Pamper or punish? A systematic approach to raising a child
Where can parents find this line between the manifestation of tenderness, care and excessiveness towards their beloved child, which spoils the child and prevents him from becoming independent? …
“… We think, sometimes, naively believing, That we are destined to throw stones only.
But, all the same, the time comes like a boomerang, When we reap what has risen."
From the poem "Boomerang" by Vitaly Tunnikov
“Modern children grow up ill-mannered and all this is due to the fact that their parents pamper them, do not punish them - so they sit first on the neck of their parents, and then on the neck of society, demanding attention and expecting that everyone will run around them, fulfilling any of their desires. As it was in childhood. As they used to. Everyone around them owes them, but they owe nothing to anyone. Children are selfish. Children are kings."
Have you met with similar reasoning? For sure. Let's try to find out from the point of view of System-Vector Psychology of Yuri Burlan, how justified these arguments are.
Should children be pampered?
The very word "pamper" means undead, grooming, cherishing, giving pleasure with attention and gifts, with a hint of a negative connotation - to spoil with unnecessary care, indulgence in desires.
Where can parents find this line between the manifestation of tenderness, care and excessiveness to their beloved child, which spoils the child and prevents him from becoming independent? It is very difficult to do this without psychological knowledge.
Judge for yourself: we are so arranged that we always justify ourselves, we look at the child through the prism of our own feelings, our experience and ideas about what should be done, therefore, parents who believe that it is not only possible to pamper a child, but also needs to find such arguments:
- you never know what obstacles a child may face in the future, let him now enjoy life;
- let the child think of his parents with gratitude (as they tried, they put their lives on him), you see, the notorious glass of water will bring in old age;
-
whatever the child is amused, as long as it does not cry. It is easier to give a child what he wants and make him happy than to look at a depressed child without a happy childhood;
- in Europe, in general, children are allowed to do everything, and normal people grow up worse than we are;
- children are angels, weak and defenseless, how can you not pamper them? Just as you cannot spoil porridge with butter, you cannot spoil a child with attention;
- and etc.
Parents who are against pampering their children give the following reasons:
- children are manipulators by nature and will twist ropes from their parents, and then who will grow out of them? A daughter driving an elderly sick father out into the street? A son taking a pension from an old mother?
- pampering a child is harmful - he does not learn to be independent and breaks away from real life;
- there is a big risk that at one point the parents simply cannot satisfy the desire of their child and then “the angel will show his teeth”;
- a spoiled child cannot be controlled by the parents, his behavior is unpredictable;
- spoiled children - infantile adults, immature personalities, etc.
Meanwhile, using the knowledge of Yuri Burlan's system-vector psychology, we understand that the owners of the anal vector fall into the category of parents who pamper children. Patient, domestic, for whom the family, children - reference points in life. In combination with the visual vector, such parents are the most caring and super caring, forgetting about themselves for the sake of the child.
For parents with a skin vector, living on a different scale of values than anal, parenting is the creation of a "can - not" system. And the condition of the skin vector depends on how adequate these prohibitions are. Skin people enjoy self-restraint and, by restricting other people (in particular, building prohibitions for children), they also believe that it is a good thing for them. Everything is good in moderation. Little by little good.
That is, pampering or not pampering a child, we proceed from ourselves, from the structure of our psychic, and not from the real benefit or harm of pampering for the child. The child becomes a hostage to his parents.
Should children be punished?
The question of whether a child should be pampered is closely related to the question of whether a child should be punished. Two sides of the same coin: pamper or punish. Gingerbread or whip? What to choose?
And here we find three common parenting positions. Some believe that there is nothing regrettable in punishment, they discuss which punishment is better and more effective (from scolding to spanking on the pope), others are categorically against any punishment - children are initially weaker than adults, depend on them and it is dishonest to use their position - to punish someone who is defenseless - isn't this a manifestation of the parents' weakness? Their inability to communicate with the child in other ways, to explain to him what is good and what is bad. Still others are looking for a middle ground between pampering and punishment, the child has done something joyful for the parent - get a candy, upset - go to the corner.
But there is also a fourth approach - in order to raise a child as a happy person, he needs to be raised. Raise in accordance with the inclinations that nature gave him. And then the whole process of upbringing is not a series of punishments and self-indulgence, not continuous explanations of how to live correctly, but simply a joyful life next to children.
Children need to be raised
Upbringing is a two-sided process: not only we, parents, raise a child, but he also us. When a child is born, we need to be able not only to understand his inner world and his needs, but also to understand ourselves, our states, so as not to solve our internal problems at the expense of the child, not to shift our negative experience onto him, not to make the child hostage to the parental relationship: "My child, whatever I want, I turn it over."
For example, a mother wants her son to be an excellent student and she punishes him for failures in school, justifying herself with the best intentions. These are children who are bad, bad, do not obey their parents - they must be punished, punished.
In fact, says system-vector psychology, correct upbringing begins with understanding what kind of child you have, with what vectors, and after that it becomes clear how to build relationships with him correctly (what is an acceptable punishment for him and what is not, what is excessive self-indulgence for him, and what is the necessary attention for the feeling that he is loved), how to develop his natural potential without remaking a “tomato” into a “cucumber”.
If you still do not know the vector set (that is, the innate properties of the psyche) of your child, then free lectures on systemic vector psychology by Yuri Burlan are waiting for you. You can, of course, continue to educate the child "by eye", dosing pampering and punishment, or you can clearly imagine what the child needs, and what is extremely harmful for his psyche (for example, slaps on the butt of a skin child lead to sad consequences - it will grow a thief or a drunkard, and buying a pet for the owner of the visual vector is fraught with a subsequent drop in vision). What seems harmless and acceptable to us is not the fact that it will turn out to be so for the child. We are all born very similar on the outside, but completely different on the inside.
Here is what people who have mastered Yuri Burlan's Systemic Vector Psychology methodology write about their changes in relations with children:
Remember that parenting flaws will sprout in a child's happy or unhappy life scenario.
Registration for free online lectures on systemic vector psychology at the link:
