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 o

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