To think the the term 'self-regulate' is demeaning?

[dsaflausdhfiushdfakdsf]

This is a term I'd never heard used in general conversation before joining mumsnet, but since I've joined I've seen it pop up everywhere.

It's often used in the context of giving teens more freedom (e.g. 'DD needs to learn to self-regulate her screen time'). Sometimes I come across it in threads related to adults ('DH can't self-regulate his drinking'). The latter makes me laugh.

In both contexts, I find the term extremely demeaning.

If you'd have asked me last year to take a stab at who needs to learn to 'self-regulate,' I'd have said very young children who haven't yet learnt they will be sick if they eat too much.

To stick with the example of a teen who has been up all night on their phone and is now tired - team 'self-regulate' would jump in with 'they need to learn to self-regulate their use of their phone' or the more sinister 'they have proved they cannot self-regulate - take it off them'.

The issue I have with this example is the amount of phone use that is considered the 'right' amount is set by the parent. This amount is usually the amount required not to be tired the next day for school. Obviously this comes from a good place.

However, using the term in this context completely takes agency away from the teen. It assumes a default position of the parent's view of the world being 'correct' i.e. the unequivocal 'best' thing for the teen is for them to get some sleep and wake up bright eyed and bushy tailed for school.

I agree that teens do need some guidance here, but when I hear that 15 year olds apparently can't 'self-regulate' because they use their phones at night, it gets my hackles up. They are making their own decisions around what they want to do, just because it deviates from what you want them to do doesn't mean they can't 'self-regulate'.

Going to go out on a limb and say the best thing for a teen isn't always being wide awake in the morning. If they're having a hard time, for example, they can find an awful lot of solace in late night conversations with friends, sharing heartfelt feelings that just wouldn't come up in daytime chit chat. Could really help their mental health. Personally, I stayed up playing with the HTML of my MySpace page and now make a very good wage in an IT role. IT in school was crap and I wouldn't have developed an interest in it from that. I know that's a personal example, but you know, just saying. What's 'best' for your teen isn't always that clear cut.

To put it another way, sometimes I find myself on mumsnet at 2am when I have work in the morning. Is this demonstrative of my inability to 'self-regulate'? What about when I have an extra bag of crisps? Or go on a Netflix binge? Do I need someone to step in because I clearly can't self-regulate? I'd be rather annoyed if they did. In fact, if someone I lived with took the crisps out of my hands or took my laptop off me 'for my own good' I would consider that abuse.

I'm a grown woman, but to me that doesn't give me additional 'rights' over a teen. And if someone told me I couldn't 'self-regulate' (or made this clear in their actions) I would be offended and feel infantilised. I might even believe them.

Just some thoughts... (:

@MsTSwift

Do you have teens yourself?

If you don't mind, I will purposefully leave this unanswered :)

My five year-old has agency...doesn't mean I'm going to let him climb over the bannisters

@dinosforall

My five year-old has agency...doesn't mean I'm going to let him climb over the bannisters

As I have mentioned to posters above, it is the term 'self-regulate' being applied to teens and older that I find troubling.

I am glad to hear you are not letting your five year old climb over the bannisters.

Op my point was that agency (at whatever age) doesn't mean anything in terms of sound decision-making.

@dinosforall

Op my point was that agency (at whatever age) doesn't mean anything in terms of sound decision-making.

I wouldn't disagree, but I would add that nor is it reflective of an inherent inability to 'self-regulate' :)

I’m not sure why you’ve picked on a particular phrase to be honest, teenagers are still developing in many ways, including the ability to self regulate. Part of making informed choices is being able to see the full consequences of those decisions and by nature teenagers are developing the ability to do that.

If my teen was drinking every night I’d consider them lacking in the ability to regulate their drinking within healthy limits regardless of whether they had made the decision within their understanding of the impact.

Teenagers do, to differing degrees, lack the ability to make some of those decisions which is surely why we still parent our teens. I’m all for promoting agency and encouraging young people to learn their limits, I’m also all for stepping in when they go beyond those limits. I’m not sure calling it self regulation, self management or developing healthy boundaries matters - it’s all semantics really.

However, both teen and young adult are making active decisions. I don't think it's right to say they don't have the ability to 'self-regulate' just because their decision doesn't tie in with the opinion of the oldest/wisest person in the room.
Making a different decision isn't equalling lacking self regulation.

To give a school example from students I've taught:
Student A can struggle to manage their stress and emotions. This leads to them finding managing tasks and priorities challenging. They might really want to do well, but if a social situation is going on then their lack of self regulation skills leads to them prioritising checking their phone repeatedly vs doing their homework. They then end up overwhelmed by the fact they've still got homework to do. Student A lacks self regulation because although they have goals, they find it difficult to use a range of self regulation strategies such as calming themselves, being resilient, being flexible, switching off from situations, keeping their goals in mind.

