Neurotogenic Styles?

A parenting style which approaches every action with positive attention, lending itself to reinforcement, is what allows a child to first express their impulses. When the parents encounter a child who has wet their bed, they have a number of options to choose from. If they are sympathetic, crooning, and attentive, the child will not imprint a negative connotation with an act that society would suppress. If the parent is always sympathetic and attentive, all of their children's negative behaviors would come to light with implicit permission, and they (in early childhood) will be allowed to express them in their household. When they leave the house and begin coming into contact with the outside world, they now encounter strong forces shunning behaviors that they thought were previously okay, disorienting their sense of the world (in some sense). To another sense, it could be schizophrenogenic, and I suppose neurotogenic is not too far off.

Anyway, encounterance of these negative repressals triggers a schism inside the child. The foundation of their morality, that to which they have been conditioned, has been shaken (as I suppose it must with all children) - and they must now question the very factors that created them. Are all actions, now, vile and must be repressed? How do I know the difference?

An interesting corollary is one of diathesis. If that schism, that breakdown of one's idols in face the outside world must occur in all children, why are some children more prone to self-defeatism? Not the self actively defeating one's being, per se, but rather the defeat of the self, the necessity to reform anew in a confusing world. Could be genetic, as everything must be, I suppose. What a simple way to look at things.