I really enjoyed this post. In fact, this philosophy is behind not only the way I treat myself, but the way I parent my children. Treating them as human beings instead of little people "growing into adults" has proven to help me in more situations than I can count.
Hey, so glad you liked it! Yes, absolutely, whilst I don't have kids yet, this is absolutely the mantra I want to use too. And it is fantastic to hear that this has proven to help you on so many occasions.
I really enjoyed the post too. The older I get, the more I feel I can learn from a kid. Usually we over-complicate things, and kids can remind us how simple happiness can do. Stop over-think, and do the things we enjoy!! :)
Hi Josh, so glad you liked it! Exactly, I felt I was on a path to overcomplicate thinking the older I get, while it works much better completely the other way round - thinking less and simplifying the holder we get! :)
I appreciate the conclusion of this post but biologically it is somewhat incorrect. We know that humans go through specific stages of mental development and brain growth (the last of which happens in the early 20's).
It's true that children have no filters -- very young children experience everything. The more they learn, the more they are filter out the irrelevant details of the world and can then use their brain power to deal with ever increasing levels of abstraction. You can't turn back the clock on that.
Sure, you can turn that clock back. Living in different countries or cultures can help break down perception, exposing misconceptions and the fundamental beliefs you took for granted. In a more dramatic fashion, LSD and a few other substances, as well as strong spiritual and near-death experiences can lead to a sudden shift in perspective. After such an experience, you might find yourself spending a lot more mental effort observing the world around you, as the filters you've relied on are removed from your field of view.
It might even be observed that abuse of certain substances, such as alcohol, could at least temporarily reverse a person's level of mental development (Woot, happy new year!).
It's far from being as tested and documented a science as developmental biology and psychology, but there are various commonly practiced methods for disrupting the progress of that mental development clock from a smooth arc to a more tangled shape.
I still prefer to be a thinker, but I have also been as a kid. So maybe that's why. Probably means I do less and make fewer decisions, bur I decided for the other way. I know both kinds of people. Often they prefer to be the other kind, but isn't it always like that?
Reminds me of a quote from Rob Pike though:
Eventually, I decided that thinking was not getting me very far and it was time to try building.
Just because children and adults are both part of superclass 'human' doesn't mean there aren't extremely important differences between subclass 'child' and subclass 'adult'.
Also I don't seem to understand what that has to do with 'think less and do more' -- which I patently disagree with. While we can get in analysis paralysis, so many of the problems I observe from big systems, whether they be digital or social come from improper decomposition of problems due to not enough thinking and a whole lot of rushed doing.
Well obviously there was the observation that children tend to operate more in a "think less" mode. They learn by trial and error: do something, evaluate consequences, do or don't do again. That's fine when you are learning things like fine control of your motor skills, or how to speak the language your parents are using. Even as adults, some things are only really learned by doing: developing skill at playing a sport or a musical instrument for example.
But I agree with you. The consequences get to be more painful and can affect a lot more than just oneself if one carries this too far.
Sometimes they operate like so: do something, evaluate consequences, realize it's not to their liking, and pitch a huge hissy fit. Preferably in public, in front of lots of people. Bonus points for attempting to smash the object of their frustration.
They are definitely different from most adults who have their shit together.
I agree with this assessment. There are very, very, very significant differences between the brains of children and adults that should profoundly affect the way we approach them. I don't argue that we're doing education correctly now, but to blindly treat children as adults would be a mistake.
As to the author's experiences teaching himself French—the plural of anecdote is not data.
Great post. Actually got me to thinking about my own upbringing. My parents were either brilliant or lucky (probably somewhere in between).
I was brought up in a style when people were expected to "do their best", regardless of age. I walked a mile to school at age 5, did my own laundry at age 7, cooked for my mother and younger siblings at age 9, and starting working at age 12. I didn't think much about it until I went to college and realized how helpless most people my age were.
Sometimes I think that this upbringing, more than anything else, has been most responsible for my success. To this day, when I'm debating whether or not to do something, I imagine my father saying, "That code isn't going to write itself." He treated me like that at a very early age and I continue to treat myself that way now.
The concept of "there are no children" is just another way of looking at the same thing. Thanks, OP, for the new perspective.
I think you took a look more from this than most of us. I found denying the existence of children to be a rather poorly justified in the article but you provided a decent justification.
