How tf did they correct for variables here?

In particular the likelihood that children who are little arseholes both get shouted at more and are likely to grow up to be junkies etc

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/02/shouting-at-children-ca…

Also firmly believe that untrammelled self esteem is the reason so many teens have meltdowns now when they start experiencing not being mummy's and teacher's special soldier any more and just being an unlikeable w**k.

Calling a kid a dumbo is not as damaging as sexual abuse wtaf.

And it is through pain that we grow. Children shouldn't have perfect self esteem because they are human and thus annoying.

I suspect it doesn't really matter what triggers the emotional (ultimately chemical) response. It's the (physical, biochemical) impact that response has on the brain of the person who suffers it that matters. 

 

Currently in a cafe with two teens ignoring their parents and playing separate loud music videos on their phones. Bet if I leaned over and called them a pair of ignorant wee khvnts they'd die of shock.

Shouting at my kids is very often literally, and I do mean literally, the only way of getting them to do basic things like come for meals, brush their teeth, get their shoes on, etc. after asking nicely x a billion.  Like fvck is that 'abuse'. 

As 60s and 70s and 80s kids, do we all feel like 'abused' kids on the basis of being shouted at (much less being smacked around a bit) by parents?

The article pretty obviously isn't talking about that though Threep. It is talking about being actively nasty to the kids. Telling them they are useless, lazy, a disappointment etc and really meaning it (or sounding like you do). That is very different to shouting at them to shift their lazy fvcking ar8es out of the house. 

heh, as opposed to boomers being told they can't have something which has just literally never happened because after all it's only their kids paying the taxes to fund it all