4 ms·
> Throwing them into the deep end when they’re 16 or 18 is too late. I saw this a lot in college. Kids that didn’t have any freedom or autonomy while living at
by al_borland 8mo ago
> Throwing them into the deep end when they’re 16 or 18 is too late.
I saw this a lot in college. Kids that didn’t have any freedom or autonomy while living at home went wild in college. They had no idea how to self-regulate. A lot of them failed out. Those who didn’t had some rough years. Sheltering kids for too long seems to do more harm than good. At least if they run into issues while still children, their parents can be there to help them through it so they can better navigate on their own once they move out.
- FuckButtons 8mo agoCounterpoint, my parents didn’t shelter me from shit and my life went off the rails at 12.
- Guestmodinfo 8mo ago12 is the magic number when things start going to shit. I'm sorry for what happened to you but maybe you should start a counselling service for clueless parents and tell them what should they do and what they shouldn't to correctly shelter the children. Because sheltering is an art. I think about it all the time. I always wish some one would take a bit of money but tell me how to guide or not guide my child to be independent in the rough world and to take decisions independently
- discardable_dan 8mo agoI watched an older sibling go off the rails. That is what kept me from doing it.
- ball_of_lint 8mo agoThere needs to be both things - the opportunity to make mistakes, and the support to make it okay after mistakes are made. Sounds like you got the first but not the second, which must have been tough. Hope you're doing better now.
- Dylan16807 8mo agoThat's not a counterpoint. The inverse of "shelter too long" is "shelter less long", not "zero shelter ever". (And the proper way to do "less long" is to slowly loosen up over time.)
- FuckButtons 8mo agoI think the point I’m trying to make, albeit very bluntly is people often make the banal point that kids these days are too sheltered because they turned out fine. But they’re actually just observing survivorship bias.
- Aachen 8mo agoHow to avoid that survivorship bias though? I'm sure a study can follow kids or look in records, but that takes serious time, so I can understand looking at oneself and everyone you know and coming to a conclusion that way. Do you know if such a study had been done and the results or conclusions are publicly available somewhere?
- Dylan16807 8mo agoThe person you replied to didn't mention their own life at all, and they were talking about a good number of data points. That's not "just survivorship bias". The data of college kids is biased in some ways but it's not useless.
- lawn 8mo agoThere's a balance to be struck, it shouldn't be all or nothing.
- jusssi 8mo agoPotential confusion of cause and effect: maybe some weren't given any freedom because they were repeatedly unable to self-regulate.
- Tade0 8mo agoIt's not an innate ability. Takes a solid decade of actual parenting for people to acquire this skill. And if the person is high energy, then that energy needs to be channeled.
- mrheosuper 8mo agoif they are unable to self-regulate, then jailing them at home and school is definitely not a solution for that.
- jusssi 8mo agoI think you're responding to an argument I didn't make. And I feel necessary to point it out because it looks like other people may be reading it like that, too.
- Aachen 8mo agoI read it in the same way. What did you mean instead?
- jusssi 8mo agoI mean what I wrote, nothing more. (a) Quote from TFA is about using internet. GP talks about "didn’t have any freedom or autonomy" which I don't take quite as literally as you do, because they also mention "I saw this a lot in college". So it would have been quite regular level of (over)controlling, instead of locking them in and not letting them leave the house except for school. (b) I am not advocating anything as a solution. I am pointing out that the simple cause and effect presented by GP might be more complicated.
- themafia 8mo ago
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 8mo agoThis is a comforting fiction. I've seen it go both ways where children with freedom develop pornography or drug habits and sheltered kids turn out well-adjusted and regulated.
- HighGoldstein 8mo agoFreedom without supervision vs supervision without freedom, both failures of parenting.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 8mo agoHow is the supervision without freedom a parenting failure if they've turned out great in every regard?
- al_borland 8mo agoThat’s usually coupled with a lot of anxiety. Some level anxiety could be useful, as it can make a person look responsible. This can come at a heavy cost though, which they may not let others see, and might not even realize themselves until later in life.
- Aachen 8mo agoA failure of management can still lead to a successful business for a variety of reasons, ranging from an in-demand product and lucky timing to great employees. Bad parenting with a great child or a great school might, too, lead to positive outcomes I'd call an approach suboptimal or bad depending on how likely it is to lead to bad outcomes, given what the parents know about the child at the time of course (sheltering or other special approaches may be needed in some cases, depending on behavior or health circumstances). It doesn't have to turn out bad in every single case, or even a majority, there just has to be consensus about the evidence and the parents must have been able to know of it. It would have to be really bad (like complete neglect) before I'd call it a failure though
- array_key_first 8mo agoBecause they don't. In order to do anything successfully you need practice. You're just depriving the kid of practicing the single most important skill - autonomy.