Parenting and type (Se vs Si valuing)

[Slacker]

This was in the thread about typing Riella's uncle, but it was turning into a threadjack so I want to ask people this here. And FDG said some of his experience followed this and some didn't, and what I forgot to say was that it wasn't something I thought was 100%, because I think Socionics is more about tendencies than behaviors that always happen, but I think it's a strong tendency and would like to hear what other people think. Also, I'm a bit worried that I think a lot of people here are mistyped and have probably mistyped other people they know, so I wouldn't expect to hear it fit 100% with people's experience because even if it were 100% true that would require that people had typed people they knew 100% accurately, which is just plain not likely around here.

Anyway, I was talking in this thread about parents who value Se, and how it seems to me that they are more "hands on" in their parenting, and are stricter in general.

They worry more about their kids doing the right thing and obedience is at least to some extent important to them. I do not see that among Alpha and Delta parents. Obedience is not something I worry about in the slightest.

My ISFj brother, for instance, is very concerned about his kids growing up properly and really feels they need close guidance to do that, and sees "hands off" parenting as almost neglectful. His girlfriend is ESTj and she doesn't punish her kids at all, and that drives him crazy. I will sometimes very gently punish my daughter, and he thinks I don't do enough, but his girlfriend won't take away privileges, use time outs, nothing. My husband is the same. He won't do diddly as far as discipline goes. I'm the disciplinarian around here, and let me tell you there isn't a lot of punishment in our house from me either. We're very hands off.

I'm not saying my brother is cruel, because he isn't. He's a very loving parent. He does believe in occasional spanking, but his girlfriend was so taken aback by it that he stopped. He will still give his kids time outs, have them sit in the corner, take away privileges, etc. His feeling is that kids who aren't punished will go wild and become brats. My ENTj/ENFj parents had the same parenting values. Even the Se-valuing friends I have in my circle of hippie friends, who are generally more lax on parenting, have very strict rules and restrict toys and tv shows they watch, are very picky about what their kids eat, etc. There is just a very different idea of what "good parenting" is, and I really do think it falls to whether the parent values Se or not. Se = "hands on" and Si = "hands off".

Almost everyone I know is a parent - that's who I hang out with - and I see this trend over and over again. I'd be interested in hearing other people's experiences with parenting/observing parents and Se/Si valuing to see if anyone else's experiences are similar.

[Elro]

My Alpha SF dad would be Se-valuing if this were true.

[Slacker]

I wrote a little about this on my wiki user page http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...er:Slacker_Mom too:

Se vs Si
In my opinion, you can really see the difference in parenting styles between people who value Se and people who don't.
My husband and I don't value Se, and this is really obvious with how we raise our daughter. We have no expectation of obedience from her. If she wants to do something differently than we asked her to do it, we just ask her why to see if it's a better way, and even if it doesn't seem better, so long as what needs to get done will eventually get done, we figure it's her business. If she gets sassy with us (which thankfully doesn't happen that often) we don't punish her or even get upset. We just ask her to please speak more nicely. She gets an allowance, and if she wants to buy something I would rather she not have, I tell her my opinion but it's clear that she's allowed to spend her money how she wants.
My ISFj brother, on the other hand, has strong expectations of obedience because it is important to him that his kids respect their parents, and to him obedience is part of respect. To me, respect and love are intertwined, not respect and obedience, and I don't think you can make someone respect you anyway so to try to force it seems futile. My parents feel the same way as my brother and this was a huge source of conflict between us when I was growing up. I do not like to be controlled, and I have no desire to control my daughter. My brother is pretty conservative so his version of Se is conservative, but I have some kind of hippyish friends who do the Se thing in another way. They refuse to allow their kids to play with toys they find inappropriate or they refuse to allow them to read books they don't think are liberal enough, etc.

[Elro]

I think my grandfather on my dad's side was LSI and Dad just internalized some of his values because he grew up that way. However, I'm fairly sure my Dad is Si-ego.

[Slacker]

One thing that might affect this would be if the parent and child were not compatible types. A parent who is not compatible with their child might be more likely to be worried their child is out of control regardless of how much they value Se. But I think Alpha and Delta parents are more hands-off with children of incompatible types than Gamma and Beta parents with children of incompatible types.

