I want to discuss the human impulse towards rules and limits

[Ginevra]

This might be rambly; I’m thinking out loud here. I want to hear the thoughts of my most intelligent on-line group. 

I was recently reading the book Amish Grace, which is about the extraordinary forgiveness that followed the 2006 Amish school shooting. The book details the customs and very rule-constructed culture of Amish communities. One thing mentioned in the book is that, “the Amish do not place a high value on convenience” and that their rules are meant to preserve their life-style, even if sometimes the execution of the rules seems arbitrary. (For example, they might have use of a telephone, but it is inconveniently housed in a phone shanty outside. Or, they will use batteries for certain tools, but not electricity.) 

I am mulling over some things. God forbid that I use the term “snowflake,” because that term does not resonate with me, however I do think there is something to the charge that many young people today do not have many limits. In many ways, technology and ever-increasing convenience - the convenience that is spurned by the Amish - has made it so that younger people wait, delay and have to give up much less often than in my childhood (anecdotally, of course. Study of one.) We had one TV. If dad wanted to watch the news, we did something else. We had one telephone. If mom was talking to the church lady, we couldn’t call our friends.  We had one car. If a parent had it for work or necessary tasks, we couldn’t go somewhere, unless we biked or walked. I had one pair of shoes per year. When they wore out, I wore them worn out. We had no air conditioning. Many nights were spent falling asleep in the sweltering heat. And so on. Though I also realize my grandparents’ generation would have said, “Look at all the leisure diversions these kids have (of my generation)! Saturday morning is devoted to cartoons! Everyone has these Atari games! No kid is expected to earn money for the family like I had to! They can spend their babysitting money on ice creams at the roller rink!” 

I’m also thinking we humans want rules and limitations. In the absence of rules like, “you must awaken at 6am and feed the chickens,” are we making new rules like, “I cannot eat meat/gluten/dairy”? Setting aside actual allergies or health realities, is the propensity towards having a Way of Eating part of this longing for rules? It might be manifest in other areas I’m not thinking of as well. Maybe strict budgeting? Maybe a fitness routine that is highly disciplined? Even some other things like the Book a Week challenge might be a manifestation of this, too. I “have” to read a book every week to live up to my self-created rule. 

What do you think? 

[Katy]

This is interesting.  I think rules make us feel safe.  If we are following the rule we must be in control of our world and nothing bad will happen to us.  Except that rules don't generally prevent bad things from happening, they just make us feel as if they do.  I suspect that to the extent they make us feel safe they are functioning well, and if a rule is reasonable, great. But if it's just an OCD way of controlling the world it becomes dangerous.

[regentrude]

I think what humans crave is structure and predictability. Too much freedom and too many choices can feel overwhelming; decision fatigue is a real thing. A strict rule corset makes life easier in some sense because it eliminates the need to make decisions.

ETA: I think Katy has a good point about feeling "in control".

[Bluegoat]

So - have you read Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology?  It's by a MIT grad who went to live with a group of radical Amish, he was interested in the sociology of technology.  I found it really interesting, it clarified some ideas for me about how we culturally make (or in fact, don't make) decisions about the role of tech in our lives.

About the idea of rules and limits - yes, I do think people want them.  People, especially North Americans, seem to have this idea that it is better, more enjoyable, to have as many choices as possible, that you will be more fulfilled if you can choose.  It's almost a base assumption that it represents the highest kind of freedom and humanity.  I think there is some reason to doubt it though.  There are simple things like the choice of 100 cereals in the grocery aisle - which actually seems not to lead to more fulfillment and even takes up energy and attention.  I also think of my friend who had the most wonderfully decorated apartment - it was just an amazing space.  She did it on a budget, and one thing she said to me was that at times she wished she had lots more money to spend, but actually it would likely not have turned out so well if she had - it would have been a lot more generic, or more "decorated" looking.

But I even wonder with serious things like career or marriage - we tend to think that freedom to choose in these things is fundamental to being happy. but I am not sure that actually turns out to be true when we look at real results.  Sometimes I think what it really means is more angst.

I do think you are right that there are consequences to easy access to so much.  I wonder if it comes down in part to executive function abilities.  One thing I have really noticed with my kids is how little waiting they do.  As I kid I remember having to wait a fair bit - waiting in the bank line was the one I really hated, but also in offices, on car trips etc.  There seems to be less of it now and when there is waiting a device seems to be involved for many kids. I've wondered about how that trains the brain.

Your observation about people creating rules is interesting.  I think with diet there are other elements, but you might be quite right that it also satisfies people because it creates structure.  Like it is just too overwhelming to make choices otherwise. 

[marbel]

This is a great topic!  I don't have anything to add except "what she said" about the posts that came before mine.  I do agree that people are hardwired (to various degrees depending on the person) to want some rules or limitations, and structure and predictability for the most part.  Or, we want unpredictability that we still have some control over, such as on a vacation. 

 

 

[Chris in VA]

Can't go too deep at the moment as I'm on my way out the door--so glad to have this interesting discussion topic to think about and come back to. (Seems we had more of this in the "old days" of the Board, but I could be wrong, just as an aside.)

I find value in the waiting, the "one TV" type stuff, the limited choices. I was all about choice in raising my boys, but it backfired. I helped feed the part of my children that craved their own control and led to not wanting or "obeying" my leadership as a parent. But the ones who were most rebellious (in the sense that they did NOT want imposed rules) are the ones with the most anxiety and unsettled lives. 

Interesting. 

[MaeFlowers]

My first impulse is to say that, yes, we need rules. Society needs rules to prevent chaos. The degree to which the individual needs rules is going to vary widely.

In some ways, we have loosened up our rules as a society in other ways we have tightened the reigns. I'm not sure we have always done so in the right ways.

I'm a slow processer and I need some time to think this through more. It's an interesting topic.

[Bluegoat]

9 minutes ago, Chris in VA said:

Can't go too deep at the moment as I'm on my way out the door--so glad to have this interesting discussion topic to think about and come back to. (Seems we had more of this in the "old days" of the Board, but I could be wrong, just as an aside.)

I find value in the waiting, the "one TV" type stuff, the limited choices. I was all about choice in raising my boys, but it backfired. I helped feed the part of my children that craved their own control and led to not wanting or "obeying" my leadership as a parent. But the ones who were most rebellious (in the sense that they did NOT want imposed rules) are the ones with the most anxiety and unsettled lives. 

Interesting. 

 

That's a interesting observation.  I've met a few kids who seem to really fit that profile - they really push against limits but actually seem to want them the most, and find they are anxious without them. They almost seem to feel like there is too much potential to be out of control.  And it has resulted in the adults I know in a more anxious personality.

