<p>however, this is to an extent. The pain and love should almost balance out in appearance. However, mentally there should always be more love than pain.</p>
<p>“Problem is, kids don’t remember lessons unless they have some bad experience that forces them to remember it.”</p>
<p>Perhaps a bad experience is what you require to learn a lesson but most people don’t require anything negative in order to learn.</p>
<p>
No, it’s universally true (in children anyway… as one ages and gains more judgment and thinking ability, learning without a negative experience becomes much more common).</p>
<p>A “bad experience” doesn’t have to be physical pain or verbal abuse; it can be as simple as a parent being disappointed or angry about when a child disobeys what they’ve been told (“don’t run around in the house”, to give a trivial example).</p>
<p>Hmm. not minimum pain, but OPTIMUM</p>
<p>“…it’s universally true…”</p>
<p>If so, then it should be easy for you to prove.</p>
<p>meh i think you’re basically describing a stereotypical Liberal Parenting style, IK. i definitely agree with it, being a product of such an upbringing i feel like i got a lot of benefits without THAT many detrimental effects (they would have included VERY EXCESSIVE passive aggression and lack of academic opportunity [they basically just tell you to go play outside])</p>
<p>I’ve found that social experiences are far more important than experiences with parents when it comes to lessons of restraint, reciprocality, responsibility, and such. (as long as the child doesn’t have schizoid or antisocial personality disorder). I’ve been conditioned to act somewhat machiavellian towards my parents (but social experiences are the types of experiences that make me feel bad about it). </p>
<p>[and also experiences where you’re not valued solely based on your intelligence\quirkiness\etc. hard to say. children may still learn lessons when their parents let them get away with everything [as long as their social environment doesn’t allow them to get away with everything].</p>
<p>[but what if their school and peers let them get away with everything ALONG WITH THAT? Then that could be problematic]</p>
<p>But there are indirect ways to influence a child. My mom used to buy me educational materials and she didn’t force me to read them - but the mere availability of such materials did influence me in taking steps towards an academic direction. The problem is that parents can control information flow to children and so some parents could effectively raise children without any negative experiences (if they control information flow in such a way that only “desired” information reaches the children, and condition the children to enjoy activities the child would otherwise not enjoy [that’s difficult to do now and probably for good reason, but it might be possible in the future =/]). it’s kind of like feeding “happy drugs” to children.</p>
<p>"I’ve found that social experiences are far more important than experiences with parents when it comes to lessons of restraint, reciprocality, responsibility, and such. (as long as the child doesn’t have schizoid or antisocial personality disorder). I’ve been conditioned to act somewhat machiavellian towards my parents (but social experiences are the types of experiences that make me feel bad about it).</p>
<p>[and also experiences where you’re not valued solely based on your intelligence\quirkiness\etc. hard to say. children may still learn lessons when their parents let them get away with everything [as long as their social environment doesn’t allow them to get away with everything].</p>
<p>[but what if their school and peers let them get away with everything ALONG WITH THAT? Then that could be problematic]"</p>
<p>in which case i might actually be harmful to someone’s development right now… =/ i mean i’d forgive him however sadistic he becomes to me… =/</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>okay, even looking at this quote in context is very very wrong ^_^</p>