, on make work research.
All of it?
You really don't think that it's important to understand the factors that affect people's quality of life, or how groups interact? You don't see any practical applications for this? No possible way that understanding group dynamics could pay off, say in an workplace or military situation?
You really don't think that it's important to understand the factors that affect people's quality of life, or how groups interact? You don't see any practical applications for this? No possible way that understanding group dynamics could pay off, say in an workplace or military situation?
correlation != causation.
Yes. And the researchers know that too. There's an entire section of the paper devoted to teasing this apart. From the third paragraph of the paper ("Methods")
"[T]here are multiple threats to the validity of such an approach. We were particularly concerned about factors affecting a young person's probability of attending Scouts–Guides, which could also be protective of mental health in later life. To test for this possibility, we used three approaches. First, we explored a form of ‘negative control’ exposure. Specifically, we investigated whether attendance at other types of organisations (voluntary groups and the church), and other outside school clubs, which might have a similar set of common factors encouraging attendance and which might be protective of mental health in later life, were also associated with better later life mental health, conditioning on scouts–guides attendance. The absence of an association would suggest that an unmeasured common factor was not confounding the scout–guide association, while the existence of an association would be ambiguous with an unmeasured common factor and a third factor, independent of scout–guide attendance, but acting in a pathway through the other types of organisation on mental health, being possible. Second, we sought evidence of a dose–response relationship, exploring whether fractions of attendance were related to better mental health. Third, we explored whether the Scout–Guide association was weaker in regions with a higher proportional attendance which might suggest Scout–Guides not being the causative agent."
"[T]here are multiple threats to the validity of such an approach. We were particularly concerned about factors affecting a young person's probability of attending Scouts–Guides, which could also be protective of mental health in later life. To test for this possibility, we used three approaches. First, we explored a form of ‘negative control’ exposure. Specifically, we investigated whether attendance at other types of organisations (voluntary groups and the church), and other outside school clubs, which might have a similar set of common factors encouraging attendance and which might be protective of mental health in later life, were also associated with better later life mental health, conditioning on scouts–guides attendance. The absence of an association would suggest that an unmeasured common factor was not confounding the scout–guide association, while the existence of an association would be ambiguous with an unmeasured common factor and a third factor, independent of scout–guide attendance, but acting in a pathway through the other types of organisation on mental health, being possible. Second, we sought evidence of a dose–response relationship, exploring whether fractions of attendance were related to better mental health. Third, we explored whether the Scout–Guide association was weaker in regions with a higher proportional attendance which might suggest Scout–Guides not being the causative agent."
I dunno why you're getting down voted as this is a clear point to make. A fun game I like to play when I read these sorts of things in the news is to reverse the causation implied by what I'm reading. Often times it make more sense. In this case:
Those with better mental health are more likely to do Scouts and guides in their youth.
Those with better mental health are more likely to do Scouts and guides in their youth.
He's getting downvoted because he's short quip is not a useful addition to the discussion.
If you already know that correlation != causation, then his quip is useless. If you don't, then those two words are also useless to you.
Either way it's a useless post and if he can't be bothered to explain more, then don't bother making the post.
If you already know that correlation != causation, then his quip is useless. If you don't, then those two words are also useless to you.
Either way it's a useless post and if he can't be bothered to explain more, then don't bother making the post.
I find such a comment to contribute more to the discussion (if it's actually discussed) than all the anecdotes from many of the other top-level comments. They are nicely worded and afford many points that can be discussed, most of them irrelevant to the matter of the article.
That's a fair point. Thx!
How is this any better than the original hypothesis and conclusion?
It's not - it points out that the two conclusions have equal supporting evidence, but different implications. Hence, based on the information in the article, there's no reason to expect that on average, a child joining scouts would improve their lifetime mental health.
Conversely, looking at the source journal article, the researchers did actually check for confounders in several ways, giving some credence to the idea of a causative effect of scouts participation on lifetime mental health.
http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2016/10/05/jech-2016-20789...
Conversely, looking at the source journal article, the researchers did actually check for confounders in several ways, giving some credence to the idea of a causative effect of scouts participation on lifetime mental health.
http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2016/10/05/jech-2016-20789...
The article was bad, but the study is hard to read. I'm not 100% sure but I think this this blip says scouting potentially has a casual relationship. It shouldn't translate to "Scouts provide mental health boost".
>This study used a prospective cohort design, controlling for many of the factors that might affect participation in Scouts–Guides and later life mental health. Most of these measures were collected in the appropriate cohort sweep. The possibility of residual confounding, particularly due to missing or poorly measured socioeconomic variables, was further examined using three methods, a negative exposure control, an exploration of ‘dose–response’ and a measure of differing regional rates of Scouts–Guide attendance. Although there was no evidence of a dose–response relationship, the other methods supported the plausibility of a causal relationship.
>This study used a prospective cohort design, controlling for many of the factors that might affect participation in Scouts–Guides and later life mental health. Most of these measures were collected in the appropriate cohort sweep. The possibility of residual confounding, particularly due to missing or poorly measured socioeconomic variables, was further examined using three methods, a negative exposure control, an exploration of ‘dose–response’ and a measure of differing regional rates of Scouts–Guide attendance. Although there was no evidence of a dose–response relationship, the other methods supported the plausibility of a causal relationship.
When you're 2 days walk from civilisation, it's pissing down with rain, and you're cold, wet, hungry, and tired, you get a different perspective on life and the "soft" challenges that you face in life back home.
By "soft" challenges I mean things that aren't really life threatening, if you fail to pay the bills, you aren't going to die. If you get soaking wet and get hypothermia in the bush, you could very well die (although it's very unlikely in a structured environment like scouts).
I used to ignore problems that I didn't like, and more or less wait for them to go away, this approach obviously didn't work too well. One thing that spending a lot of time in the outdoors did was teach me that when you're in the shit, the only thing that you can do is keep on going forward. When it's dark and cold, and you're tired and your feet hurt, sitting down and resting and waiting isn't going to help you, you need to keep on walking to the hut. And there's nobody else who's going to help you; you can't phone a friend and get them to do the walking for you.
The teamwork skills you learn are different to the ones you learn in a soft environment too. Everyone works together for a group benefit, because you're all stuck there together.
I've never served in the military, but from the people I know that have, they pretty much learn to take the same attitude. I think that these experiences are something that everyone should have exposure to earlier in life. I've had some experiences where I was absolutely miserable at the time, but in retrospect have been very powerful character building and learning experiences. I spent a week cold and wet in the rain, with a wet tent and a wet sleeping bag on Outward Bound and for 2 nights I was sleeping on an open sailboat and managed about 3 hours of sleep total, I hated it at the time, but it was one of the most character building experiences of my life in retrospect.