Posts by redhawk76

Susan Martin24
You claim you wouldn't take even a glass of water from "certain people here," even if they begged. That implies you're perfectly willing to accept from others—perhaps those who are less rebellious or more submissive—and judging by the sheer fury of the reaction, it's clear you view this as some sort of inherent right. Well, it might be healthy to occasionally hear what patients actually think about that "right" of yours!

If patients were forced to choose whether
a) they want for themselves, or for their children in the future, a society where any public sector service (taxpayer-funded)—provided we are satisfied with it—would be met with a simple smile and a polite thank you, making such an interaction the standard, normalized way of life
or
b) they would rather continue the mental gymnastics of deciding whom to "thank" with what (a gift card or cash), how much to give (enough to be respectful but not excessive), how to keep it professional without being cliché, or whether to offer anything at all...

If such a choice could truly be exercised and function smoothly—without any repercussions for the person seeking the service (be it a doctor or a government official)—I suspect that "spontaneous" gifting would evaporate almost overnight.
I realize achieving this is an impossibility, but surely it isn't too much to ask to admit that it should be our goal.
At the end of the day, so many people perform their jobs with immense dedication and sacrifice (from retail workers and engineers to civil servants and artists), yet it never occurs to anyone that they need special "rewards" for doing so; it is simply seen as the natural order of things. Why is it considered standard to bring gifts to doctors, even just a box of chocolates, yet it supposedly offends them when those same chocolates or perfumes are treated as a mere "polite formality" by someone at the local DMV?
Furthermore, my issue with healthcare workers isn't based on the idea that they represent the most corrupt sector of our environment—some studies suggest the legal system is actually worse—but rather because we all encounter medical staff several times a year, whereas most of us will never have a reason to deal with a lawyer in our entire lives.
My question to the "good citizens": to the quiet, diligent, competent, and patient "ants" who ask for nothing (and refuse anything offered, politely setting it aside) other than a sincere "thank you"—why do you remain silent and allow yourselves to be lumped into the same category as corrupt officials? I believe, and hope, that there are far more of you than there are "bad guys." And I am equally certain that among yourselves, you know exactly who is who...

redheron8 said:I'll let you in on a secret, provided you give me your word that it stays strictly between us:
Sure, if you're up for it. You really ought to consider scaling back your intake.
Good grief, the sheer audacity of those seatbelts...

It isn’t necessarily about reducing her caloric intake; rather, the focus should be on the fact that she is already clocking four to five hours of running every single day.😘
To i Seatbelt. !!!

Well, it looks like things are finally moving again, though perhaps drifting toward topics more suited for a "parent and child" forum. To be a bit more precise with my inquiry: according to the consensus of modern psychologists, to what extent is the presence of both parents—or more specifically, both genders—within the immediate family unit beneficial for ensuring a child's development remains harmonious and balanced? My focus lies primarily on the formation of one's own sense of sexuality, and indeed, the concept of sexuality itself. Of course, one cannot engineer an ideal environment for upbringing (not in any capacity), yet there surely exist factors whose presence, or absence, during such a sensitive formative period are viewed by the profession as either positive or detrimental. Thanks for the responses (which I hope will follow).

Here I am again, attempting once more to coax an answer out of this void regarding a question that has been weighing on my mind. (I realize it’s somewhat impolite of me to shove my way back to the top of the thread list like this). I would sincerely appreciate even a modicum of feedback—is it truly possible that this topic holds absolutely no interest for anyone here? Or perhaps, in a more cynical sense, maybe it simply doesn't matter...

What can anyone tell me about the current consensus in the psychological community regarding the ideal environment for healthy development and the shaping of a child's personality?😕 Specifically, I am interested in how this relates to the immediate family unit. Is the idea that a child requires both a "male" and a "female" role model to thrive still considered the gold standard, or has that framework been relegated to the archives of outdated thinking?
Could someone provide some insight based on actual clinical research, perhaps explained in terms accessible to a layman like myself? Once we have the groundwork laid, we could perhaps move toward a more analytical discussion...☕