Posts by Robert Reyes4

Henry Sullivan10 said:Wait, how's that even possible?

Through integrity.
For instance, my mom couldn't stand lying. I never even dared to tell a lie because I was terrified of disappointing her—or anyone else, really. Looking back, that might be a bit dramatic; sometimes you have to tell a white lie just to get through the day.
And through high expectations.
Growing up, we kept cash in a kitchen drawer. Back in elementary school, if I needed something, they'd just tell me, "Go grab it from the drawer." I could pick up small things without even asking. They never checked up on me or questioned how much I took, but I just knew where the line was. It never crossed my mind to take more than I needed.
They never even asked if I’d done my homework or studied, because it was just assumed I would. And honestly, I did.

Of course, they weren't perfect. I'm only highlighting the parts that actually worked out well. In other areas, things definitely went south.

Henry Sullivan10 said:Kids back then were way wilder and more independent... it wasn't like today where you can't even cross the street alone at twelve... back then, you basically had to learn things the hard way, maybe through some tough love from your parents... crazy, totally brainless stuff, man.

That’s just because parents weren't hovering as much. If you don't lay the groundwork early on, you're playing catch-up later.
Personally, I think the most important m
is teaching kids how to respect themselves and others. And you don't get there through punishment.

Daniel Kelly57 said:Look, let’s be real—as soon as you start posting, people are gonna come for you. Maybe it was your folks giving you a hard time or just growing up with parents who knew how to raise you right through tone and volume. Personally, my mom laid it down for me twice when I was a kid, and I haven't missed a beat since. 🍿

And what about the rest of the time? You weren't a total menace?

My mom just gave me the cold shoulder once. That did the trick.

Henry Sullivan10 said:Look, let me break this down for you... To a little kid, a parent is basically God. And if you're God, you have to be fair. You have to teach them right from wrong, and sometimes that involves a carrot and a stick approach. People who equate physical discipline with straight-up abuse are either acting malicious or were probably abused themselves..

But honestly, the psychological manipulation and mental games are much worse than any physical punishment..

Back in the day, everyone in small towns used to discipline kids like that, and most turned out just fine. I know plenty of people who understood what consequences meant, and sometimes they even decided a certain action wasn't worth the trouble. It's not the end of the world.😁

Crime, punishment, clear conscience.😁

Everyone turned out fine? I don't know about that.

I’m convinced punishment is pretty much useless. I know plenty of kids who grew up perfectly fine without ever being disciplined.
I don't have kids of my own, but I've spent entire workdays babysitting my nieces. It never once required anything more than a firm, assertive tone when I needed them to listen. No yelling, and certainly no physical discipline—never needed it.
If you treat a child with respect, they won't want to lose that connection. They'll actually do what you ask because they trust you're acting in their best interest. Just don't be that parent who tries to micromanage every little thing; save your authority for the stuff that actually matters.

I didn't watch the whole video.
If you're talking to a kid, you tell them they can't go with strangers because they have no way of knowing if that person is good or bad. You make them imagine being taken away and never seeing you again. You have to use a tone that makes it clear this actually matters. Kids get into it; they get scared of losing their parents. You just have to keep repeating the story... especially if you notice they aren't showing any fear of strangers in the first place.

Kenneth Barnes4 said:Look, a kid's gonna start thinking for themselves by 8 or 9. Like when they walk to school alone or hang out with friends. You can't hover over them until they're 15 just because you think they'll suddenly be better at making decisions then. If you do that, you're just raising an idiot.

The goal is to watch them until you're sure they actually get why certain things are off-limits.
What's the alternative? Just let them wander off with a complete stranger and then beat them for it later?

Kenneth Barnes4 said:👍

Everything here is spot on. Sure, a kid can decide which color straw they want at the movies, but they aren't equipped to make massive life decisions because they can't see the big picture yet. That's why adults handle the heavy lifting. You teach a child through small steps. By letting them pick the minor things with zero real consequences, you're training them to make decisions. They’ll apply those same patterns to much bigger things once they grow up.