Edited to add that in the examples of my brother and his kids, and my and my kids, we're all pretty compatible types. My ISFj brother's daughter is Gamma NT, and probably ENTj at that, and my nephew is almost certainly ISTp based on his behavior and how well he gets along with my ENFj and ENTj parents compared to me and my INFj sister. And my daughter is ENFp. So my examples are of parenting when the children are compatible types.

[FDG]

Well of course I can speak much more closely about my experience with my parents, and as I said already they were very hands-off with me because well, I've always been able to handle myself rather well, and I've never needed guidance as far as major life decisions went. My parents are ISTj (dad) and ISFj (mum).

I've got an ENTj friend whose ISFj mother was very hands-on, and my ISTj uncle is very hands-on too. My ESTj grandfather was very hands-on with my mother; my ESFp paternal grandomother was very hands-off with my dad.
My gf's parents are ISFj and ENTj, and her brother is ENTj. It's interesting to notice that for example in this case, they've been quite hands-on with her but they have been hands-off with their son. I do think that the personality of the son plays a part in this: you can't be hands-on with a son with a strong personality and expect to keep a good relationship with them.
I've got an ESTp friend with an ESFj mother and INTj father. They were hands-off too. I've got an INFj friend with ISTj and INFp mother. They were very hands-on with him (and in my opinion there was no need to). They've always been very suspicious of me because, in their eyes, I could "do what I wanted all the time". I've gotten into disputes with this ISTj because he didn't believe I was doing well in school, for example. Strangely enough, he and my dad got along perfectly instead (it's always interesting for me to notice the variety in the same intertype relationship).

I haven't personally noticed a trend. I don't think Slackermom is wrong just because I haven't noticed it - it could just be casual, and my sample is not as big as hers. But I can't say that her hypothesis finds confirmation in my data, either.

[Joy]

I don't care about obedience. I just want him to have respect for himself and others and to consider the consequences of his actions.

[dbmmama]

this is interesting and i would hope that more respond here.

the type of "hands off" vs. "hands on" you're referring to is a bit confusing for me. i do it the opposite of what you're saying in a way.

the kind of hands on i am is being present, being physically present to be there when my kids need me, to hug, hold, nurse, console, play with, share in play, babywear, change diapers, feed, on and on. we are a very physically CLOSE family. which, for us, helps us to be close in numerous other ways. which, for us, helps my children learn to become independent on their own timetables. i do discipline but not the kind most think of. i talk with, discuss and get to the root of any issue that is going on with each child. and then we figure out together what can be done about the ROOT cause as well as dealing with the inappropriate behavior that resulted from it. once the underlying issue is resolved, the inappropriate behavior goes away on it's own. and my idea of inappropriate is more on the side of liberal. i care more about my children's overall character and emotional stability for the whole of their life.

the kind of hands off i am is about my children's potential and inner desires. since i unschool my kids, do attachment parenting, etc, it's all about their own inner timetable and interests and desires and me being there to allow those to come out and manifest, while being an example of someone who does it too. i do not force my kids to do most things. there are certain things that need to be done to have a family run smoothly, but beyond those, i am here as a facilitator for their learning about everything in life.

for me, i'm not sure these are about Se vs. Si. I think it's more about my Fi is very firm on my personal values with my Te knowing how to get the job done and my Ne is open to allowing by using Si to actually do the job.

this is my interpretation at the moment.

[dbmmama]

I don't care about obedience. I just want him to have respect for himself and others and to consider the consequences of his actions.

agree as well. i do look deep into each thing my child/ren do and don't do though to see if the obedience or lack of is indicative of either their personality or something else that may be manifesting as a problem underneath. and then address it accordingly.

