@anongoodnurse can you point me to any information demonstrating that the ages 3-7 are the most critical years for childhood discipline? I remember reading that parents who don't put in the work from ages 3-7 (maybe 5) are kinda out of look in the teenage years.

The problem with a lot of such research is that it often uses compliance as the main outcome measure, which doesn't make sense if you're not trying to foster obedience.

@DavidHedlund i think it is obvious to say we are a product of the culture and time we live in. We have different culture/time constructs, and i'm hoping @anongoodnurse can point to some research that demonstrates some of the finer scientific research and evidence for some of the ways I have grown up thinking.

@AdamHeeg Absolutely. From all our debating, I fully expect that our views are irreconcilable. That's not an issue to me. After all, you're not raising my kids and I'm not raising yours. I'm only in it for as long as we both enjoy the exchange of ideas.

yes, i enjoy the challenge of other ideas too!

I was just preemptively responding to a lot of the science I have seen, that does exactly that: use compliance as an outcome measure. A common criticism of such studies is that it's simply irrelevant if you don't hold that as your standard. I can readily accept that a more authoritative approach to parenting has a higher statistical likelihood that my children will comply with my requests, while still being unconvinced of the method's merits in terms of the outcomes that I value.

I'd much rather see the studies that show that such and such parenting increases the likelihood that the child acts in a manner congruent with their needs, but that's often construed as a parental failure when seen through the lens of authoritative parenting.

So don't get me wrong. I'm a big science enthusiast myself. I think science is always the best way to divine the most reliable answers, but it is only ever helpful as long as we can agree on what the question is.