7 Mistakes We Make When Raising Our Children

7 Mistakes We Make When Raising Our Children

Parenting is probably one of the most significant responsibilities you’ll have, yet there’s no manual to guide you. Every parent-child relationship is unique, so you walk on uncharted territory with every kid. While there aren’t any instructions for proper parenting, some mistakes are bound to impact the kids profoundly. Overcoming these seven mistakes will help you become a more effective parent.



1. Having Unrealistic Expectations

When you expect too much from your children, you might create problems. For instance, if you get frustrated with your 2-year-old because they aren’t interested in potty training, you’ll put too much pressure on them. Another example of an unrealistic expectation is assuming that your teenager shouldn’t be moody or losing your cool because your 6-year-old is wetting the bed. Take it a day at a time and consult the doctor when your child doesn’t meet the expected developmental milestone.


2. Not Allowing Your Child to Explore

7 Mistakes We Make When Raising Our Children

Since birth, you have been on a learning curve – and so is your little one. As children grow up, playing becomes an effective means of learning, leaving them hurt or bruised. However, the fear of getting hurt shouldn’t be a reason to stop them from exploring tukif. Allow your child to pursue their curiosity, try out new things and learn from their mistakes.


3. Always Saving Them from Failure

As a parent, watching your child struggle through challenges you can quickly fix is not easy. However, saving them all the time denies kids the opportunity to learn from failure. For instance, if your kid performs poorly in school, doing their homework does more harm than good. You’d better help them understand the concepts or talk to their teacher about the challenges.


4. Not Fixing Problems

Some parents endure months or years of frustration by not taking the proper steps towards solving issues. You may assume that some problems can’t be fixed or quickly accept them. Whether it’s bedtime battles, temper tantrums, or frequent night awakenings, finding solutions is better than putting up with the challenges. Although it requires extra effort, most problems you face as a parent can easily be worked through, fixed, or changed.

5. Not Setting Rules or Limits

It may seem like you love your kids more by letting them do whatever they want, but you are doing them a great injustice. Children need to differentiate good from bad, and only you can teach them. Create routines to help them know what to expect throughout the day. As they grow older, make sure to discipline them accordingly. That way, you will set them up for success


6. Not Empathizing with Your Child

When a challenging situation arises, the best thing to do is empathize before reacting. Put yourself in your kid’s shoes by understanding where they are coming from. If your child is angry, frustrated, upset, or crying, they don’t want to make your life harder. Understand that they are having a hard time and don’t know how to cope.


7. Preaching Without Practicing

Every parent has had that moment where they asked their kids to do one thing while doing the complete opposite. Children consider their parents to be role models, so they imitate you. For instance, if you warn your child against eating junk or excessive screen time, ensure you follow suit. While at it, take the time to explain why the foods are harmful instead of giving instructions only.

Childhood is a time for discovery, fun, and play – please don’t rush your little one. Stay calm and enjoy every moment because everything moves so fast. Now that you know the common parenting mistakes, you are all set for successful parenting!

Stories of self image

I guess it all started when I looked in the mirror. I’d lift up my shirt and see how skinny and flat my stomach was. If I wasn’t satisfied, I’d cry myself to sleep or exercise for a while thereafter. Eventually I resorted to purging after each meal. It started once or twice a day, but eventually it grew to 20 times a day, or 3 sets of 20 purges a day. I would go to extreme measures to hide the fact, like turning on the shower or throwing up in the woods. I would exercise for hours on end, mercilessly running, hurling, jumping, punching, doing crunches, weight lifting, etc. It was an addiction of mine. I had to go to a shrink whom I really didn’t like. Then I had to go to a clinic for 3 nights a week, 4 hours each night for 3 or 4 months. Then I eventually resorted to not eating virtually at all and just watched my body shrink. My bones stuck out so much that I couldn’t even sit down in the bathtub. My family and friends were so concerned for me, but i didn’t care. Then I went to another counselor who betrayed me and eventually they put me on Prozac and Zoloft. I developed seizures from the Prozac shortly after I was hospitalized in Philadelphia. After 3 weeks there, I came home and was doing better. Every now and then I’d have a slip up. I ran away from home 2 times, cut myself and burned myself repeatedly. I withdrew socially and developed a shell around me. Through prayer, faith, endurance, hope, my religion, and a good attitude, I made it through and have never been happier than I am today. I weigh now almost 40 pounds heavier than I did at my lowest weight and people say that I’ve never looked better in a film porno.