It seems like a set of related personality characteristics.

[SKL]

I agree that some people really like rules.  One of my kids is like that.  She doesn't have many rules, but she creates her own rules.  For example, she has a certain school outfit for each day of the week.  She can't just accept it and wear something else if it isn't conveniently ready.  But she can't wear the same t-shirt to gymnastics two weeks in a row.  I'm sure there are others.

When she was a baby/tot, she was very interested in rules and very good about following them.  I think it gave her some security as it erased some of the randomness of life.  She would mentally compile other people's behavior patterns and tell me:  persons A, B, and C do this and persons D and E do that.

My other kid though ... total rebel, despises rules, can't develop a habit to save her life.  Luckily she has a naturally sweet disposition and is usually happy-go-lucky.  I guess the internal need for rules does not apply to people who are mostly happy no matter what happens.

 

[ScoutTN]

Very interesting topic!

Too many choices results in decision-making fatigue. That is why I love shopping at Aldi or Trader Joe's. The limitation of size and options is freeing. "Do I need ketchup?"  is easier and faster than figuring out what brand, size, organic or not.... out of 67 choices.

I agree about the waiting. No one uses imagination to pass the time because everyone is on a device.

I agree with Katy, it can be partly a control or feeling of safety thing. 

This is an interesting topic theologically too. Thinking about this. 

[Pawz4me]

Very rambly, mostly unformed thoughts --

I think we see some of this in religion, especially prosperity gospel. Believe this stuff/do these things and you will be rewarded (or at least bad carp won't happen to you). Of course that's a totally false teaching but it really seems to appeal to lots of people. Likewise with parenting--so many believe if they raise their child "in church" or with their idea of what constitutes Biblical values then the child will grow up to be "good" or"right." It's a very false sense of control.

But I do think personality plays a large role. We raised our boys with virtually no limits on technology or screens. Both are young adults now and have never had any issues with overuse. Maybe their brains simply aren't wired for addiction to that sort of thing. IDK

[sassenach]

10 minutes ago, SKL said:

I agree that some people really like rules.  One of my kids is like that.  She doesn't have many rules, but she creates her own rules.  For example, she has a certain school outfit for each day of the week.  She can't just accept it and wear something else if it isn't conveniently ready.  But she can't wear the same t-shirt to gymnastics two weeks in a row.  I'm sure there are others.

When she was a baby/tot, she was very interested in rules and very good about following them.  I think it gave her some security as it erased some of the randomness of life.  She would mentally compile other people's behavior patterns and tell me:  persons A, B, and C do this and persons D and E do that.

My other kid though ... total rebel, despises rules, can't develop a habit to save her life.  Luckily she has a naturally sweet disposition and is usually happy-go-lucky.  I guess the internal need for rules does not apply to people who are mostly happy no matter what happens.

 

This is an interesting thesis. I would say that I am not a rule follower and I also tend to be a content person. Dh is a rule/structure person and he leans toward discontentment/anxiety. I would guess that you are right, the more anxious a person is, the more they will see rules/structure as a protection. 

[MysteryJen]

I do think the need/desire for rules is a personality trait. Also, I think that it is a way of exerting control over yourself, your environment, and even the other people that you have in your life. Religion is a good example because in nearly every sort of group there are people who keep trying to have more clear, more strict, more non-negotiable rules and they clash with those who operate on a more principle sort of basis.

People who are rule followers seem to derive much comfort from all the rules they make for themselves.  Rules for religions easily lead to rules for diet, for exercise, for formulas for "success." 

I generally have no problem with rules that people set and follow for themselves, as long as they allow that other people can do things very differently and still be happy, devout, and successful.

In my life, I do have a problem with certain people who insist on the "one true way" to eat, worship, educate or live.

[Rachel]

I have nothing to add but I think this is a great discussion. 

[MaeFlowers]

43 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

Very rambly, mostly unformed thoughts --

I think we see some of this in religion, especially prosperity gospel. Believe this stuff/do these things and you will be rewarded (or at least bad carp won't happen to you). Of course that's a totally false teaching but it really seems to appeal to lots of people. Likewise with parenting--so many believe if they raise their child "in church" or with their idea of what constitutes Biblical values then the child will grow up to be "good" or"right." It's a very false sense of control.

But I do think personality plays a large role. We raised our boys with virtually no limits on technology or screens. Both are young adults now and have never had any issues with overuse. Maybe their brains simply aren't wired for addiction to that sort of thing. IDK

 

I was thinking about this for a long time (prior to this thread). That certain personality types are drawn to more rule oriented denominations. Actually, I was thinking about the most rule oriented person that I know. They have chosen a church that leans towards legalism where what constitutes "right" and "wrong" behavior is clearly defined. They tend to be very rigid in their thinking, very black and white. Interestingly, this person was raised in a chaotic environment. I've always assumed their need for rules stems from that. 

[MaeFlowers]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I agree that some people really like rules.  One of my kids is like that.  She doesn't have many rules, but she creates her own rules.  For example, she has a certain school outfit for each day of the week.  She can't just accept it and wear something else if it isn't conveniently ready.  But she can't wear the same t-shirt to gymnastics two weeks in a row.  I'm sure there are others.

When she was a baby/tot, she was very interested in rules and very good about following them.  I think it gave her some security as it erased some of the randomness of life.  She would mentally compile other people's behavior patterns and tell me:  persons A, B, and C do this and persons D and E do that.

My other kid though ... total rebel, despises rules, can't develop a habit to save her life.  Luckily she has a naturally sweet disposition and is usually happy-go-lucky.  I guess the internal need for rules does not apply to people who are mostly happy no matter what happens.

 

Thought to ponder...Do rebels need rules more because in order to rebel, they must have something to rebel agaisnt?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I agree that some people really like rules.  One of my kids is like that.  She doesn't have many rules, but she creates her own rules.  For example, she has a certain school outfit for each day of the week.  She can't just accept it and wear something else if it isn't conveniently ready.  But she can't wear the same t-shirt to gymnastics two weeks in a row.  I'm sure there are others.

When she was a baby/tot, she was very interested in rules and very good about following them.  I think it gave her some security as it erased some of the randomness of life.  She would mentally compile other people's behavior patterns and tell me:  persons A, B, and C do this and persons D and E do that.

My other kid though ... total rebel, despises rules, can't develop a habit to save her life.  Luckily she has a naturally sweet disposition and is usually happy-go-lucky.  I guess the internal need for rules does not apply to people who are mostly happy no matter what happens.

 

My thinking, though, is not so much that some people really like rules but that there is an innate desire to know limits and, absent external limits, many (most? All?) people create or adopt rules to govern their behavior. 

