Parenting Styles

Let’s discuss a few “parenting styles” to gain a better understanding of their consequences.

Authoritarian ~ Harsh, strict, short-sighted approach.  Parents demand offspring adhere to rules.  They punish instead of having conversations with them when behavioral difficulties arise.   Explanations are left unaddressed why rules are necessary to prevent further re-occurrences.  Parents don’t provide the gentle nudge to encourage goals.  They shove.  Also, they’re hypercritical when goal outcomes are less than ideal.

  • Pros:  When using the Authoritative approach on a permanent basis, the Authoritarian discipline may prove useful, only for rare occasions, to shock offspring into action in preventing any further negative behaviors. When the Authoritarian approach is the sole parenting method, offspring can rise from their harsh upbringing and experience a positive quality of life.
  • Cons:  When used in the extremes, the Authoritarian approach is child abuse. Mental health issues (ex. substance abuse, anxiety disorders) could result.

Authoritative  ~ Democratic, relaxed, proactive approach.  Parents are nurturing and warm towards offspring.  There’s that easy-does-it way about them.  It’s heard in their speech. Children understand there are boundaries which they cannot cross.  Parents show up in their children’s lives for the various extra-curricula activities and provide emotional support in goals.

  • Pros:  Offspring have a far better chance of a happy childhood, and strong foundation for healthy emotional maturation for adulthood.
  • Cons:  None.

Helicopter ~ Overprotective, highly responsive, controlling, deeply involved, proactive approach.  There are many issues parents and children discuss together on a regular basis, and proper behaviors is one of them. However, it’s understandable when parents visit universities that offspring are accepted, but unusual, although becoming a norm, to sit with them on interviews for employment.

  • Pros:  In many circumstances, parents and offspring have positive relationships. They participate in activities together.
  • Cons:  Offspring have to learn to make decisions on their own.  They can experience mental health difficulties because of this dependency and parental smothering.

Indulgent ~ Responsive, undemanding, short-sighted approach.   Parents give offspring everything they wish, but fail to establish rules.  Offspring become spoiled to the nth degree, may not understand boundaries, how to treat others respectfully, and that the world doesn’t revolve around them.

  • Pros:  Once offspring recognize parental deficiencies, they can overcome experiences by learning appropriate behaviors.
  • Cons:  The potential is high for offspring experiencing NPD/anxiety disorders.

Neglectful ~ Laissez faire, non-involved, non-responsive, short-sighted approach.  Parents are involved in their own lives and social functions, and not their offspring’s. They provide for their children with the necessities in life, but fail to instruct them about appropriate behaviors and supervise them.  Offspring are constantly getting into all sorts of difficulties. There aren’t meaningful conversations, thus parents are unaware (unconcerned?) about the feelings of offspring.

  • Pros:  Offspring can move beyond their upbringing by learning appropriate behaviors.
  • Cons:  Child abuse.  Some of these parents could be experiencing NPD because of their self-indulgence.  Offspring could become engaged in non-criminal negative behaviors (i.e., ASPD Level 1) throughout their lifetime, or incarcerated for far worse.

I  look forward to your comments.


The Trayvon Martin Case and Pathologies

There are several elephants in the room.  Let’s explore them.


  • History Revisited.  Since the 1980’s, there’s been a culture, a mindset, a philosophy, which has swept over American youths: Rap/Hip-Hop–The music, drugs, language, clothes, weapons, drive-by shootings, and horrific gang initiations. Fortunately, not all young people subscribe to the ideology.  Those who have live in juvenile detention facilities, then moved into adult prisons.
  • Personal History. The deceased was suspended from school repeatedly, used drugs, wanted a gun, engaged in physical altercations, and used abominable language towards and about others.   Why wasn’t he under the care of a psychiatrist?
  • Societal Menace. The question isn’t Why did George Zimmerman get out of his car, but instead Why was the deceased outside during evening hours in the first place without parental supervision? 
  • Skill Deficiencies. Because the deceased lived in a crime-ridden neighborhood, and wasn’t under parental supervision, constructive skills to defuse situations would have gone a long way. When confronted by Zimmerman, the deceased merely had to say Talk to my father.
  • Limited Worldview. Parents have to socialize their children beginning at a young age, getting them into the world, where they become involved in activities with diverse groups.  The process needs reinforcing until adulthood.   Youth will experience a stunted personal development if parents fail to provide this necessity. Clearly, the deceased only knew his front and back doors.
  • Rachel Jeantel.  Only her former educators can address if she’s an example of voluntary illiteracy.  She and the deceased were contemporaries on so many levels.
  • Irony. People nurturing conflict, making threats, engaging in physical and verbal altercations against others because of this case, are unwittingly participants of the culture which has permeated American society for over thirty years.  They, too, can be considered societal menaces.
  • Playing the victim. It’s one thing to be a victim, and another to play the role.  When a victim regains their life and engages in constructive pursuits, society respects them. Society doesn’t respect the victim. Society feels sorry for the victim.  In fact, when the role is played too long, society views the individual with contempt.  Respect and sorrow are mutually exclusive entities.
  • Acceptance. Many parents have buried offspring from gang violence.  Where are the mass demonstrations in the hundreds of thousands across America every year?
  • Acceptance. Many parents have buried offspring from gang violence.  Where are their voices in Congressional hearings, demanding clothing lines and music labels associated with the culture get shut down?
I look forward to your comments.




