The question of why DOLIF theory grew out of experience and empirical observation rather than conventional laboratory research is one I am continually asked. First, I am filled with gratitude for the years of academic training that gave the groundwork for my interminable curiosity about psychology and deeply indebted to my education that started with my undergraduate work at McGill University, followed by graduate studies at the University of Montreal where I earned my doctorate degree. Without it I would not have had the intellectual framework, professional experience nor the confidence to attempt to launch such a drastic departure from accepted knowledge as I am doing. Yet after being educated to the highest point of knowledge in the field with both Freudian and Behavioral backgrounds, once I faced the reality of becoming a new parent, raising children and coping with my new family life, I was disillusioned. It didn’t take long to realize that what I had learned in school was not working, and all my hard studies had no relevance whatsoever to real life!
Part of the answer to the interminable questioning of “Where’s your research?” is that DOLIF began with my empathy for my children who, when they behaved badly, seemed to have no idea what they had done wrong. When I punished them, such as with Time Out or taking away their privileges, instead of understanding their folly, they seemed to feel that they had been wronged. It did not increase their show of empathy toward those they had hurt, as I might have expected. I felt their distress, bewilderment and sadness, and my personal sense of morality kicked in. I simply decided it was unfair to treat children in the cold, coercive manner advocated by Behaviorism. I could only feel pangs of guilt when I or my spouse tried to administer our agreed-upon punishment, since it seemed we were punishing an entity who obviously had neither the capacity to appreciate the reasons for her own actions, nor understood the consequences that we were jointly trying to impose. It was evident to me, amid the flood of tears and screams, that she could not connect the dots between her behavior and our reaction to it, nor fathom our reasons for punishing her. It seemed, even after the punishment was explained and ended, that she was still asking herself: “Why are my parents doing this to me?” and answering “It must be because they don’t LIKE me!” As per DOLIF theory, I now know that she was also thinking: Why are they treating my sister better than me?
Behaviorists tell us to explain our actions to the misbehaving child who thinks we don’t love them by saying: We still LOVE you, but we just don’t LIKE what you’re doing! The sheer absurdity of this statement is beyond explanation. If anyone truly believes that a child, who is completely dependent on our LOVE and care, is able to differentiate between how much we LIKE them as opposed to how much we LOVE them, which are Intellectual concepts that even adults have difficulty deciphering, those people need not continue reading this material
Here is the mindset behind DOLIF psychology. Consider that when we ask a child to pick up their toys or clean their room, we are assuming they can appreciate what they are doing, as well as understand why we are asking them to do it. To do our bidding willingly, they should feel that tidiness and cleanliness are desirable goals to live by. We instruct them to do it with the hope that they will internalize our values of cleanliness and neatness and conduct their own lives by these values. In other words, we believe we are “training” them for later life. This is obviously not the case, at least during their early years, since nobody is born with a built-in sense of cleanliness or propriety. Everyone must be trained to understand, care for and appreciate the worth of such activities, for example through toilet training, using manners, washing their hands, picking up after themselves or others and such. So if they don’t value what we are asking of them or want to do it out of their own volition, WHY on earth would they comply with our request? If they do it out of fear of reprisal, this would be proof that the Behavioral psychology approach of punishment-and-consequences works.
On the other hand, DOLIF takes account of the motivation behind their compliance or non-compliance. DOLIF explains that the reason they might choose to comply with our demands, or not, is not because they are an inherently “good child” or “bad child”, or that their DNA has programmed them to become a tidy or messy person. Rather, in line with their Mind of a Child, by reacting either in a positive way and heeding our demands, or a negative way or refusing obedience, they are hoping to please us as part of their very desperate underlying quest to gain our parental LOVE. Bear in mind that the ultimate goal of the Mind of a Child is to seek attention and LOVE by whatever means or cost, regardless of whether it involves compliance or non-compliance. Bear in mind too that they are under the influence of their simple, instinctual drive to do the opposite of what their sibling does to obtain that same LOVE. As long as the Mind of a Child is in play, the concept of compliance vs. punishment is not a consideration for them. Therefore, they act as they do regardless of the consequences – even if it means punishment of any kind, including verbal reprimand, social shunning, corporal punishment, deprivation of privileges, getting locked out of home, or any other.
