I agree that when a parent says I would love to give you a hug, but I need some time to deal with my emotions it is not being conditional. I think I covered the need to teach a lesson, teaching inductivelly rather than deductively. With deductive discipline the focus is on the parent and the consequence and not on the issue at hand.
' I think kids, our kids especially, ask what's in it for me too much as it is.'
Being conditional, using extrinsic motivation reinforces questions like this. Instead of asking what are the consequences of my actions on others , the question is what happens to me.'
'Everything is not about them and if they want to successfully function in society that is a lesson that needs to be learned.'
The statement 'if they want to successfully function in society' is still very much about them. If you behave like this you won't succeed.
A dialog with a kid , reflecting on the effects of his actions on others and the family, community helps a kid to ask , not what's in it for me , but rather what type of person do I want to become , what type of family , classroom , community do I want. If it is done in a non-judgmental way , we can by engaging our kids in dialog, we can promote pespective taking and empathy.
I have shared http://alfiekohn.org
here , lots of articles. His work is also based on research done by Deci , the effects of conditional parenting on intrinsic motivation and learning etc
Alfie Kohn, Ross Greene, Myrna Shure put education back into parenting. For sure lessons may be learned through consequences but there is a rice to pay. In any case negative consequences are becoming increasingly unpopular - it is easier to catch flies with honey , than with vinegar. Alfie Kohn says , consequences are lite punishment, rewards the other side of the coin that does not buy very much.
I don't expect one to agree with me , but to understand ( maybe I am to blame for lack of clarity)that Kohn and Greene are all about teaching