[Slacker]

this is interesting and i would hope that more respond here.

the type of "hands off" vs. "hands on" you're referring to is a bit confusing for me. i do it the opposite of what you're saying in a way.

the kind of hands on i am is being present, being physically present to be there when my kids need me, to hug, hold, nurse, console, play with, share in play, babywear, change diapers, feed, on and on. we are a very physically CLOSE family. which, for us, helps us to be close in numerous other ways. which, for us, helps my children learn to become independent on their own timetables. i do discipline but not the kind most think of. i talk with, discuss and get to the root of any issue that is going on with each child. and then we figure out together what can be done about the ROOT cause as well as dealing with the inappropriate behavior that resulted from it. once the underlying issue is resolved, the inappropriate behavior goes away on it's own. and my idea of inappropriate is more on the side of liberal. i care more about my children's overall character and emotional stability for the whole of their life.

the kind of hands off i am is about my children's potential and inner desires. since i unschool my kids, do attachment parenting, etc, it's all about their own inner timetable and interests and desires and me being there to allow those to come out and manifest, while being an example of someone who does it too. i do not force my kids to do most things. there are certain things that need to be done to have a family run smoothly, but beyond those, i am here as a facilitator for their learning about everything in life.

for me, i'm not sure these are about Se vs. Si. I think it's more about my Fi is very firm on my personal values with my Te knowing how to get the job done and my Ne is open to allowing by using Si to actually do the job.

this is my interpretation at the moment.

This sounds very much how I parent, really. Except I don't unschool. I have friends who do though. My parents are public school teachers and I'm just not up for that fight.

[Slacker]

I don't care about obedience. I just want him to have respect for himself and others and to consider the consequences of his actions.

Unfortunately, "obedience" is a loaded word and probably doesn't say exactly what I mean. If your son were to sell some things of his at a garage sale, would you just let him buy whatever he wanted? My daughter earned over $75 at our garage sale this spring and I didn't say a word about what she bought (toys that might very well end up in our next garage sale btw). My mom would have made me put part in savings when I was a kid. That's an example that might be relevant for you that doesn't involve the specific idea of "obedience".

[Joy]

Unfortunately, "obedience" is a loaded word and probably doesn't say exactly what I mean. If your son were to sell some things of his at a garage sale, would you just let him buy whatever he wanted? My daughter earned over $75 at our garage sale this spring and I didn't say a word about what she bought (toys that might very well end up in our next garage sale btw). My mom would have made me put part in savings when I was a kid. That's an example that might be relevant for you that doesn't involve the specific idea of "obedience".

I'd encourage him to consider all of the different things he could do with it and the pros and cons of each of them. I'd only flat out tell him that he couldn't buy something if it was obviously ridiculous though. I don't make him save his money, but I encourage him to. His dad makes him save all of his birthday and christmas money that he gets at his house, and to me this seems sort of pointless.

[Joy]

My dad is an ESTp and my mom is an INFj. They are both very "hands off" I guess.

My mom doesn't really monitor me or tell me how to live my life unless she has nothing better to do. That, or if she thinks I am fucking up in any way. Then she steps in. But usually she is too busy to watch what I do.

My dad thinks everything I do is amusing. He isn't "hands on" at all. He thinks I'm hilarious, sane, and stable. More so than my mother. He trusts me enough on my own that I only see him twice a month or so.


*For clarification: I am in high school still. I live at home with my mom. My dad does not.

Would it be possible for you to move in with your dad?

[redbaron]

yes, obedience is a loaded word. I think it's kind of important! I mean, if my kid wanted to play on the railroad tracks (which thankfully has not been an expressed preference of my children, seeing as we have railroad tracks just behind our house!), I wouldn't allow that because it's a safety issue. If they did it repeatedly anyway (and some kids might!), that would be disobedience and unacceptable. There will be no drugs in our house, that's an obedience issue. I think when kids are little, it's easy to make sure they're behaving in acceptable parameters. But if they don't learn that there are limits when they're young, what will happen if they suddenly decided to rebel when they're 13? I believe in respect also, and love, of course. But I think limits are good. My kids know that I expect them to follow our rules (which at this point are really basic things such as brushing their teeth, practicing their piano, getting dressed and ready for school, doing homework, etc). If you don't establish this, what will you say when they come home from school with "I have to do a project for school but I don't feel like it." I suppose you could say "okay" and allow them to suffer the consequences, but I think that schools are more successful when parents take a role in making sure the work gets done. I dunno. If I ask my kids to pick up the mess that covers the family room floor at the end of the day, they must do it. Why should my husband and I have to clean up after them just because they don't feel like it? Kids have to learn at some point that there are going to be things they're expected to do regardless of whether or not they want to do it. Easier to learn it sooner rather than later, imo. Within reason of course and age-appropriate.

