you write that your experience as an autistic is that you have "more of a thing for justice" than might be expected from the general population.

I read that as an aspect of autism is to serve as a magnifying lens on on particular aspect of what it means to be human.

So, the trauma you report from being punished might have been felt stronger by you than it would have by someone with a different mental makeup, but that doesn't mean that the other person didn't feel it.

Conclusion: Your hightened awareness allows you to make explicit something which to others is just vaguely troubling. Thus your view is closer to the universal human truth than those who deny it.

Rather, what I was constantly looking for (and still am), was the "why" of things. Attempts to influence my behavior without first influencing my understanding led to friction and were the reasons they tried punishment (which never really worked). I didn't generally go out of my way to disobey them, but if we were at odds they had to explain it well enough for me to understand where they were coming from. This worked better with my mom who seemed to have a better understanding of my needs; my dad was more authoritarian and seemed to expect me to just listen due to the nature of the relationship (which in hindsight is funny, as while he is very much "the rules are the rules" when it came to other people, as soon as he had a reason he felt was good to disobey them, he would; he never really empathized with "other people might have good reasons to disobey the rules or otherwise feel they're unfair too", which helped me understand his political leanings).

I kind of have a thing for justice, and I feel hurt and angry when I’ve done everything I can for my family, told my son clearly why he can’t do something, confirmed that he’s not going to do it any more, and then turn my back and it’s being done again.

I find it hard to stay calm in those situations.

What the OP was trying to convey is that always lead with empathy, communication, and love. But, if after doing that your child is still willfully misbehaving, then they know it’s wrong (you talked to them, calmly and respectfully) so now it’s time to start leveraging punishments (groundings, taking toys, etc).

From what I remember, if you can talk and listen to the kid, and understand what underlying needs drive the behavior, and then mention this to him -- then he'll feel understood, and notice that you're listening and care. And that was, from what I remember, the most important thing, in solving a conflict. (I.e. being listened to and understood.) The other things then, afterwards, tended to be comparatively simple to solve together.

Well said :-)

(thanks for explaining how that works; before that, it was still a bit vague to me)

Of course it is easy to say that when not involved in the situation. But in general it helps to understand why the child "misbehaved" and only then change the course, and punishment in my experience never gives the intended results.

Yes precisely!

There's a book, Nonviolent Communication (have you read it?)-- I wrote a bit in this sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31209737

You have to treat him like a person.

If the following things happened with an adult:

1. they lied to me

2. I calmly, respectfully and quietly call them out on it

3. they apologised to me and promised not to do it again

4. they immediately do it again

I would calmly call them out again (publicly yet still calmly and respectfully if we were with others), inform them that I'm not going to remain amongst them, then ostracise them.

How do you ostracise a child when you're their guardian?

Edit: clarified that calling them out on it is done respectfully and calmly

You have to figure out why they lied, and not in an accusatory way. Often, particularly when someone wants us to promise something that we don't want to, we are trained to lie to get out of the situation. It can often feel like there is no alternative to lying.

This is, obviously, not an ideal behavior, but you can't solve it by force. You have to accept that they have a reason for not wanting to do what you want them to, and you have to come to a mutual understanding.

In any healthy interaction, you do not unilaterally set the rules. You both have input, and you have to respect theirs, even if you don't agree with it. That will help them learn to respect your input as well.

For example, playing with knives is not a good idea, but maybe all the child wants is to be included in cooking? Giving him a spoon might be enough (and much safer).

But every situation is different, it's not easy. :) Don't give up, and good luck!

Of course, a parent will often find that after they talked it out, they don't want to punish their kid anymore. (All the better.)

At times asking my child after story time, right before bed, "hey, remember today when x and y happened. Do you want to talk about it? Why did you get upset?"

I find kids will happily talk and give their side of the story. It's good then to explain what you think could be a better way to handle that situation in future. Often they'll agree and I'll even hear them later using the strategies to resolve playtime disputes with other kids.

If I raised my voice or was involved in the event being discussed, I will also share my side of the story and explain what I'll try to do to improve or help in future.

But hey, we're all humans, so it's messy.

I don't disagree, but I would argue it's unrealistic.

Being humble and acknowledging and explaining your mistakes is far more important than getting it right in first place.

most kids want a combination of 1.) approval from parent(s) and 2.) stuff that makes them happy and when 2 conflicts with 1 there can be issues, and it is a rare child that seeks only approval from their parents in all circumstances, as you also point out.