When you see a kid messing up, but the fallout isn't permanent or dangerous, let them fail. Let them learn from experience so they understand that actions have consequences. For example, if a kid leaves a carton of milk right on the edge of the table, don't nag them five times saying, "The milk is going to fall." Just let it fall. Then, the kid has to clean up the mess. Next time, they'll be more careful because they know they don't want to deal with the cleanup. If you constantly intervene or fix it for them, they learn nothing. If you keep them under a glass dome, deciding everything for them and cleaning up every mistake, they never grasp the actual impact of their actions. They just focus on keeping things smooth in the moment, totally blind to the consequences hitting them later.

The only time you should really discipline a child is when they're doing something that could seriously hurt themselves or someone else. Say a kid decides to try driving the car because they saw Mom doing it. That's a situation where physical discipline is used because explaining the danger is too hard for a kid who thinks it's just a game. They might feel bad or negative about being punished, but after that, you have to explain that what they did was genuinely dangerous. After the discipline, you go back to treating them with the same respect, love, and care as always. That way, the kid doesn't walk away thinking, "I'm being mistreated," but rather, "If my parents generally treat me great and I only get disciplined when I do something dangerous I don't understand, then there must be a good reason."

If a parent is just some brute who doesn't care about a child's emotional state, then yeah, you've got a problem. But like I said before, those kinds of people are going to act however they want and leave lasting scars on a child regardless of whether they use physical punishment or not.

Punishing a kid is only justifiable if they know exactly what they're doing is wrong and they do it anyway. Your car example doesn't fit that.
If a kid does something dangerous, you explain it to them—and if it's truly life-threatening, you make it clear with some drama.

Kenneth Barnes4 said:I’m posting in psychology because I can't stand watching a bunch of moms jump to defend their kids.

Nowadays, modern psychology loves pushing this "no physical punishment" stance. Let's check out this video. Parents keep insisting kids know they shouldn't go with strangers, so why does this even happen?

It's theory. Kids are born with zero knowledge about how the world actually works. When parents say, "there will be bad consequences," the kid CANNOT visualize those consequences because they have no prior experience with them. Basically, parents are just talking to thin air and wasting their breath. They achieve nothing.
Kids are also selfish. So, when we use physical discipline, here’s what happens: when a kid finds themselves in a situation that might lead to bad outcomes, they remember they'll get punished—meaning they'll end up in a bad spot (because of the parent). That’s what they’ve experienced, so that's what they avoid. That's how you control a child to teach them what to avoid and what not to.

Sure, people will cry "violence, boohoo," but the fact is, people who want to beat and abuse their kids are going to do it regardless of what some textbook says is allowed. My support for physical discipline has nothing to do with child abuse; it’s just an easier way to steer them toward a better outcome.

Bottom line: kids decide based on how they feel in the moment. Look at a dog—it's cute, so they want to see it more because it's fun. But the idea that "a stranger might hurt you" is impossible for them to grasp.

Here's another one: You want cookies? Yes. NO, THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES. AGAIN. You want cookies? Yes.

Zero impact and zero understanding without lived experience.

You don't even put kids that young in a position where they could do that.
You aren't leaving them unsupervised, so the whole experiment is pointless.

Andrew Doyle said:Physical abuse teaches you nothing except how to be a victim: small, helpless, and utterly worthless. It molds you into someone defined by frustration and constant fear. Down the road, this carries directly into your relationships, where you either end up bending over backward to please everyone or you become the very person using force to get their way.

Any parent who thinks they need to resort to hitting a child just to make them "learn" something is fundamentally incompetent and weak. If they actually knew how to lead, they wouldn't have to rely on brute force, dominance, or intimidation just to be heard. And frankly, forgive my language, but screw any kind of "authority" built on terror.

I'm with you on that.

Suffering can actually be a gateway to creativity and a total shift in perspective.

Dana Phillips4 said:Maybe this might help you out 🙂

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-p...ing.htm?bhcp=1

Thanks!
I read a book on the subject, but I'm still not totally sure. Every time I take those tests, my results for P and J end up being pretty much neck and neck.