[dbmmama]

This sounds very much how I parent, really. Except I don't unschool. I have friends who do though. My parents are public school teachers and I'm just not up for that fight.

yes, i thought so.

like i've said a while back, i have, whom i believe, ENFp friends but there is something different between us. they are more liberal than i and more earthy mama than i. and i am much more physically active and have a few more rules than they do.

my mil was a retired school teacher and i was up for the fight. LOL that was our biggest contention between us. a wide gap in the nature of children/people in general. i fought for my beliefs from the time i was little. my own mom and i have only been able to truly respect each other from that perspective in the past few years.

i am very much about cause and effect with looking at the root of an issue.

[dbmmama]

yes, obedience is a loaded word. I think it's kind of important! I mean, if my kid wanted to play on the railroad tracks (which thankfully has not been an expressed preference of my children, seeing as we have railroad tracks just behind our house!), I wouldn't allow that because it's a safety issue. If they did it repeatedly anyway (and some kids might!), that would be disobedience and unacceptable. There will be no drugs in our house, that's an obedience issue. I think when kids are little, it's easy to make sure they're behaving in acceptable parameters. But if they don't learn that there are limits when they're young, what will happen if they suddenly decided to rebel when they're 13? I believe in respect also, and love, of course. But I think limits are good. My kids know that I expect them to follow our rules (which at this point are really basic things such as brushing their teeth, practicing their piano, getting dressed and ready for school, doing homework, etc). If you don't establish this, what will you say when they come home from school with "I have to do a project for school but I don't feel like it." I suppose you could say "okay" and allow them to suffer the consequences, but I think that schools are more successful when parents take a role in making sure the work gets done. I dunno. If I ask my kids to pick up the mess that covers the family room floor at the end of the day, they must do it. Why should my husband and I have to clean up after them just because they don't feel like it? Kids have to learn at some point that there are going to be things they're expected to do regardless of whether or not they want to do it. Easier to learn it sooner rather than later, imo. Within reason of course and age-appropriate.

haha! i remember playing on the railroad tracks behind our place as a kid. what great fun and a great memory!

for the most part i agree with you. i have a few rules similar to the ones you mentioned. the only thing that seems different to me is that i believe kids/people have something already inherent that knows what and when is best for them as an individual. that's why/how i homeschool mine.

[aestrivex]

my SLI dad is extremely hands off. emotionally as well as motivationally.

my mom was as well; i think she was SEI.


i was always extremely independent from both of them.

[dbmmama]

my SLI dad is extremely hands off. emotionally as well as motivationally.

my mom was as well; i think she was SEI.


i was always extremely independent from both of them.

do you think you were extremely independent because of being ILI or because of their emotional distance and hands off approach? or a combo?

[aestrivex]

do you think you were extremely independent because of being ILI or because of their emotional distance and hands off approach? or a combo?

you forgot E5.


and i dont know.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I'd encourage him to consider all of the different things he could do with it and the pros and cons of each of them. I'd only flat out tell him that he couldn't buy something if it was obviously ridiculous though. I don't make him save his money, but I encourage him to. His dad makes him save all of his birthday and christmas money that he gets at his house, and to me this seems sort of pointless.

What do you mean by 'obviously ridiculous'?

[Joy]

Yes, but I'm more inclined to live with whoever is more convenient for me.

Living with my dad is nice but its ironically more stressful. Although he's more hands off than my mom, he makes me feel like I'm supposed to be the parent and I end up constantly stressed out over him without paying much attention to my own problems. I can't have fun or enjoy the freedom I have with him because I'm more worried about his life than mine. Not sure why. And also he disappoints me a lot. I just don't like to deal with it.

So yeah, I just live with my mom. We fight more, and I stress her out constantly, but at least she's a parent. I'm too young and I have too much to deal with right now to feel like I'm supposed to be someone else's parent. I feel bad for being so hard to deal with and for being a burden to my mom, but that's exactly how my dad feels to me. Bleh, I guess I'm selfish and hypocritical. I don't know.

