Functional Children from Dysfunctional Families
Personal dysfunction has been proven not to be predicated on one’s family background. There is a notable argument to be made that without struggle in one’s life, one cannot achieve their fullest potential and maximum understanding of oneself. One example that supports this hypothesis is in financial terms. The NASDAQ reports, “it is estimated that 70% of wealthy families will lose their wealth by the second generation and 90% will lose it by the third.” Upon seeing this statistic, one can reasonably extrapolate that coming from a “functional” family (at least in economic terms) is not a predictor of the functionality of future generations. In fact, it can have a negative inverse effect.
To be clear, this is not to say that economic stability equals a functional home or environment. There are plenty of wealthy families that are just as dysfunctional (if not more so) than those with fewer financial resources. It’s simply an analogy to demonstrate the overarching point that we are not inherently what we come from.
For the sake of clarity, “dysfunctional” families in this instance can be defined as parents and/or caregivers who are:
Mentally and/or emotionally unstable
Mentally and/or emotionally abusive toward a partner and/or child
Physically abusive toward a partner and/or child
Co-dependent on a partner and/or child
Unaccepting of a partner and/or child
Unable to provide basic needs
Suffering from addiction
Negligent
Excessively controlling of a partner and/or child
Misappropriating positive parental attention
The list above is not exhaustive, but it includes a majority of characteristics that one may see in a dysfunctional family relationship.
One category is not patently more or less severe than another either. Physical abuse and neglect, for example, are horrific and cause suffering. These are physical manifestations of dysfunction that are clear to the child. In some cases, this can be more easily understood as dysfunction by a child than emotional or mental abuse. It can therefore be classified as something not to repeat. In some cases, emotional or mental abuse or co-dependence can be more difficult for the child to recognize as dysfunctional because it is often shrouded in subtle manipulation.
I had the opportunity to observe this in very close friends of mine when I went to college and spent more time around my friends. I recognized that many of them shared similar throughlines that I did not experience in my particular home. One was parents presenting outwardly that they were significantly more economically successful than they were in reality. This created a myriad of complexities for my friends and their siblings’ sense of self. They were treated and pampered like kings and queens while simultaneously living through the stress of economic insecurity. Then, as they got older, they were blamed for their dysfunction, confusion, and resentment as if they had created these dysfunctional behaviors spontaneously on their own.
This understandably leads to a negative emotional response from the children. What I observed in this anger is a distinction between being angry at something/someone with clarity and purpose versus what I would see in a lot of my friends’ eyes which is that they were angry but confused at who/what to be angry with. Their parents/caregivers would tell a story of their child being fully responsible for dysfunction in childhood and beyond as if the parent/caregiver weren’t even there.
Another theme I observed was friends whose parents/caregivers had given them validation to excess. While the abuse in these cases does not necessarily take the traditional form, in my view, it is abusive to constantly brainwash your child into believing they’re singular and special to the point that they have very little understanding of accountability and struggle. This holds the child back from understanding how to do the work to find their place amongst other special people. This behavior itself occurs on a spectrum. Some lead their children to believe they’re superior in every aspect of life, setting an expectation that the world will perceive them the same way by default. Some reward their children for certain qualities deemed desirable while largely ignoring the child’s identity elsewhere, leading the child to over-value the qualities that yield their parents’ approval.
Parents/caregivers who have themselves achieved a high level of success often teach their children different lessons altogether and don’t over-emphasize talent or individual achievements. Typically the parents/caregivers who are over-validating their children are not successful or gifted in that area. The image the parent/caregiver creates of the child is almost always not informed by experience or expertise. The image the child creates to satisfy the parent is, therefore, equally false. The result is that the child is performing to the response of the parent instead of learning how to do the thing they’re being praised for effectively. This occurs because over-validation sacrifices learning and understanding to praise (perceived) sheer talent.
An analogy for this is the common college experience. Unless one’s career trajectory requires higher education (like a doctor or engineer), most students are simply performing to and praised for a set of expectations and standards that apply in a classroom but not in a real-world environment. A select few with specific trades can translate college experience to money. For the majority, college is time spent paying an institution for more social currency than actual currency. A GPA is not unlike the over-validating parent, measuring the individual on a feedback loop that doesn’t translate tangibly to any other environment.
