[mikepurvis]

> and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere

It shows up as well in modern parenting guidance, including long term studies claiming that parents who prioritize validation over correction produce children who end up not just more mature, confident, and self-assured, but also with much better adult relationships to those parents.

That said, as a parent myself, I can't help feeling some skepticism that there's a little reporting bias going on with this type of thing— that happy and successful adults report their parents affirmed and loved them unconditionally, and bitter and frustrated adults report resentment and dissatisfaction with how they were raised.

There's no question that kids need emotional safety at home, but it's also clear even in the relatively short term that allowing them the freedom to do whatever they want and then telling them afterward that none of the consequences are actually their fault and they can at any time walk away from anything that makes them feel sad or scared or overwhelmed is not the way either. Even things that should be non-negotiables like going to school have become subject to the whims of a child's day to day emotional state— are the teens who now take a "mental health day" for "self care" every time they oversleep going to eventually turn that around and be able to commit to a desk job? Or are they carrying those expectations into adulthood with them?

[rlpb]

> studies claiming that parents who prioritize validation over correction

This implies that the two are mutually exclusive. I don't think that's true though. One can validate and correct at the same time.

[mikepurvis]

Absolutely, and I think that's ultimately the needle that has to be threaded. It's not "well, you said a mean thing, and you need to make it better, suck it up", but it's also not "wow, it must feel uncomfortable having your friend not want to play with you any more because of what you said, that's a really big feeling... let's go shopping", but rather "I can see how hard it is having made a mistake like this and saying something in the moment that you didn't actually mean and now regret. I think you should take some time to think about it and then make a plan for how you're going to apologize to your friend. I'm happy to talk through that and help you with it if you like, just let me know."

The issue is that the integrated approach ultimately still requires the child to confront and process the feeling, which can mean some discomfort and accountability— a gap that is unacceptable to the more extreme wing of "gentle" parenting.

And obviously my toy example here is on easy mode because it's an external conflict (with a friend) rather than the much more common case where the conflict itself is between child and parent, and the parent is simultaneously trying to provide a thoughtful response to the child's emotions while also insisting that they do their homework, chores, go to bed on time, get off screens, have a shower, whatever it is.

[andrei_says_]

Exactly. Parents can get lost in the importance of controlling the child that anything that acknowledges the child’s world / experience can be seen as an obstacle.

Ironically, acknowledging the experience, acknowledging the emotions, in good faith, models healthy self-regulation and once the emotions are felt, unlocks more cognitive availability to exercise self-discipline in the context of a goal.

A child overwhelmed by emotion has much less availability to listen understand and learn than one who is regulated.

But focusing only on control, the parent may lose track of the rest. It’s a lose-lose scenario.

[mikepurvis]

I think one of the risks of the gentle parenting discourse is that so much of it focuses on scenarios involving young children, where the stakes are ultimately very low. Kid won't put on his coat? That's okay, we don't need to go to the park. Oh now it's on, okay we can go later than planned, whatever, it doesn't really matter. Kid won't eat his food, well we can sit for an hour at the dinner table playing mind games and negotiating around his feelings about the textures and colours on his plate, or maybe he can wander off and come back in a bit when he's more hungry, or maybe I'll just only prepare food I know he likes so that I don't have to deal with it.

The older kids get, the less this works— older kids have real commitments, things like school that have consequences to the parents if they are missed. They have sports and other activities to attend that are on a schedule and may have cost money to enroll in. They need to get enough sleep to be functional. They are increasingly exposed to situations that are more complicated to untangle if/when they go sour.

And older kids are smart enough to walk away from a "validation" discussion if they detect that the end goal is just to get them to do the thing— they will simply issue ultimatums: "I don't want to talk about my feelings on this, I've told you straight up I'm just not doing it, end of story."

So it's not that parents are "focusing only on control", it's that particularly as kids get older parents need to strike a balance between good faith listening and validating, while still ultimately retaining the last word and being able to be an authority when it matters. I think some gentle parenting acolytes miss this reality and believe that the toddler scenarios cleanly extrapolate up through teen years, and that everything can be managed through a pure consensus model— and believing that is how you end up capitulating to your kid over and over again, ultimately letting them run wild.

