Demanding parents

[Dildo Argentino]

Those who lack self-esteem and the capacity to regulate themselves well may become very self-centred adults. Without effective and well-resourced emotional systems, they cannot behave flexibly or respond to others' needs. They tend to be rather rigid, either attempting not to need others at all, or needing them too much. Because they have not had enough experience of being well cared for and well regulated, their original baby needs remain active within. In adulthood, this can in some cases be experienced as a kind of compulsion to get others to meet those needs. People who constantly fall in and out of love, who are addicted to foods or drugs of various kinds, who are workaholics, wo are endlessly demanding medical or social services, are seeking something or someone who will regulate their feelings at all times. In effect, they are searching for the good babyhood that they have not yet had. From promiscuous celebrities to welfare shirkers, such people often provoke exasperation in others who wish they would 'grow up'.

The paradox is that people need to have a satisfying experience of dependency before they can become truly independent and largely self-regulating. Yet this feels counter-intuitive to many adults, who respond to the insecure with a punitive attitude, as if becoming more mature and self-regulating were a matter of will-power. It can be hard to tolerate dependent and self-centred behaviour in adults who should be able to recognise the inappropriateness of their behaviour.

But it is not simply a matter of will-power. Even if will-power is invoked to bring about better behaviour, often this comes in the form of a 'false self' who tries to live up to others' requirements to act maturely. Unfortunately you cannot will genuine empathy for others, or a caring attitude to your own feelings, into existence. Imitating these postures is not the same as drawing on an inner experience of them. These are capacities that are internalised through experiencing them first-hand, from having had relationships with people who respond to your needs, help to regulate your feelings, and don't make premature demands on you to manage more than you can manage.

Good timing is a critical aspect of parenting, as well as in comedy. The ability to judge when a baby or child has the capacity to manage a little more self-control, thoughtfulness or independence is not something that books on child development can provide: the timing of moves in living relationships is an art, not a science. Parents' sensitivity to the child's unfolding capacities can often be hampered by an intolerance of dependency. This is partly cultural and partly the result of one's own early experience. Dependency can evoke powerful reactions. It is often regarded with disgust and repulsion, not as a delightful but fleeting part of experience. It may even be that dependence has a magnetic pull and adults themselves fear getting seduced by it: or that it is simply intolerable to give to someone else what you are furious you didn't get yourself. Often, parents are in such a hurry to make their child independent that they expose their babies to long perios of waiting for food or comfort, or long absences from the mother, in order to achieve this aim. Grandparents only too often reinforce the message that you mustn't 'spoil' the baby by giving in to him.

Unfortunately, leaving a baby to cry or to cope by himself for more than a very short period usually has the reverse effect: it undermines the baby's confidence in the parent and in the world, leaving him more dependent, not less. In the absence of the regulatory partner, a baby can do very little to regulate himself of herself other than to cry louder or to withdraw mentally. But the pain of being dependent like this and being powerless to help yourself leads to primitive psychological defences based on these two options.

Most adult pathways are more elaborate versions of these primitive responses. The dual nature of the defensive system seems to be built into our genetic programme: it's either fight or flight. Cry loudly or withdraw. Exaggerate feelings or minimise feelings. Be hyper-aroused or suppress arousal. These two basic strategies also underpin the insecure styles of attachment - the avoidant and the resistant. Whichever way the individual turns to find a solution (and these strategies may be used consistently or inconsistently), he or she will not have mastered the basic process of self-regulation and will remain prone to being overdemanding or underdemanding of others. (Sue Gerhardt)

[NegativeNinja999]

This was very eye-opening for me.  Where can I find more about the psychological effects this has on adults who were raised this way?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This was very eye-opening for me.  Where can I find more about the psychological effects this has on adults who were raised this way?

Any human development textbook written within the last fifteen-twenty years.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Or the book that he for some reason block-quoted from without explanation: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Love-Matters-affection-shapes/dp/0415870534/

[Doktor Howl]

We seem to have a plagiarism issue here.

