Scan barcode
angeladobre's review
3.0
3,5
https://booknation.ro/recenzie-cum-sa-imbratisezi-un-arici-12-metode-pentru-a-relationa-cu-un-adolescent-de-brad-wilcox-jerrick-robbins/
https://booknation.ro/recenzie-cum-sa-imbratisezi-un-arici-12-metode-pentru-a-relationa-cu-un-adolescent-de-brad-wilcox-jerrick-robbins/
abeckstrom's review
3.0
I received a copy of this audiobook free of charge in exchange for my honest feedback.
Nothing revolutionary presented here, but there are plenty of good tips. It's kind of like a How to Win Friends and Influence People<\i> for parents of teens.
I wish there had been an included PDF with links to the reference material and recommended books. A sample workbook would have also been beneficial.
The narrator was pleasant. Just OK.
Nothing revolutionary presented here, but there are plenty of good tips. It's kind of like a How to Win Friends and Influence People<\i> for parents of teens.
I wish there had been an included PDF with links to the reference material and recommended books. A sample workbook would have also been beneficial.
The narrator was pleasant. Just OK.
royvdb's review
2.0
I was harsh on Active Parenting for dated values and no real practical vallue. And I have to be at least as harsh here. Sometimes just patronizing and boomer-values. But sometimes just going against all research, just to keep a consistent narrative.
In the reviews you'll read a few examples. But the chapter on drugs... It takes the stepping stone Theory and dials it up to eleven. The theory states that people don't get into hard drugs from one day to another but use stepping Stones that are innocent at first but escallate. For example someone starts with social drinking, then on a party they might try a sigaret with their drink, from smoking a sigaret it's easy to try a joint, and on and on. It is largely disproved though, because there are just to many external variables influencing how and if someone escallates. But in this book it is not only promoted, but exagerated. For example: they talked about someone who wanted to be a pilot. Was really passionate about it. But then he started drinking and smoking. Before you knew he quit school. Guess the world will have a pilot less because of drugs.
Throughout the book you'll read patronizing sentences like "mom's need help too". The father is the disciplining factor, the mom is the one being at home cooking for the family, giving advice at home to the husband with the dificult job, the personal driver of the family. It doesn't even try to use gender neutral language to hide the traditional family roles. Just use 'parent' and make an effort to obscure the fact that this is a book for the 1980's.
The only message that is relevant is to keep the communication with the teen open, and try to relate with the teen, even if it means showing interest in a stupid hobby of the teen. But that could've been a tweet.
In the reviews you'll read a few examples. But the chapter on drugs... It takes the stepping stone Theory and dials it up to eleven. The theory states that people don't get into hard drugs from one day to another but use stepping Stones that are innocent at first but escallate. For example someone starts with social drinking, then on a party they might try a sigaret with their drink, from smoking a sigaret it's easy to try a joint, and on and on. It is largely disproved though, because there are just to many external variables influencing how and if someone escallates. But in this book it is not only promoted, but exagerated. For example: they talked about someone who wanted to be a pilot. Was really passionate about it. But then he started drinking and smoking. Before you knew he quit school. Guess the world will have a pilot less because of drugs.
Throughout the book you'll read patronizing sentences like "mom's need help too". The father is the disciplining factor, the mom is the one being at home cooking for the family, giving advice at home to the husband with the dificult job, the personal driver of the family. It doesn't even try to use gender neutral language to hide the traditional family roles. Just use 'parent' and make an effort to obscure the fact that this is a book for the 1980's.
The only message that is relevant is to keep the communication with the teen open, and try to relate with the teen, even if it means showing interest in a stupid hobby of the teen. But that could've been a tweet.
esach22's review
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
2.0
I get that I was not the target demographic for this book, so I won't be docking any points for how heavily the authors world view and idea of good child differed from mine. Despite that I still didn't think this book was worth reading. It felt more like a heres what I think you should do, instead of someone who's an authority on parenting or even has spent a decent amount of time studying it. I can't think of one novel idea that was presented to me. I thought the writing was ugly. I honestly don't know who this book was for, I talked to my mom who's of the same religion as the author and who hasn't spent a great deal of time studying parenting, and even she thought it was redundant and uninformative. It wasn't all bad I thought some parts were thought provoking, I found myself examining myself and my childhood and comparing it to this man's ideal childhood. I also liked the title.
More...