[Gareth321]

>"Today, many psychologists suggest using positive discipline"

From Wikipedia:

>"It is based on the idea that there are no bad children, just good and bad behaviors."

Given the fact that we've known for decades now that behaviour is roughly 50% nature (and 50% nurture), this foundational (implied) premise is unequivocally and demonstrably incorrect. Some children are "bad" and need to be taught not to hurt others. This parenting style is growing in popularity and I don't think it's a surprise that we now see an epidemic of kids with mental health problems.

I recommend listening to this lecture from Jonathan Haidt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5IGyHNvr7E&t=569s

Children certainly need boundaries and rules. They need corrective measures when children rebel. I think it's clear that a lack of negative punishment is leading to all kinds of negative outcomes for children.

[unityByFreedom]

> Some children are "bad" and need to be taught not to hurt others.

The title of this post is relevant. OP "obliged" because he was told he was bad. The point is to not do that.

> Children certainly need boundaries and rules

Rules are paramount in "Positive Disipline". From the section "Creating Rules" [1]:

> In her book entitled Positive Discipline, Jane Nelsen emphasizes the importance of not only creating clear rules, but of making them fair...

Positive discipline is anything but permissive parenting. The point of the statement you quoted is simply that all kids can be guided towards good behavior, because as you said, nurture and nature both contribute.

> I think it's clear that a lack of negative punishment is leading to all kinds of negative outcomes for children.

To each their own, but I agree with Dreikurs that natural consequences are enough to teach kids the lessons they need to learn. Forgot your lunch money? Figure it out. Maybe it's hard to convince your kid to brush their teeth because the consequences are so far in the future, but if you take a moment to explain the importance of healthy teeth, they will hear you. The idea is to build a forthright, trusting relationship with kids so they feel comfortable coming to you with the harder problems later. I'd argue that using harsher measures pushes kids away so that when they do struggle with more advanced concepts later, they feel left adrift. On the other hand, if your parents were "tough" with you and you still have a good relationship then maybe that works for you.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_discipline#Creating_r...

[DiggyJohnson]

I appreciate your response and I apologize for the brevity of this one, but I worry that pretty much everything in the second half of your comments is based on a highly-idealized perspective of the situation.

What if you try and be fair with a kid and they just never understand fairness? What do you do if you need the kid to follow rules so they don’t get in trouble? What are the “natural consequences” for a kid who keeps hitting his classmates on the playground? Law of the jungle?

[orwin]

> What are the “natural consequences” for a kid who keeps hitting his classmates on the playground?

My little brother did that, he was like 6 or 7. My father pulled him from school for a week, brought him to work. At the time he was a social worker, finding jobs for excluded people and helping reinsertion through work, in a rural area (not as rural as some areas in the US, but very rural for western Europe). Gave him some books, pens and blanck sheet to draw, took him to lunch, probably had him "work" a little (he did basically the same to me when i was 14, only it was only work). He also send him to judo classes. Worked pretty well i'd say.

It wasn't a punishment, it was more of a "timeout". Also, all kids understand fairness, they just don't always have the same understanding. You just have to explain it, before the act. You can't say "don't hit people" to a kid and expect him to understand, ESPECIALLY if he has been hit before. Also, this would have been a lie, as he can hit people. And to teach how, when, why and why not hit people, a martial art teacher is probably better equiped than a pacifist father.

[unityByFreedom]

> What if you try and be fair with a kid and they just never understand fairness?

If that's your kid, speak to a therapist. There's definitely more to good parenting than a single concept, and more than anyone could relate on HN. By mentioning natural consequences and positive discipline, I'm only introducing topics which are described in more detail in books. I mentioned natural consequences specifically as an alternative to punishment which I don't think works. Adlerian psychology suggests misbehaving kids subconsciously want to be punished because that's how they learned to get attention. By the time they're adults, they act out all the time as a matter of habit.

[flycaliguy]

For my style of positive parenting a lot of it comes down to clearly illustrating for my kids that they enjoy many privileges around the house. These privileges are conditional on their behaviour in the house. That is basically the foundation and then it’s positive parenting on top of that with privileges lost when necessary. All lost privileges or up for debate and negotiation, there is no confusion or all mighty authority.

[dahfizz]

Have you ever interacted with a "troubled" teen?

This comment is not based on reality. It's laughable, really. There are kids who cannot be reasoned with. You try to explain the importance of healthy teeth to troubled teen and they will respond "I don't care".

"Natural consequences" are not sufficient. A troubled kid will drink himself into the hospital over and over. A troubled kid will have run ins with the law over and over.

These kids are labeled troubled because they are.

[hef19898]

Assuming they really are troublesome, that justifies torturing them into compliance? On which legal ground are they basically imprisoned?

If they are so troublesome that they are a continuous threat to society (e.g. murders or serial sex offenders), there are legal ways to get them into psychiatric clinics (those means are easily abused as well so). If they are not, well, in a free society you cannot prevent people from ruining their own lives.

