Tell them they're naughy when they behave naughtily, tell them they're nice when they behave nicely.
That sounds like a solid plan to me, and there's no reason to see why it would then be a problem to ask them to behave themselves.
That sounds like a solid plan to me, and there's no reason to see why it would then be a problem to ask them to behave themselves.
The fact is, the spoiled generation has really lower criminality rates, violence rates, takes less drugs then supposedly better behaved predecessors. People love to compare worst students now with best students of their generation or with their idealized idea of how great they themselves were - ignoring huge amount of people who dropped out of the school knowing pretty much nothing and that was it. Meanwhile, current best students are actually pretty good.
It is not all down to parenting changes only, but given better objective results the nostalgia for good old times is not really fact based.
How did you make the jump from telling a kid they're being/acting naughty to a kid being inherently naughty?
Occasional negative feedback doesn't create an inherent self-image.
"It is not even actionable command"
These are children, not puppies; children are perfectly capable of associating being called "naughty" with specific behavior.
You have very extreme views regarding children.
"These are children, not puppies; children are perfectly capable of associating being called "naughty" with specific behavior."
Their implication about specific behavior being often "playing in sight" or "I wont please teacher so I will make myself funny so other kids like me at least". Or the implication does not matter, because behavior was down to impulsive or unable to control emotions (I am frustrated I act out so it gives me attention and it is already reflex at this point).
"You have very extreme views regarding children."
Nice try.
But, overall upper and middle class kids who are on average more likely to be spoiled have better results then lower classes who are raised to be tougher if they are raised.
If you are argue that current children needs to be insulted etc more because that is how it was done in the past, then bringing in measurable differences between cohorts is perfectly valid argument. There is nothing measurable to support that argument either. The past was not perfect and argument by idealized nostalgia is not facts based.
As much as it feels good to imagine how you got back to that kid and how that kid would behave better, it is as much fantasy as thinking that all behavioral problems can be solved by hugs. I will make one more unsupported claim however: insulting children is and was not about making them behave better - it was about making educator feel better.
Why should I defend the point I never made?
If someone does not behaves like you expect him to you should tell just that, but adding a label to it(insult) is extremely dangerous.
The reason is because there is something called the ego, that are the beliefs that someone has about herself. Those beliefs get ingrained by repetition memory like artificial learning.
English have a problem in the language not differentiating between being in a temporary state and being forever. In Spanish for example you differentiate between being temporary(estar) and being forever(ser).
In other words whether you tell a kid that she is temporary fat(está gorda) or that she is fat forever(es gorda) makes an enormous difference and impression on her mind. If you repeat so much that she is fat(forever) she will start to identify herself as a fat kid forever and whatever she does.
This is behind so many problems in adults.
They rule I've always used is to blame the behaviour (you're doing a naughty thing) if it's negative and praise the child (you're so kind) if it's something you want to reinforce.
English is not my mother tongue, but obviously it shouldn't be rocket science to tell to your kid that what they did just now was naughty, not that I as a parent hate him for being infested with peccatum originale.