My reasoning was, if you don't want it done to you, don't do it to me. If you claim this behavior is so bad, why do you repeatedly demonstrate it? That too made me lose a lot of respect for parents, teachers etc.

i think i actually have a similar problem about asccusations of lying that often get thrown around in arguments etc. when the peoson accused has simply made an error in good faith...

I guess it seems like if you're raised around people who are always acting in bad faith on some level ("Everybody is doing it", "It won't hurt if nobody notices", etc) then you're going to assume that there is always some ulterior motive even without any further evidence.

A lot of ADHD symptoms are identical to lack of maturity or laziness. In my case, being punished for inability to pay attention after school, frequently forgetting things (1), or failing to think about the long term consequences of my actions in the moment was incredibly damaging.

It’s little different from punishing a kid who is missing a leg for “slacking off” in gym class.

1: On top Of ADHD, my mom had and her mom had short-term memory issues due to lacking sufficient enzymes to process folic acid. Me having the same genetic short-term memory issues was treated as laziness by my parents.

For me, this is fixed by an L-Methylfolate supplement at a dosage of 15mg/day.

The fact that there are two ways to read this comes up in the criminal law context, where there's a question as to someone's mental state.

You read "on purpose" to attach to "act" – as in, "none of my wrong acts were acts I purposely engaged in." (Such statements can often be read this way in the law – it's about whether they intended the act, not the consequences.)

But I think most people stating that sentence intend to communicate that the wrong (or harm) was not deliberate, in that they had innocent motives, or a non-culpable mental state. And that claim shouldn't be all that hard to believe.

> But I genuinely believe that most kids want to be good, where "good" is defined as "behaving in a way that I get approval from my parents".

Well said, I would just say "...behaving in a way that I get attention from my parents". Approval is better yhan disapproval, but both will do if a child lacks attention.

This explains why "bad" children often stay the way they are even when punished - this is how they get the most of their parents' attention. Attention is the main currency for children and the only way to raise a healthy adult is to give plenty of it to a child. But not as punishment.

Coincidentally, adults are not as different from children as most think we are.

My experience (and observations) at least.

How these boundaries are set varies by community, but some form of punishment is very very common.

Speaking as someone who is currently dealing with a very disobedient 2-year old.

In any case, to keep kids behaving on a car road trip, you need to keep them busy and take care of their basic needs, being still and strapped in the back seat is not fun.

Also, to expand on the cruel punishment thing (an extreme example but I believe it's just a more pathological manifestation of the same thing): my mother would sometimes break my things as punishment, for example toys or CDs that were gifts from friends. 15 years later, it still stings. All that taught me was that she was immoral (and possibly insane) which made me rather unreceptive to her future attempts to "educate" me.

Education system does not teach science or life - it teaches compliance, obedience, to sit down, shut up and complete work by deadline

I'm sorry to hear that, it doesn't sound like healthy or grownup behavior. I recognize a lot of that in my own parents, I don't blame them, but a lot of their actions during my childhood I would now find petty or even emotionally abusive (characteristic of borderline or narcissism). They had their own problems I guess, their parents probably did worse things.

I might illustrate with an example of something that happened yesterday. My mother and I were feeding some feral cats near our building when we were verbally assaulted by a neighbor, who strongly disapproved of this practice (he literally said "not in my back yard!" But it's an apartment building so it's our backyard too.)

My mother's instinct was first to run, and second to get the police involved (he seemed to be a bit mentally unwell, so she feared him). My instinct was to talk to the man, despite his frightening appearance, and understand his perspective. What is it about the cats that bothers him? Maybe it's the fact that people haven't been cleaning up the food trays, so it looks messy. It could be any number of things. But my fundamental thinking is that if I talk to him I will understand him better, and be able to come to an understanding. Whereas my mother's perspective is "he is mentally ill and therefore not even worth engaging with."

I bring this up because most people's perspective on children seems to be "they are a child and therefore their perspective is irrelevant. I am going to force my perspective on them, and force them to do what I want, at least until they are a legal adult." I disagree with this, because it conditions people for their entire formative years to instill a sense of powerlessness and a sense of not mattering.

In most countries, such disrespect of children is actually required by law. From a young age I had no interest in continuing school, but I was forced to pretend to go along with it for another 5 years, or the police would be sent after my parents.

I do and managing young kids on a long road trip is war. You do what you can to survive and try not to feel too bad about it after.