I Raised My Kid To Be Confident & Self-Reliant

 

Ordinary People

Conrad:              I just feel bad about this.  Just let me feel bad about this!  I just do one wrong thing. . .

 

Doctor Berger:           What was the one wrong thing you did?

 

Conrad:          I hung on . . . I stayed with the boat.

 

 Doctor Berger:           Now you can live with that, can’t you?

 

Conrad:      Yes (sobbing)

 

 

Why do some people feel bad?  And others not so?   Is it a public concern if someone does not?  The teenage boy in Ordinary People feels bad for unfortunate things that happen to others.  Feeling bad for others is normal.  Only a sociopath would not be concerned with others’ feelings.  Sociopath also comes from a discordant family.  Persons that are well-socialized are concerned with the feelings of others.  On the other hand, criminals or delinquents that show anti-social behaviors (truancy, delinquency, and aggression) are not concerned with hurting other peoples’ feelings.  But Conrad goes on further.  He feels too liable for them.  He internalizes his feelings too deeply.  He burdens himself from accidental death of his older brother Buck that has already passed.  Buck's accidental death heads Conrad on a downward spiral —trying to oust himself, brushing recklessly into scuffles, fighting with his mother.  Family stands at a discord.     

 

 

Let’s say an accident occurs and leaves you at an unfortunate circumstance.  Accidents do happen.  A person who externalizes the accident would have an internal dialogue like this:  What a bunch of incompetent idiots we have at the public infrastructure.  Building a road like this that causes an accident!  I hate them.  On the other hand, a person who internalizes the accident has an internal dialogue like this:  Ohhh shoot.  I should’ve turned earlier at the curve and now I’ve gotten into this accident.  Go further with their inner thoughts.  If he has a positive thought mechanism, he would just say to himself:  I’ll just do better next time.  But if he has a negative thought pattern, his self-talk would be like this:  I am no good. 

 

 

Who is the winner?  The person who had this inner thought pattern:  I should’ve turned earlier at the curve and now I’ve gotten into this accident. . . I’ll just do better next time.  Person who internalizes the event is the winner.  Person who externalizes events tends to blame others and does not track his performance for the next time.  He wounds up in bad situations but does not do better each time around.  Negative inner dialogue does not foster winning attitudes.  Person who had an inner thought of I am no good needs to build up on positive attitudes and inner thought patterns toward himself. 

 

 

Parents can raise their kids to be confident and self-reliant.  Praise your kid if he does something good.  Boost not his ego but compliment his actions and behaviors.  If he got good grades, attribute his grades to his hard work; encourage him to keep doing well.  Do not say something like:  You are a born genius!  People take flattery as a sign to get on their good sides to climb the corporate ladder.  Say more along the lines like this:  I see your hard work has gotten you good grades this quarter.  Keep up the good work.  Warm and permissive parenting results in confident kids. 

 

 

Parenting affects your child’s personalities:

 

 

Warm & Permissive:  Self-confident, outgoing, frequently ignore or bend rules.

Warm & Restrictive:  Child values adult approval and internalizes rule; child is rule- abiding.

Cold & Restrictive:  Anxious and sullen but compliant; anger turns inward onto themselves.

Cold & Permissive:  Hostile and rule-defying with high probability of delinquency.

 

 

Warm parenting show support and approval to the child by reinforcing good behavior by expressing approval and explaining rules if they do wrong.  However, warm and permissive parenting can also attenuate a growth of a healthy conscience.      

 

 

Permissive parents failed to control their child’s behavior and self-control.  Authoritative parents show nurture and support but are contingent on the child’s behavior.  Child learns that his parent’s approval is contingent upon his behavior.  It induces self-control in a child.  Authoritarian parents have close control but are cold and detached.  Restrictive parenting states clear rules and monitors behaviors to see it conforms to the rules.  It reinforces compliance by consistent and contingent use of reinforcers. 