Fix it, Holist.

[MMIX]

We seem to have a plagiarism issue here.

Fix it, Holist.

<SNIP>  Whichever way the individual turns to find a solution (and these strategies may be used consistently or inconsistently), he or she will not have mastered the basic process of self-regulation and will remain prone to being overdemanding or underdemanding of others. (Sue Gerhardt)

As a citation its maybe a bit too subtle - but its definitely there, and I've seen a lot worse treatment of original sources around here over the years. So nothing really to fix. Certainly not plagiarism, but the quote definitely needs some explanation

[Doktor Howl]

We seem to have a plagiarism issue here.

Fix it, Holist.

<SNIP>  Whichever way the individual turns to find a solution (and these strategies may be used consistently or inconsistently), he or she will not have mastered the basic process of self-regulation and will remain prone to being overdemanding or underdemanding of others. (Sue Gerhardt)

As a citation its maybe a bit too subtle - but its definitely there, and I've seen a lot worse treatment of original sources around here over the years. So nothing really to fix. Certainly not plagiarism.

Ah, okay.

However, it also violates copyright, as there is far too much there to be "fair use".

[MMIX]

The lack of any framing context to explain the use of the material is more problematic than the quotation. This is nowhere near a sufficient "lift" to be outside the realms of "fair usage". Its a book of 340pp six short paragraphs - sounds like fair usage to me.

[Doktor Howl]

The lack of any framing context to explain the use of the material is more problematic than the quotation. This is nowhere near a sufficient "lift" to be outside the realms of "fair usage". Its a book of 340pp six short paragraphs - sounds like fair usage to me.

You aren't the one responsible; Faust is, at least to some degree.

I'm therefore going to sit back and let him make the call.

[Faust]

Its is Sue Gerhardt's "why love matters" and is her copyright.

It's available online so I redistrubuting small excerpts should be an issue , it would be a worse if he had posted the whole book verbatim.

There is another issue: because it's paraphrased and chopped in bits the way it should be presented is with Sue's material in quote blocks, with original material outside the quote block, with a link to Sue's stuff as reference source in the OP.

I don't think it would be a legal issue for me, but if Sue complained I would Nuke the thread.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm just curious about why he posted it. Not being sarcastic here, I genuinely want to know what he had in mind. It's not a new book (first published in 2004)  or a new idea (attachment parenting first came into vogue in the 1970's), so it just seems super-random.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Its is Sue Gerhardt's "why love matters" and is her copyright.

It's available online so I redistrubuting small excerpts should be an issue , it would be a worse if he had posted the whole book verbatim.

There is another issue: because it's paraphrased and chopped in bits the way it should be presented is with Sue's material in quote blocks, with original material outside the quote block, with a link to Sue's stuff as reference source in the OP.

I don't think it would be a legal issue for me, but if Sue complained I would Nuke the thread.

I don't think any of it's commentary, that's the baffling thing. The whole post appears to simply be an excerpt.

[Sita]

It was posted back in 2012, so maybe it was relevant to whatever was top conversation on the board at the time?

[Faust]

Its is Sue Gerhardt's "why love matters" and is her copyright.

It's available online so I redistrubuting small excerpts should be an issue , it would be a worse if he had posted the whole book verbatim.

There is another issue: because it's paraphrased and chopped in bits the way it should be presented is with Sue's material in quote blocks, with original material outside the quote block, with a link to Sue's stuff as reference source in the OP.

I don't think it would be a legal issue for me, but if Sue complained I would Nuke the thread.

I don't think any of it's commentary, that's the baffling thing. The whole post appears to simply be an excerpt.

Sorry yes, I passed it through a plagiarism detector and it found interspersed original lines, they are where the content was shortened or otherwise snipped.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It was posted back in 2012, so maybe it was relevant to whatever was top conversation on the board at the time?

Whoa, I didn't even notice that... weird.