Donna White50 said:For me, perfectionism was basically my proof of worth—just a massive ego boost, maybe the only thing that made me feel like I actually mattered. Back in high school and later when I was grinding through engineering school, my whole mission was making sure every project was absolutely flawless. I remember this one project in my sophomore year... I spent weeks obsessing over every tiny detail until it was perfect. When the day finally came and I pulled up the project on my Verizon laptop in front of the professor, the whole class went "whoa..." but then the next comment out of his mouth was just... pfft. Total dismissal. He basically implied there was no way I did it myself and suggested some random engineer must have handled it...🤦 🤦🤦
In the end, I got a measly C+. There were a couple of tiny math errors, but the real reason I got stuck with a C was because the prof didn't even believe I could pull it off alone, so he punished me for it. Man, I was livid. It felt like my entire world just collapsed. I swore right then that the next one would be five times better. And it was. I still remember the whole class crowding around the professor's desk to see it—flawless, not a single flaw. Even looking back at it today, I'm like, damn, I really had talent... So that became the pattern. Everyone would wait to see when my next project would drop; I was the gold standard, while everyone else was just average no matter how hard they tried...😁
It was like that with pretty much everything. I wasn't looking for a little spark; I wanted that full-blown, mind-blowing orgasm of achievement that leaves you dazed for half an hour. That was the vibe for everything I touched. Even getting my driver's license—I thought I totally failed the written part, but the instructor called me up by name and said, "Man, incredible job, not a single mistake." Then during the actual driving test, I drove for thirteen hours straight before he even asked if I wanted to pass. Of course I passed, first try. It was great while it lasted, but eventually, you grow up. You stop caring about proving yourself because you just know you're worth something by default. Things start feeling more like chores, and the drive to overachieve fades. You realize life is way too short for all that nonsense, so you stop wasting so much energy on those stupid little things...

Man, this sounds even worse than what I went through.

I still haven't quite figured out if I'm an introvert or an extrovert.

I don't own a TV, I don't listen to the radio, and I definitely don't buy newspapers. I couldn't care less about whatever ESPN or CNN tries to force me to pay a subscription for.

Chris Ruiz5 said:Here’s my struggle with perfectionism: when I'm at university, I feel this intense pressure to pull straight A's. If I end up with even a single B, I can't help but feel disappointed, even though objectively, it's still a stellar grade.
For me, "good" just doesn't cut it; if it isn't "exceptional," then it isn't truly "good."🙂

I wouldn't say I'm like this about everything, though—it really only hits me when it comes to the things that actually matter to me.

I was the exact same way through high school and college. High school was easy enough to maintain, but in college, it cost me a lot of nerves and extra semesters.
By the end, even getting an A didn't feel like enough because I felt like I hadn't truly mastered the material. I started spending months prepping for every single exam...

Anyway, once I realized I couldn't be perfect at everything (or at least everything I cared about), I kind of lost the motivation to try too hard at all.

Thomas Nelson25 said:I’d say women who end up with men raised with that "masculine" focus tend to hit their goals more easily—mostly because those guys aren't as distracted by chasing women. It’s basically a trade-off; women settle for that dynamic to get the sense of protection and security those men provide. Plus, at the end of the day, women are the ones raising sons. (Which, if you think about it, is pretty much the core of psychoanalysis.)
Maybe that whole model has been flawed all this time—at least in how we romanticize it—especially now that everyone’s trying to push this idea of the "modern man." Though, let's be real, people aren't exactly being honest about this stuff, even here.

Excuse me? I couldn't disagree more.
How are you supposed to actually connect with someone who has buried their emotions in a shallow grave somewhere?

I’ve yet to see an attractive politician, and honestly, even just the fact that they're in politics makes me cringe...

crimsonhound80 said:George W. Bush was basically the blueprint for an American politician.
He was polished, commanded the room, and you couldn't rattle him. He had that slightly charming arrogance—which is a far cry from Joe Biden's total lack of it. He was persistent, and even his opponents respected him, let alone his own party members.

If he hadn't screwed everything up with those criminal charges, Joe Biden wouldn't be anywhere near the US Federal Government today.

As for Tom Price, I said it before the election (and I'm sure plenty of others did too): he was going to wreck the Republican Party because he was just so hopelessly confused, incoherent, and slow on the uptake.

I find George W. Bush’s arrogance pretty obnoxious.
Honestly, I've always had a problem with arrogance.

Carl Rivera43 said:Creativity really needs a clear head, right? You can't be constantly obsessing over what you're going to get out of it. Honestly, trying to pre-calculate your success or worry about the profit margins just kills the creative spark before it even starts.

I feel like that’s how you actually find balance in life. When someone is completely burnt out, they don't have the energy to fight against whatever comes their way, so they just take what's offered.

I'm with you on this one.