 

 

What parenting style result in self-reliant kid?  Restrictive parenting results in a withdrawn child.  Autocratic parenting has strict, stern, and severe punishments.  No explanation of rules is given.  Parents say this:  Because I said so!   Parenting style results in withdrawn kids who lack independence; boys are especially angry and defiant.  Permissive parenting have few do’s and don’ts:  restrictions and controls, no time schedules, rare punishments, demands for school and chores.  Permissive parents results in kids that are prone to anger and not independent; they yield immature kids who lack social responsibility.

 

 

Authoritative parents have power but accept reciprocal obligation to respond to child’s point of view and reasonable demands.  Parents govern with the consent of the governed.  Rules of conduct are administered.  Authoritative parenting use verbal gives-and-takes and encourage independence in their child.  The kid grows up to be independent, competent, and socially responsible. 

 

Let's revisit Conrad's mother reproaching her son:  "You lied every time you came into this house at 6:30.  It is starting all over again —the lying, the covering up, the disappearing for hours.  I will not stand for it.  I really can't stand for it.  I really can't."  

Conrad's mother reproaches her son in an accusatory manner.  She wants to establish rules but does so in a way that puts him front and center.  She starts with you.  How about if she changes her language?  Change it by sticking with herself.  I feel ______.  

"I would feel better seeing schedules that run regularly in the house.  I know Buck's death has been hard on all of us but we have to go on with our lives.  You would feel better also if you allow yourself to take steps in doing so.  I have my own schedule to run; so does your father.  In the future, let me know your whereabouts because it not only affects you but my own schedules as well as your father's have  been affected.  And you would feel better having come out of it as a stronger person."             

  

Warm and permissive parenting weakens the child’s long-time horizon.  Cold, restrictive parenting creates a long-time horizon but child grows up placing too much high value on other’s approval.  And without warmth of their parents, cold, permissive parenting does not create any bond of attachments but a foreshortened time horizon.  Child grows up intensely present-oriented with little or no capacity to feel guilt.           

 

 

long-term time horizon

Difficult child yields family discord.  Russell found that parents with babies that are more demanding (i.e. cried a lot, feeding problems) experience more crises and discord than a quiet child.  Garth found that children with Down’s syndrome came from discordant or broken marriages. 

 

 

Family Discord

Boys are more vulnerable to discord in a family.  They are affected by stressful events —poverty, birth defects, perennial complications, serious parental discord, absent or unemployed fathers, mentally-ill parents, siblings with conducts or school problems.  If a child has 4 or more stressful events mentioned above, he develops serious learning or behavioral problems including delinquency by the age of 18.  However, punishments may only increase aggression and/or bad behaviors in these boys.  Attachment or bond does not often occur in these families.  Unless the boys overcome their poverty background with secure attachments to their mothers and in a family of < 4 siblings, the boys grow up with poor socialization.  Combination of low income and large families often do not result in kids that grow up to be well-adjusted in society.    

 

 

Person who is socialized well may be genetically predisposed to it.  Boys of quarrelsome families and lax disciplines yield delinquents.  All of the boys turn out criminal convicts; while only a quarter of cohesive families turn out convicted of a crime.  Parents of anti-social children have not implemented enough penalties onto them that are contingent on their behavior.  Parents failed to do the following:

 

State clear rules

Monitor compliance to rules

Punish for violation of rules

 

Irritable parents who had not known how to discipline their kids produced aggressive children; indifferent parents produced larcenous ones.  In the first case, the child learns to bully the parent; the second, the child evades them.  Parents failed to use sensible reinforcements. 

 

Juvenile Delinquency

Five factors attribute to boys’ delinquency:

 

Low intelligence

Large family size

Parental criminality

Low family income

Poor child-rearing practices

 

 

Fathers

Large low-income families have fathers that have criminal records.  Fathers were profligate and unconcerned.  Poor child-rearing practices lack careful monitoring of the child and their whereabouts.  Social psychologists claim kids watch and learn.  They learn to use violence by observational learning.  Behavioral therapists recommend rewarding approved behaviors while punishing disapproved behaviors.  Milgram’s experiment goes further to prove that people simply followed orders even though they were not aligned with their moral standards.     

