Ice Cream, Law, and Negotiation

In discussions about parenting, we are often taught that parents should set clear boundaries for their children regarding what is and isn’t allowed. The goal is not to teach them that the world is black and white (because the world, of course, does not operate in black-and-white terms), but rather to address the fact that children naturally tend to test boundaries. They enjoy playing and experimenting with the demarcation between what is permissible and the exact point at which it no longer is. Children like to play a game of push-and-pull with authority, which in this case refers to their parents or caregivers. Therefore, in order to teach children about manners, discipline, as well as law and order, parents are advised to consistently and consequentially maintain these boundaries. The most common examples revolve around bedtimes, wake-up times, playtime, study time, when they are allowed to buy ice cream, the terms and conditions for getting that ice cream, reward and punishment systems, and so forth.

What often happens is that parents, in the name of love and affection, make these boundaries non-absolute and negotiable. This sends a signal to children that these boundaries or rules operate on the principle of “as long as it’s not explicitly forbidden, it’s allowed.” In other words, boundaries set by authority often morph into “points of negotiation” rather than rigid walls; and children will continue to stretch this “legal rubber band” until they get what they want.

Unfortunately, I disagree with labeling this behavior exclusively as a part of—or a marker of—a developmental phase. In my view, this kind of narrative is trapped in adultcentrism, treating children as if they possess psychological mechanisms that are entirely different, or even inferior. A more accurate statement, I believe, is this: the governed (or the subordinates) naturally tend to test the boundaries set by the authority governing them. In other words, this phenomenon is not an inherently childish trait, but rather a universal power dynamic where anyone operating under a specific regulatory structure will behave similarly. The assertion that children like to test boundaries is certainly not wrong, but it is incomplete and framed far too narrowly.

We frequently observe this symptom in various situations and scenarios. A lazy employee who arrives one minute late will test the waters the next day to see if arriving two minutes late incurs a sanction from the HR department; a corrupt government official embezzling state funds for personal gain will continuously test the limits to see at what point their actions will be sniffed out by anti-corruption agencies; and so on. In doing so, they are essentially mapping the power landscape, trying to figure out just how consistent and credible the authority above them really is.

I work in an academic environment, and I frequently attend public lectures and conferences where academics are given a platform to speak and discuss a myriad of scholarly topics. Have you ever noticed that when a speaker is given, say, 15 minutes to present, and at the 14th minute the moderator gives a signal indicating there is exactly 1 minute left, the academic will often stretch that remaining minute into two? Then, they will observe, scanning the reactions around them to see if the moderator is watching and will remind them again. This is a process of risk calculation: is this rule a mere formality, or is it an absolute limit? If the moderator remains silent (demonstrating passive authority), the speaker receives validation that the boundary is, in fact, elastic. They will stretch it further to three minutes, four minutes, and so on. You certainly see my point.

Boundaries established by authority are often perceived as points of negotiation, not dead ends. Stretching the time from one minute to two or three is a form of micro-resistance, an attempt to reclaim the autonomy that shrinks when one is placed in the position of being governed.

In the realm of parenting, the prevailing narrative is that children test boundaries because their brains are immature (lacking proper emotional regulation) or simply out of curiosity, as children do tend to have higher levels of curiosity. However, the academic presentation scenario above should, I think, be considered to complete this narrative. And to me, it proves that the tendency to test and play with boundaries is a fundamentally human trait when confronted with rules, and by no means a characteristic exclusive to children. When brought into the adult realm, the explanation expands into ‘autonomy negotiation’. When someone is placed in the position of being “governed,” psychologically, their space for personal freedom shrinks. Stretching the time from 1 minute to 2 or 3 minutes is a form of micro-resistance to reclaim that control and autonomy.