Consider a group of counter-cultural teens. They may think they are being so interesting by piercing their faces or having unnatural hair looks or wearing unconservative clothing, but even the fact that I can make that list illustrates that they are adopting a set of rules. It’s not the set of rules their grandmother advocates, perhaps, but it is still a set of customs that identify them as belonging to that group. I mean, why are they never counter-cultural in playing loud opera music and wearing a tutu? 

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, Quill said:

My thinking, though, is not so much that some people really like rules but that there is an innate desire to know limits and, absent external limits, many (most? All?) people create or adopt rules to govern their behavior. 

Consider a group of counter-cultural teens. They may think they are being so interesting by piercing their faces or having unnatural hair looks or wearing unconservative clothing, but even the fact that I can make that list illustrates that they are adopting a set of rules. It’s not the set of rules their grandmother advocates, perhaps, but it is still a set of customs that identify them as belonging to that group. I mean, why are they never counter-cultural in playing loud opera music and wearing a tutu? 

This reminds me of a teacher I had in high school who told us 'Whether you do exactly as your parents say or the opposite of what they say, you are still being controlled by them.'  I think  he went on to recommend actually THINKING about what is best for us long term, but that point always stayed with me.

 

[sassenach]

24 minutes ago, MysteryJen said:

I do think the need/desire for rules is a personality trait. Also, I think that it is a way of exerting control over yourself, your environment, and even the other people that you have in your life. Religion is a good example because in nearly every sort of group there are people who keep trying to have more clear, more strict, more non-negotiable rules and they clash with those who operate on a more principle sort of basis.

People who are rule followers seem to derive much comfort from all the rules they make for themselves.  Rules for religions easily lead to rules for diet, for exercise, for formulas for "success." 

I generally have no problem with rules that people set and follow for themselves, as long as they allow that other people can do things very differently and still be happy, devout, and successful.

In my life, I do have a problem with certain people who insist on the "one true way" to eat, worship, educate or live.

 

I agree. Kind of like the myers-briggs P vs J. I'm a hard P and really struggle with Js. DH is a HARD J and I'd say the biggest clashes in our relationship generally stem around this difference. The first few years of our marriage I saw it as an annoyance, but I have come to appreciate his true need for structure and I work to honor that. Raising a child who is very much like him helped me to see how innate these needs are to both of their personalities. 

For his part, DH has also learned over the years that I'm not intentionally trying to make him nuts. Ooh, famous family story: Many moons ago, I used to do dh's laundry. One day he threw an absolute fit because I had hung his shirts facing in the wrong direction. He was completely convinced that I did it on purpose to mess with him. I stood there watching him yank shirts out of his closet and calmly announced that I would no longer be doing his laundry. For the next 2 years he did his own laundry but often found that he didn't have time to get everything put away. Then he got a promotion (and had a major increase in work hours) and very humbly asked me if I could start doing his laundry again. We never had that issue again. (He does his own laundry again but not because of any conflict. He still hates doing it.)

He's become much more relaxed over the years. Part of that is just because we were both going to be miserable if we didn't move toward the middle, but maybe the other part is that he's more secure and less anxious than he used to be? 

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, MaeFlowers said:

Thought to ponder...Do rebels need rules more because in order to rebel, they must have something to rebel agaisnt?

I don’t know that they need more rules, and there is such a thing as too many rules driving a person to act out. I do think self-restraint is learned in part from first being restrained externally, like how newborn babies benefit from tight swaddling. (I know, I know, some babies fight swaddling, too...) 

[Greta]

One interesting aspect of this to me is how much a shared set of limitations and rules binds people together as a community, gives them a shared sense of purpose, a feeling that we are all working together cooperatively toward the same goal.  I suspect this is something missing from (or at least, significantly reduced in) modern life compared to most of human history where people lived in smaller groups with shared religious beliefs, and where they depended much more directly on one another.  The psychology of being a member of a tribe (with a set of rules that everyone lives by) must be very different from the psychology of being a member of a family in a sea of disconnected families (all making their own rules beyond the basic ones that are put into law).

Not that I have any particular insights to share on that!  Just that I wonder about it.

[Momto6inIN]

I don't have anything to add, just wanted to say that I love discussions like this and look forward to what you all have to say! I will ruminate on it and maybe possibly have something to say later ?

[Ravin]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

This might be rambly; I’m thinking out loud here. I want to hear the thoughts of my most intelligent on-line group. 

I was recently reading the book Amish Grace, which is about the extraordinary forgiveness that followed the 2006 Amish school shooting. The book details the customs and very rule-constructed culture of Amish communities. One thing mentioned in the book is that, “the Amish do not place a high value on convenience” and that their rules are meant to preserve their life-style, even if sometimes the execution of the rules seems arbitrary. (For example, they might have use of a telephone, but it is inconveniently housed in a phone shanty outside. Or, they will use batteries for certain tools, but not electricity.) 

I am mulling over some things. God forbid that I use the term “snowflake,” because that term does not resonate with me, however I do think there is something to the charge that many young people today do not have many limits. In many ways, technology and ever-increasing convenience - the convenience that is spurned by the Amish - has made it so that younger people wait, delay and have to give up much less often than in my childhood (anecdotally, of course. Study of one.) We had one TV. If dad wanted to watch the news, we did something else. We had one telephone. If mom was talking to the church lady, we couldn’t call our friends.  We had one car. If a parent had it for work or necessary tasks, we couldn’t go somewhere, unless we biked or walked. I had one pair of shoes per year. When they wore out, I wore them worn out. We had no air conditioning. Many nights were spent falling asleep in the sweltering heat. And so on. Though I also realize my grandparents’ generation would have said, “Look at all the leisure diversions these kids have (of my generation)! Saturday morning is devoted to cartoons! Everyone has these Atari games! No kid is expected to earn money for the family like I had to! They can spend their babysitting money on ice creams at the roller rink!” 

I’m also thinking we humans want rules and limitations. In the absence of rules like, “you must awaken at 6am and feed the chickens,” are we making new rules like, “I cannot eat meat/gluten/dairy”? Setting aside actual allergies or health realities, is the propensity towards having a Way of Eating part of this longing for rules? It might be manifest in other areas I’m not thinking of as well. Maybe strict budgeting? Maybe a fitness routine that is highly disciplined? Even some other things like the Book a Week challenge might be a manifestation of this, too. I “have” to read a book every week to live up to my self-created rule. 

What do you think? 