I think parents often treat their children as children because of the formation of habits that start from the child being a baby. They get used to them being helpless, design their behavior around that, and then fail to notice when that situation changes. When this occurs it almost become the child’s responsibility to say ”Hey, I can do new stuff now!” periodically (most frequently in teenage years), at which point it is usually ignored. Another reason: letting your kids do the stuff that you used to do for them means letting go of some control. Parents worry what would happen if they allowed their child to do the things that they do: “Sure I could let my child cook their own meals but what if they just cooked lots of unhealthy food.”
Your father's mentorship style reminds me of Gotama Buddha's style of teaching: not imploring, cajoling, threatening, or demanding, but simply laying out the consequences of any given action and leaving the decision up to the individual. He also suggested that students test his offered truths and develop a first-hand understanding rather than taking his words on faith.
People can get very receptive when you offer help without implying they should take it.
The closer you work with kids (or have kids) the more you will realize it is not as simple as you portray. Hmm, another parallel with people who talk vs people who do.
I was surprised to read this in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child#As_a_non-adult - "Recognition of childhood as a state different from adulthood began to emerge in the 16th and 17th centuries. Society began to relate to the child not as a miniature adult but as a person of a lower level of maturity needing adult protection, love and nurturing. This change can be traced in painting: In the Middle Ages, children were portrayed in art as miniature adults with no childish characteristics. In the 16th century, images of children began to acquire a distinct childish appearance. From the late 17th century onwards, children were shown playing."
However, reading the source article (http://www.elizabethi.org/uk/essays/childhood.htm), I would say that this point of view (Lawrence Stone, et al) is not well supported. First, realize that this insight was made only to studies of the UK from 1500-1800 (a period very likely marked more strongly by society's ability to express notions of childhood through art - the renaissance, than to evolve the definition of human childhood so rapidly). Second, Stone himself abandoned the thesis of his work in the 1980s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Stone#Ideas) as more evidence about this time period was presented by his peers.
I suspect that some of these theories would not have emerged at all if evolutionary psychology, our understanding of the mammalian brain, and studies of mammals in their natural child-rearing environments had been readily available at the time when "The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800" was written.
Anyhow, I challenge that wikipedia probably should not quote the work in this context in the 'Child' page, nor should it be treated as a credible theory in the discussion of this article.
I don't think that point of view even makes sense. Humans and lower mammals are all born more or less helpless. They require caring parents for nourishment and protection in order to survive. Certainly you can argue that the period of "childhood" has been greatly extended in recent centuries, but it makes no sense that the concept of a child as something other than just a physically smaller adult emerged in the 16th century.
If the vocabulary doesn't exist(or isn't predominant), it becomes hard to point out the distinctions. Certainly, humans recognized from pre-civilized times that there were children, but expectations of children were going to be different - in a smaller tribal society, for instance, each one would be a unique person.
A more recent concept is the idea of the "teenager" in western culture - people who aren't adults and aren't children either.
It seems that the thesis that Stone abandoned (according to your third link) was about love in marriage, not about the increasing awareness of children's nature. He may have had multiple theses, not all of which he abandoned.
The idea that Western societies' perception of children went from "miniature adult" to "distinct category of human" in the 16th and 17th century is not an unusual theory among Renaissance scholars. It might not be the most accurate description of what happened, but its credibility is not as suspicious as you seem to think it is. Art historians regularly appeal to this theory, not only in English contexts, but also when talking about Italian art and the rest of Renaissance.
My sister (an art history major) wrote an honors paper on Titian a couple of years ago, focusing on how the artist's portrayal of children changed over the decades. There are transitions that cannot be explained simply by saying "He was just trying to paint more realistically". For example, the context, setting, composition, props, etc. of this painting (http://www.humanitiesweb.org/human.php?s=g&p=c&a=p&#...), when analyzed with the usual tools of art historians and compared to other paintings of children, suggest that at least part of the transition involved a shift in the concept of a child. The way in which similar portrayals spread throughout Europe in the following decades also supports the theory that this new concept was being rapidly adopted and developed. (I'm not an art historian so I can't explain this very well, but I'm sure there are many scholarly sources for this.) Artists might not have invented the new concept of a child, but they were certainly responding to it -- and Renaissance artists were often the first to respond to the latest philosophical developments of their times.