 

 

Parental Attachments

Boys that have been administered penalties not on behavioral contingencies are likely to acquire Seligman’s learned helplessness.  Despite their own behaviors and because of their lack of control of the penalties, they learn to become helpless.  Antisocial behaviors occur when an individual’s attachment to society is weakened; as a result, child does not form attachments to parents.  Hirschi found that attachment and approval is related to concerns on expectations of others.    

Set up your home with atmospherically stable and financially secure environment.  Love is in a hard day's work.  Work in a job or business which secures your household's well-being.  Marry Ms. or Mr. Right.  Your home thrives under harmony.  Your kids will grow emotionally healthy, mentally strong, and develop cognitive skills from the cohesive environment in which you provide.  On all sides.     

Help me reach 100 Likes on my Facebook business page.  Go to my site for financial tips and planning:  https://www.facebook.com/LulileihNPG

Insure Your Loves

Protecting The Ones You Love

Families often do not protect their children in a life insurance policy.  But life insurance can be applied to newborns through age 17 for children and minors.  Yes, newborns can apply.  I once had a client who took out a $100,000 Whole Life policy gifted to his newborn granddaughter.  Now, that is a memorable gift for a family member.  The underwriting was short and simple:  non-medical questionnaires.  No blood test was required for a small face amount.  Kids often do not have a long medical history; they can easily pass the underwriting.  After learning his friend had committed suicide, Conrad attempts to end his life also but to no avail.  Teenagers have a lot of issues to undertake and Suicide Clause can be added to a life insurance policy.    

 

fun fact:           suicide clause in life insurance does not cover the first 2 years of the life insurance policy.  if the insured commits suicide before 2 years, all premiums will be refunded but no death benefit will be paid.  following 2 years, full coverage insurance including suicide will be provided.  

Hypothetically speaking, Buck’s accidental death could have been protected in 4 ways:

 

1.)     Juvenile Life Insurance:  Policy is written on the lives of children in which coverage is issued by an application of the parent or guardian.    

a.)     Benefits are used to provide funds for funeral expenses, education, or to guarantee insurability. 

1a.)      Jumping Juvenile (Junior Estate Builder): 

i.)                   Issued at age 1 through 16 in $1,000 units with face amount that maximize 5X fold at age 21.  Premium stays the same at age 1-16; it boosts at age 21 (i.e. $5,000).

ii.)                Life insurance is also available at preferred rates for college students. 

iii.)              Type of Increasing Term Insurance where face value increases with each succeeding payment of premiums.  Term is used in a combination policy to increase life insurance added to the contract. 

 

2.)     Family Policy:  Policy or rider covers the entire family.  Mother or father owns whole life and supply additional term insurance on spouse and children. 

a.)     All children are protected even if a child is born after the original policy issue date.  Coverage is usually up to age 18. 

b.)    Policy usually have $5,000 - $100,000 Whole Life Insurance on the breadwinner.

c.)    $2500-$10,000 Term Insurance (temporary or pure insurance) on the children. 

d.)    Premium is based on the primary insured.    

3.)     Accidental Death Benefit:  Separate policy or added rider to a life insurance policy.  Specifies amount to be paid to a named beneficiary if the insured dies as the result of an accident.  Coverage usually adds up to $250,000. 

4.)    Whole Life:  Children and juniors have the advantage of paying low premiums at a younger age.  Why should a child take out insurance?  One, insurance can be used to supplement your retirement income.  Whole Life policies accumulate cash values that grow tax-deferred and the benefits are tax-free.  The only other tax vehicle that operates this way is your Roth IRA which has contributory and withdrawl limitations.  If structured properly, whole life can sweeten up your retirement income.  Withdraw cash values from your policy to start a business, pay a down payment on a house, or pay for college tuition.  Two, taking out insurance early also protects children’s insurability should anything happen to them at a later age.  Three, always be prepared for the uneventful.      

Volunteers at local neighborhoods & parks

Teach Your Kids To Grow Up As Socially Responsible Citizens

 

 

We live in a democratic country.  People have rights in a democracy.  Duty is owed to others in certain situations.  Person who puts others in a perilous state is held liable.  In the above example, Buck and Conrad are both placed in a perilous state after a boating accident.  A storm has clearly overtaken the sea and their boat turns over.  They both hang on but Buck does not have a firm post to hold onto while Conrad does. 