 

I think if you take the long view, there are myriad rules and limitations kids today follow, things that are different for them from previous generations. First, let's look at work. In the history of humanity, we see two peaks in work expected of people, one during the industrial revolution before labor reforms, and one in our society today, as those reforms are eroded to fill the pockets of the wealthy rather than continuing on a corrective curve to give us more leisure. In the middle ages, the average hours a peasant worked in a year was about 1500. Work days were limited by the availability of daylight and (importantly) by the church calendar. There would be times where the work was long hours and difficult, such as harvest time, but there was also ample leisure time. The Protestant work ethic and the notion that there are "deserving poor" and "undeserving poor" as well as that wealthy elites are deserving by birthright even if they are layabouts, all were used to undermine leisure during the early industrial era. Social rules and laws changed as different institutions gained power.

Then, look at our complex transportation systems. People follow a lot of rules in order for safe driving by many people to take place. We obey traffic lights, yield at specified times, etc. This system did not exist 150 years ago. 

Then, there is the criminal justice system. We have more and more criminal laws over time, yet people more consistently obey them now than they did three decades ago, as evidenced by the decline in crime rates pretty much everywhere.

We have many rules to live in modern society. Our rules change to adapt to changing technology and the social impacts of that technology. There are unwritten social rules that may be different from when we were kids. For instance, "set your phone to mute when you don't want to receive calls or texts" is a social rule that in many circles has replaced "never call between 9PM and 9AM or before Noon on Sunday."

Following rules is a matter of habit more than virtue, I think. Of course people want rules and limitations, we are a socially adaptive species and our rules have let us have the complex civilization we now enjoy, just as the different rules of past societies dictated how they were able to get along with--or go to war against--their kin and neighbors without experiencing total societal degradation. Rules are part of our successful adaptation as a species, whether they are framed as ethics, religious rules, social norms, or formal laws.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Greta said:

One interesting aspect of this to me is how much a shared set of limitations and rules binds people together as a community, gives them a shared sense of purpose, a feeling that we are all working together cooperatively toward the same goal.  I suspect this is something missing from (or at least, significantly reduced in) modern life compared to most of human history where people lived in smaller groups with shared religious beliefs, and where they depended much more directly on one another.  They psychology of being a member of a tribe (with a set of rules that everyone lives by) must be very different from the psychology of being a member of a family in a sea of disconnected families (all making their own rules beyond the basic ones that are put into law).

Not that I have any particular insights to share on that!  Just that I wonder about it.

That’s true. One of the “succesful” aspects of Amish life is no doubt that they all agree to hold to the same conventions within a community. This is sort of what we’re doing, too, when we join a homeschool co-op, a church, a tennis club, a scouts group. 

[lavender's green]

I used to go to a church that was really rigid and rule-oriented. The denomination as a whole isn't always like that, but newer people who are spiritually immature can take what the denomination says and run with it, leading to some really wacky things. It definitely attracts a certain set of personality types. It was an interesting spiritual journey to go there and then leave.

In light of this conversation, I find it interesting that so many people, probably a majority of the families there had extremely strict, self-imposed, non-medically-necessary diets.

Also, an unusually high number of the children had autism. No idea why. I wonder if rigidity in a parent is a predictor.

[Greta]

3 minutes ago, Quill said:

That’s true. One of the “succesful” aspects of Amish life is no doubt that they all agree to hold to the same conventions within a community. This is sort of what we’re doing, too, when we join a homeschool co-op, a church, a tennis club, a scouts group. 

 

Yes, that tendency we have to join groups where people are of like mind and/or are pursuing a shared interest definitely speaks to an innate need within us, I believe!  I imagine that the sense of community and belonging is all the richer when it's the same people in all of those aspects of your life.  

[Lady Florida.]

This is off topic but I used to be fascinated with the Amish until I learned about their puppy mills as well as how they treat their horses. I no longer think of them as loving, peaceful folks.

[MaeFlowers]

6 minutes ago, Greta said:

 

Yes, that tendency we have to join groups where people are of like mind and/or are pursuing a shared interest definitely speaks to an innate need within us, I believe!  I imagine that the sense of community and belonging is all the richer when it's the same people in all of those aspects of your life.  

Joining a group of people with shared interests is slightly different than being born into a group that expects conformity, wouldn't you say? Forced comformity (even under the guise of expectations vs rules) lends itself to oppression. We need a certain level of conformity for society to function but we also expect a certain amount of freedom to move within those "rules". Religious groups are often a perfect example of how precious that wiggle room really is.

In terms of rules vs limits, I would agree that while most people don't like rules, they do like limits. Society tends to use rules to set limits, though. A rule follower is going to work within the given limits. A rebeller is more likely to reject those limits and set their own. So, both have limits. One more external, one more internal. Maybe? Still thinking this through...

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, MysteryJen said:

I do think the need/desire for rules is a personality trait. Also, I think that it is a way of exerting control over yourself, your environment, and even the other people that you have in your life. Religion is a good example because in nearly every sort of group there are people who keep trying to have more clear, more strict, more non-negotiable rules and they clash with those who operate on a more principle sort of basis.

People who are rule followers seem to derive much comfort from all the rules they make for themselves.  Rules for religions easily lead to rules for diet, for exercise, for formulas for "success." 

I generally have no problem with rules that people set and follow for themselves, as long as they allow that other people can do things very differently and still be happy, devout, and successful.

In my life, I do have a problem with certain people who insist on the "one true way" to eat, worship, educate or live.

 

I think one difficulty with the bit I've bolded is that it doesn't really dress more corporate issues.  As an example, I have some social anxiety, it was fairy significant when I was younger.  i was really drawn to the idea of rules of etiquette, even though in general I am more a principle person.  The reason was having a standard way of doing certain things, like introductions, removed a major source of anxiety.  Even being introduced formally to a new adult so I would know what to call that person subsequently.  

But it seemed like there wasn't really a standard, and most parents didn't really teach it in a formal way because there was no clear way to do things.

Even with something like diet, having everyone doing different individual things complicates issues.  It's not like we can say, well, we have Hindus, Muslims, and Christians coming to dinner, so what do we serve - you have to find out each persons individual thing.

 I think a lot of things are like that - at least part of the benefit of a standard way of doing things is collective. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, MaeFlowers said:

Joining a group of people with shared interests is slightly different than being born into a group that expects conformity, wouldn't you say? Forced comformity (even under the guise of expectations vs rules) lends itself to oppression. We need a certain level of conformity for society to function but we also expect a certain amount of freedom to move within those "rules". Religious groups are often a perfect example of how precious that wiggle room really is.

In terms of rules vs limits, I would agree that while most people don't like rules, they do like limits. Society tends to use rules to set limits, though. A rule follower is going to work within the given limits. A rebeller is more likely to reject those limits and set their own. So, both have limits. One more external, one more internal. Maybe? Still thinking this through...

