No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/03/no-spanking-no-time-out-no-problems/475440/
445 comments
That's the problem with one-size-fits-all methods. Kids are just different and what worked for one child doesn't necessarily work for another child. Even if you do exactly the same thing.
My girlfriend used to train dogs for a living. She always said "it's the owner's fault, not the dog's". Now we have a Chihuahua who won't listen, doesn't respond to rewards, doesn't respond to punishment. She just does her own thing. My girlfriend is much more humble now. I wish a lot of these child psychologists would have to deal with a difficult child day in and day out, not just once a week. Maybe they would also lose some of the confidence in their advice.
My girlfriend used to train dogs for a living. She always said "it's the owner's fault, not the dog's". Now we have a Chihuahua who won't listen, doesn't respond to rewards, doesn't respond to punishment. She just does her own thing. My girlfriend is much more humble now. I wish a lot of these child psychologists would have to deal with a difficult child day in and day out, not just once a week. Maybe they would also lose some of the confidence in their advice.
Yeah, after having three kids with widely different temperaments, I can only offer two pieces of advice to other dads:
- You're going to have to change diapers anyway, so you might as well get good at it. I was a one-man Formula 1 pit crew of diaper changing. AMA.
- Invest in a vasectomy.
- You're going to have to change diapers anyway, so you might as well get good at it. I was a one-man Formula 1 pit crew of diaper changing. AMA.
- Invest in a vasectomy.
Wait. After three kids your advice only covers the first 2-3 years?!
Since I basically followed both of those pieces already, am I good?
Since I basically followed both of those pieces already, am I good?
AMA: what about the super runny pound of goop poo that leaks through both nappies.
Just deal with it. It's going to happen, just notice as quickly as possible and then go and clean the baby (washing, not wipes, just hold him in one arm, use the shower head and in a minute its all clean)
They use sawdust to clean liquidy messes at the subway so...
I think it's also that a dog will also respond differently to a third party (the trainer) than how they respond to the owner with whom they already have a relationship. The owner could use the exact same techniques as the trainer, but the dog will respond differently.
Same thing as why organizational change can be more effective when lead by an external change agent than an internal one.
Same thing as why organizational change can be more effective when lead by an external change agent than an internal one.
I saw this behavior in speech therapy with my second. He would refuse to vocalize to his mom because he knew she would eventually cave and give him what he wanted, but when the speech therapist withheld a toy until he vocalized, he responded very quickly - likely because he was unsure whether she would cave as mommy does.
This helped us realize that, in this case, we really were the problem. We needed to, in some cases, be more firm. At first this resulted in a lot of tantrums, but once the child's expectations changed then he behaved with us similarly to with his speech therapist.
This helped us realize that, in this case, we really were the problem. We needed to, in some cases, be more firm. At first this resulted in a lot of tantrums, but once the child's expectations changed then he behaved with us similarly to with his speech therapist.
Exactly the same thing is true of a child with their parents compared to other caregivers.
I think that's what a ot of trainers and coaches don't understand. When people (or dogs) meet somebody new they listen much more to that new person. So the coach thinks his method is perfect.
But after a while people will regress to their old habits.
But after a while people will regress to their old habits.
I'm not sure why that would humble her. If she trained dogs, then she already knew 99% of the dogs out there with behavioral issues are a direct result of the owner. There are VERY rare circumstances where it's just a genetic defect (for lack of better term) in the dog, and it just has insurmountable issues. After fostering/owning roughly 75 dogs in my life, I can say 9 times out of 10 that consistency and discipline are lacking in households that have a "problem dog".
Ironically enough, the exact same consistency and discipline are pretty vital for a child as well. They need a little structure in their lives to feel secure. (No, I'm not talking helicopter parenting or scheduling every second of your child's day).
Ironically enough, the exact same consistency and discipline are pretty vital for a child as well. They need a little structure in their lives to feel secure. (No, I'm not talking helicopter parenting or scheduling every second of your child's day).
You are exhibiting the Just World fallacy. It makes you uncomfortable to believe that sometimes the universe is random and chaotic, and that sometimes there are dogs and children whose bad behavior really isn't the fault of their handlers, so you shield yourself with a dogmatic (no pun intended) belief that it's always someone's fault, even when the empirical evidence (like a crummy Chihuahua owned by a professional dog trainer) suggests the opposite.
Which is not to say that it's never the fault of the parents/owners. It probably is, the majority of the time. But to suggest that as a universal law, as you have done, is silly.
Which is not to say that it's never the fault of the parents/owners. It probably is, the majority of the time. But to suggest that as a universal law, as you have done, is silly.
> You are exhibiting the Just World fallacy. It makes you uncomfortable to believe... so you shield yourself...
This is bulverism. You haven't presented evidence that tw04 is wrong. You've just assumed they're wrong, and presented a condescending explanation for why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
And as they said, you're not actually disagreeing with them.
This is bulverism. You haven't presented evidence that tw04 is wrong. You've just assumed they're wrong, and presented a condescending explanation for why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
And as they said, you're not actually disagreeing with them.
So you didn't bother to read my post? Because I never once said it never happens/is universal law. I said it is the majority of the time... you know, exactly what you just said.