 

 

Defendant owes the duty to whom he rescues.  Duty is also owed to the person who goes to the rescue of the person imperiled.  Conrad may have owed a duty to Buck but he was not responsible for the peril.  In Cardozo view, the zone of danger is any person who comes to the rescue of the person imperiled by defendant’s conduct.  Rescuer is within the scope of a foreseeable plaintiff who is the person imperiled.  If the rescuer causes harm, the dynamic of duty changes.  The rescuer causes injury to another in a reasonable rescue attempt.  Let’s for example say that Conrad had negligently imperiled Buck and Conrad’s father comes to Buck’s aid but injures Conrad’s mother.  Conrad’s duty of care extends to Conrad’s mother.  The same applies for a rescuer who injures Buck. 

  

Water Rescues 

Conrad or the defendant can be a victim of his own negligence.  Even though the person imperiled by the defendant’s conduct is the defendant himself the same reasoning applies.  Conduct’s own negligence placed himself in peril and Buck’s mother who sees this comes to Buck’s aid and is injured in doing so.  Buck’s duty of due care extends to his mother.  But in the storyline, Buck had not caused the peril. 

The rescue attempt must not be foolhardy under the circumstances.  If the attempt was foolhardy, the defendant may not be liable for the resulting injuries.  Some states may reduce defendant's liability by plaintiff's fault in acting rashly.  Professionals that rescue people from dangerous situations may be at higher risk of harm.  Person whose negligence occasioned the need for rescue is not liable for harm suffered by the rescuers.  Had Conrad's carelessness required coast guards' service who injure themselves in their attempt to rescue them, Conrad is not liable for their injuries.  

 

Res Ipsa Loquiteur says “the thing speaks for itself.”  Harm has occurred.  In an accident where someone was at fault, the occurrence itself shows someone acted negligently.  Say you go to a baseball game where the bleachers collapsed.  Someone was clearly at fault.  A barrel falls from an upper floor of a building.  Someone was clearly at fault.  The owners are held liable.  But the exception in Buck and Conrad’s situation is accidents without fault.  No one was at fault when a tree falls, fire starts from an unknown origin.  Natural disasters do not equal to fault of a person, business, or a public entity.  Plaintiff is not held liable. 

 

 

So what situations are people held liable?  When do they owe a duty to another person?  No duty is owed to strangers in an emergency.  They are strangers.  Your parents told you as a kid:  Do not talk to strangers.  You are not held liable.  Person does not owe a duty to a stranger in an emergency in which he/she is not responsible for the injury.  Statutory exceptions state otherwise. 

 

 

Emergency statutes require assisting others in certain situations.  For example, a car driver sees an accident but does not go to aid the people involved.  The car driver owes a duty to stop and check at the scene of the accident.  Even though he had not caused the accident, he passed by to witness it.  So now he owes a duty.  Few states go on further and impose a criminal liability for failure to go to aid of anyone at serious peril provided it does not injure the defendant.  (i.e.  Person in the car accident fractured vital bones not visible to the naked eye and moving his body would only put him in a critical condition.)     

 

 

How about a situation where no duty was initially owed but later changes under a different circumstance?  A car driver finds a stranger lying on the side of the road.  If the car driver decides to pick up the stranger to drive him to the hospital, then he must do so with care.  Otherwise he is held liable for any injuries that the stranger incurs from here onwards.  The car driver can terminate his voluntary act at any time.  Brewed since the post-WWII era, growth of American prosperity forged a new political value system where citizens participate to vote, take interests in politics, advocate social/gender equality, support environmental issues, and volunteer at electoral offices or communities.  Citizens express to voice their concerns.  In return, they are heard.  Citizens act out of civic duties and volunteerisms.  So a car driver who picks up a stranger can change his mind at any time.  The driver’s only requirement is this:  He does not leave the stranger at a worse condition than prior to his pick up.