I am a 18 year old girl…I have very many good friends, a loving big sister who’s 38 years old, a mom and a dad. I recently moved from a very bad part of Oakland to a nice, calm town here in California. I made a friend named Sam. She showed me around everywhere and introduced me to people…she’s such a great friend. Now she has moved but i saw her earlier today…we see each other a lot. The point is, I was doing very well as a 7th grader to a new school. But on November the 9th, 2001, my life was changed. My best friend in the world, Anna, was dead. I lost her to suicide. We had known each other since we were 2 and a half. I had earlier in my life been in a state of depression, and with her death it returned. First, I worried about my weight. I got lost in a world of thinness…I thought “just for a few days.” It hadn’t gotten too bad when my friend Tara realized what was going on. She went to a friend of hers, Elena, who she thought could help me. And she did. It worked for a fair amount of time…she gave a talk and helped me understand it was a bad thing. But I was stupid. I still wanted to loose weight, and the cycle repeated three times. Finally, it ended. Not for good, but long enough for something else to happen to me. With my depression…i found a way to, umm, “ease” the pain. Slitting my wrists and legs. My right leg is scarred pretty bad now, and my left wrist, too. I didn’t understand what I was doing to myself. Once again, Elena was there for me. She talked to me about it…and it worked. Not immediately, but after after a week or so her words came back to me. For weeks I was six feet from suicide. AGAIN, Elena was there. She told me that she would keep trying to help, but that in the end the only person who could really help me was me. And now her words make perfect sense, though back then they went into my head blurry and hidden. I was bulimic for a while. I am trying to end that now. I don’t do it anymore…i hadn’t for months when i did it the day before yesterday and yesterday. But i’m trying to stop.

The western world is a pro-Ana site

For those of you who don’t already know, “Pro-Anorexia” or “Pro-Ana” websites are designed to help people who already have disorders be able to continue with them. It is sick. They often include things like lists of “safe foods” that have the lowest possibly calorie content, and “thinspiration” which includes pictures of models and actresses to “trigger” people to continue on their quest to be thin.
It’s hard to imagine just how disturbing these sites really are unless one visits them.
However, as disturbing as this is, I believe I found something more disturbing, and here it is.

When I began to sort through this trough of hell known as pro-ana sites on the web, I was saddened to the point of tears and silmulteously so enraged by the thought that people are out there promoting the kind of horror that I endured that I wanted to get in my car, drive to each of their houses, throw them up against the wall by their collars and knock some damn sense into them. In fact the only thing holding me back from this is knowing that they’re mentally ill, not evil.
So, because I had found something that actually shocked me and disturbed me to this point, I felt it necessary to share it with everyone I could and it was reactions that disturbed me the most.

When most people see a pro-ana site, they are horrified and saddened and upset. They see the pictures of models and actresses that women and girls are using to prolong their illness and it makes them sick. But take those same models and actresses out of this context, and most of those same people sickened by it worship it as the perfect body type. For example: a couple of guy friends I know looked at pro-ana sites and were appalled, but I know very well that theres a copy of Playboy or Maxim or something sitting in their living rooms with women just like that in the pages and they don’t seem appalled by that!

Let’s be honest. It’s not like the people who put together pro-ana sites have to search hard to find pictures of starving women. Most models and actresses today in the west are significantly underweight. Not some, not a few, most. But apparently it takes a site advocating eating disorders for people to realize this??? That’s ridiculous! People need to become aware of this. It is a cultural disease! Pro-ana sites give people tips on how to become and stay ridiculously thin, they show them pictures of people who are already ridiculously thin, and they heavily enforce the idea that beauty is all and thin is all beauty. So I ask you, how is this different from everything the general media points to? It’s Not noticias.

If you think pro-ana sites are appalling, just turn on your TV, open a magazine or surf the net for a moment and you’ll see that what we live in is just one huge pro-ana society.

A model of decay of student living standards

Abstract: We propose a new theory for the decay of student living standards and compare it with previous efforts in the field (namely, the theory of Linear Extinction). Our theoretical model, Serial Subtraction (SS), takes a new approach on the issue of standards’ degradation and appears successful in predicting most of the observed phenomena even in the vicinity of the human-to-animal crossover. A complete analysis of the principles of the theory is given for many components of student living, including clothes and dish washing, food preparation and flat maintenance.

I. Self-disorganised Criticality
Relaxation dynamics in student lifestyles has been a long standing problem in the field of self-disorganised criticality [1-3]. The main question that has concerned scientists for ages is the following. How can students regress to subhuman living standards yet avoid a catastrophic collapse by equilibrating around the minimum effort human-animal transition? That is to say, how does the system disorganise itself in such a manner as to sustain a subhuman existence up to the degree ceremony (and in many cases [4] even beyond that) without the living standards descending all the way to the pigsty singularity?

The main quantity of interest is the evolution of the degradation index, K, defined for any everyday process (such as cooking, washing clothes etc.) as the sum of the effort put in each individual component of the process:

K= (Σ wi2)1/2 (1)

where the sum runs over all n components and wi is the effort of the ith component, usually, a ridiculously complicated function of caloric consumption subject. For example, for a typical 4-dimensional activity such as the dish-washing process, the components would be soaking, scrubbing, drying and replacing-on-shelf, each component carrying an associated effort. It is often useful thinking of K as the magnitude of a vector K in n-dimensional effort-space (notice that higher values of K represent lower degradation degrees, a slightly misleading convention adopted by the pioneers of self-disorganised criticality and one which remains the norm to this day [5]).

