5 Hallmarks of Bad Parenting That Are Actually Good for Kids

Sadly, the reason why that is the case is because of the process I cited earlier from the Handbook of Self and Identity. But it doesn't seem like anyone was able to understand it to see the relationship between Self, Identity and being a self-aggrandizing narcissist.

I guess there is no point in getting into "hypoegoic" states and how much more adaptive they are proven to be, since that would just be "common sense" too.

Nah, people are just self-righteous and arrogant. If you are a parent you imagine that you know everything about parenting and if you can't take account of your child's behavior then you conclude "Don't have children if you expect certainty". If, like my co-worker, you got back-handed every time you spoke at the dinner table, then you arrogantly believe that children should not speak at the dinner table.

That's all, people are full of themselves and think they know everything by looking at the world through the narrow lens of their own personal experiences.

The best parenting advice is: Don’t have children if you expect certainty.

True dat.

Miss Cellania, The problem is the things I've posted are not actually common sense. The things I've posted are by far the last thing on most parents' minds.

Sounds like you identify as a parent and simply want to believe that parents intuitively know everything. I guess you've never heard of Infanticide or Child Abuse?

Clearly what passes as "common sense" for one person is considered completely wrong by another person.

The information I posted addresses a level of the sub-conscious which most philosophers and psychologists never even think about.

@Theokid, ego in the Freudian sense approximates ego in the SDT sense, but ego in the SDT sense is more accurately our very sense of self. The fact that we are self-conscious means that we are ego-conscious. Self = Ego. Ego, Latin for Self. I tend to think of ego as a function of mind which is critical to being conscious, and which characterizes all conscious phenomena. I've been heavily influenced by Thomas Metzinger's functional analysis of self-consciousness.

So, yea, I'll go back into hiding now. Guess I used too big of words and talking about things that weren't "common sense" or if they were "common sense" they weren't worth talking about. I seriously despise this culture that can't bear to hear any criticism and constantly thinks it already has all of the answers. I've spent years studying subjects; learning a lot, only to have the majority of people say "Yea, that's just common sense man!" when they really have no clue what I'm talking about.

PacRim Jim is right, flexibility is extremely important. Every child is different, and then each child changes! And situations and opportunities change as well. By the time you get a handle on it, they're grown up.

The only people who have all the answers are those who have no children.

The best parenting advice is: Don't have children if you expect certainty.

That all sounds very...... psychoanalytical... as a psychology graduate, I do respect Freudian theory, but if your going to be taking a stance on proper parenting there are much more useful models to use, like cognitive-behavioral one. Things like the ego and id are somewhat outdated and well "iffy".

Also these are blog comments... not text book reports...

Ryan, you use a n awful lot of jargon to describe what most parents know as common sense.

This segment describes how "contingencies of self-worth" (rudiments of introjection) are formed through parental and other approval and disapproval:

"We argue, along with others, that contingencies
of self-worth develop over the
course of time in response to many forms of
socialization and social influence (Bandura,
1986, 1991), such as parent-child interactions
(e.g., Bartholomew, 1990; Moretti 8c
Higgins, 1990), cultural norms and values
(e.g., Solomon, Greenberg, 8c Pyszczynski,
1991), and observational learning (Bandura,
1991). It is possible that contingencies
of self-worth develop in those domains in
which people have experienced acceptance
or rejection from others (Leary 8c Baumeister,
2000). For example, a child w h o receives
parental attention only when he or
she has won some academic award or
recognition m a y conclude that to be worthwhile,
he or she must be smart. In addition,
contingencies of self-worth such as selfreliance
may develop based on experiences
of being physically unsafe. For example, in
a recent case, a 3-year-old child whose
mother was a drug addict was responsible
not only for his o w n physical well-being but
for that of his two younger siblings as well
(C. Bellamy, personal communication, October
30, 1995). As a result, this child might
develop self-esteem that is contingent on his
ability to be self-reliant."

Yea, I knew there was four, but I didn't bother looking it up. My interest is in Self Determination Theory now. The following is from the Handbook of Self and Identity by Mark R. Leary and describes the processes of Introjection and Identification, as well as Compartmentalization and Integration. These concepts are helpful for understanding how a child may develop. Ideally a child will develop to be Hypo-Egoic. Which is not described but resembles integrated-identification with what is real (integrated identification with delusions are maladaptive).