It is slightly different, yes, but a) we are all born into some kind of culture, (Maybe not if your parents are sociopaths, but even if they are counter-cultural.); and b) the Amish are not forced to be Amish. Amish youth have a period of lax rules and exploration in late teens/early twenties. They are not disciplined by the church until they have been baptized in the church (chosen the Amish community) and then rebel against the rules of their order. 

I don’t actually think most people dislike rules. I think most people do like rules and become resentful when someone else doesn’t seem to be following the rules. IOW, they like rules as long as they are rules they agree with or mostly agree with. They just don’t like it when someone else is getting away wih breaking the rule they have themselves followed. That’s why you have that guy who is president of the HOA writing stupid letters telling someone they aren’t allowed to have a pink flamingo yard ornament. It’s not that the lawn ornament hurts anything, really. It’s that he wanted to be part of a community where everyone agrees those are silly looking and someone is getting away with having one.

For the part of the lawn ornament rule-flouter, they probably still like some other rule or rules of the HOA or else it is doubtful they would have moved there. They just think this particular rule is stupid and/or they don’t like the persnickety president and so they want to bother him on purpose. But then that rule-flouter might still get pissed off if his neighbor puts up a pigpen in the yard. 

[MaeFlowers]

2 minutes ago, Quill said:

It is slightly different, yes, but a) we are all born into some kind of culture, (Maybe not if your parents are sociopaths, but even if they are counter-cultural.); and b) the Amish are not forced to be Amish. Amish youth have a period of lax rules and exploration in late teens/early twenties. They are not disciplined by the church until they have been baptized in the church (chosen the Amish community) and then rebel against the rules of their order. 

I don’t actually think most people dislike rules. I think most people do like rules and become resentful when someone else doesn’t seem to be following the rules. IOW, they like rules as long as they are rules they agree with or mostly agree with. They just don’t like it when someone else is getting away wih breaking the rule they have themselves followed. That’s why you have that guy who is president of the HOA writing stupid letters telling someone they aren’t allowed to have a pink flamingo yard ornament. It’s not that the lawn ornament hurts anything, really. It’s that he wanted to be part of a community where everyone agrees those are silly looking and someone is getting away with having one.

For the part of the lawn ornament rule-flouter, they probably still like some other rule or rules of the HOA or else it is doubtful they would have moved there. They just think this particular rule is stupid and/or they don’t like the persnickety president and so they want to bother him on purpose. But then that rule-flouter might still get pissed off if his neighbor puts up a pigpen in the yard. 

 

I don't like/dislike rules. Honestly, I don't know what they even are most of the time because I don't usually bother reading them/paying attention to them. If I am living within my own self-imposed limits, I dont care if I break their rules. So, I don't generally care if others break the rules, either. I am assuming they are living within their self-imposed limits. 

All of this is within reason, of course. 

[Rachel]

I can’t find the post that states there is a personality trait that seems to favor rules, but I agree!

I am definitely a rule follower. I get teased that if there are no rules to follow, I make them up. I naturally tend to view the world as black and white. Having children and getting older has fortunately helped me lighten up.

My husband tends to view rules as more of a suggestion. Rules are for those people that don’t know what else to do.  Not that he’s an especially disorderly person, but he isn’t worried about doing things the right way but the way that makes sense to him.

My oldest child is exactly like me in this regard and has been almost from birth. Our daughter is more like my husband and it drives him nuts! 

[GoodGrief]

Humans do generally crave rules and structure. It's always interesting to see that many who are very vocal in their distaste for religion often become rather...evangelical...about their political preferences. It's human nature to want a set of beliefs and to argue for the validity of those beliefs, even if they are not entirely rational.

[Greta]

1 hour ago, MaeFlowers said:

Joining a group of people with shared interests is slightly different than being born into a group that expects conformity, wouldn't you say? Forced comformity (even under the guise of expectations vs rules) lends itself to oppression. We need a certain level of conformity for society to function but we also expect a certain amount of freedom to move within those "rules". Religious groups are often a perfect example of how precious that wiggle room really is.

In terms of rules vs limits, I would agree that while most people don't like rules, they do like limits. Society tends to use rules to set limits, though. A rule follower is going to work within the given limits. A rebeller is more likely to reject those limits and set their own. So, both have limits. One more external, one more internal. Maybe? Still thinking this through...

 

Oh, yes, there is definitely a down side to the prospect of being born to a more homogenous society, particularly if it is also a strict one.  No disagreement there at all, but I do wonder sometimes if the freedom and individualism that mark modern American society isn't its own kind of oppression.  This isn't something well thought-out on my part, and so it's going to be almost impossible for me to articulate it.  So I ask your forgiveness in advance for this clumsy attempt.  I'm just thinking aloud here... about both biology and religion.  Biologically, we evolved to be a highly social species.  Being accepted by the group was vital for our survival.  So psychologically, we've been built with that need.  And religiously, from what I know of the world's religions and wisdom traditions, however the doctrines may differ, they often share a message about self-sacrifice, or basically, just the message that I am not the center of the universe (in Eastern Orthodox Christianity there's "dying to the self" and in Buddhism and Taoism there is the philosophy of detachment or renunciation, and so on.)  

I think that our (modern western, US in particular) culture emphasizes personal growth and individualism and being your authentic self and being your best you and so on.  But what if my best me is actually less "me"?  There seems to be a whole lot of loneliness and dissatisfaction and depression in this culture that is so focused on individual freedoms and self-fulfillment.  Were we actually happier when we had less freedom?  Were people more content when life was less about "the pursuit of happiness" and more about the individual's obligations to the community?  I've read about studies showing that people were less happy when they had the freedom to make a decision.  When circumstances make decisions for us, we're more likely to just accept it and feel content about it and move on.  When we make the decision ourselves, we're more likely to doubt that our decision was the right one, and wonder if things would have been better if we'd decided differently.  So what if psychologically we are not actually well-equipped to deal with the freedom to make all our own choices about our lives?  Would we be more content in a culture with a greater common purpose and less personal freedom?

Well, as I said, I'm just musing.  I'm sure there's a happy balance somewhere between expectations placed on us (rules, limits, however it's best to articulate that) and personal freedom.  And I don't claim to know where it lies!

[Greta]

6 hours ago, Quill said:

 

I’m also thinking we humans want rules and limitations. In the absence of rules like, “you must awaken at 6am and feed the chickens,” are we making new rules like, “I cannot eat meat/gluten/dairy”? Setting aside actual allergies or health realities, is the propensity towards having a Way of Eating part of this longing for rules?