But anyway, I think that my point was that I doubt that vs is really related to hands-on vs hands-off.

gotcha

What do you mean by 'obviously ridiculous'?

Perishable things, I suppose. Things that I know he'll soon regret buying. It doesn't really come up very often, and when it does I just talk him out of wanting it.

[Ritella]

I definitely think parenting style is related to type, but I'm not sure it's attributed to an Si/Se difference.
I think that parents are going to be "hands on" in their leading functions and "hands off" in other functions. Because some types' leading functions are very "open," this would give the overall appearance of "hands off," when it's actually not. For example, I think that the Beta Rational pair would appear the most "hands on" with Fe + Ti, which to me seem very rigidly defined. The opposite end of that spectrum would probably be the Delta Irrational pair with Fi + Te + Ne, since it's sort of about being open to people's differences and levaraging one's own potential.

So, I would guess the order from most "hands on" to least "hands on" would go:
Beta < Gamma, Alpha < Delta,
with Irrationals < Rationals in each quadra.

[dbmmama]

I definitely think parenting style is related to type, but I'm not sure it's attributed to an Si/Se difference.
I think that parents are going to be "hands on" in their leading functions and "hands off" in other functions. Because some types' leading functions are very "open," this would give the overall appearance of "hands off," when it's actually not. For example, I think that the Beta Rational pair would appear the most "hands on" with Fe + Ti, which to me seem very rigidly defined. The opposite end of that spectrum would probably be the Delta Irrational pair with Fi + Te + Ne, since it's sort of about being open to people's differences and levaraging one's own potential.

So, I would guess the order from most "hands on" to least "hands on" would go:
Beta < Gamma, Alpha < Delta,
with Irrationals < Rationals in each quadra.

interesting way of putting it.

i was just talking with sis about this issue and our definition of hands on is different than what is being conveyed here though.

[dbmmama]

you forgot E5.


and i dont know.

figuring out that shit, i get off on!

[Joy]

Focus on the parent/child hierarchy is often a Se + Ti thing from what I've observed in different parents I've known.

[dbmmama]

Focus on the parent/child hierarchy is often a Se + Ti thing from what I've observed in different parents I've known.

interesting again.

that IS/WAS my mil. you may be right she was beta nf not delta. i'm more about people being equals, including children. i just happen to be in the role of caretaker/facilitator/mom etc. until they are grown up enuf to take those responsibilities on more and more themselves.

[Joy]

interesting again.

that IS/WAS my mil. you may be right she was beta nf not delta. i'm more about people being equals, including children. i just happen to be in the role of caretaker/facilitator/mom etc. until they are grown up enuf to take those responsibilities on more and more themselves.

LSE's can be like that too though. I haven't seen much of this anywhere else in Delta, however.

[dbmmama]

LSE's can be like that too though. I haven't seen much of this anywhere else in Delta, however.

as we have been going through her things......,it is giving an even fuller picture of her. overall, she was more about her idealist ways, unefille reminds me of her. i'm moving over to EIE for her right now...

[Joy]

Sure sounded like it to me!

[dbmmama]

Sure sounded like it to me!

it was hard for me because so many were telling ME i was EIE and i knew her and i were very opposite in our way of doing many things and seeing life.

i'm actually beginning to get the hang of the types better because of figuring this out.

[Joy]

Yeah, typing others certainly is more difficult if you don't know your own type or at least quadra values.

[JuJu]

My experience growing up = similar to what's been described by Slacker Mom re: Si and Se.

My Mom, ESFj, was laissez-faire w/ me--very caring, a very good listener, unfortunately would take on my problems as her own... Excellent at providing Si for me and my little bro, INXj.

My Dad, ISXj, over the years, has had ideas for me re: how to behave, what activities to participate in, where to go to school, what to do re: career, etc. On many occasions, he's actually said to me, "you are the child; I am the parent," (the hierarchical idea that's been brought up in this thread.) I understand that and respect him, but sometimes I've found his parenting style over-bearing/cold.