Counterpoint to the original article, based on your comments: Children do exist, because civilization exists. You could also say "civilization doesn't exist, we invented it", but that falsely implies that things we invent don't exist, which regardless of what definitions you use for any of the critical words in that sentence, it's way too bizarre an idea to slip into the discussion unexamined.
I would say that as civilization has deviated farther and farther from the "default" of human civilizations, we come out of the womb increasingly less adjusted to it and therefore we have created a distinct phase of "maladjusted human" in our discourse to reflect it. And it is a real phase, which we must really be educated out of, or the result is a slide back to the default human state, which you may also know from the word "barbarism".
As I rather like "civilization", however artificial it may be, I'm OK with the "invented" child phase, and actually not terribly impressed with the original essay as it is written. Extol the virtues of having an open mind, sure, but children don't just have open minds, they are frankly stupidly open minds, and a variety of other difficulties like a near complete inability to rationally account for future consequences, even ones clearly mere seconds away (at the younger end). I don't believe the author can accurately describe his behavior as "childlike", because if he really was acting like a child, he would not be able to claim it was successful. I know 25-yo man children. Heck, I know a mid-40s man child. We're counting down the months until he gets arrested for some form of tax evasion, on the grounds of not really feeling like doing them. This is not a successful lifestyle. There's a lot more to "childlike" than having an open mind and a certain blind, stupid perseverance (that, might I add, only really works out if the adults in the life have created the proper environment).
I disagree. The physiological differences between children and adults is large, particularly in the brain.
However, I think that adults who make the effort to continue to work on neuroplasticity into their adult years will likely be more intelligent, probably be more successful, and maybe be happier. I also think if all humans did that, we would all be smarter, more successful, and happier.
So much to say here. I think this is an important issue. Being kid-like is central to being creative. But at the same time, being adult-like is central to being productive. The key isn't to become a creative kid who does nothing productive any more than it is to become an adult who does a lot but accomplishes nothing[1].
A few other thoughts on this subject:
I don't think that being child-like necessarily means one should think less. You just have to think differently. We adults have lots of experience that makes us think a certain way. Part of going back to being a kid is in learning to think in ways that bypasses that experience. For example, experience has taught me that Java is the best language to use for a team of 100 programmers. But I'm going to use Python for reasons x, y, and z.
Nor do I think it's a compliment to be called overly kid-like. Bear something else in mind: kids are fairly self-centered. They're at the stage in life where everything is about them. Everybody drops what they're doing to take care of them. Narcissists are people who are essentially frozen at this stage in time. This is why some people have noticed that there's a correlation between narcissism and creativity[2].
All the above noted, I do think that we as adults need to remind ourselves that we can't be adults all the time. It's just a question of when the time is appropriate, which can be very difficult to determine.
Did you know that we invented children? Children don’t exist.
I realize the irony in my thinking to refute a statement that's intended to point out why you shouldn't think. But this is a non-sequitur. We invented laptops, and there's a laptop right in front of me to prove that it exists. Race and gender are invented concepts as well, and they have a very real impact on our day-to-day lives.
Developmentally, children have no alternative; that's all they have to wire their brains (from learning to walk to learning to talk and on). Part of the things you learn as young person is to delay gratification, and think before you act because it pays off in the end. Adults are perfectly justified to use that acquired skill. Overanalysing is usually pointless, but the opposite, not doing so at all is ... childish.
I'm not really a fan of the whole 'no children' idea, but the point about thinking less is absolutely true. When it comes to coding there is a bit of a distinction that is easy to trip over: the difference between thinking and processing. If you've watched Notch code you can probably see this at work - people often remark about how he's continuously writing code rather than sitting there thinking. But it's also obvious that he's not just blindly typing code -- he's processing the code while he's typing.
But for life in general, thinking is a trap. Your brain has already done all the important processing for you, because that's what it does. Do what your gut tells you, but pay attention to what happens because that's the only way your brain can improve it's process.
Time for me to post an excerpt from a... love letter I wrote at some point. (Yeah, I'm probably a weird person.)
--------
"Discovery is the privilege of the child: the child who has no fear of being once again wrong, of looking like an idiot, of not being serious, of not doing things like everyone else."