 

I also meant to mention that I thought this was an interesting example.  Many religions have dietary restrictions:  certain foods must be avoided, foods must be prepared in a certain way,  there are periods of fasting, etc.  That is not entirely but largely absent now in the US.  Also in times past people were far more in touch with their food, growing/raising/preparing it themselves far more than we do now.  And I suspect that fostered a much greater sense of gratitude and appreciation.  Maybe these self-imposed dietary limits are a actually an attempt to regain some of that?  I radically changed my diet several months ago, and went vegan.  What I was shocked to discover was that the limits I had imposed on my diet, deemed largely unbearable by most people, actually dramatically increased the sense of satisfaction and appreciation that I derived from each meal.  I sat down to my meals with far more joy than I had ever experienced before.  Rather unexpected, though, isn't it?  I can't say how much of that was because the change brought my actions more in line with my ideals, and therefore gave me peace, and how much of it was that I derive satisfaction from knowing that I am following a philosophy or a set of guidelines/rules/limits, because I feel that both were definitely at play.

[Pawz4me]

16 minutes ago, Greta said:

 

 

I think that our (modern western, US in particular) culture emphasizes personal growth and individualism and being your authentic self and being your best you and so on.  But what if my best me is actually less "me"?  There seems to be a whole lot of loneliness and dissatisfaction and depression in this culture that is so focused on individual freedoms and self-fulfillment.  Were we actually happier when we had less freedom?  Were people more content when life was less about "the pursuit of happiness" and more about the individual's obligations to the community?  I've read about studies showing that people were less happy when they had the freedom to make a decision.  When circumstances make decisions for us, we're more likely to just accept it and feel content about it and move on.  When we make the decision ourselves, we're more likely to doubt that our decision was the right one, and wonder if things would have been better if we'd decided differently.  So what if psychologically we are not actually well-equipped to deal with the freedom to make all our own choices about our lives?  Would we be more content in a culture with a greater common purpose and less personal freedom?

Well, as I said, I'm just musing.  I'm sure there's a happy balance somewhere between expectations placed on us (rules, limits, however it's best to articulate that) and personal freedom.  And I don't claim to know where it lies!

Taking off on this, and voicing another unformed thought (so I'm very open to opposing views on this) --

I wonder if the bolded is why some women are perfectly content in a patriarchal, husband-is-the-head-of-the-family lifestyle? In some ways, especially in a mutually respectful, loving relationship, I can definitely see a peace of mind benefit to leaving the final decision making to someone else. If a decision is ultimately not yours to make, then . . why worry or stress about whether it turns out right or wrong? It's not your problem or responsibility.

(Although I really think that type of lifestyle is probably not truly mentally healthy for either partner.)

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Greta said:

 

Oh, yes, there is definitely a down side to the prospect of being born to a more homogenous society, particularly if it is also a strict one.  No disagreement there at all, but I do wonder sometimes if the freedom and individualism that mark modern American society isn't its own kind of oppression.  This isn't something well thought-out on my part, and so it's going to be almost impossible for me to articulate it.  So I ask your forgiveness in advance for this clumsy attempt.  I'm just thinking aloud here... about both biology and religion.  Biologically, we evolved to be a highly social species.  Being accepted by the group was vital for our survival.  So psychologically, we've been built with that need.  And religiously, from what I know of the world's religions and wisdom traditions, however the doctrines may differ, they often share a message about self-sacrifice, or basically, just the message that I am not the center of the universe (in Eastern Orthodox Christianity there's "dying to the self" and in Buddhism and Taoism there is the philosophy of detachment or renunciation, and so on.)  

I think that our (modern western, US in particular) culture emphasizes personal growth and individualism and being your authentic self and being your best you and so on.  But what if my best me is actually less "me"?  There seems to be a whole lot of loneliness and dissatisfaction and depression in this culture that is so focused on individual freedoms and self-fulfillment.  Were we actually happier when we had less freedom?  Were people more content when life was less about "the pursuit of happiness" and more about the individual's obligations to the community?  I've read about studies showing that people were less happy when they had the freedom to make a decision.  When circumstances make decisions for us, we're more likely to just accept it and feel content about it and move on.  When we make the decision ourselves, we're more likely to doubt that our decision was the right one, and wonder if things would have been better if we'd decided differently.  So what if psychologically we are not actually well-equipped to deal with the freedom to make all our own choices about our lives?  Would we be more content in a culture with a greater common purpose and less personal freedom?

Well, as I said, I'm just musing.  I'm sure there's a happy balance somewhere between expectations placed on us (rules, limits, however it's best to articulate that) and personal freedom.  And I don't claim to know where it lies!

This whole post is actually where I have been pondering recently. These bolded items are some of my main thoughts. 

For example, I have a high school senior about to graduate. A happy time, of course. But also stressful. And I think a LARGE proportion of the stress is the societal message of you can be anything you want to be!!! All those choices! All those majors! Which one is the exactly, perfect, correct one? What if I am wrong? 

I recently just re-iterated to my son something like this: Look. Nothing horrible will happen if you study finance but end up doing construction. It can only help anyway. If you continue to work PT at McDonalds and it’s not your most favorite job ever, it is fine. Lots of people work their whole lives in a job they don’t love and that is not perfect for them. If you pick this college and it turns out the food is yucky more often than not and your roomate is a slob, you will still survive. Lots of people complete an education at a not-favorite school. No big deal. A lot of life is what you make it. 

So yes, in one sense, I have been thinking about this, this individualism and personal fulfillment we have been collectively thinking is so important. It is SO especially prominent a theme in the US. 

I just saw some meme on Pintrest that was like, “top 10 things to do to boost your productivity.” And my immediate thought was, “Why? Why must we be ever-more productive? Can’t we ever just finish? Can’t we ever just sit on the porch swing, drink an iced tea and go, “Ah! It’s all completed!” 

 

[MysteryJen]

I agree that common sets of rules can foster a sense of community-but the flip side of that is that it also fosters exclusivity. Those who are not "in the know" of the rules-especially the unwritten ones are frequently not welcomed or outright shunned. 

I have found that people who like/need/desire rules also like to make rules for everyone. Which can be both good and bad.

[SKL]

The comment about scouts got me thinking.  My rule-bound daughter is normally fine with any structured activity, new or old.  But last week in scouts, she came out of the meeting saying "I hate scouts, I don't ever want to come back."  "We have to do so much, I don't know what to do."  (She's been in the troop for 4 years, but just leveled up.)  I figured she was just hungry / low blood sugar.  But now that I think about it:  she just graduated to the level where the girls decide among themselves what they are going to do.  My daughter has no idea what she is "supposed" to do or how to do it.  I'm sure she'll figure it out, but I rarely see her so unsettled.