Here is an anecdote from a television program that is a classic illustration of Behaviorism. Some parents were discussing their unruly children’s behaviors. They showed us the example of a father who wanted to teach his oppositional son, about 3-4 years old, to tidy up after playing with his toys. After he finished playing, the child, sitting on a chair, flung his toy to the ground in an obvious bid to taunt his parents, and refused to pick it up. Now his loving father, strictly following Behavioral advice was, first and foremost, extremely careful to ‘do no harm’ to the child. At the same time he felt determined to teach his son NOT to throw his toys about. What a dilemma for the father! How could he get this stubborn, unruly child to pick up the toy without harming him? So he picked the boy up frontally, allowing him to cling to his body. With a very neutral expression by which he was trying to convey to the child that he was not at all angry with him but merely wanting to teach him proper social behavior, the father approached the toy, bent down and demanded that the child pick it up – at which point the child flung the toy even farther in a different direction! Again, with the child in his arms, this patient, dedicated father approached the toy, bent down and calmly asked the child to pick it up, at which point the child again flung the toy as far away as he possibly could in a different direction, and waited for the father’s response. This scenario continued for about 8 repetitions as I watched, incredulous. Now I ask you, the reader, to be the judge: Which one of these two is the greater fool?
Examples of “punish while doing no harm” clearly show that a Behavioristic approach can actually lead to great harm. It happens especially when children are forced to obey a rule set by their parents without internalizing the values behind it. Some such extreme techniques are boot camps, where young adults are subjected to harsh environments, discipline and physical strain that borders on abuse, or even torture. Another Behaviorally inspired effort called “scaring them straight” places young adults in a pseudo-military environment where orders are ruthlessly shouted into their ears. Many Behaviorists still advocate “Tough Love” , a technique that is slowly declining but continues to be extensively practiced because it makes intuitive sense to parents. In reality, a Behavioral method such as Tough Love merely condones, bolters and justifies the natural urge of any parent to punish a child who behaves badly. CBT disguises this parental urge in the form of a “psychological technique”, in effect legitimizing the urge to punish that comes intuitively to every parent when they are angry with their child. As one gentleman once put it: Punish a child for bad behavior – who didn’t think of that? Tough Love only drives children to “choose” more extreme behavior because they are faced with an ultimatum, such as complying with a curfew or being locked out of their home. (With regard to “choice”, see the blog titled The Pursuit of Parental Love, Part 2).
Whether they like it or not, many parents are counseled to to follow through with punishments and “act as a team” with their spouse to uphold their authority, lest they lose face. They don’t realize that the substance of the matter lies not in their own loss of pride or social image. Rather, the only critical issue is deciding on the right course of action to raise a well-adjusted child. The case of Leslie Mahaffy who lived in the outskirts of Toronto, Ontario, was one such instance. The teenager returned home a few minutes later than her midnight curfew. On finding her parents had locked her out because of Tough Love, she wandered out into the darkness and sadly was snatched by two prowling serial killers, Paul Bernardo and Carla Homolka.
The same dilemma arises when children become substance abusers, gang members or display uncontrolled, rebellious Anger toward their siblings, parents or others. Exasperated and unable to tolerate the disruption they bring into the home, desperate parents face them with a “choice”. Either they must comply with the rules of the house, or leave. Then the parents are bound by the tactics of Behavioral psychology to follow through with the punishments. In the meantime the Prime Loving parent or PLG usually ends up feeling guilty and reluctant to enforce the punishment. This emotion-motivated parent may have to conceal their sorrow and tears if they are overruled by the non-prime parent, who has the backing of the CBT professional. Placing the family’s social priorities first, this more reality-bound ALG parent is often the one who is in favor of strictness and responds to external social pressures.
While the DOLIF method of remedying negative behavior may be unfamiliar at first, its techniques promote LOVE and actually do no harm. Rather, DOLIF draws us into the Mind of a Child, and sources its recommendations from a fundamental understanding of the sensitivities of children. Since we recognize that they function purely through Emotions and instincts, we understand that though they may look like they are defying our intellectual reasoning and logic, they are really calling out for our LOVE. Even though one might believe they know about children’s thoughts and feelings because were all once children, or that a child is no longer a child but a teenager, or that this author must be grossly mistaken, followers are kindly requested to suspend their thoughts. They are asked to trust that the author is intuitive, well qualified and discovered these facts when her education clashed with her observations of actual child behavior over nearly half a century of practice and intensive observational study. Her findings were also confirmed by watching four real-life generations of intimately known family members. Remember that she is merely the witness and conveyor of this information, that it was in existence long before she came to earth, and that she is sincerely relaying her observations and conclusions through this medium for the benefit of those who are in search of better ways to assess, judge, diagnose and treat psychological and behavioral conditions in children and adults.
Since the main recommendation of DOLIF psychology is that the prime LOVING parent, or PLG, should turn at least some of their LOVE, attention and nurturance away from their Favored child, and share it with their LESS Favored, less well behaved Disfavored child it is absolutely certain that there is NO HARM done here! The task is straight-forward, though admittedly not simple, and some guidance and assistance from an informed therapist can certainly be of help to parents. One can be guaranteed that the DOLIF method is safe and its formulae are absolutely accurate. The proof of the pudding is that in real-life practice it never fails to offer an astoundingly high degree of positive results. (See blogs titled: Sources of Proof, Part 1 and 2).