This quote, from a great mathematician who made large strides in his field [Alexander Grothendieck], was brought to me by the man who serves as a kind of mathematical mentor to me. Let's take a look at it. It's true that if one is fearful of being wrong, of looking like an idiot, etc., then one will spend mental energy on worrying about avoiding these things (and possibly change one's behavior too), and this obviously interferes with thinking about and working to understand the problem at hand. Conversely, to the extent that one is free of such fears, one's mind is free to make discoveries.
Now, not all children are fearless, and not all adults are deeply concerned with how others see them. But there's a correlation, and it's easy to see why: Children are born curious, and they're not born afraid of... losing others' respect. That's something you have to learn to be afraid of. Furthermore, to the extent that an adult is absorbed in his topic of study, is excited about the things he's doing, and is unconscious of whether he looks silly or makes embarrassing mistakes in front of others, we might say that he seems childlike.
There are other things that can interfere with discovery. If a child has unreliable access to food, shelter, clothes, etc., he will have to divert his energies away from learning about whatever he was learning about, and toward addressing those needs. We can say in general that if a child's access to any particular thing that he wants or needs is uncertain, then he will worry about it, and this will distract him from discovery. It's clear that this is true just by the phrasing. (In this case, I'd distinguish a "want" from a "need" like this: if he doesn't get it for a while, and he stops worrying about it, then it's a want; if he doesn't stop worrying about it, then it's a need.) And again, conversely, if we want to help the child grow and learn and become strong, then the way to do this is to provide solidly for the child's needs so he isn't distracted and can focus on growing.
And here we see another reason the quote talks about children: adults, usually parents and relatives, provide food and shelter and do laundry and so forth for kids, while they usually don't do that for adults. But adults aren't necessarily doomed. An adult might have a steady income and a routine for dealing with all the basic needs, and this might leave him with time to forget all his worries and focus and learn like a child. This seems like a good thing to aim for, as a prospective adult. I'd hate to stop growing, or at least to be slowed down a lot, just because I've become an adult.
All this is generally applicable to one's life. But there's one need in particular that I'd like to address.
Love. I think children, and adults too, have a strong need to feel loved; what it means to be loved is probably somewhat different for every person, but some common things include tending to one's other needs, giving physical affection, displaying trust in various ways (such as accepting physical affection, sharing secrets, and accepting one's help in performing an important task), and promising to do these things (of course, the promise must be believed, which means it must be kept). We can apply what I said earlier: If one's access to love is uncertain, then one will worry about it, and it will interfere with growing. Conversely, if we wish to help someone grow, then giving them unconditional love is a powerful way to do it.
I think I can offer you my unconditional love[....]
36 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] threadIt's true that children have no filters -- very young children experience everything. The more they learn, the more they are filter out the irrelevant details of the world and can then use their brain power to deal with ever increasing levels of abstraction. You can't turn back the clock on that.
It might even be observed that abuse of certain substances, such as alcohol, could at least temporarily reverse a person's level of mental development (Woot, happy new year!).
It's far from being as tested and documented a science as developmental biology and psychology, but there are various commonly practiced methods for disrupting the progress of that mental development clock from a smooth arc to a more tangled shape.
Reminds me of a quote from Rob Pike though:
Eventually, I decided that thinking was not getting me very far and it was time to try building.
Also I don't seem to understand what that has to do with 'think less and do more' -- which I patently disagree with. While we can get in analysis paralysis, so many of the problems I observe from big systems, whether they be digital or social come from improper decomposition of problems due to not enough thinking and a whole lot of rushed doing.
But I agree with you. The consequences get to be more painful and can affect a lot more than just oneself if one carries this too far.
They are definitely different from most adults who have their shit together.
My little ones have tantrums. Considering how many things they cannot do or control, I empathize with them.
Tantrums only become a means of control when combined with weak and inconsistent parenting.
I guess I just get a bit defensive since tantrums are a natural part of growing up.
:)
As to the author's experiences teaching himself French—the plural of anecdote is not data.
I was brought up in a style when people were expected to "do their best", regardless of age. I walked a mile to school at age 5, did my own laundry at age 7, cooked for my mother and younger siblings at age 9, and starting working at age 12. I didn't think much about it until I went to college and realized how helpless most people my age were.