[Blaze]

some of this is clearly generational. stuff my parents got away with we would never get away with these days....it wouldn't be tolerated by the community. child protection would be called! hahahaha but yeah my parents are EII and LSE and pretty laid back. hands-off, permissive, laissez faire whatever you want to call it. we basically did what we wanted...and got into trouble as a result. on the other hand me and my sibs developed a pretty high level of independence also as a result.

as for myself....dunno really if i want to put myself in much of a category. i'm more strict than my parents were. mostly i believe in having good communication with my kids and i try to help them make sense of themselves and the things they go through with school, friends, sports, activities, etc. secondly, i have high expectations of them. i expect them to pitch in, do their homework, treat people with respect, follow the minimal rules i have which include not watching Family Guy. i expect compliance with what i ask them to do. i also try to give them choices about things....like, yeah you're going to clean, either you can dust or vacuum. LOL can you tell i hate housework? i usually spend at least one day out of the weekend taking them out to something they would enjoy or getting a movie they would like or something like that. and yes we are going to church. they can miss one sunday a month. if they get money, they have to save half of it...the other half they can spend as they wish.

my SLE ex, who is a full 50% parenting partner, sees things very similar to the way i do. we rarely disagree about the kids. he tolerates them watching more TV than i do, but other than that....we see things the same way.

so, i can't really comment about Se/Si dominance, since i'm Si valuing and he's Se, but i think overall we take a Ti approach to parenting. freedom within static guidelines.

[dbmmama]

freedom within static guidelines.

i like this. hubby and i heard a phrase before kids that we liked. "if it's not life threatening or morally threatening, go for it." yeah, family guy would be in my morally threatening category too.

[Satan]

I think it sometimes depends on the kid.

I remember talking about parenting styles with my father one time. And one thing that he said in a way was that it was necessary to be hard with me, when I was young.

I remember some of childhood; and he was a lot harder on me, than my brothers. I felt that it was unfair. That I was being singled out. Hell, when I was punished; I wanted to punish my brother. When my brother didn't behave as I wanted him to, I'd want to punish him.

I mean, I suppose I can understand in a way, that such things can bring a vicious cycle. But who wants to get punished? Who wants hard rules? I certainly didn't; and you know what I did? When I was young I *ignored*, or *repelled* against any limitations put upon me.

I found that some people would lose their nerve with me. Because they seemed to somehow expect to fall into compliance. Some teachers when I was young, would watch over me. They'd try to find something to fault on me. They'd pick on me. They'd do things like try and say if people around me were behaving badly it was *MY* fault.

It didn't matter what I'd done; it's what I didn't do. So if I had a friend who was mean to someone else, then the responsibility fell upon me. So I'd say that I wasn't responsibility for others actions. And sometimes they'd try to do things like tell me about being a role model. So yeah, I'd be like fuck that. I don't want to be a role model.

Anyway, at some point in time I realised that even if I don't do negative actions if I feel like doing negative actions; then it can incite other people. I'm not even sure how I realised such.

It's like if I had a bad mood - people could start talking about war, killing, revenge etc. And if I didn't say anything it's like I was encouraging such.

So I kind of learnt at one stage, that one could just start talking about "peace", and "love", and "happiness", and it's like people would decide that you were "gay" instead.

So then what? Yeah - I'm "gay", what are you going to do about it? "Eww you're gay" - Hangon haven't you already said that? Now you're just repeating yourself.

I suppose in the end I settled for "There's no need for war". And you know what happens when you say that? People try and come up with reasons for war!

They get creative. Someone said something nasty about me, I have to get back at them. Someone did something I didn't like, I have to get back at them. Someone doesn't speak nicely to me, I have to get back at them.

The thing is - if you go up to someone and say that they're being nasty - they'll act as if you're going to attack them, or that what you say is untrue or something, just to try and weasel themselves out of it. But once they realise that they can't weasel out. Sometimes they'll come around and admit. And kind of apologise in a murmer. Sometimes they'd rather apologise when no-ones around etc. They want to save face etc.

The thing is - often it's just dealing with what is there, that is necessary. You don't have to get back. You don't have to revenge. You just have to state the situation - and the other person will want a resolution.