Student B

Student B wants to do well but is more interested in gossip and drama. They decide that they can do their homework on the bus tomorrow and spend the evening on social media instead because some falling out has happened. Student B doesn't lack self regulation as such. They just have different priorities and have used self regulation strategies (eg I'll do homework on the bus so I can chat to friends tonight). They just haven't made a wise decision.

I cant even work out what You're going on about, are you for or against teenagers having to control thos things themselves? People need to learn to self regulate. Parents who control bedtimes, electronic use, food dont allow their children to learn to listen to their body and do what they need to do. If I need to be up early, I go to bed early, I learnt that from not going to bed early and struggling to get up. Teenagers need to do that. They need to make mistakes and suffer the consequences. So that they can learn to self regulate things they want.

See I think both children in @LolaSmiles examples need parental input. A needs help to self regulate, advice, strategies etc. B needs consequences because the choices she's making have consequences she doesn't see yet so she needs consequences that are clear. Her choices mean that in 2 years her grades will be lower and she will have less options. But she doesn't see that yet. What she will see is that if she's on her phone at night she loses her phone for a day.

Is that what you disagree with OP? parents managing their childrens self regulation?
Its necessary for parents to assist in learning a new skill. Children need to learn to ride a bike on their own, you dont just hand them a bike and leave them to it.

I just get hung up on wording smile I'm interested in the psychology of linguistics and this particular term I feel has the potential to do some damage

I entirely disagree. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that a 15yo's opinion on what is most safe/healthy/appropriate for them is as valid as their parents', or that it's not ok for their parents to still be helping to teach them how to self-regulate about a variety of things.

I also have no idea why you think it's so funny to suggest that an adult may be incapable of self-regulating with certain things. There are loads of adults who have trouble with, and are themselves concerned about, regulating their amount of phone use, alcohol, social media, unhealthy food etc.

You seem to be suggesting that there is no such thing as too much of something, except as determined by the user themself. I don't think that's true. Try asking the MNers married to excessive gamers, alcoholics or weed smokers. And that's about other adults! When it's your non-adult child, you definitely get a say.

See I think both children in @LolaSmiles examples need parental input. A needs help to self regulate, advice, strategies etc. B needs consequences because the choices she's making have consequences she doesn't see yet so she needs consequences that are clear. Her choices mean that in 2 years her grades will be lower and she will have less options. But she doesn't see that yet. What she will see is that if she's on her phone at night she loses her phone for a day
I agree that both need parental input. You're totally right.

I was just a bit confused that the OP seems to think that when people saysome teens lack self regulation what they mean is making a different decision to an adult. I can't put my finger on it but there seems to be a peculiar attitude to adult/teen interactions.

@Nottherealslimshady

I cant even work out what You're going on about, are you for or against teenagers having to control thos things themselves? People need to learn to self regulate. Parents who control bedtimes, electronic use, food dont allow their children to learn to listen to their body and do what they need to do. If I need to be up early, I go to bed early, I learnt that from not going to bed early and struggling to get up. Teenagers need to do that. They need to make mistakes and suffer the consequences. So that they can learn to self regulate things they want.

I am against the description of teens who make decisions we would consider unwise as 'failing to self-regulate' - something I've seen a lot of on this website. I wouldn't say of my partner: 'DH is unable to self-regulate his screen time' because he watches too much telly. It would infantilise him and make it sound like he hadn't developed the ability to control himself. He can self-regulate and does so very well in other areas, he's just choosing to watch loads of telly. It also implies that I am the source of truth for how much telly is acceptable to watch. If I hold traditional views, I might say an hour a day is more than enough, and failure to meet this is a 'failure to self-regulate'. Perhaps I could do so any apply to it myself, but applying more own standard to someone else's behaviour and then calling them out on their failure to adhere feels wrong. As someone above says - it's a matter of semantics. I don't disagree with this, I just don't think this means it isn't important.

Bold fail.

See I think both children in @LolaSmiles examples need parental input. A needs help to self regulate, advice, strategies etc. B needs consequences because the choices she's making have consequences she doesn't see yet so she needs consequences that are clear. Her choices mean that in 2 years her grades will be lower and she will have less options. But she doesn't see that yet. What she will see is that if she's on her phone at night she loses her phone for a day
I agree that both need parental input. You're totally right.

I was just a bit confused that the OP seems to think that when people saysome teens lack self regulation what they mean is making a different decision to an adult. I can't put my finger on it but there seems to be a peculiar attitude to adult/teen interactions.