Quite often, when police take someone into custody, neighbors and friends tell journalists the person in question is normal.  But what are they really saying? What are their frames of reference for normal?  Do they  mean the suspect’s behaviors were the norm?  If so, they’re actually saying these behaviors, activities, are those which are customary, traditional, we’ve grown accustomed to (hearing about?). Norms aren’t always psychologically healthy behaviors. And lawful.*

Let’s open the doors.

Examples of the Norm

  • BBQs during warm seasons
  • Building snowmen during the winter
  • Child abduction
  • Family reunions
  • Going to the beach
  • Identity theft
  • Standing for the National Anthem
  • Taking vacations
  • Violent verbal altercations
  • Yielding to emergency service vehicles

If normal is a healthy psychological and law-abiding existence, the term applies to most of the population. Conversely, if behaviors which are commonplace, even though negative, are ignored because they mirror base aspects of a zeitgeist [which people conform to], normal is a skewed model. Individuals not only risk placing themselves in danger of societal predators, but ending up suspects in police investigations. 

Looking forward to your comments.

*The post isn’t suggesting that ALL arrested parties have abnormal, criminal behaviors, thus guilty.  


Creative Tools for Psychology

Viewing and reading dramatic works are effective methods to gain a better understanding of psychology.  The following are several which brings the science to life:

  • A Beautiful Mind We get to see what schizophrenia looks like, reminds us that everyone is susceptible, along with gifted members of society.
  • Cape Fear.  The Max Cadies of the world are people we hide children away from, along with ourselves.
  • Cover Her Face.  Using and hurting others is sport for the psychopath protagonist.  And yet several other characters have their own issues in this PD James mystery.
  • Gaslight.  Charles Boyer depicts a man with schizoid personality disorder, set on destroying the sanity of his new bride.  The viewer can observe the nuances of his condition and his ability to send his wife to the edge of her nerves.
  • I Confess.  An Alfred Hitchcock thriller with Montgomery Clift as a clergy.  When he’s on trial for murder he didn’t commit, he keeps the real murderer’s confession.  The killer demonstrates the lengths he’ll go to keep his confession secret.
  • Network.  With so many characters with antisocial behaviors, it’s easier to count the ones who don’t possess negative qualities.
  • Plenty.  An examination of a woman who had purpose when working for the French Underground during the Second World War.  Returning to civilian life, she experiences a gradual depression, an emotional brokeness, leading up to a total psychotic break.
  • Secret Agent  Another Hitchcock thriller, loaded with humor. The surprise ending illustrates how dangerous people blend into society.

Shakespeare was a brilliant author, who placed the psychology of many characters under a microscope, making the discipline breathe.  Several examples are:

  • Antony and Cleopatra (anger management issues, duplicity, NPD, intuitiveness)
  • Hamlet (anger management issues, emotional collapse/depression, duplicity, family violence)
  • Julius Caesar (duplicity, precognition, NPD, ASPD)
  • King Lear (emotional collapse/depression, duplicity, elder abuse)
  • All’s Well That Ends Well}
  • Measure for Measure}                Negative behaviors in general
  • Taming of the Shrew}
  • The Tragedy of King Richard the Third (the protagonist could be Shakespeare’s ultimate psychopath, with King Claudius {Hamlet} in second place)

Even though they’re not replacements for coursework texts, viewing and reading particular dramas are creative tools for having a better comprehension of psychology, to recognize genuine, specific traits in others.

Which dramas would you add to this listing?