A possible source for 'most' major intrapersonal dysfunctions

Jun 2020
I was raised using a parenting book in the 70s. That book instructed my parents to not reward/punish me, so I have as a result of this had a very different take on life, especially the intrapersonal aspect of it. I never pass judgment on others (never punish/reward), I tend to accept punishments others attempt to impose on me (the only punishment form I deny others the right to enact on me is physical assault, but it's rare that I have had to deal with that), I also don’t seem to have a strong reaction to external discomfort as I tend to view it as an indicator that something is new and worthy of analysis, personal discomfort I tend to unhurriedly react to (cold/hot, stared down, etc). I have lived in isolation for a long time to avoid infecting others with my way of being, as that tended to happen naturally and led to extreme confrontations with very dangerous people that wanted things to remain as hostile as they were (almost got killed a couple of times before I gave up on my right to agency). Lately though, I have started exploring things conceptually and seem to have stumbled onto something that may be of interest to those that use this forum.

So, from my musings I seem to have stumbled on a potential 'proof' that “status driven agency” may be the source of most of the observed intrapersonal dysfunctions in our species, assaults, wars, criminality, bigotry, etc. While I myself seem to have what looks like dialogue/curiosity based agency instead (or close to it).

When a child is born it is bound by curiosity (at least in most species with hierarchical structures that seems to be the case). And it seems that parents, in an effort to protect their children, limit their child's agency, which itself causes them discomfort. But rather than recognizing that the discomfort is aimed at protecting them from their own curiosity driven agency, children of species capable of such, speculate instead on the cause of the discomfort, and seem to end up formulating a misconceptualization. That those that are bigger, stronger (higher status), get to not have their agency limited by those of lower status. (when in truth, everyone’s agency is equal, thus it is subject to negotiation, and yes strength ‘can’ help but it isn’t the deciding factor if the individual is open to other forms of negotiation, or is mature enough to not infringe on others agency just because it doesn't 'feel' comfortable to them)

Expanding upon this is even more interesting to me though. Because what happens to someone that believes their agency is status driven, and they have a child that is (unavoidably) curiosity driven? Because they view themselves as ‘in the right’ when it comes to their own agency given that their child has lower status, they will invariably act as a surrogate environment to their child, with the (unavoidable) capacity to judge right from wrong. Something that is normally only possible for an agentless environment to subject an agent to. And therefore instead of protecting their child from their own curiosity, they end up punishing them for doing perceived wrongs, and also reward them for perceived ‘rights’. (it looks like it accomplishes the same thing, but the difference is in the measure, as it goes from mere discomfort to assault)

As a side note, I have had to endure verbal/physical assaults at times, and also 'timeouts', the latter were the worst forms of punishment as they used me as my own means of harming myself. Yes, to me timeout is the worst form of assault, and it is assault (just it uses reality to do it, which is far worse to a child, it was to me anyway).

That child in turn, will unavoidably associate all forms of discomfort with punishment (assault), rather than merely the personal kinds of discomfort as would be healthy. That’s now an extra layer of complexity, with misassociation (conditioning) into the mix of a misconceptualization. That child will, as it grows up, be even more adverse of anyone that displays abnormal behaviors, as instead of it being met with curiosity and later, understanding, it will be met with a status affirmative display (dominance/submission). With either the ‘new’ abnormal trait being adopted by all (if that one wins the status battle), or the trait being deemed ‘wrong’ by all who associate with the one that did the status validation (if his/her position in the group is high enough). Thus a new dysfunction is born out of thin air, an unhealthy obsession with not standing out (normalcy).

What do you all think? Does that seem plausible or did I make a mistake in my exploration of this complex?