This makes me think - in helping such a person address challenges, I should probably encourage her to develop a structure for problem-solving and then work from there, vs. (a) developing the structure for her or (b) expecting her to just dive in and figure it out like non-rule-bound people would do.

[Tsuga]

It's interesting to me that you chose food rules as an example, and then compare them to things that in my opinion are much less biologically determined. I don't think people want food rules much of the time. Vegetarianism aside, nobody wants a peanut allergy. Nobody wants to have celiac. Nobody wants to be lactose intolerant. Sure, there may be some people who take on these restrictions for attention, but then, some people always have drama.

What I find interesting about rules is how they separate people. People feel excluded when someone points out they are subject to a specific rule. So if someone can't eat dairy, the question is not "how can I help" but "why do you have a rule that I don't have?"

This is a very interesting discussion. I think bringing in other rules--like no phones at the table, rules about having a high school degree versus arguably more useful demonstrated proficiency--would also be useful.

I agree that rules constrain choice and that's comfortable. They also can create artificial differences, however, and that can be very destructive.

[Peaceseeker]

I will have to ponder this some more, but my first thought is that I am one of those people who view rules more as suggestions and guidelines.  I am always telling my kids a rule is different than a law.  (i have one who is very much a rule follower). Generally for me, a rule should have some purpose that helps us all get along as a society.  But if a rule is arbitrary or I don't see in any value in it, I do my own thing.  

As a naturally rebellious person, I find sometimes that I desire rebellion for the sake of rebellion.  The quickest way for me to have a terrible diet, stop exercising, or stop going to church is when I make rules about doing those things.  That is a surefire recipe to find me on the couch with chips and dip on Sunday morning.  I have to try and trick my inner rebel.  It is best if I stay in the moment (I am walking, eating a salad, going to church this morning because that is what I want to do right now) instead of trying to create rules and routines.  It sets off a very contrary response that has followed me in almost every area of my life.  

As a child I was somewhat of a rule follower.  Somewhere along the way the whole system (family, church, school) let me down and I couldn't trust doing something because others said so and started really rebelling.  I have probably landed somewhere in the middle of those extremes but I do still feel somewhat rebellious at 40.  I have a hard time fitting in with most groups and organizations.  I definitely learned I should not hold any leadership positions because I dislike making and enforcing rules for others.

[GoodGrief]

18 minutes ago, CaliforniaDreamin said:

I will have to ponder this some more, but my first thought is that I am one of those people who view rules more as suggestions and guidelines.  I am always telling my kids a rule is different than a law.  (i have one who is very much a rule follower). Generally for me, a rule should have some purpose that helps us all get along as a society.  But if a rule is arbitrary or I don't see in any value in it, I do my own thing.  

As a naturally rebellious person, I find sometimes that I desire rebellion for the sake of rebellion.  The quickest way for me to have a terrible diet, stop exercising, or stop going to church is when I make rules about doing those things.  That is a surefire recipe to find me on the couch with chips and dip on Sunday morning.  I have to try and trick my inner rebel.  It is best if I stay in the moment (I am walking, eating a salad, going to church this morning because that is what I want to do right now) instead of trying to create rules and routines.  It sets off a very contrary response that has followed me in almost every area of my life.  

As a child I was somewhat of a rule follower.  Somewhere along the way the whole system (family, church, school) let me down and I couldn't trust doing something because others said so and started really rebelling.  I have probably landed somewhere in the middle of those extremes but I do still feel somewhat rebellious at 40.  I have a hard time fitting in with most groups and organizations.  I definitely learned I should not hold any leadership positions because I dislike making and enforcing rules for others.

For you, the rebellion is the rule. :-)

[GoodGrief]

42 minutes ago, Tsuga said:

It's interesting to me that you chose food rules as an example, and then compare them to things that in my opinion are much less biologically determined. I don't think people want food rules much of the time. Vegetarianism aside, nobody wants a peanut allergy. Nobody wants to have celiac. Nobody wants to be lactose intolerant. Sure, there may be some people who take on these restrictions for attention, but then, some people always have drama.

What I find interesting about rules is how they separate people. People feel excluded when someone points out they are subject to a specific rule. So if someone can't eat dairy, the question is not "how can I help" but "why do you have a rule that I don't have?"

This is a very interesting discussion. I think bringing in other rules--like no phones at the table, rules about having a high school degree versus arguably more useful demonstrated proficiency--would also be useful.

I agree that rules constrain choice and that's comfortable. They also can create artificial differences, however, and that can be very destructive.

Rules create identity. Food rules, political rules, lifestyle rules...it's about the picture people want to paint of themselves. Sometimes they want to tear up the picture and start over too. And, sure, some people want their picture to get attention.

[SKL]

Myself, I'm not a great rule follower and that's probably why I tend to forget the rules I set for my kids.  ?

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

This whole post is actually where I have been pondering recently. These bolded items are some of my main thoughts. 

For example, I have a high school senior about to graduate. A happy time, of course. But also stressful. And I think a LARGE proportion of the stress is the societal message of you can be anything you want to be!!! All those choices! All those majors! Which one is the exactly, perfect, correct one? What if I am wrong? 

I recently just re-iterated to my son something like this: Look. Nothing horrible will happen if you study finance but end up doing construction. It can only help anyway. If you continue to work PT at McDonalds and it’s not your most favorite job ever, it is fine. Lots of people work their whole lives in a job they don’t love and that is not perfect for them. If you pick this college and it turns out the food is yucky more often than not and your roomate is a slob, you will still survive. Lots of people complete an education at a not-favorite school. No big deal. A lot of life is what you make it. 

So yes, in one sense, I have been thinking about this, this individualism and personal fulfillment we have been collectively thinking is so important. It is SO especially prominent a theme in the US. 

I just saw some meme on Pintrest that was like, “top 10 things to do to boost your productivity.” And my immediate thought was, “Why? Why must we be ever-more productive? Can’t we ever just finish? Can’t we ever just sit on the porch swing, drink an iced tea and go, “Ah! It’s all completed!” 

 

I love this post Quill.  And I am dealing with a lot of that same stuff with ds18 who as you know also just graduated.  He often asks me 'what if I hate engineering?'  I tell him, 'well then you find a way to do something else.'  

And with dss17 who just got a job washing dishes at a resort.....of course it is not his lifelong dream....but hey he needs a job and he needs the opportunity to prove he is dependable and capable so that he can be considered for other jobs in the kitchen.  

And btw, ds18 has had a job working in a body shop doing whatever grunt work is required...he has been doing it for 2 years...he says he likes it.  It is hard, hot, sweaty....but satisfying because he can just work and be lost in his own thoughts without any mental effort most of the time.  Like McDonalds and washing dishes I find value in doing those types of jobs in one's youth.  I told ds just the other day that after working in a laundry room at a nursing home my senior year I DEFINITELY knew I didn't really want to do that long term, but hey I also was proud of myself for doing it for a year and doing it well.

