"Be aware that the more often a child hears the word no, the greater his need to say no himself"
About this Quote
Tempelsman’s line is parenting advice with a quiet warning label: “no” isn’t just a boundary, it’s a language a child will learn to speak back. The sentence works because it treats defiance less as a personality flaw and more as a predictable feedback loop. If the adult’s most frequent contribution to the conversation is refusal, the child’s strongest tool for agency becomes refusal too. “Need” is the key word here. It reframes the inevitable pushback as self-protection, not misbehavior: saying no becomes a way to reclaim control, attention, and dignity in a world where decisions are constantly being made for you.
The subtext is an indictment of reflexive, convenience-based discipline. It’s easy to reach for “no” because it’s efficient and emotionally satisfying; it ends the moment. But repeated “no” also teaches a child that negotiation is futile and that power is unilateral. When that’s the environment, the child’s “no” isn’t merely mimicry; it’s resistance training. Tempelsman implies that kids don’t just test limits for sport - they test them to locate themselves inside a relationship.
Contextually, the quote sits comfortably in late-20th/early-21st century child-development thinking that prizes autonomy, choice architecture, and collaborative language (“yes, and…” parenting, natural consequences, offering limited options). It’s not an argument against boundaries; it’s a critique of boundary-setting that’s all barricade and no bridge. The intent is practical: if you want cooperation, stop rehearsing opposition.
The subtext is an indictment of reflexive, convenience-based discipline. It’s easy to reach for “no” because it’s efficient and emotionally satisfying; it ends the moment. But repeated “no” also teaches a child that negotiation is futile and that power is unilateral. When that’s the environment, the child’s “no” isn’t merely mimicry; it’s resistance training. Tempelsman implies that kids don’t just test limits for sport - they test them to locate themselves inside a relationship.
Contextually, the quote sits comfortably in late-20th/early-21st century child-development thinking that prizes autonomy, choice architecture, and collaborative language (“yes, and…” parenting, natural consequences, offering limited options). It’s not an argument against boundaries; it’s a critique of boundary-setting that’s all barricade and no bridge. The intent is practical: if you want cooperation, stop rehearsing opposition.
Quote Details
| Topic | Parenting |
|---|
More Quotes by Cathy
Add to List