[bcrosby95]

I never took gentle parenting to mean being a push over. When I was a kid I was just told to do what my parents said. I've interpreted gentle parenting to mean take a few steps before resorting to that.

For example, one of my kids hates brushing her teeth. I've explained a million times why we need to brush teeth. She still protests. And I still make her do it.

Giving them the chance to explain why can help correct misconceptions and/or remove the why.

For example, our 10 year old didn't want to go to soccer practice. Ultimately it was because she didn't want to go for a car ride. So we walked instead, which is fine since it was only half a mile away. All protests went away.

Anything we commit to, especially team based sports, is explained simply: unless you have a very good reason not to go, you must go because we committed to this, and other people are relying upon you to be there.

I'm hoping that, in hindsight, with repeated application, the why we do things can be drilled into them. It offers a good check on me as a parent (if my only 'why' is 'because I said so', then maybe I have a shitty reason why... everyone is human, even parents). And as they grow up they will, hopefully, in hindsight, see why we were doing these things is important, and they will have less animosity towards us.

[mikepurvis]

I don't think anyone assumes that gentle parenting is supposed to be being a pushover, and it's certainly not presented that way by its proponents. But my observation is that it seems to ultimately end up as that, given enough time— and sure enough:

- https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/parenting-is-not-a-f...

- https://lawliberty.org/the-case-against-gentle-parenting/

- https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/the-harsh-realm...

- https://anniethenanny.ca/why-gentle-parenting-often-results-...

In my limited experience, it's those who most loudly advocate for gentle parenting by name who are falling into these traps, burning themselves out and not properly holding boundaries. Those who have found a sustainable balance of being an emotional safe space while enforcing boundaries and retaining parental authority tend not to use the language of GP, and if pressed will say something vague like it "has some good ideas that they found helpful" but that they don't see themselves as being all-in on it.

At the end of the day I expect there's some no true scotsman stuff going on, where the believers will stay convinced that anyone for whom it isn't working is simply doing it wrong.

[bradstewart]

> parents need to strike a balance between good faith listening and validating, while still ultimately retaining the last word and being able to be an authority when it matters.

This is pretty much the key in my experience.

To add a finer point: good faith listening is validating. Validating doesn't mean telling them it's ok, or giving in, doing what they want, etc.

It's the difference between "yes I understand you're feeling A, B, C, but we're doing it anyway because X" and "I don't care, stop it, be quiet and do it".

[mikepurvis]

> "yes I understand you're feeling A, B, C, but we're doing it anyway because X" and "I don't care, stop it, be quiet and do it"

And eventually, if necessary, you may have to break the filibuster: "I hear your concern, and I've tried to explain where I'm coming from with it, but you've rejected my reasoning. We are actually doing the thing though, and I've told you why. Get in the car please, now, or you will be grounded."

a.k.a. the dreaded assertion of authority that one hopes is never necessary, but will in fact occasionally be necessary, no matter how much one invests in a positive, nurturing, and emotionally safe environment. Being unable or unwilling to assume this role is to fail at parenting.

[divan]

> One can validate and correct at the same time.

It's really hard though. This problem exists in sports coaching field as well. Coaches who provide corrective feedback that also supports an athlete's autonomy and acknowledges feelings are rare.

One of the good papers on this [1] topic.

[1] When change-oriented feedback enhances motivation, well-being and performance: A look at autonomy-supportive feedback in sport (10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.01.003): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14690...

[mikepurvis]

That's neat! Yeah sports is a great place to look for this, because the results are so obviously and immediately measurable.

[divan]

> results are so obviously and immediately measurable

Ehm… not really – especially not the "obviously" part :)

Controlled or even abusive coaching can sometimes lead to better short-term results, but often at the cost of athletes’ mental health and long-term performance.