Now I suppose in a way I was a kind of difficult kid. Because if someone said that I "hurt" them, then they were "overreacting", or "making big deals out of nothing. If someone said that I made them uncomfortable then that was "their problem", and if they weren't so "sensitive" they wouldn't get uncomfortable.

In a way if you approach someone - and they get ready to fight, and want to attack you, that means they're feeling threatened. If you haven't done anything wrong, then why do you feel threatened?

Anyway with most kids if they've been naughty - they want to be good. They don't understand why they've been naughty, because they want to be good. They just screwed up / didn't know what else to do / lost control of their emotions etc.

And so you have to teach them to stay in control of their emotions. To know what to do. And to pay attention to what they're doing.

It's like if someone says something's not their fault - it's better to explain to them clearly, in a level-headed way about what they did wrong. And how they can act in future so as to prevent such from happening. Then if you're lucky, when a similar situation happens again they'll tell you how they managed to deal with it better. And they'll come to you for advice when they have a problem that they're struggling to deal with.

The thing is - in this modern would most people don't have anyone to turn to. If you've done wrong, if you've been bad. Then you are bad, you are wrong. You can't trust anyone. They'll just "nab" on you. They don't want to get involved. They don't like the way that most discipline is sweeping. One person does something wrong - lots are punished. One minor misaction, and a gross misaction is conducted upon from you. It's not fair, but it's the way things go.

For instance, often when adults have personal issues they'll take it out on kids. Kids know that they adults are overreacting. Kids know that they haven't actually done anything wrong - that they're fine, but they'll be ostracized because they can't defend themselves.

And so with kids, I think it's important to not let your own issues get involved. You have to stay just within what the kid has done wrong, or right. Pay short sweet individual attention. And make the kid feel like they'll actually be listened to and not punished for speaking out.

Also one parenting thing I find sometimes that I severely disagree with is parents telling too many of their issues to their kids. Kids have enough to deal with,. they need to be protected. And developed on their own. And when kids can't do anything about a situation, there's no point in telling them. Often it's just done to kind of excuse bad behaviour. You should be able to seperate behaviour.

What else? Hmm,. Never mind. I'm ranting.

[Joy]

I think it sometimes depends on the kid.

That's a good point.

[Satan]

That's a good point.

FWIW my mother used to often complain that she couldn't "control" me.

I used to say that she had to use a nice voice, be reasonable, etc etc.

She'd just get frustrated. She doesn't seem to understand tone control, how to act etc.

She seems to think that showing your own loss of control, is the best way to influence someone else.

My usual comeback was: "Why would you want to control me?" or "Leave me alone", "I'm fine", "Get out of the way" etc;

She'd complain about the manner in which I spoke to her. And if somehow she deserved better treatment, just for being my
mother... (and not based upon her own behaviour)

But then, she's not the only one with that complaint. Why do people want to control me? Can't they see that I don't want to be controlled. I just want to live my own life, my own way. And fuck them.

[JuJu]

Why do people want to control me? Can't they see that I don't want to be controlled. I just want to live my own life, my own way. And fuck them.

Amen

[Joy]

FWIW my mother used to often complain that she couldn't "control" me.

I used to say that she had to use a nice voice, be reasonable, etc etc.

She'd just get frustrated. She doesn't seem to understand tone control, how to act etc.

She seems to think that showing your own loss of control, is the best way to influence someone else.

My usual comeback was: "Why would you want to control me?" or "Leave me alone", "I'm fine", "Get out of the way" etc;

She'd complain about the manner in which I spoke to her. And if somehow she deserved better treatment, just for being my
mother... (and not based upon her own behaviour)

But then, she's not the only one with that complaint. Why do people want to control me? Can't they see that I don't want to be controlled. I just want to live my own life, my own way. And fuck them.

Yep, you're an 8.

[Slacker]

I think the trend is probably there in certain circumstances, but there are a couple of issues I didn't consider enough:

1. Most of the parents I was thinking of are parents of very young children, and as children get older other issues come into play with parenting styles.

2. I was kind of assuming favorable Socionic relationships and that's just too big of a variable.

So in the circumstances where children are very young and the relationship is favorable, I think there's something to it, but there is too much else that goes on as kids get older and depending on the Socionic relationship.

Thanks to everyone for your experiences and I hope more people share!