So far, little understanding has been gained of the evolution of K throughout the relaxation process. The only theoretical attempt at tackling this puzzling issue, the Linear Extinction theory (LE) of Vindero et al [6], has been only partially successful, reproducing most of the decay patterns observed yet failing to account for a low-effort minimum at which the system appears to equilibrate. LE theory predicts that the efforts, and consequently K, go asymptotically to 0 (the pigsty singularity), in clear contradiction with empirical evidence which support a long-time freezing of K at a finite value Kc around the human-animal transition.

The structure of this paper has as follows. In the next chapter we introduce the general principles of both the LE and SS theories together with short discussion on their implications. In chapter III, we examine the predictions of SS in more detail and then conclude the paper with a summary of our main findings.

II. Serial Subtraction vs. Linear Extinction

Let us now examine the principles of each of the two theories starting with LE using the paradigm of clean clothes’ procurement. In the whole discussion we will assume a male Drama student living alone with no loss of generality and 5-dimensional washing comprising of: (i) white/coloured clothes segregation (ii) washing (iii) hanging (iv) ironing (v) folding.

As mentioned briefly in the Introduction, LE assumes that the decay of the degradation index (again, this means a relaxation through successively more decadent states) proceeds through the linear decrease of the efforts [6],[7]. So, if a student initially spends 1 hour, say, on the ironing stage, he will begin to spend less and less time until w4 goes to zero in a finite time (and correspondingly for the rest of the n-1 components). Unfortunately, whilst this way of thinking does follow the decay closely for large K, for small K the predictions of the theory are much worse and, most importantly, the eventual fate of K is the collapse to the K=0, pigsty state. This means, that LE suggests that the student eventually stops washing clothes altogether.

SS, on the other hand, assumes that the change in the various efforts is negligent during the decay and that the latter is effectively achieved through the incremental subtraction of particular components. It is the basic premise of SS theory that a test student instead of spending less time in each stage of the cycle, he or she just drop certain stages completely. Although the off-critical (high K) results of SS are not as good as those by LE, SS successfully predicts both the behaviour of the degradation index in the critical regime and the existence of a human-animal transition at finite K in the long-time limit. The exact value of Kc is then determined by the effort in the few or only component left with noteworthy accuracy.

So, the main difference between the two theories is one of incremental against linear decay. It appears that the former captures better the intricacies of student dynamics in the interesting critical limit though, understandably, an interpolation between the two may be required at higher values of K.

III. Incremental decay in a range of household activities

In this section we illuminate the workings of SS by touching upon incremental disintegration of student living standards in a variety of situations. Our schematic listing of the decay sequence can and has been reproduced by numerous experiments [8].

(a) Clothes’ washing

Dimensionality in ideal form: 5
Stages: (i) white/coloured clothes segregation (ii) washing (iii) hanging (iv) ironing (v) folding
Weakest link: Ironing
Decay sequence: Almost invariably, ironing is the first stage to be dropped from the process with folding following closely behind. The asymptotics of the degradation index is predominantly dictated by the washing process (zeroth mode) with hanging regulating the first higher-order correction, although this stage can also be dropped in favour of the much more effortless in-machine drying.

(b) Dishes’ washing

Dimensionality in ideal form: 4
Stages: (i) soaking (ii) scrubbing (iii) drying (iv) on-shelf replacement
Weakest link: On-shelf replacement
Decay sequence: A counter-intuitive outcome of studying this process is the vulnerability of the soaking stage. That is, although soaking involves a high gain-to-effort ratio it is usually set aside because of considerations of student memory spans and also the intricate discipline and synchronisation which is required in providing a proper soaking bath after late-night student meals. Again, the critical index Kc can be often calculated by including only the scrubbing stage with drying being sometimes significant but evidently not to the hungry student. Restoring dishes to the appropriate storing unit is also bypassed especially given the small number of cutlery and crockery a student would on average posses.

(c) Meal preparation

Dimensionality in ideal form: 4
Stages: (i) ingredient procurement (ii) pan and pot procurement (iii) cooking (iv) serving
Weakest link: Both procurement phases are equally susceptible
Decay sequence: Because of the position of the weak links in the process relative to the preparation algorithm and the abnormally low gain-to-effort ratios involved at all stages, traditional meal preparation is reserved for special events only and is swiftly scrapped in favour of frozen chicken burgers and Pot Noodles.

IV. Conclusion

We have been able to show that the relaxation of student standards when left to live on their own is characterised by the incremental removal of stages in all household tasks instead of the proposed linear degradation mechanism where all stages are affected simultaneously. This is particularly true of first year students, especially Mathematics and Drama undergraduates.

It was also demonstrated that the ground state reached through the relaxation mechanism (commonly known as human-to-animal transition) is not, as previously assumed, the K=0 pigsty singularity but rather one whose K value is dictated by the least-effort stage of the respective composite process. Although we found some exceptions to this rule, namely dish washing, the general principle of SS seemed to apply well for the majority of household operations studied.