3 ms·

I had to read this twice, because it seemed like you said that overprotective, and neglective parents have the same outcomes, but I think you are mostly trying

by Aeolun 3y ago

I had to read this twice, because it seemed like you said that overprotective, and neglective parents have the same outcomes, but I think you are mostly trying to say that parents which are neither overprotective nor neglective have a lower rate of issues right?

orwin 3y ago
That's my reading (in case GP doesn't respond).
logicchains 3y ago
>overprotective, and neglective parents have the same outcomes I think that is what they were saying; I've seen the stat elsewhere, that extremely spoiling children produces just as bad outcomes on average as neglecting them.
meiraleal 3y ago
OP said same amount of problems not the same problems or same outcome. As in, sheltered kids will fail as much, becoming alcoholics, criminals, depressed and frustrated with not accomplishing things their parents made easier for them.
jtrn 3y ago
I can try to elaborate, but my claims (and they are just claims), should be interpreted just as narrowly as you would when reading code, because changing even one little thing breaks the message: In the context of: "The kids I meet as a clinical psychologist": The ratio of kids "damaged" by neglect and impoverished homes, versus the kids that were struggling with anxiety or apathy caused by overprotection, was about 50-50. This resulted in me spending as much time strengthening the social network around neglected kids, as I spent trying to get parents to stop overprotecting kids. That doesn't mean that overprotection is as bad as neglect. There are SO many variables in play. For instance: Overprotective parents might also be over-represented in the mental health services, because they are much faster to ask for referrals. For instance, if 10% of the population is neglected, and 1% is clinicaly-overprotected, but the overprotecting parents get referred at 10x the rate, they will make up about the same amount of cases in a clinic. Based on my anecdotal experience, here are my hypotheses: Given a normal distribution of "overprotection," the top 1% will be at serious risk of mental health problems. Overprotection is easier to fix, as kids from impoverished homes are statistically at both an economic and cognitive disadvantage. As such, overprotection i a more unnecessary source suffering. All things being equal, I think neglect is a stronger risk factor than overprotection
- marak830 3y ago
  You did mention this, but I think it deserves more weight, that kids from disadvantaged groups would be less likely (by at least an order of magnitude from my own perception) so it would skew your numbers by at least a factor of 10.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Overprotective parents are much more likely to reach for a doctor whereas neglected kids are unlikely to see one until referred by the cops or school or such.
- lifeisstillgood 3y ago
  Thank you for a more nuanced reply - I did get half way through something like "but surely abuse is worse than over protection" but it did not seem to add much to the discussion - thank you for actually adding to the discussion

by Aeolun 3y ago

orwin 3y ago

That's my reading (in case GP doesn't respond).

logicchains 3y ago

>overprotective, and neglective parents have the same outcomes I think that is what they were saying; I've seen the stat elsewhere, that extremely spoiling children produces just as bad outcomes on average as neglecting them.

meiraleal 3y ago

OP said same amount of problems not the same problems or same outcome. As in, sheltered kids will fail as much, becoming alcoholics, criminals, depressed and frustrated with not accomplishing things their parents made easier for them.

jtrn 3y ago

I can try to elaborate, but my claims (and they are just claims), should be interpreted just as narrowly as you would when reading code, because changing even one little thing breaks the message: In the context of: "The kids I meet as a clinical psychologist": The ratio of kids "damaged" by neglect and impoverished homes, versus the kids that were struggling with anxiety or apathy caused by overprotection, was about 50-50. This resulted in me spending as much time strengthening the social network around neglected kids, as I spent trying to get parents to stop overprotecting kids. That doesn't mean that overprotection is as bad as neglect. There are SO many variables in play. For instance: Overprotective parents might also be over-represented in the mental health services, because they are much faster to ask for referrals. For instance, if 10% of the population is neglected, and 1% is clinicaly-overprotected, but the overprotecting parents get referred at 10x the rate, they will make up about the same amount of cases in a clinic. Based on my anecdotal experience, here are my hypotheses: Given a normal distribution of "overprotection," the top 1% will be at serious risk of mental health problems. Overprotection is easier to fix, as kids from impoverished homes are statistically at both an economic and cognitive disadvantage. As such, overprotection i a more unnecessary source suffering. All things being equal, I think neglect is a stronger risk factor than overprotection

marak830 3y ago
You did mention this, but I think it deserves more weight, that kids from disadvantaged groups would be less likely (by at least an order of magnitude from my own perception) so it would skew your numbers by at least a factor of 10.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Overprotective parents are much more likely to reach for a doctor whereas neglected kids are unlikely to see one until referred by the cops or school or such.
lifeisstillgood 3y ago
Thank you for a more nuanced reply - I did get half way through something like "but surely abuse is worse than over protection" but it did not seem to add much to the discussion - thank you for actually adding to the discussion