 

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Tsuga said:

It's interesting to me that you chose food rules as an example, and then compare them to things that in my opinion are much less biologically determined. I don't think people want food rules much of the time. Vegetarianism aside, nobody wants a peanut allergy. Nobody wants to have celiac. Nobody wants to be lactose intolerant. Sure, there may be some people who take on these restrictions for attention, but then, some people always have drama.

What I find interesting about rules is how they separate people. People feel excluded when someone points out they are subject to a specific rule. So if someone can't eat dairy, the question is not "how can I help" but "why do you have a rule that I don't have?"

This is a very interesting discussion. I think bringing in other rules--like no phones at the table, rules about having a high school degree versus arguably more useful demonstrated proficiency--would also be useful.

I agree that rules constrain choice and that's comfortable. They also can create artificial differences, however, and that can be very destructive.

Well, that was why I followed my statement about food rules with this: 

Quote

Setting aside actual allergies or health realities, is the propensity towards having a Way of Eating part of this longing for rules

I myself have IBS and there are numerous things I rarely or never eat/drink because I know it will cause me pain. It is interesting to me that you think people dont want food rules; I think the opposite. It seems to me as though I constantly encounter people who have at least a few food rules that, while probably helpful for their goals, are not necessary for them to stay alive and well. So, maybe they do drink milk, but only the organic kind with no hormones addded, or they eat some meat but only fish/fowl, they eat eggs but only from cage-free birds, they drink soda, but only if it contains no HFCS. Or many other permutations of food rules. In all my years prticipating in internet forums, one of the most contentious fights I ever saw online was between people arguing what sort of milk (or plant extract) kids should drink. Soy milk, Almond milk, rice milk, coconut milk, cow milk, goat milk. You can’t imagine how hostile people were being about which of these is nutritious and which is “poison.” 

Truthfully, one of the weirder aspects of food rules is when people adopt them and then try to evangelize everyone else to it. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

Taking off on this, and voicing another unformed thought (so I'm very open to opposing views on this) --

I wonder if the bolded is why some women are perfectly content in a patriarchal, husband-is-the-head-of-the-family lifestyle? In some ways, especially in a mutually respectful, loving relationship, I can definitely see a peace of mind benefit to leaving the final decision making to someone else. If a decision is ultimately not yours to make, then . . why worry or stress about whether it turns out right or wrong? It's not your problem or responsibility.

(Although I really think that type of lifestyle is probably not truly mentally healthy for either partner.)

I do think that is true. Also, if the Captain is doing a great job steering the ship, aren’t you just going to go ahead and ride? 

I am not as much like this as I once was, but when I was big evangelical, I did follow the male-headship model and it was a very good thing for me. I had a serious pride problem (I am sure that is not hard for anyone to imagine and I’m not saying that’s all fixed now! No more issue!) and it was hugely beneficial for me to realize that, “Hey, girl! It turns out not every good idea is yours! And, believe it or not, someone else’s idea might be *better* than yours.” I can even remember specific instances when I submitted myself to his decision and the result was synergistic and better than my solution alone would have been. 

I disagree with your last line. I think that can be mentally healthier for both partners because of synergy. The end result of more than one person operating with respect cooperatively can be much better than the sum of parts, even if there is a structural hierarchy in place. 

[WendyLady]

This is such a interesting topic for me!  It's something I enjoy thinking about!  I have a few different angles on this -

Have you read any of Gretchen Rubin's books about the 4 Tendencies?  She suggests that there are 4 types of people - some who love rules and have a very easy time following internal and external rules; some question rules and if it makes sense, they are willing to follow those rules, but if not, then NO; some crave rules but have a really hard time following through without external motivation; and rebels who just cannot follow rules!!  Reading her ideas has helped me understand my teens better (many teens lean toward "rebel", even if just for a few years) and has also helped me understand my husband (who I think is somewhere between an obliger and a rebel....) and re-think my way of interacting with him.  It has also helped me deal with my own issues - I'm pretty solidly in the obliger camp and need to find outer scaffolding to help me accomplish my goals...  https://gretchenrubin.com/books/the-four-tendencies/intro/    edited to add - I like her work because it feels like she is encouraging me not to judge the "rule-following" style of others.  That there are many many ways to "be obedient".  That there's not a "right way" to be obedient.  That there's something to learn from all of the different styles.  In my church, I feel like there's often emphasis on one right way, and those who are serious rule followers seem to really thrive, but there is so much to learn from questioners and rebels!  They help us see things from a different perspective and help us learn so much about ourselves!!

Next thought - I am currently working at a group home for teens in crisis.  It has been incredible to see the amount of progress these kids can make when they are brought into a different environment with lots of guidelines and boundaries.  It really seems to "free" them, and allow them to make huge progress in their academics and in social skills. They are often very frustrated by the rules, but when they are able to "settle in" they become calm and happy and make huge changes.  These kids often come from home-lives full of chaos - I feel like many of them are craving the peace and safety that comes with routine.

Last thought - a friend of mine has a son who is on the Autism spectrum.  She talked about the many many appointments he had with speech therapy and OT and Dr appts and physical therapy, etc. Many hours a week spent working with specialists, and he wasn't making as much progress as they had hoped.  He was accepted into a special program, where they encouraged their family to take a step back and focus on the very simple task of learning how to sit quietly at the table.  This was accomplished over several months, using small goals and small rewards.  They worked on it at school and followed the same program at home, taking a break from many of the other specialists.  She said that as soon as he learned to sit at the table, suddenly he began to make huge progress in all of his other areas.  He went from having around 20 words to having hundreds literally in just a few weeks.  It was huge for him and for their whole family.  She really felt like when he learned to quiet his body and his mind by learning to sit still, he was suddenly open to learning so many new things!  Learning how to follow the simple rule of sitting at the table, made it possible for him to make huge personal growth. 

I think sometimes the same is true for my teenagers - learn to put down the device and open your mind to real learning!!

So, not all connected, but it's been fun to read through the many comments above - thanks for a great discussion!!

 

 

[Rosie_0801]

I don't love watching people using rules to self flagellate.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

To me, it was not stressful to hear 'you can be anything you want to be'. It was rather freeing, because so many doors were closed in my grandmothers' generation.  Teaching, nursing, business woman or motherhood is rather limiting.

Yes, but this is part of what I’m thinking through. “We” (American culture anyway) are so obsessed with saying, “Look at how limitless your options are! See how free you are to choose?” But there is a paradox of choice and the options can drain us more than we realize.