What’s worse, coaching culture in many countries falls victim to the "regression to the mean" fallacy. I’m sure HN readers are familiar with it, but most coaches aren’t – and they’re not trained to adjust their intuition accordingly.

Coaches tend to praise athletes when they perform well and criticize them when they don’t. But statistically, if an athlete has an unusually good day in practice, they’re likely to perform worse next time. And if they’re having a rough day, odds are they’ll improve next time. That’s just the nature of sports practice.

This creates a repeating pattern: praise followed by worse results, and criticism followed by improvement. Over time, this becomes a learned behavior pattern – reinforced by the environment and by other coaches who interpret it as validation of their approach.

Derek from Veritasium has a great video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tSqSMOyNFE

[ToucanLoucan]

Dialectics. "I understand you feel this way, and also your feelings are not aligning with any demonstrable reality and that's your own issue to solve."

I can understand why someone feels an irrational way about a thing, and validate that feeling, without cosigning the feeling or the irrational thing itself. And for a lot of people, just "feeling heard" about whatever stupid shit that they are oftentimes fully aware is stupid can go a long way towards them managing those feelings.

There's a lot of conflation these days between similar concepts like sympathy and empathy. Empathy means you understand why someone feels a thing: sympathy means you agree with that feeling with your own feelings. I can empathize with someone who gets in a car accident and comes out heated, energized, and volatile. However if that person then punches someone in that moment, that's still a wrong thing to do, and they are still subject to the consequences of that decision.

[mikepurvis]

The conflation between sympathy and empathy can be a big problem when you attempt to empathize with someone's feelings about a situation, but they interpret that as you having also agreed with their assessment of the situation, perhaps even including second order judgments around things like the motives and character of other participants (I felt hurt ==> the apology wasn't sincere enough ==> that person hurt me deliberately ==> that person doesn't like me ==> that person is a bad person ==> other people who like that person must be bad people).

It becomes particularly sticky if this misunderstanding persists over time, and they continue not to be self aware and eventually question why you aren't behaving in a way that is more congruent with the version of reality that they hold and believe you told them you had adopted.

[ncallaway]

> allowing them the freedom to do whatever they want and then telling them afterward that none of the consequences are actually their fault and they can at any time walk away from anything that makes them feel sad or scared or overwhelmed is not the way either.

Those things are *not* the same as validating their emotions. That's *not* what that means.

If my toddler is crying because he doesn't want to go to bed, the conversation isn't: "Oh, I understand you want to stay up. Okay, let's stay up later!". Instead the conversation is: "Oh, I understand you want to stay up later. You're having a lot of fun now. But, hey, you'll get to play more tomorrow. We need to go to bed now, so we can be rested for tomorrow.", and then we go to bed.

> telling them afterward that none of the consequences are actually their fault

That also isn't part of validating someone's emotions. When my toddler is standing on something wobbly, and then falls the conversation isn't: "ow! That looks like it hurts! I'm sorry buddy. But don't worry, it's not your fault." the conversation is: "That looks like it hurts! I'm sorry buddy. Hey, did you notice how wobbly that thing you were standing on is? Next time, we need to be more careful about what we're standing on so we don't fall. That way we won't get hurt again".

Validating emotions is precisely about getting them to a headspace where they are able to hear your reasons why they have to do a thing they don't want to do, or hear you explain the consequences of their actions. It's exactly the opposite of letting them do whatever they want, and it's exactly the opposite of telling them the consequences of their actions aren't their fault.

[xivzgrev]

exactly! If my toddler bumps his head, I say it looks like it hurt, I'll offer to hold him, and depending on context, point out how he can avoid it next time.

but yea, never just letting them run wild or saying it's not their fault.

[rwmj]

> It shows up as well in modern parenting guidance, including long term studies claiming that parents who prioritize validation over correction produce children who end up not just more mature, confident, and self-assured, but also with much better adult relationships to those parents.

Self-reported "studies" probably. It's highly unlikely this could be tested in any rigorous way. (Not to mention the problem with what "mature, confident, and self-assured" actually means)