It’s worth addressing the positive outlier of the rare cases when that feedback loop is useful to someone’s profession. An example is certain very successful comedians whose basis for their profession was simply trying to make a parent or caregiver laugh as a child. These individuals can benefit from the feedback loop. But for most of us, including myself, the feedback loop is not beneficial.
These observations were neither good nor bad for me at the time I started recognizing them. They were, however, very confusing because my household was all about 1) being accountable; 2) making sure to measure one’s behavior no matter how gifted or talented or economically secure; and 3) most importantly, in complete contrast, my household was about silence first, then listening and observing, and then speaking with substance (while remaining aware that no one person knows everything). The concept of treating anyone — much less a child — like a king or queen or putting them on a pedestal allowing them to be above accountability and responsibility for one’s actions, not intentions, was a foreign concept to me. That is until I started seeing these patterns in many of my friends.
Dysfunctional parental behavior such as over-validation isn’t necessarily coming from a mal-intentioned place. But it is a form of parental attention that, if not used correctly, is abusive. It’s a form of abuse because it sets the child up for severe discord in adulthood when faced with the difficult truth that there are many people just like them. Unlike the entitled attitude fostered in the household would have them believe, everyone must work for recognition and accomplishment regardless of their level of talent. This ripples into the work and personal lives of over-validated children.
Parents/caregivers often disassociate with the dysfunctional behaviors of their children as if the dysfunction their child experienced develops and occurs independently of their involvement. When many parents have tried to ask me the age-old/traditional/common question of “what went wrong?”, they were not interested in what was really going wrong. Their interest lies more in their perception of reality as opposed to reality itself. This indignant state of mind allows one to skip over their parenting missteps and point the finger at the child and the child alone.
In my household, we were taught that nothing and no one is perfect. Especially, but not limited to, my parents. The result was that any missteps by my parents were met with understanding, empathy, and the respect to listen to opposing viewpoints (as disagreement in my household was encouraged). In my view, encouraging disagreement leads to self-identity and is distinct from discord. While my household was never perfect, my parents never attempted to be. In turn, we as the children looked to our parents for the same empathy, understanding, and respect for opposing viewpoints we gave to them. There were balanced expectations of children and parents alike. What I learned from my parents in their own way is that no parenting plan is 100 percent. But with the right intention and purposeful action alongside hope and a bit of luck, a household has the chance to lean toward the more positive aspects of family versus its traditional ailments.
Every household has its dysfunction, including my own. Some choose to identify those dysfunctions and work toward identifying them specifically and acutely. Some choose to ignore those dysfunctions altogether. And some choose to passionately disregard any form of reality and put their perception at the forefront.
To be clear, none of these approaches are either good or bad, but simply what they are. I personally believe in this life we all get to choose to be aligned or misaligned. Whatever we choose, it is our choice. Identifying this choice through our Behavioral RNA™️ simply optimizes the choice and makes one more confident in their choosing. Behavioral RNA™️ in its base is not meant to provide any answers but, rather, more questions to provoke a personal, focused, and pragmatic thought process. It’s not about changing yourself. It’s about changing how you interact with the situation. That’s where Behavioral RNA™️ comes in.
Once a child grows up and lives independently, it’s incumbent on them to recognize their childhood environment as distinct from themselves and choose a path. Those from dysfunctional homes and/or environments can follow one of four paths:
1) They can repeat the dysfunction learned at home.
2) They can stop the dysfunction learned at home but adopt new dysfunction in their own life.
3) They can stop the dysfunction learned at home in their own life.
4) They can stop the dysfunction learned at home and improve function in their own life.
The path taken is largely dependent on the individual’s Behavioral RNA™️.
When a child understands themselves and is in touch with their Behavioral RNA™️, they are capable of seeing themself as a distinct individual outside of the familial group.
This independent identity can allow the child to see how they are different or the same as their parents and caregivers. They may identify with their home life and bring it into their own identity or consider familial dysfunction what not to do and see patterns they do not wish to repeat in their own lives.
When directionalized, this can serve as a powerful motivator for a child to take ownership of their own life and do things differently.
Struggling through dysfunction can be a form of learning. Inversely, not having to struggle through a lack of dysfunction can be a form of ignorance. The outcome is largely based on the child’s Behavioral RNA™️ and how they independently perceive, process, and utilize their home life (i.e. directionalize).
As a result of this, the common practice of judging an individual based on where and who they come from is invalid.
How many individuals do you personally know that come from a dysfunctional home that ended up being the most functional as well as successful?
