Your post is basically just saying "Give me the evidence, but oh, if you do, I won't believe it anyway cause it's just a matter of interpretation, and even if there was undeniable evidence, I wouldn't care anyway and would insist that my way is better."
I'm not writing a research article on this, so if you ever do decide that you care about the research, you can do your own perusing of the NCBI database. There are literally dozens documenting the correlation between delinquency and permissive or uninvolved parenting--and even one documenting the correlation of tooth decay and permissive parenting!

As to your question, I do not generally look up how to behave in a textbook, no. But if I came across a study that said something I'm doing towards loved ones has some sort of adverse effect I was unaware of, then I would seriously reconsider my actions. That's because I care more about actually doing right by them than having my own pet theory about how I think things "should" work proved right.

My experience is similar to yours, and the principle i have always followed is that one should treat children as if they are the people one would like them to be. Treat them like little shits, and they become little shits, manipulate them and they become manipulators, respect them and they become respectful, in just the same way that if you speak Spanish to them, they will become Spanish speakers. — unenlightened

Totally, I agree that one should treat children and all people respectfully. But rejecting a hands-off approach to parenting does not mean embracing a "tiger parenting" aka authoritarian parenting, which has also been shown to have negative effects on children.

Ideally, the parent-child relationship is something that is continually negotiated and evolves throughout the child's life depending on the temperament and ability of that person. For example, you stop toddlers from eating sweets, because they are not mature enough to stop eating when they get sick from it or when they gain unhealthy amounts of weight. But you might just roll your eyes privately and let a teen or tween overindulge once or twice until they realize that it's not really that fun after all.

Most importantly, if you tell a kid that they can do what they want, you're basically telling them you don't care all that much what happens to them. "Eat what you want" is heard as "I don't care about your health." "No curfew" = "I'm not worried about your safety." "Come and go as you please" = "I don't care about your company." But if you continually re-negotiate reasonable boundaries with them, they hear "I respect your growing autonomy, but I still care deeply about your well-being and want you to be healthy and safe."

Your post is basically just saying "Give me the evidence, but oh, if you do, I won't believe it anyway cause it's just a matter of interpretation, and even if there was undeniable evidence, I wouldn't care anyway and would insist that my way is better." — NKBJ

No, it's asking for the evidence so that I can reach my own conclusion about its meaning rather than simply accept whatever the APA says as gospel truth, you're making it sound like it's unreasonable to question authority groups...scary!

if I came across a study that said something I'm doing towards loved ones has some sort of adverse effect I was unaware of, then I would seriously reconsider my actions. — NKBJ

Reconsider, maybe, blindly follow what they say without question...that's another matter.

For example, you stop toddlers from eating sweets, because they are not mature enough to stop eating when they get sick from it or when they gain unhealthy amounts of weight. — NKBJ

No, you stop toddlers from eating sweets by not eating sweets. They don't just randomly do unhealthy things, they copy. If you're stuffing your face with chocolates and telling the child not to, you're on a hiding to nothing. If you keep using sweets as a reward amplifying the child's sense that these are 'good' things, then you'll have a life-long problem. Don't eat sweets yourself, don't have excessive amounts in the house and don't use them a rewards for your preferred behaviours and you won't have children who eat too many sweets. Mine don't, but then I forget, my children are unique genetic misfit who are pre-programmed to behave well despite my negligent parenting.

Eat what you want" is heard as "I don't care about your health." — NKBJ

So, explain how this works. In order to interpret things this way, the child must know that earing certain foods is bad for their health. And yet apparently if I say "eat what you like" the child will happily eat anything. What could possibly motivate a child to eat something they know is harmful to them? Not something they've just been told is harmful but see other adults doing all the time so don't really believe it, that wouldn't have the psychological effect you're claiming. In order to have this effect the child must really believe the food will do them harm (so as to be upset by their parent's lack of concern for their welfare), so why would they eat it?

if you continually re-negotiate reasonable boundaries with them, they hear "I respect your growing autonomy, but I still care deeply about your well-being and want you to be healthy and safe." — NKBJ

Why would the two be in conflict? Unless you're also saying "you're a moron who can't even make decisions close enough to right to remain healthy and safe". And us adults are the arbiters of what's healthy and safe? Have you seen the world recently?

But rejecting a hands-off approach to parenting does not mean embracing a "tiger parenting" aka authoritarian parenting, which has also been shown to have negative effects on children. — NKBJ

Suppose we were talking about some other relationship, and I said...
"But rejecting a hands-off approach to marriage does not mean embracing a "tiger marriage" aka authoritarian marriage."

Well yes, there are other possibilities for a relationship than bullying and neglect. Thank goodness!

If the parents don't know what they're doing, you or some other person who isn't close to the children (such as the State) knows even less.

making it sound like it's unreasonable to question authority groups...scary! — Pseudonym

Questioning them as a layperson without (so far as has been presented here) any evidence to do so, and thus exposing children to your own (seemingly) crackpot theories, is what I would call scary, actually.

