<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Child_development on George&#39;s Blog</title>
    <link>https://blog.georgefabish.com/tags/child_development/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Child_development on George&#39;s Blog</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-US</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://blog.georgefabish.com/tags/child_development/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Good Inside</title>
      <link>https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/good-inside-a-guide-to-becoming-the-parent-you-want-to-be/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/good-inside-a-guide-to-becoming-the-parent-you-want-to-be/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I inherently don&amp;rsquo;t trust people who are named Dr. &amp;lsquo;X&amp;rsquo;, but they always seem to become popular. In a single sentence I would say that the book is full of BS that probably works. There were things in the book that triggered the Hank Hill &amp;ldquo;now that&amp;rsquo;s just asinine&amp;rdquo; response, but then she would follow it up with an explanation that would end up making a lot of sense. The foundation of this book is the idea that everyone is &amp;ldquo;Good inside&amp;rdquo;. She puts an emphasis on the idea that we are not our actions. A what she calls &amp;ldquo;two things are true&amp;rdquo; attitude. You did something that you aren&amp;rsquo;t proud of, but you are good inside. She takes this approach because she believes that people can&amp;rsquo;t change their behaviors until they believe they are good inside. She is anti-shame, so anything that promotes shame (like thinking you are bad inside) must go. So basically, a childhood completely opposite from the one I had. She promotes viewing everyone, but especially your kids through a &amp;ldquo;most generous interpretation&amp;rdquo; lens. The main role of the parent is to create an environment that is safe for the child to learn how to self-regulate emotions. So instead of shutting down kids&amp;rsquo; feelings you are supposed to acknowledge them and let the kid feel them, so they know how to deal with their emotions instead of repressing them&amp;hellip;&amp;hellip;sounds demonic. So, an example would be if your child is afraid of the dark, instead of trying to convince them they are not, you should approach things from a &amp;ldquo;trying to understand&amp;rdquo; way and ask why questions. Then you would tell your child, that you believe they are afraid, and that it isn&amp;rsquo;t bad or wrong to feel that way. You could then work together on trying to find solutions to mitigate the fear, instead of just telling your kid to not be &amp;ldquo;so dramatic&amp;rdquo;. That&amp;rsquo;s pretty much it, any feeling your kid has, you tell them that it is okay to feel that way, while holding boundaries. Overall, this book made me realize that I had been thinking through parenting through too much of a &amp;ldquo;me-centric&amp;rdquo; viewpoint. Focusing on what I can do instead of thinking through things from the child&amp;rsquo;s point of view. What is it like to be told what to do all the time? What is it like to have no control over your activities? How can we promote autonomy in such a structured environment? How can we learn to regulate feelings we aren&amp;rsquo;t allowed to have?
So just take a moment, put your hand on your heart, deep breath in, close your eyes and say &amp;ldquo;I&amp;rsquo;m good inside&amp;rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