Most "troublesome" kids, so, are nowhere even close to these categories. And if they turn out to have really troubled lives after wards (e.g. drug abuse and everything that comes with it), I'd say most of that was caused by the "treatment" they received previously.

just to take your example of a drinking teen (being German my threshold for that would be considerably higher then the US one at that), how do you think such a teen, with already existing problems of substance abuse, would behave after going through months or years of mental and physical abuse? Turning sober? Or falling deeper into that hole?

I'm puzzled that I even have to argue against a system that, as was proven time and again, results in very serious child abuse.

[dahfizz]

You're creating a false dichotomy. Obviously these abusive camps are bad. That doesn't need to be said.

Irrespective of the camps, OPs parenting advice is bad, insulting, and deserves to be called out.

[unityByFreedom]

Your solution sounds like we should try nothing,

> There are kids who cannot be reasoned with.

Are you familiar with an approach that can help?

The approach I mention has been around for over 70 years.

[dahfizz]

I have seen limited success of real mental health institutions (nothing like the camps in TFA, obviously). I have also seen rehab work pretty well when substance abuse is involved.

The most effective method, though, is time. The author of the article is one example, and there are many more in these comments. Eventually, the teenage brain becomes an adult brain and a lot of the rage, impulsiveness, and destructive behaviors go away. (Most) people mature eventually. The key is to try to limit the damage of the "troubled" phase. If you end up going to jail in your teenage years because you act out, you're going to have a much harder time building a life for yourself later on.

[hef19898]

Are you a parent? And if so, did you use your approach? It would just be anecdata, but at least some real world experience.

[unityByFreedom]

> These kids are labeled troubled because they are.

Well, again, the title of this post shows the results of that attitude. Years of misbehavior and a well written story from a lucky one who made it to the other side, no thanks to "tough love" bootcamps according to him.

Every kid looks up to someone, whether they see that someone in person or on a screen. Becoming that someone, or a trusted figure for a teen, is a lifestyle change. Building trust takes time, and it can be lost in a moment.

[erdos4d]

I'm certain you can find teens who have such attitudes and behaviors, but I'd argue that every one of them was made that way through years of abuse and neglect. Does it help them to look at them as fucked up, irredeemable, etc? Cause that is exactly how your comment reads.

[denton-scratch]

There's a tendency to explain away behaviour as being the result of a person being "bad". It's a lazy way out.

> healthy teeth

So "cannot be reasoned with" seems to mean "refuses to accept that I'm right". If you have charge of an unruly kid, I hope you aren't focusing mainly on their dental hygiene.

> These kids are labeled troubled because they are.

Gosh, that sounds rather black-and-white - they're "bad" because they're "bad". I think the word "troubled" here is serving as a dog-whistle; a lot/all of the time, what's being referred to as "troubled" is really "traumatised".

[dahfizz]

> So "cannot be reasoned with" seems to mean "refuses to accept that I'm right".

That's unnecessarily combative. Are you arguing that refusing to brush your teeth is a reasonable position?

> I hope you aren't focusing mainly on their dental hygiene.

Dental hygiene was OP's example.

> a lot/all of the time, what's being referred to as "troubled" is really "traumatised".

I agree that most of the "troubled" kids I've known have been traumatized. But traumatization does not necessarily lead to being "troubled", and being "troubled" does not require traumatization. In any case, it does not excuse illegal, damaging, and destructive behaviors.

[mxkopy]

>That's unnecessarily combative. Are you arguing that refusing to brush your teeth is a reasonable position?

If all you did was explain to them the importance of healthy teeth, then denton-scratch is justified, all you're saying is that the kid cannot be reasoned with because they didn't listen to your explanation. Show them a root canal. Let them talk to the local crackhead. If your kid doesn't already have trauma and they aren't listening, most likely you aren't trying hard enough or aren't creative enough in your approach.

[denton-scratch]

> Are you arguing that refusing to brush your teeth is a reasonable position?

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that poor dental hygiene isn't in the same universe as getting drunk, stealing your parent's car, and wrapping it round a tree. Or beating up small kids at school.

It seems an awfully trivial misdemeanour to bring up, in a discussion of "troubled" kids and abusive incarceration.

[dahfizz]

I don't understand why you're so hung up on that example. It was the OP's example, and all the same logic applies to the examples you bring up here.

[mxkopy]

>This parenting style is growing in popularity and I don't think it's a surprise that we now see an epidemic of kids with mental health problems.

Mmm, let's ignore the profound changes in society, as well as the life-altering technologies... Yeah, being nicer to your kids is making them fucked up.

[blackbrokkoli]

The nature/nature discussion is definitely still on and riddled with over-confident takes made in the past that now seem silly.

I would very much refrain from using the phrase "given the fact" here, and a video titled like a Buzzfeed article might not be the best evidence either

[moffkalast]

> I don't think it's a surprise that we now see an epidemic of kids with mental health problems

To be fair, it's likely those mental health problems were there with most generations but went undiagnosed.

We don't have a pandemic of cancer today, people just used to die from other shit before it got to them.

[mensetmanusman]

“To be fair, it's likely those mental health problems were there with most generations but went undiagnosed.”

Unless you don’t believe self surveys of the children themselves, it is unequivocally worse now.

[moffkalast]

> don’t believe self surveys of the children themselves

Sounds like that would be very subjective and hard to compare?