I wouldn't say of my partner: 'DH is unable to self-regulate his screen time' because he watches too much telly. It would infantilise him and make it sound like he hadn't developed the ability to control himself.

But teenagers are still developing that ability to control themselves, it’s wholly fair to say they haven’t got there yet and need adult support and guidance to do so. My children aren’t my partner, they aren’t adults, they still have growing to do. Particularly with teenagers things like impulse control and emotional regulation are developmentally challenging. Comparing a 15 year old and their decision making to that of an adult is nonsense.

I think it just means taking responsibility for regulating your own behaviour, without relying on others to help you.

@lazylinguist

I just get hung up on wording smile I'm interested in the psychology of linguistics and this particular term I feel has the potential to do some damage

I entirely disagree. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that a 15yo's opinion on what is most safe/healthy/appropriate for them is as valid as their parents', or that it's not ok for their parents to still be helping to teach them how to self-regulate about a variety of things.

I also have no idea why you think it's so funny to suggest that an adult may be incapable of self-regulating with certain things. There are loads of adults who have trouble with, and are themselves concerned about, regulating their amount of phone use, alcohol, social media, unhealthy food etc.

You seem to be suggesting that there is no such thing as too much of something, except as determined by the user themself. I don't think that's true. Try asking the MNers married to excessive gamers, alcoholics or weed smokers. And that's about other adults! When it's your non-adult child, you definitely get a say.

If I've come across as suggesting teens (or in fact anyone) should be allowed to do what they want when they want, that is my fault, as it isn't what I'm getting at. I think I haven't used the best examples.

I don't have an issue with self-regulation as a concept, when it is used to mean 'do things in moderation'. I don't think everyone should do eat, drink and do whatever they want, when they want.

I have an issue with the term 'self-regulate' when used to suggest a person who makes a decision that is viewed as unwise by others is doing so because they 'can't self-regulate'.

This is how it is commonly used on this website. 'DD stays up too late - can't self-regulate,' 'DS plays too many video games - can't self-regulate,' 'DH eats too much - can't self-regulate'.

It just seems to be an unhelpful term. To fail to self-regulate you need to try to self-regulate, and to me that's the crux of it.

If I tried to have one drink and ended up having five, I'd say I failed to self-regulate. If I decided to have as many drinks as I felt like (within reason) and have five, I wouldn't describe that as an inability to self-regulate. I'd say I had five drinks, that was a bit daft of me, now I feel sick.

Same with 'teens on screens' - if a teen wanted to use their phone for an hour and used it for five, they've failed to self-regulated. If they didn't set a time limit and were on it for five hours, that's a bit worrying, hopefully mum will say something, but it's not a failure to self-regulate, because they never set any sort of regulation parameters in the first place.

They key word to me is 'self' - the attempt to do something needs to come from the individual. Forcing the concept of 'self-regulation' onto someone else and saying they've failed based on someone else's standards of what is appropriate is where I and the term fall out.

Lots of adults are shitty at self-regulation, maybe that is demeaning but I am not convinced that is caused by those who point it out.

But it's wrong to say that because someone wants something and chooses it, they are self-regulating. I ate most of a bag of crisps the other night, decided to do it, and that was a failure of self-regulation. Not only was it unhealthy, which I knew, I now have no chips left for the rest of the week.

Self-regulation is to a large degree about good habits, which is why parents want to help instil them in teens before they leave home. We only have so much will power, so the more regulation you can off-load to good habits, the more will-power you can apply to other things when it is required.

To put it another way, sometimes I find myself on mumsnet at 2am when I have work in the morning. Is this demonstrative of my inability to 'self-regulate'? What about when I have an extra bag of crisps? Or go on a Netflix binge? Do I need someone to step in because I clearly can't self-regulate?

You’re an adult. If you want to be knackered in the morning, or fat, that’s up to you. Parents who allow their 15 year olds too much ‘agency’, where such outcomes are the result, aren’t doing their jobs properly.

Ok I see what you mean now. So your point is that self-regulate is an inaccurate way of putting because it implies that they are trying to impose a limit on themselves but failing to do so, whereas actually it may be that their idea of an inappropriate level is just different from yours.

I think my 15yo dd spends too much time on her phone. She would on the face of it disagree with me (but she's very stubborn and a bit contrary). I could describe it as a failure to self-regulate, but that's shorthand for me thinking "In her wiser moments, dd would recognise that there are other things she'd enjoy spending more time on, and that her phone is a drain on her time and mental energy. Phone use is pretty addictive. She probably spends more time on it than she realises and has trouble dragging herself away from it to do other things." Not shorthand for "Dd actively wants to reduce her phone time, but can't ".