"Introjection is a
form of internalization—a kind of partial
internalization—in which a regulation has
been taken in but not accepted as one's
own. Initially external contingencies are
n o w represented internally, such that the
person applies intrapsychically what had
initially been applied interpersonally by socializing
agents. In so doing, the person experiences
rewards and punishments, typically
in the form of self-esteem-related feelings
and appraisals, and it is these contingent
self-evaluations and their affective consequences
that regulate behavior. For example,
with introjected regulation, a person engages
in an activity or adopts a role in order
to enhance, maintain, or avoid losing selfesteem.
In other words, introjected regulation
involves pressuring oneself with contingencies
of self-regard resulting from having
been externally controlled by contingent
love and regard (Assor, Roth, &c Deci,
2001). A teen w h o attends religious services
because not doing so would incur feelings of
guilt and anxiety is regulated through introjection.
Similarly, a young gymnast whose
participation is based on feeUng generalized
approval and the self-aggrandizement that
accompanies it is similarly operating from
introjected regulation (Frederick & Ryan,
1993).

Even greater internalization is represented
when a person's activities are regulated by
identifications. A person w h o identifies with
a role or activity has consciously endorsed
or assented to its personal value and importance.
A teenager w h o identifies with her religion
thus attends services with volition
and initiative because she consciously evaluates
that activity as important and meaningful to herself. Activities regulated through
identification are therefore to a large degree
autonomous, that is, they are accompanied
by an experience of volition and freedom in
acting. According to SDT, being regulated in
this more voUtional way, relative to external
and introjected motives, will result not only
in a higher quality of engagement (e.g.,
greater persistence, effort, etc.) but also in
more positive experiences such as enjoyment,
sense of purpose, and well-being
(Ryan & Deci, 2001).
S D T further proposes, however, that
identifications can be either relatively isolated
or compartmentalized within the psyche
or relatively integrated and unified with
other identifications, values, and needs of
the self. For instance, suppose in the workplace
a m a n identifies with the role of
"ruthless entrepreneur," and in his religious
life he aspires to follow the "Golden Rule."
Both might be values or roles that he adopted
as meaningful and which he experienced
as personally valued identities. However,
because of their inherent inconsistency, he
must keep them compartmentalized from
one another—following the Golden Rule at
work would certainly constrain his entrepreneurial
possibilities, while awareness of
his cutthroat activities in business might engender
guilt and anxiety when he is in his
religious/moral mode of identity. Thus S DT
suggests that identifications can be more or
less compartmentalized and that only those
that are well integrated within the psyche
represent the full endorsement of the self.
Accordingly, integrated regulation represents
the most autonomous form of intentional,
extrinsically motivated behavior."

I learned those as Authoritarian, Authorative, and Permissive. But in the years since, I see she's changed permissive to indulgent and added neglectful, so there are now four styles.

They are aware of it because they say it, but that is not the same as being aware. Everyone can say they are self-conscious but very few people know what exactly that entails.

Introjection is extremely common and is most prominent among the children of highly attentive parents. So if you take Diana Baumrind's classifications of parenting styles

1• Authoritative - rules by rational discourse
2• Authoritarian - rules with an iron fist and appeals to fear
3• Neglectful - Let's kids do whatever they want.

Children of (1) which is recognized by Baumrind as the most effective parenting style are actually the most prone to introjection. Whereas children of (3) are the least prone to introjection.

Wikipedia relates:

In Freudian terms, introjection is the aspect of the ego's system of relational mechanisms which handles checks and balances from a perspective external to what one normally considers 'oneself', infolding these inputs into the internal world of the self-definitions, where they can be weighed and balanced against one's various senses of externality. For example:

"One example often used is when a child envelops representational images of his absent parents into himself, simultaneously fusing them with his own personality."

"Individuals with weak ego boundaries are more prone to use introjection as a defense mechanism. According to Donald Woods Winnicott "projection and introjection mechanisms... let the other person be the manager sometimes, and to hand over omnipotence.[4]"

This goes way further than the popular trope that "kids just need to feel good about themselves". The social interactionist might argue kids need "to learn not to think about themselves too much".

Ryan, what do you think common sense IS? Parents are fully aware that children are self-conscious beings.

It boils down to that if you are raising a robot. But with kids you are talking about a self-conscious being which is quite a bit different. You can teach them moderation or indulgence but in either case they may be prone to introjection. If they are moderate consumers but are full of introjection then they will not be happy or healthy. Teach kids how to manage being a self-conscious being. Such that the child understands "Why" it is a good idea to moderate their intake. Because if they don't understand "Why" then their doing so is based in an introjective contingency and could fall away any time.