> That is not modern parenting, that's just parenting. Aside from some fringe philosophies (Summerhill for example) I have yet to come across any seriously taken historical example of parenting advice that is not focused on shaping children into something the parent desires, even if that is a very loose mold.

Try Emile from Rousseau. In general, what you are describing is the difference between the sciences of pedagogy an psychology. In one sentence, (since the enlightenment) pedagogy tries to find the optimal conditions for humans to develop their true self, while psychology usually observes a misguided development and tries to find a treatment. Psychology therefore has to have some model of what constitutes normality to compare against. These specific studies and treatments are easy to write about as a scientific journalist or parenting literature author. It's telling that practically none of the parenting books I've skimmed through are based on pedagogy.

(that's no dismissal of psychology at all, but you have to use the right tool for the job).

>pedagogy tries to find the optimal conditions for humans to develop their true self

"True self" is not a real thing - it's mystical psychobabble. In reality you are a product of your genetics and experiences, the ratios of which are still contested, however as of now the latter is much easier to influence than the former and as a result is really the only medium we have to work with if we want to influence outcomes.

>>pedagogy tries to find the optimal conditions for humans to develop their true self

>"True self" is not a real thing - it's mystical psychobabble.

Yep you are right, but I don't speak English natively and did not have much time :) A better phrasing probably would have been the true potential of the species, not of an individual. But true potential sounds too elitist... I'll try more verbosely: Mostly since the enlightenment (let's say the second half of the 18th century, one landmark was Emile by Rousseau), most central-european theory of pedagogy has a specific vision of an ideal of a developed human being (or species) to strive for. It's centered around development of practical, cultural and emotional skills, reasoning, the ability to assess the own actions relative to the state and necessities of society as a whole. Something like the living according to the categorical imperative of Kant while not feeling deprived of the own needs.

Throughout most of history, parenting was largely focused on equipping one's children to survive. The idea that one could impart specific qualities onto one's children is very new - until recently one instead struggled to impart religious rules onto them, with sufficient impact that they would continue to be followed.

If you think 'treat people with respect and dignity' is about manipulating other people to behave as you want them to, then you're doing it wrong.

> Throughout most of history, parenting was largely focused on equipping one's children to survive. The idea that one could impart specific qualities onto one's children is very new - until recently one instead struggled to impart religious rules onto them, with sufficient impact that they would continue to be followed.

That's a big pile of self-contradiction. Both survival skills and religious rules are specific qualities.

Skills are skills, and religious rules are behaviors or habits (depending). You can of course define 'quality' incredibly broadly if you want, but I meant it in the sense of 'personality characteristics' or 'character attributes'.

What is the objective distinction between each of the following: a skill, a behavior, a habit, a personality characteristic, and a character attribute?

Seems to me that all of them, when they describe anything that is objectively meaningful, refer to patterns of action adopted in particular circumstances. The only thing that changes over time seems to be the name applied to the patterns of action that parenting seeks to impose on children, not the actual substance that parenting is about creating desired patterns of action.

While I don't want to get bogged down into details of definitions, I'll take a swing at it:

A skill is a capability learned through experience which is wielded with intention.

A behavior is simply a way of acting - it could be conscious or unconscious, it could be enforced or intentional.

A habit is an unintentional behavior.

A personality characteristic and a character attribute are basically the same thing: unconscious ways of perceiving value and making decisions.

There are of course dozens of ways to define each of those terms, and I'm not interested in debating which of them is 'correct' - I am here primarily focusing on the distinction between instilling value-judgments via rituals and enforcement and attempting to control the self-perception or decision-making styles by behaving in artificial ways.

Describing them all as 'patterns of acting' is like calling all matter 'arrangements of chemicals'. It is of course accurate, and even in some cases useful, but you muddy very important distinctions by generalizing to that degree. In the case in point, the distinction lost is between valuations and perceptions.

I think the distinction you are making is illusory in the sense of the discussion -- you cannot influence outward action of the type you describe as skill, behavior, and habit without describing the internal processing you describe as "personality characteristics" and "character attributes", and you cannot observe "personality characteristics" or "character attributes" except as they manifest through skill, behavior, or habit.