OP - self-regulation has different elements. One is self control, another as I said above good habits. But another is good judgement. A teen staying up all night on a phone is missing one of those. It could be he or she lacks the maturity to see that it's a bad idea, for example.

@lazylinguist

Ok I see what you mean now. So your point is that self-regulate is an inaccurate way of putting because it implies that they are trying to impose a limit on themselves but failing to do so, whereas actually it may be that their idea of an inappropriate level is just different from yours.

I think my 15yo dd spends too much time on her phone. She would on the face of it disagree with me (but she's very stubborn and a bit contrary). I could describe it as a failure to self-regulate, but that's shorthand for me thinking "In her wiser moments, dd would recognise that there are other things she'd enjoy spending more time on, and that her phone is a drain on her time and mental energy. Phone use is pretty addictive. She probably spends more time on it than she realises and has trouble dragging herself away from it to do other things." Not shorthand for "Dd actively wants to reduce her phone time, but can't ".

Yes, exactly. Thank you for putting it so concisely - something I am increasingly aware I have failed to do :)

It is less to do with the behaviour itself, and more to do with the application of the term for a deliberate behaviour.

I have seen plenty of threads that say thinks like 'DD spent two hours on her phone tonight, she can't self-regulate' but really this based on mum's opinion of how much time DD should be on her phone. For DD, this might be an entirely appropriate amount, and she is self-regulating perfectly. But for mum, it is a 'failure to self-regulate' - maybe mum dislikes screens. For me, I do not like the fact that mum is suggesting her daughter lacks this skill, particularly if she suggests this directly to DD. The question of 'how long is appropriate for DD to be on her phone' is another one entirely.

Just wanted to get people's views on the term really, but clearly it is something that bothers me specifically. I will put it in the 'things-that-bother-me-but-don't-bother-other-people-so-don't-talk-about-it-too-much' pile along with metal straws and the shortcut the postman takes to my front door that leads him directly in front of the living room window

And the context it is used e.g. when a teen's decision to stay up all night is held up as an example of their 'inability' to self-regulate when I'm reality it was a decision they actively made, by this time in their life, knowing the implications

So how do we deal with the same teens when they come back a few years later and say "I am really sorry I lived like I did, I told you I was making a conscious decision but in reality I just couldn't stop myself and I didn't take the consequences seriously then, though I see now how much I messed up for the me now"?

Do we accept that maybe they are right in what they say or do we tell their 20yo self that that can't possibly be correct because the decision they took at 15 must have been a consciously thought-through one and not involved any difficulty in sticking to resolves?

Do we acknowledge their 15yo self or their present 20yo self?

Sorry OP i think you’re being completely ridiculous and actually sort of missing the whole point of what “self regulate” means.

The point people are typically trying to make when they use that phrase is that people need to learn how to make smart decisions for themselves, it’s a learning process sometimes with trial and error but the end goal is that the child doesn’t need someone to say “x will burn you, don’t touch it”, they will know that and they will make a smart decision. Basically, if you tell a teenager what to do all the time they might make no mistakes, but they haven’t learnt how to “self regulate” so when left to it they’ll make stupid choices.

I don’t get what your issue is with that?

@Goosefoot

OP - self-regulation has different elements. One is self control, another as I said above good habits. But another is good judgement. A teen staying up all night on a phone is missing one of those. It could be he or she lacks the maturity to see that it's a bad idea, for example.

I would agree with you that it is poor judgement. But I would (for the purpose of this thread) also add that it doesn't demonstrate an inability to self-regulate ;) (not saying you are saying it does - just how I've seen the term used). That is, however, unless said teen actively tried and failed to go to bed - that would be a failure to self-regulate. If they stayed up all night because they wanted to, in a way they have self-regulated very well They've made a bit of a daft call, but their self-regulation was spot on!

So your question is whether someone making a bad decision is a failure to self regulate or just making poor decisions.
So it's like, is someone who drinks 4 pints every night failing to self regulate, or are they choosing to make bad decisions. I think both. A student deciding to stay up late knowing they'll be tired tomorrow is making a partially informed decision, but its influenced by a lack of impulse control, the good thing now carries more influence than the bad thing later. But they're also not aware than their tiredness tomorrow will impact their learning, which will impact their grades and future. And it will also impact their behaviour which could get them disciplined. They're both making a poor decision and not successfully self regulating.

Part of teaching a kid to ride a bike is teaching them safety, they may be physically capable of riding their bike down that steep hill, but are they seeing the rise at the end and do they understand that it will hurt them? No. So it's your job as a parent to not let them do it. But if you dont let your kid ride a bike near hills, they wont know the danger and one day they'll be alone at a hill and they'll ride down it at full speed and break their arm.