Let's consider an experiment:

Take a baby and have it raise in a very law-strict environment (his parents are very strict and follow any rules, be it legal, be it religious, be it moral) but with some freedom (he could start learning the violin if he was interested into). Now, imagine you have the same child raised by a family very tolerant, so tolerant that he could do anything he wants (be it legal, be it illegal).

So here is the question:

Which scenario can he have a deeper sense of himself, the world and anything else? and is it philosophically right if he finds a fortune (becomes rich, athletic, many friends ...) by mean of scenario #1?

My point is that when you are in a very strict law environment, you tend to be channeled in only few possible directions, so your feelings, impulses and so on are extremely lowered in potential: you may become a billionaire by limiting yourself, but it would be not the real you. On the other side, by living with no limits (legal, religious ...), you can discover the real you because you are not affected by society and its laws, but you can hurt yourself and others around you (you may do something dangerous by exposing yourself to human limits).

I know there are important factors compromising the result of the experiment, the psychology of the child (this experiment may lead to different results based upon your psychology and how you react to external stimuli), but all I would like are some insights, some tips to go deeper in this argument.


closed as primarily opinion-based by AliceD, mrt, Arnon Weinberg, Seanny123, Robin Kramer Sep 19 '16 at 8:20

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hi Sirfoga, welcome at CogSci and thank you for the interesting question. I do have a few remarks. First of all, by asking three question makes it very broad and difficult to answer. Limiting to one would already be a great improvement. Secondly, the questions appear to be rather opinion-based or philosophical. Could you rephrase them to have then be more grounded in the scope op CogSci? $\endgroup$ – Robin Kramer Sep 17 '16 at 8:11
  • $\begingroup$ "In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." - Suzuki Roshi $\endgroup$ – user9634 Sep 17 '16 at 13:01
  • $\begingroup$ I removed one question, but alas, I may need to move the question to the Phylosophy Q&A, because it is too opinion-based. Thanks for reviewing it anyway @RobinKramer $\endgroup$ – user13720 Sep 20 '16 at 16:52
  • $\begingroup$ To answer this question you need to look into the effects of parenting styles. It has been found that both authoritarian parenting (your scenario 1) and laissez-faire parenting (your scenario 2) have negative effects. Children do need limits to give them orientation and a sense of self as well as the freedom to develop their individuality. Therefore the optimal parenting style is authoritative parenting, with some limits and some freedom. There is research on this, just google it. Also, this question is not opinion-based, as my comment shows. Please re-open. $\endgroup$ – user3116 Sep 21 '16 at 8:47