I took an example from a psychological group. The boy was 14 years old. His mother was taking away h…

I took an example from a psychological group. The boy was 14 years old. His mother was taking away his tablet, not letting him hang out with friends, putting him on probation for skipping school, and threatening to cancel his holiday trips if he didn't start attending preparatory courses. In response, the boy would slam doors, refuse to help around the house, not speak to his mother for weeks, and then come home at one in the morning. The mother was convinced she was acting with good intentions: "I just want him to grow up to be a normal person." And she truly did. Only the result was the opposite. I think the reason is that many people confuse the word "authority." Many think that authority is authoritarian power, but these are completely different things. Although in marginal circles, "authorities" are indeed called those who hold power by force, and even in international relations, it is still believed that might makes right. But this is precisely the confusion that turns normal relationships into marginal ones. And this applies to parents with teenagers as well as to relations between countries. Punishment is pressure, and pressure is the opposite of authority. Authority is influence that a person gains voluntarily. A child (or adult) listens to you not because they have to, but because it is useful and interesting for them. Authority is built on respect, competence, personal example, and common interests. It cannot be appointed or demanded. It is the archetype of the Teacher, the Sensei—a wise mentor to whom people voluntarily go for advice. Authoritarianism is a way of getting your way through power and coercion. Not "they listen to me because I am useful and interesting," but "they obey me because I am stronger, I can punish or cry." Authoritarianism does not require respect; fear or dependence is enough. It works quickly, but not for long and with side effects. The archetype here is the Master, "I am stronger, so I rule." Many parents are convinced that since they feed, clothe, and pay for activities, their child is obligated to obey. But a child can be happy about a gift and say thank you, and the parent's authority won't increase because of it. Respect isn't bought along with things. An adult whose boss threatens them with a fine might look for another job. A teenager doesn't have that choice. Therefore, they will either obey or protest. But it's important to remember that during adolescence, the self-preservation instinct is still poorly developed, making teenagers particularly vulnerable to harmful external influences or impulsive actions. Moreover, punishment doesn't foster intrinsic motivation. If a child does something out of a "just don't get punished" motivation, they have little personal interest and energy. They might do it, but poorly, half-heartedly, or they might even develop a negative attitude towards that area and start sabotaging. Many parents think that without punishment, their children would be much worse, grow up to be thieves or completely ***. But all the best things a child has absorbed came not from punishments (on the contrary, a bad relationship with a parent hindered them from absorbing more good things), but from close, loving, caring moments, which were also plentiful. There are very few parents left who believe that physically punishing a child is still normal. Although earlier, even corporal punishment was considered an effective tool of influence, not to mention humiliation and insults. Now, most parents know that calling a child names and humiliating them leads to low self-worth. But the fact that punishments damage relationships with parents and reduce intrinsic motivation is not talked about much yet. And the absence of punishment is seen as the other extreme—permissiveness. But that's another topic.