 

 

A car driver puts the stranger back on the side of the road.  He decides that he simply cannot take on the load.  By law, his decision to do so is completely acceptable.  But the driver will be held liable if the stranger is put at a greater peril or if he deprived the stranger of getting help by others.  He has to place the stranger to a safe premise where others can spot him.  Some states further stipulate that the driver not shift the stranger in a position of peril from where he had been initially found.  So you cannot just place a stranger in a nowhere zone.    

 

 

Relationship to the plaintiff changes the dynamics.  The defendant owes a duty to go to aid of another in an emergency where a relationship exists.  What is a relationship?  The following meets a relationship:  family, employer/employee, guest/host, carrier/passenger, jailer/prisoner.  If a relationship exists, you are responsible for the plaintiff’s peril.  Now the defendant has the duty to go to the aid of the plaintiff and exercise reasonable care in doing so.  If the defendant’s conduct created a perilous situation, he is liable for any harm which incurs on the plaintiff.  Defendant Joelle holds a party at her house where guests attend for the evening.  One of the guest spills a glass of wine on the floor.  Another guest slips from the spilled wine on the floor.  Joelle who is the host of the party is held liable.  The accident occurred at her domain.  Same thing applies to hotels, casinos, Movie Theaters, and any public spaces where the attendee’s safety had been jeopardized by the owner’s negligence to properly take care of its property.

Defendant's negligence injured the plaintiff in a bystander recovery where the plaintiff was in a danger zone to recover physical manifestations resulting from emotional distress.  Plaintiff is prevented from recovering in cases they were not personally at risk.  Plaintiff can also recover for severe emotional distress if defendant’s negligence injures or threatens a member of the plaintiff’s family but not the plaintiff.  Stella, for example, has emotional distress and physical injury from seeing her son Tyler run over from a traffic accident. 

 

 

Plaintiff must meet 3 requirements. 

 

        Plaintiff and the victim must have a close relationship.

      Physical proximity and contemporaneous observance must be met. 

       Plaintiff must be at the scene of the accident that injures the victims.

       Aware of the victim who suffers from injuries.

      i.e.  Julie’s scream summoned her mother Leila to the scene.

 

Some states require the person need not be hurt.  It is enough the plaintiff believes that the accident seriously harms those involved.  Plaintiff’s emotional distress is beyond that of an unrelated bystander who witnesses the accident.

           

            Foreseeability jurisdictions review circumstances for foreseeability in a customary negligence review than the requirement.

 

3 decisive parts.

 

Plaintiff’s rights are derivatives only.  Recovery by a third party person is permitted; rights of exercise are derivative.  An example is an imperiled person who has the right to recover.  Defendant who is found not liable for harm to child (contributory negligence), the parent may not be permitted to recover for emotional distress for the child’s injury.           

 

Court’s defense only applies for contributory negligence.  Courts held that the plaintiff’s contributory negligence would not bar or reduce recovery if defendant immediately before the accident had clear chance to avoid the accident but failed to do so.  Plaintiff was aware of the danger but to avoid it rested with the defendant. 

          Duty Owed                           Duty Not Owed

 

 

1.       Duty owed to whom you                   1.         Accidents 

(the defendant) imperiled.                                   without fault.

                                                          

2.       Duty owed to the person who           2.         Strangers in an 

rescues the imperiled.                                       emergency where you are not                                                                                           responsible for their injury.                                                                                     

3.       Duty owed if you put yourself in                    

peril and someone else gets injured            

during his/her rescue attempt.                    

 

4.       Accident where someone was                       

clearly at fault.                                             

                                                                        

5.       Helping a stranger in need requires                       

due care.  You can change your

decision but you must place the

stranger back to a place where he

can get help.  The stranger cannot be

placed in a worse situation than he

was before your “helping” him.

 

6.       Statutes that require acting in an

emergency.  (i.e. driving by a car

accident you had not caused)

 

7.       Relationship with a family member,

employer/employee, host/guest,

carrier/passenger, jailer/prisoner

who is in a state of emergency.

 

8.       Person incurs emotional distress

where injury was inflicted on not on

the plaintiff but his/her family

member.