Tricks and treats are (not) for kids

Tricks and treats are (not) for kids

Parenting. Let's face it, we all do it. Some people do it per se, with tiny people they call their children, others do it with their pets, friends, spouses, colleagues or employees, while even others do it with their own parents. A branch of psychology actually argues that "parent" is one of our three mind-sets.
It is not a mistery why we need to teach, nurture, advise, guide, warn, explain and nag. It's because we can, because we feel a kick in our guts to do it and, at times, because it brings us great enjoyment. It's true that Newton's principle regarding action and reaction only saw shape around 1687, but people kind of noticed there might be something to it much before. Much, much before, think homo sapiens and his little cave, where he and Mrs. Homo Sapiens were smiling over a little stony crib. Right there and then, they understood that they will need a new tool in dealing with the cooing cub: an algorithm.
This is the true story of how parenting styles emerged. Strategies joined together under a unitary umbrella of approach, designed to build the most fit individual, in respect to the standards of the community. The difference between trends lies in the punishment/reward set of tools employed and in the configuration of the parent-offspring relationship. One example of extreme education was the spartan model, where emotion was stripped as much as possible from daily interactions and development was focused on the physical and mental build-up to create fighting machines. They were warriors, so that's what they would breed. Amongst proeminent means of education, hystorians account for deprivation, strictness, violence, humiliation, starvation and tough discipline.
One of the first scientists to analyze the main fashions in child upbringing was Diana Baumrind, who found 3 main parenting styles: authoritative, authoritarian and permissive. The double "A" may sound similar, but they go east and west. The former employs strict discipline and control, with little to no feed-back or room for negotiations; still visible in some households nowadays, but surely on its way to extinction. The latter involves a two-way type of communication and focuses on helping children understand, evaluate and make decisions on their own; parents still claim authority and will intervene when necessary, even with sanctions, but will explain themselves in doing so. This is the prevalent style in modern homes and is largely endorsed by the scientific community.
The last type is the permissive: the purposeless, visionless, chaotic "do whatever, just don't bother me" style. Abundant in the lower, poor, uneducated households,  though not scarce in other walks of life as well, this model is typical for very busy or distracted parents. The key word is "ignore" and interactions are almost exclusively dictated by practicality.
Theories aside, the 20th century found parenting improving, but still frustrating for all parties involved. With little knowledge on psychology, most parents were struggling to find the best methods for coping with their offspring.
1969 was a great year in many ways, but for parenting, it brought about a breakthrough. Dr. Nathaniel Branden's study on self-esteem revealed to the world that performance, success and achievement were dependent on a high level of self-esteem. More so, a great mind, but with low confidence appeared to be a direct train to mediocrity. For parents, it was a simple, straightforward advice that could actually help. To achieve such purpose, one tool was especially promoted: praising.
Praising became the new religion in modern child nurture. More abused than properly used, it emerged not only as the new black in familial environments,  but also as a comfortable "I did my best" for parents' conscience. However, things didn't change much. Yes, parents got off their progenies' back, in a sense, and emotional environment somehow sweetened, but success didn't become ubiquitous and overall performance didn't improve. To make matters even foggier, a peculiar phenomenon reached the experts' ears, and so light on praising was finally shed.
It appeared that in a popular school for endowed children, teachers and parents alike were baffled by a chronic difficulty of some above-average pupils in tackling mundane tasks, such as writing with a pen or learning fractions. Further observations revealed that these children systematically refused to put effort into overcoming the challenges and preferred to abandon them altogether, while arguing that they were just not good at them.
A team of scientists, lead by dr. Carol Dweck conducted a study which showed that the roots of the problem rested in the habit of praising. It was a question of "how", which had not been previously addressed. The findings redefined complimenting both in terms of quantity and quality.
For one, generic praising that makes reference to the child as "smart" or "intelligent" creates a halo effect, where he/she feels self sufficient and magically almighty. It appears to the person that work is not necessary and anything can be achieved with ease. Failing to happen so, the child will label the challenge as "not for me" and move on. At stake there is also the consolidated good image of the self, which creates internal self-defense mechanisms as well.
That is not to say that praising altogether is wrong. Actually, dr. Dweck's conclusions encourage it, with amendments. To begin with, child complimenting should be activity-focused and even if there isn't a particular achievement, effort should be rewarded as well. To notice the resilience and the impressive physical effort displayed during a game, even if the team lost or the child hasn't scored, makes the compliment sound sincere and plausible. As a positive side-effect, such observations from a parent or a teacher tend to become reference points and the child will likely strive to meet them even further.
Frequency turned out to be a factor, as well. Too often, it loses value. Repetition on auto pilot comports the risk of underserved compliment which, if spotted, disqualifies the author for the future. To be carefully considered is also the addiction one might develop. Associating any achievement with receiving a compliment might create adapting problems in less comfortable environments, where praising may be scarce, if ever.
Dr. Dweck suggests verbal rewarding be done on topic,  when appropriate, when deserved and fear not skipping one, every now and then. As in everything else, moderation leads to best results.