What if trying to “build a child’s self-esteem” is actually becoming detrimental to that self-esteem?
I mean, there seems to be a movement to help “build a child’s self-image” through talking to the young child (I mean early elementary or before). Cutting deals with them and attempting to manipulate them in subtle ways in order to get them to do what the adult needs/wants them to do.
It seems that this is the preferred method because it “empowers” the child which then gives them confidence. What if this confidence is a weak confidence though; instead of creating a deep-set confidence which holds through any issue, what if confidence based on this empowerment is very shallow and not resilient?
Sure, giving a child a choice, if only of limited options delimited by the adult can empower the child; make them feel like they have control over parts of the world but, that feeling of control is fake and, I think, a root cause in people lacking resiliency.
Think about it, resiliency comes from many factors. Some of those are: feeling in control, being able to let go of the things you cannot control and your emotional outlook towards events in life.
Giving a child options, instead of simply a “no, because an authority figure said no,” limits which factors grow in a child. The child ends up always feeling good because they at least always have the semblance and feeling that they are in control. What happens once that facade fails though? Since they are less used to being in a situation out of their control, there is potential for all of their self-confidence to crumble.
Instead, the benefits of simply telling a child “no” and not giving them options teaches them that they are a) not always in control and not always going to be in control and then b) how to emotionally deal with that in a way that makes sense and teaches them to remove their personal feelings from the exact situation so that they can have a healthier emotional outlook on the situation.
So, what if resilient individuals come from slightly sterner upbringing?