Sometimes I think that this upbringing, more than anything else, has been most responsible for my success. To this day, when I'm debating whether or not to do something, I imagine my father saying, "That code isn't going to write itself." He treated me like that at a very early age and I continue to treat myself that way now.
The concept of "there are no children" is just another way of looking at the same thing. Thanks, OP, for the new perspective.
I think parents often treat their children as children because of the formation of habits that start from the child being a baby. They get used to them being helpless, design their behavior around that, and then fail to notice when that situation changes. When this occurs it almost become the child’s responsibility to say ”Hey, I can do new stuff now!” periodically (most frequently in teenage years), at which point it is usually ignored. Another reason: letting your kids do the stuff that you used to do for them means letting go of some control. Parents worry what would happen if they allowed their child to do the things that they do: “Sure I could let my child cook their own meals but what if they just cooked lots of unhealthy food.”
People can get very receptive when you offer help without implying they should take it.
However, reading the source article (http://www.elizabethi.org/uk/essays/childhood.htm), I would say that this point of view (Lawrence Stone, et al) is not well supported. First, realize that this insight was made only to studies of the UK from 1500-1800 (a period very likely marked more strongly by society's ability to express notions of childhood through art - the renaissance, than to evolve the definition of human childhood so rapidly). Second, Stone himself abandoned the thesis of his work in the 1980s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Stone#Ideas) as more evidence about this time period was presented by his peers.
I suspect that some of these theories would not have emerged at all if evolutionary psychology, our understanding of the mammalian brain, and studies of mammals in their natural child-rearing environments had been readily available at the time when "The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800" was written.
Anyhow, I challenge that wikipedia probably should not quote the work in this context in the 'Child' page, nor should it be treated as a credible theory in the discussion of this article.
A more recent concept is the idea of the "teenager" in western culture - people who aren't adults and aren't children either.
The idea that Western societies' perception of children went from "miniature adult" to "distinct category of human" in the 16th and 17th century is not an unusual theory among Renaissance scholars. It might not be the most accurate description of what happened, but its credibility is not as suspicious as you seem to think it is. Art historians regularly appeal to this theory, not only in English contexts, but also when talking about Italian art and the rest of Renaissance.
My sister (an art history major) wrote an honors paper on Titian a couple of years ago, focusing on how the artist's portrayal of children changed over the decades. There are transitions that cannot be explained simply by saying "He was just trying to paint more realistically". For example, the context, setting, composition, props, etc. of this painting (http://www.humanitiesweb.org/human.php?s=g&p=c&a=p&#...), when analyzed with the usual tools of art historians and compared to other paintings of children, suggest that at least part of the transition involved a shift in the concept of a child. The way in which similar portrayals spread throughout Europe in the following decades also supports the theory that this new concept was being rapidly adopted and developed. (I'm not an art historian so I can't explain this very well, but I'm sure there are many scholarly sources for this.) Artists might not have invented the new concept of a child, but they were certainly responding to it -- and Renaissance artists were often the first to respond to the latest philosophical developments of their times.
I would say that as civilization has deviated farther and farther from the "default" of human civilizations, we come out of the womb increasingly less adjusted to it and therefore we have created a distinct phase of "maladjusted human" in our discourse to reflect it. And it is a real phase, which we must really be educated out of, or the result is a slide back to the default human state, which you may also know from the word "barbarism".
As I rather like "civilization", however artificial it may be, I'm OK with the "invented" child phase, and actually not terribly impressed with the original essay as it is written. Extol the virtues of having an open mind, sure, but children don't just have open minds, they are frankly stupidly open minds, and a variety of other difficulties like a near complete inability to rationally account for future consequences, even ones clearly mere seconds away (at the younger end). I don't believe the author can accurately describe his behavior as "childlike", because if he really was acting like a child, he would not be able to claim it was successful. I know 25-yo man children. Heck, I know a mid-40s man child. We're counting down the months until he gets arrested for some form of tax evasion, on the grounds of not really feeling like doing them. This is not a successful lifestyle. There's a lot more to "childlike" than having an open mind and a certain blind, stupid perseverance (that, might I add, only really works out if the adults in the life have created the proper environment).
However, I think that adults who make the effort to continue to work on neuroplasticity into their adult years will likely be more intelligent, probably be more successful, and maybe be happier. I also think if all humans did that, we would all be smarter, more successful, and happier.
