LitCharts (2024)

Peterson describes watching a three-year-old boy follow his parents through an airport, repeatedly screaming for attention. Thirty seconds of problem-solving could have fixed the situation. He also describes parents choosing to micromanage their toddler’s every movement instead of teaching him the meaning of “No.” Many mothers make themselves the enemies of their future daughters-in-law by obeying their sons’ every whim. Preferential treatment for sons makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, since men are more prolific biologically. But it can also create tyrants.

Peterson says people take a dangerously naïve and romantic view of children, as if they can do no wrong. They also fear their children, having been influenced too much by the 1960s “adolescent ethos” and rejection of authority figures. This influence makes parents worry too much about causing their children short-term suffering out of an exaggerated fear of doing long-term damage.

The belief that children are pure and innocent and corrupted by society derives from the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. (Of course, he abandoned his own five children to orphanages.) Rousseau believed in an ideal, or an archetype—not reality. Human beings contain evil, too, and this starts in childhood. And it’s not clear that evil can be neatly attributed to society: even chimpanzees conduct brutal intertribal warfare, as primatologist Jane Goodall discovered. And statistically, the imposition of modern social structures has actually tended to reduce murder rates across many cultures.

Children, like other humans, can’t just be left alone and be expected to thrive. Like animals, human beings require socialization, not isolation, in order to develop properly. So, children must be guided and shaped, as neglect can be as harmful as abuse. Children who aren’t well-socialized almost universally become too dependent and consequently demand more time and resources from adults.

Usually, modern parents fail to discipline kids because they’re afraid their kids will no longer love them if they do. They would rather be their child’s friend than be respected by them. Parents have to be willing to incur kids’ anger and even temporary hatred, for the sake of a child’s long-term well-being. Discipline is, after all, not supposed to be anger or revenge, but “a careful combination of mercy and long-term judgment.” This is hard, so plenty of parents shirk the responsibility.

Parents assume that rules are inhibiting. Scientific literature suggests, however, that limitations encourage creativity. And there’s no evidence that children, left to themselves, will make healthy choices about things like eating and sleeping. Limits can be frustrating, but they also provide security. A big reason that two-year-olds hit, kick, and bite is because they’re testing boundaries. They don’t have to be taught how to be aggressive—it’s innate. Rather, they have to be taught how to observe limits and, from there, to better regulate their impulses.

Modern parents tend to conflate “discipline” with “tyrant” and “punish” with “torture.” It’s true that these concepts must be handled carefully. They can be misused, but they can’t be ignored. Positive discipline certainly exists: when you see someone behaving in a way you like, reward them. Positive reinforcement is very effective at shaping behavior, but the downside is that you have to wait around to observe the behavior you like.

People learn from negative emotions, too. Satisfaction and hope reinforce good behavior, while pain discourages repeat negative behavior. It’s doing children a disservice to not use all the tools at a parent’s disposal, including negative emotions. When parents fail to do this, children grow up unprepared to face failure and danger in the world.

Childrearing entails conflict, Peterson says, but parents too often think they can opt out of this. But it doesn’t work—it just turns the job of disciplining your child over to a world that doesn’t care about them, which is the opposite of loving.

Readers might ask why a child should be subject to parents in the first place. Peterson says that since children are dependent on their parents, it’s best for them to act in a way that invites the optimal amount of positive attention from their parents. They also need to be taught to comply with social expectations—not to mindlessly conform, but to adopt behaviors that tend to bring success and to avoid behaviors that bring failure.

How to discipline children effectively depends on many factors, such as a child’s temperament. Peterson starts with the idea that excessive rules just tend to make children frustrated. He offers some general guidelines for appropriate rules, like those limiting violence and bullying and those promoting sociable behavior (such as politeness and sharing). Second, he suggests using the minimum necessary force when a rule is broken. This requires some experimentation and will vary by child: for some, a glare or command is sufficient, and for a small child, especially one who’s misbehaving in public, a light flick on the hand might work. Being realistic about how much time they can handle in public is also good for everyone.

Peterson holds that while it’s an easy cliché to say that there’s never an excuse for physical punishment, it’s not nuanced enough. After all, society punishes people with jail. And there are dangerous situations where the most effective punishment is the one that will stop the risky behavior fast enough (like in a crowded parking lot). This also applies to the social realm, Peterson says. Those who aren’t punished effectively by age four will face worse punishments by society later in life, especially when it comes to aggressive behaviors. In addition, the word “no” means little if it isn’t backed up by the threat of physical punishment.

It’s likewise the case, Peterson argues, that the magnitude and context of hitting makes a big difference. A two-year-old is unsophisticated, not stupid, and a flick on the hand will convey that he shouldn’t bully his baby sister. If a conflict-avoidant parent lets the bullying continue, the more vulnerable sibling might suffer for years. Time-out can also be very effective because, when used well, it teaches a child that they are welcome in company when they can control their anger.

In addition to limiting the rules and using minimum necessary force, Peterson offers a third rule: that “parents should come in pairs” whenever possible, since humans under pressure can lose their edge, make mistakes, and need backup. Along similar lines, parents should be aware of their own capacity to behave cruelly. Much bad parenting happens not out of malice, but willful blindness. A resentful parent becomes a cold, distant parent down the road. On the other hand, a parent who’s aware of their own capacities to misbehave will map out a disciplinary strategy in advance. Parents’ responsibility to act as “proxies for the real world,” albeit merciful ones, is more important than any other parental duty.

If you take responsibility for your kids’ behavior, you’ll like them better, and they’ll get along better with both adults and children in the outside world, too. Clear boundaries help build social maturity, which in turn helps maintain order and resist chaos in the wider world. So, don’t let your children do anything that makes you dislike them.