Parenting to avoid mistakes of one's own parents

[Pattern-chaser]

I think the key is to develop EMPATHY instead of trying to do better than our parents did. Everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs, the difference is how strong those are.

Empathy is a difficult concept, even though it might not seem so at first glance. I don't think that "everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs," that's a problem with the Golden Rule. If you treat everyone else 'as you would wish to be treated', there are some whose needs are different from yours. The Golden Rule really needs to say 'treat everyone as they would wish to be treated (and expect the same from them in return)'.

IMO, of course.

[intentes_pupil]

I think the key is to develop EMPATHY instead of trying to do better than our parents did. Everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs, the difference is how strong those are.

Empathy is a difficult concept, even though it might not seem so at first glance. I don't think that "everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs," that's a problem with the Golden Rule. If you treat everyone else 'as you would wish to be treated', there are some whose needs are different from yours. The Golden Rule really needs to say 'treat everyone as they would wish to be treated (and expect the same from them in return)'.

IMO, of course.

I think we think the same, we just say it differently.

When I say "everybody has the same feelings and needs" I mean that needs and feelings are universal concepts (needs: autonomy, connection, meaning, play, peace, etc ; feelings: affection, excitement, connection, etc). BUT, how strong those needs/feelings are differentiate us from each other (and even moment to moment).

I guess that is the same you mean when you say "there are some whose needs are different from yours", right?

An analogy to make my point clear: gravity is the same for everybody, the difference is how much mass you have that makes your weight different.

I don't think there are golden rules.
Treating everybody the same way you would wish they treat you makes no sense within my argumentation. I argue that the key would be to learn to read other's needs in order to find a strategy that leads to the fulfilling of both parties needs (huge simplification here). Therefore treating somebody just taking into account your own needs leads necessarily (or at least high probably) to failure and struggle.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think the key is to develop EMPATHY instead of trying to do better than our parents did. Everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs, the difference is how strong those are.

Empathy is a difficult concept, even though it might not seem so at first glance. I don't think that "everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs," that's a problem with the Golden Rule. If you treat everyone else 'as you would wish to be treated', there are some whose needs are different from yours. The Golden Rule really needs to say 'treat everyone as they would wish to be treated (and expect the same from them in return)'.

IMO, of course.

I think we think the same, we just say it differently.

When I say "everybody has the same feelings and needs" I mean that needs and feelings are universal concepts (needs: autonomy, connection, meaning, play, peace, etc ; feelings: affection, excitement, connection, etc). BUT, how strong those needs/feelings are differentiate us from each other (and even moment to moment).

I guess that is the same you mean when you say "there are some whose needs are different from yours", right?

I see what you're getting at, and agree. But it isn't really what I was getting at. I was actually thinking of a particular, if unusual, example. If an autistic person is distressed, some (following the Golden Rule) might act as they hope someone else would act toward them, and put a comforting arm around the distressed person. But the autist has a problem with personal physical contact, and is made more distressed by the unwanted 'handling'.

This is a very detailed and unusual example, I admit. But it does illustrate the point I tried to make in my previous post: not everybody wants or needs to be treated as you would in their circumstances. In that sense, if no other, our needs can be quite different from someone else's.

[intentes_pupil]

I think the key is to develop EMPATHY instead of trying to do better than our parents did. Everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs, the difference is how strong those are.

Empathy is a difficult concept, even though it might not seem so at first glance. I don't think that "everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs," that's a problem with the Golden Rule. If you treat everyone else 'as you would wish to be treated', there are some whose needs are different from yours. The Golden Rule really needs to say 'treat everyone as they would wish to be treated (and expect the same from them in return)'.

IMO, of course.

I think we think the same, we just say it differently.

When I say "everybody has the same feelings and needs" I mean that needs and feelings are universal concepts (needs: autonomy, connection, meaning, play, peace, etc ; feelings: affection, excitement, connection, etc). BUT, how strong those needs/feelings are differentiate us from each other (and even moment to moment).

I guess that is the same you mean when you say "there are some whose needs are different from yours", right?

I see what you're getting at, and agree. But it isn't really what I was getting at. I was actually thinking of a particular, if unusual, example. If an autistic person is distressed, some (following the Golden Rule) might act as they hope someone else would act toward them, and put a comforting arm around the distressed person. But the autist has a problem with personal physical contact, and is made more distressed by the unwanted 'handling'.

This is a very detailed and unusual example, I admit. But it does illustrate the point I tried to make in my previous post: not everybody wants or needs to be treated as you would in their circumstances. In that sense, if no other, our needs can be quite different from someone else's.

In those specific cases I agree with you.

I find it also very interesting the way people with some mental conditions (sorry if I am not using the most appropriate term here, not meaning to be disrespectful) perceive the world. A nice example I found while listening Lex Friedman Podcast interview with Karl Deisseroth about bioengineering, depression, schizophrenia, ets; was the fact (unknown for me till then) that there are people who are highly psychotic but it does not have a negative impact in their lives and therefore they are not considered to have a mental conditions. These are people who hallucinate while daydreaming or have deep spiritual experiences, etc.

That changes the whole game and makes me question the "nature" and origin of things like feelings, thoughts, etc. Analyzing only the extremes leads to unsuccessful rules and generalizations, but obviating them leads to partial truths.

[Pattern-chaser]

I find it also very interesting the way people with some mental conditions (sorry if I am not using the most appropriate term here, not meaning to be disrespectful) perceive the world. A nice example I found while listening Lex Friedman Podcast interview with Karl Deisseroth about bioengineering, depression, schizophrenia, ets; was the fact (unknown for me till then) that there are people who are highly psychotic but it does not have a negative impact in their lives and therefore they are not considered to have a mental conditions. These are people who hallucinate while daydreaming or have deep spiritual experiences, etc.

That changes the whole game and makes me question the "nature" and origin of things like feelings, thoughts, etc. Analyzing only the extremes leads to unsuccessful rules and generalizations, but obviating them leads to partial truths.

I think you are describing "neuro-diversity" here? The realisation that many people who have historically been considered 𝖆𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖗𝖆𝖓𝖙 or 𝖉𝖆𝖒𝖆𝖌𝖊𝖉 are merely different? There are, I believe, psychopaths who live, constructively and productively, in our societies without displaying any of the frighteningly-negative things we expect of them. [If I misunderstood that, or misremembered what I read, just ignore that last bit. ] It is surmised that quite a few prominent historical figures were autistic - although historical diagnosis is fraught with uncertainty! - including scientists, artists, and generals. It may well be true. And I'm sure there are many other examples of which I am unaware.

Those who are different have contributed much over the centuries, and yet they are ridiculed, neglected, and even persecuted or imprisoned. But now I'm starting to ramble, or preach, so I'll stop here.