A few other thoughts on this subject:
I don't think that being child-like necessarily means one should think less. You just have to think differently. We adults have lots of experience that makes us think a certain way. Part of going back to being a kid is in learning to think in ways that bypasses that experience. For example, experience has taught me that Java is the best language to use for a team of 100 programmers. But I'm going to use Python for reasons x, y, and z.
Nor do I think it's a compliment to be called overly kid-like. Bear something else in mind: kids are fairly self-centered. They're at the stage in life where everything is about them. Everybody drops what they're doing to take care of them. Narcissists are people who are essentially frozen at this stage in time. This is why some people have noticed that there's a correlation between narcissism and creativity[2].
All the above noted, I do think that we as adults need to remind ourselves that we can't be adults all the time. It's just a question of when the time is appropriate, which can be very difficult to determine.
Did you know that we invented children? Children don’t exist.
I realize the irony in my thinking to refute a statement that's intended to point out why you shouldn't think. But this is a non-sequitur. We invented laptops, and there's a laptop right in front of me to prove that it exists. Race and gender are invented concepts as well, and they have a very real impact on our day-to-day lives.
[1] Shameless plug, I've already written on this subject: http://jasonmbaker.com/how-to-be-creative
[2] http://www.fastcompany.com/1701676/narcissism-and-creativity...
But for life in general, thinking is a trap. Your brain has already done all the important processing for you, because that's what it does. Do what your gut tells you, but pay attention to what happens because that's the only way your brain can improve it's process.
--------
"Discovery is the privilege of the child: the child who has no fear of being once again wrong, of looking like an idiot, of not being serious, of not doing things like everyone else."
This quote, from a great mathematician who made large strides in his field [Alexander Grothendieck], was brought to me by the man who serves as a kind of mathematical mentor to me. Let's take a look at it. It's true that if one is fearful of being wrong, of looking like an idiot, etc., then one will spend mental energy on worrying about avoiding these things (and possibly change one's behavior too), and this obviously interferes with thinking about and working to understand the problem at hand. Conversely, to the extent that one is free of such fears, one's mind is free to make discoveries.
Now, not all children are fearless, and not all adults are deeply concerned with how others see them. But there's a correlation, and it's easy to see why: Children are born curious, and they're not born afraid of... losing others' respect. That's something you have to learn to be afraid of. Furthermore, to the extent that an adult is absorbed in his topic of study, is excited about the things he's doing, and is unconscious of whether he looks silly or makes embarrassing mistakes in front of others, we might say that he seems childlike.
There are other things that can interfere with discovery. If a child has unreliable access to food, shelter, clothes, etc., he will have to divert his energies away from learning about whatever he was learning about, and toward addressing those needs. We can say in general that if a child's access to any particular thing that he wants or needs is uncertain, then he will worry about it, and this will distract him from discovery. It's clear that this is true just by the phrasing. (In this case, I'd distinguish a "want" from a "need" like this: if he doesn't get it for a while, and he stops worrying about it, then it's a want; if he doesn't stop worrying about it, then it's a need.) And again, conversely, if we want to help the child grow and learn and become strong, then the way to do this is to provide solidly for the child's needs so he isn't distracted and can focus on growing.
And here we see another reason the quote talks about children: adults, usually parents and relatives, provide food and shelter and do laundry and so forth for kids, while they usually don't do that for adults. But adults aren't necessarily doomed. An adult might have a steady income and a routine for dealing with all the basic needs, and this might leave him with time to forget all his worries and focus and learn like a child. This seems like a good thing to aim for, as a prospective adult. I'd hate to stop growing, or at least to be slowed down a lot, just because I've become an adult.
All this is generally applicable to one's life. But there's one need in particular that I'd like to address.
Love. I think children, and adults too, have a strong need to feel loved; what it means to be loved is probably somewhat different for every person, but some common things include tending to one's other needs, giving physical affection, displaying trust in various ways (such as accepting physical affection, sharing secrets, and accepting one's help in performing an important task), and promising to do these things (of course, the promise must be believed, which means it must be kept). We can apply what I said earlier: If one's access to love is uncertain, then one will worry about it, and it will interfere with growing. Conversely, if we wish to help someone grow, then giving them unconditional love is a powerful way to do it.
I think I can offer you my unconditional love[....]