They don't just randomly do unhealthy things, they copy. If you're stuffing your face with chocolates and telling the child not to, you're on a hiding to nothing — Pseudonym

That's partly true. Modeling good behavior is indeed an important part of parenting. I totally agree.

But it's not the sum of it. Since children are exposed to aggressive advertising everywhere, and their own biological drives tell them to consume calories, and perhaps they have peers with bad habits, etc etc. It's thus equally important to first tell them that sweets are bad in large quantities, and then (if you notice them developing poor habits) intervene, and that includes by having rules.

Drug addicts, smokers, and drinkers are proof that humans of all ages do not necessarily heed the fact that things have been labelled "dangerous."

us adults are the arbiters of what's healthy and safe? Have you seen the world recently? — Pseudonym

True enough, grown ups suck. But ideally, as parents, we do know that certain things are bad for us and others better. I think if we're talking about people choosing parenting styles, we're talking about the more caring, loving, and knowledgable part of the population anyway.

We have an obligation therefore to steer our most vulnerable and inexperienced in the right direction, and until they are old enough, that includes making decisions for them. Do you ask your kids if they want to be vaccinated? Or get medicine? If they say no, what do you do? Sometimes you have to override their wishes for their own good.

Well yes, there are other possibilities for a relationship than bullying and neglect. Thank goodness! — unenlightened

Just pointing it out because the thread was seeming to adopt an either/or stance on that issue. :wink:

Questioning them as a layperson without (so far as has been presented here) any evidence to do so, and thus exposing children to your own (seemingly) crackpot theories, is what I would call scary, actually. — NKBJ

So what's the alternative, that isn't simply submitting to authorities? You suggest we absolve all moral autonomy to institutions. I'm not an economist, so I must buy and sell exactly as the Central Bank tells me, I'm not a nutritionist so I must eat whatever the government health agency tells me to, I'm not a social scientist, so I must conduct my friendships however the APA tell me, I'm not a psychiatrist, so I must do whatever they tell me will make me happy.

Is there any room left for autonomy, or would you have us become complete automatons simply acting in whatever way the current trends in science would have us act?

Since children are exposed to aggressive advertising everywhere — NKBJ

Are they? Mine aren't. We have no television, I've blocked social media sites at the router, blocked internet advertising using ad-blocking apps, they don't go to school, and so far, their friends are all home-educated too. I don't think my kids have seen a single advert, maybe the odd billboard in town, certainly not the kind of frankly monstrous crap aimed at children.

their own biological drives tell them to consume calories — NKBJ

Nope, we have chocolate in the house because my daughter likes a bit every now and then. My son doesn't touch it, he doesn't like sweet food. We had a few conversations about what sweet foods do to your body when they were young and that was enough.Treat them like idiots and they'll grow up to be idiots.

Drug addicts, smokers, and drinkers are proof that humans of all ages do not necessarily heed the fact that things have been labelled "dangerous." — NKBJ

Drug addicts, smokers and drinkers have all been raised in a society which screws them up from childhood. Even your masters at the APA don't presume that addiction is a simple matter of human genetic weakness but a complicated consequence of psychological issues built up over time.

We have an obligation therefore to steer our most vulnerable and inexperienced in the right direction, and until they are old enough, that includes making decisions for them. — NKBJ

How do we choose the 'right' direction for an autonomous human being with their own desires and personality? How do we know what's going to be best for them? If I told you what to do on the basis of what I thought was right, do you think it would yield a life that you'd be happy with? So why's my idea of what makes a good life any more likely to give my children what they want?

On what basis should I have told my children when to go to bed? Has a certain bedtime been scientifically proven to yield happy adults in all cases? What about chores? Is there some scientific study I'm unaware of linking an exact amount of vacuuming with universal happiness?

Here's just an example study demonstrating a direct link between sedentary behaviour in childhood and a significant range of health problems. So when your kids says "I don't want to go to school, it's boring and they make me sit down all day", the correct response according to your 'make decisions for them for their own good' mantra would be to keep them off school so that they can run around in the garden.

Here's One of many articles linking frequent testing with mental health issues, so when your kids says "I don't want to go to school today because of the test", the correct response would be to keep them home to limit the scientifically demonstrated negative effects on their mental health.

This idea that authoritative parents are setting all these rules for the child's own good is absolute crap. They set rules to make their life easier and turn the child into something they want it to be with little or no consideration given to the toll it takes on the child's physical and mental well-being.

Most of the crap we tell our kids to do has nothing whatsoever to do with their well-being and everything to do with turning them into a little trophy we can show off to our friends, ensuring that they end up good little obedient consumers when they're older who'll hopefully just do some crappy job without complaint and buy whatever they're told to buy to keep the whole economy grinding away.

What you propose here is a "common core" for how to raise a child. Every child is different, and no one parenting style works! God forbid we have the government pushing morals and their way of education at school, but now at home too? This whole idea that anyone would not the "best" way to raise a child is laudable. Our Secretary of Education right now is a woman who has never been a teacher nor worked in a public school. It wouldn't be long before someone who has never had children or someone that was always rich, mandates how people should raise their children. Even then you could raise thousands of children and still be terrible at it.