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... (:

I don't think you've understood what "self regulate" means.

And yes most adults can't do it, never mind teens / toddlers.

@Onjnmoeiejducwoapy

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?

In the sense described above I don't have an issue with the term. Self-regulation is a valuable skill. I've made an attempt to clarify the issue I do have with certain uses of the term in my two recent posts (will be just above this one). May have cleared it up or may have made things much less clear. Usually one of the two with me :)

@Nottherealslimshady

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.

Yes - I think 'poor decisions' are often referred to on here as 'lack of ability to self-regulate' and that's exactly where the discomfort creeps in for me. I think it's an important distinction, but I think I might be relatively alone in that

I’ve read through your updated comments and I don’t think that’s quite right—I think self regulating is also about knowing/defining what the correct limit is, deciding to stick to that correct limit, and then doing it. You seem to be defining self regulating as purely the last one, and thing e.g. a huge booze binge isn’t poor self regulation when you’re happy with the outcome, even though it is.

Regulate: “control or maintain the rate or speed of (machine or process) so that it operates properly”

See definition: so regulation is not necessarily to meet your own target or view of what is right, but so that it OPERATES PROPERLY. So staying up late even if you accept the terrible impact the next day and actively decide to do so is still poor self regulation as it impacts on your ability to function properly. Likewise overeating is poor self regulation of you are therefore gaining weight, even if you are fine with it.

@corythatwas

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?

At the time I would say to the 15 year old 'argh! you are making poor life choices!' and try to explain why, which would probably fall on deaf ears, then I step in or not depending on the situation. I wouldn't say 'you do not have the ability to self-regulate'. I don't think that's correct. Lack of perspective/impulsiveness and an inability to moderate one's behaviour are two separate things, and seeing them used to cover the same behaviour is a pet peeve of mine :)

OP I think your posts are the epitome of not seeing the wood for the trees!

In policy terms if you talk about firms or sectors self regulating, you don’t mean they mark their own score cards, you usually also mean that it is up to them to set their own standards too. So for example if they are self regulating when it comes to food standards, it doesn’t mean they are strictly marking against a criteria they are given, rather that they are actually setting out their own criteria, making their own priorities, etc.

If you criticise the firms for doing a poor job at self regulating, you are not critiquing how well they are meeting their own objectives in regulation. You are critiquing how well the process of setting standards is working, how well the process of sticking to those standards is going, comparing both in combination to an objective measure of “operates properly” rather than their measure of success.

It’s a crucial differences—I think you’ve accident tried to redefine regulation and self regulation.

@Onjnmoeiejducwoapy

I’ve read through your updated comments and I don’t think that’s quite right—I think self regulating is also about knowing/defining what the correct limit is, deciding to stick to that correct limit, and then doing it. You seem to be defining self regulating as purely the last one, and thing e.g. a huge booze binge isn’t poor self regulation when you’re happy with the outcome, even though it is.

Regulate: “control or maintain the rate or speed of (machine or process) so that it operates properly”

See definition: so regulation is not necessarily to meet your own target or view of what is right, but so that it OPERATES PROPERLY. So staying up late even if you accept the terrible impact the next day and actively decide to do so is still poor self regulation as it impacts on your ability to function properly. Likewise overeating is poor self regulation of you are therefore gaining weight, even if you are fine with it.

Interesting. You make good points with the definition. I think this might be where the grey area lies though and where perception comes into play. A teen may stay up all night and be tired the next morning and be accused of being unable to self-regulate by a mother who sees their baggy eyes. But that teen may have been staying up to build a website or research a topic of interest or read up on issues they've been having with their mental health (again, personal example, but I used to stay up late reading all about introversion and became a much healthier person for it). I feel it could go either way, and I'm sure that some teens would absolutely benefit from parental intervention, but the assumption that 'child stayed up late and is tired = can't self-regulate' is way too heavy handed for me.

@dinosforall

OP I think your posts are the epitome of not seeing the wood for the trees!

I'm becoming a bit more comfortable with the use of the term following some responses to the thread! There's definitely still some applications of it that I am against, though

You say that you believe the term "potential to do some damage". What does this mean in the real world? What would that damage look like?

So what is the difference between "impulsive" and "doesn't self-regulate"?

@BitOfFun

You say that you believe the term "potential to do some damage". What does this mean in the real world? What would that damage look like?

Good question - for me an example would be telling a teen who spends two hours straight playing on their phone they have demonstrated an 'inability to self-regulate,' causing them to believe they are lacking in this area, even if in reality they are highly proficient. In this example, the parent is determining what is and isn't acceptable, and failed the child based on their own criteria. I think context is key to the acceptable use of the term. I have come across a number of threads recently where the it was used for things that I personally do view as acceptable behaviour, which is where the discomfort comes from.

Ok so I do see your point, i think all those skills are very intertwined though, making good choices, impulse control and self regulation are all kind of the same but slightly different, they'd make a good ven diagram
I think a lot of things kids do that we wish they wouldn't fall into more than one of those categories. Eating all your Halloween sweets in one night would be all three wouldn't it, you've show no self regulation, no impulse control an you've made a poor decision.

Self regulation for me is usually associated with corrupt and dodgy trades and professions, or those at best in the dark ages.

Good question - for me an example would be telling a teen who spends two hours straight playing on their phone they have demonstrated an 'inability to self-regulate,' causing them to believe they are lacking in this area, even if in reality they are highly proficient. In this example, the parent is determining what is and isn't acceptable, and failed the child based on their own criteria.

Is this any worse than telling them they are impulsive?

And if you use the word in a less negative way by saying "it is your responsibility to self-regulate"- is it still bad?

And what if it is obvious that the person in question is actually coping badly, e.g. unable to get up for school, constantly chased up by school for not submitting work, and you know they were up all night gaming or playing on their phone because you could hear them? Or if they get sacked from work for being late and you know they didn't go to bed until 5 am?