Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mercer's avatar

"rules are beneficial for younger children and not for older children" - that finding upends the whole conventional wisdom about "just set firm boundaries." the research lets you off the hook for not being consistent across your kids' ages, but then you reframe it: rules work for kids under 12, autonomy becomes the goal from 12-16, collaboration at 16-plus. that structure is generous because it assumes growth instead of assuming the parent has failed. what struck me most is how you framed the problem: parents making rules does not teach kids to regulate themselves, it teaches them that regulation comes from the outside. so the goal shifts from rules to relationship, from limits to dialogue. the thing nobody wants to admit is that this requires you to be willing to show your kid your own messy relationship with your phone, your own struggle. do you find that parents can actually do that, or is the shame around their own use usually too thick?

Tran Hung Dao's avatar

I've always been a bit confused on when "strict" rules are good and bad. Pretty much every parent has strict times on 16 year olds drinking alcohol, having sex, smoking marijuana, and so on. Does the research say that all of those are counterproductive and parents shouldn't have strict rules for alcohol and sex for older teens?

No posts

Ready for more?