You were not very precise with your numbers. You say "99%", "9 out of 10" and "very rare". To a lot of people these mean "negligibly small". With dog training, child rearing and most everything else in life you increase your chances for success by a lot if you follow certain rules. But let's not look down at the people who fail. It may be their fault or it may not be their fault.
How are 99 % or 9/10 not precise numbers?
And "very rare" was a comment on "99 %", not a quantity on its own.
HN is the one place where I expect readers to interpret numbers literally.
And "very rare" was a comment on "99 %", not a quantity on its own.
HN is the one place where I expect readers to interpret numbers literally.
It humbled her because in the past she would have blamed the dog's behavior on the owner and she would have known exactly how to fix it. Now she has a dog that doesn't respond to her methods.
The more likely explanation is that she is not properly applying her own methods, because it's harder to evaluate something that one is personally experiencing, as opposed to something happening to another person. The article even talks about this.
This is not unique to kids and pets. It is why even experienced athletes have coaches, for example.
This is not unique to kids and pets. It is why even experienced athletes have coaches, for example.
"Here [at the Yale Parenting Center], we deal with two kinds of children. One is that they are very aggressive and have serious psychiatric problems. And the other one is that they come in for normal kinds of issues that parents just want some help on."
I don't think these people are just dispensing pop psych advice in magazines or once a week. It's a clinic.
I don't think these people are just dispensing pop psych advice in magazines or once a week. It's a clinic.
emp_zealoth(3)
I think it's a little of both. The thing with kids, and dogs, is that the training has to start from day 1. You let a little bit of laziness in, and they take advantage. It compounds (kind of like eating that extra slice of pizza over a few years).
I have had both kids and dogs, and trained both in pretty much the same way (don't tell their mom).
But again, that is my sample size of me.
I have had both kids and dogs, and trained both in pretty much the same way (don't tell their mom).
But again, that is my sample size of me.
I think some breeds are just kind of fundamentally flawed.
Were chihuahuas bred to be obedient or were they bred to be toys and possibly food?
Were chihuahuas bred to be obedient or were they bred to be toys and possibly food?
I heard they were bred to be alarm dogs. Nothing was getting close to your camp if you had a chihuahua. That's why they never shut up, and they are so difficult to ignore. My friend from Mexico told me that - he's not a dog authority by any means, but it sounded legit to me.
Chihuahua are an old breed and I don't think we know their true history. Old breeds tend to be healthier and more compatible with humans though, as we have worked all the bugs out.
No idea. They are very good lapdogs. Our dog is actually very nice and cute but she just doesn't learn anything. T
I have agree with you half don't, I train Australian Shepherds and I can say without a doubt that positive enforcement works better then positive punishment. I have worked with 2 Chihuahuas in my lifetime, but were little pieces of shit that don't respond to anything either way.
So I guess we should clicker train our black/brown haired fat kids and the blonde skinny ones are screwed.
Seriously though, your post makes me think about how dogs/child teaching is all in what you have and psychologist (maybe news) try to apply one method to all of them. It just doesn't work, some kids need one thing and others need something else. We live in such a crazy complex world.
So I guess we should clicker train our black/brown haired fat kids and the blonde skinny ones are screwed.
Seriously though, your post makes me think about how dogs/child teaching is all in what you have and psychologist (maybe news) try to apply one method to all of them. It just doesn't work, some kids need one thing and others need something else. We live in such a crazy complex world.
Probably bred to be rodent dogs.
I think you're right about adjusting the method according to the child but Kazdin is a director of the Yale Parenting Center, and they seem quite experienced in dealing with "problematic" children. But also, giving an exhaustive method to complex social issues, e.g. parenting, isn't really possible because of all the edge cases you may have, which is why we have "free form" methods like therapy, I guess?
I think the problem is with the entire field of psychology they don't take people's personality into account. And I think it takes lot and lots of practice to even start getting at that because you have one personality as a psychologist and your entire theory of mind is based on your own perceptions of what you would do were you in the other's person's shoes. It takes a lot of experience to get over that level of understand and start to take other people's temperament into account before even thinking about that. Not to mention even our models are not good because we don't really understand ourselves that well.
http://users.rider.edu/~suler/zenstory/fish.html :
One day Chuang Tzu and a friend were walking by a river. "Look at the fish swimming about," said Chuang Tzu, "They are really enjoying themselves."
"You are not a fish," replied the friend, "So you can't truly know that they are enjoying themselves."
"You are not me," said Chuang Tzu. "So how do you know that I do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?"
---
Do you know that they don't because you know the training that psychologists get, or because _you_ don't and you haven't had that training?
Similarly, do you know that the models are bad because you've studied how they don't fit people, or do you think that those models don't fit you?
One day Chuang Tzu and a friend were walking by a river. "Look at the fish swimming about," said Chuang Tzu, "They are really enjoying themselves."
"You are not a fish," replied the friend, "So you can't truly know that they are enjoying themselves."
"You are not me," said Chuang Tzu. "So how do you know that I do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?"
---
Do you know that they don't because you know the training that psychologists get, or because _you_ don't and you haven't had that training?
Similarly, do you know that the models are bad because you've studied how they don't fit people, or do you think that those models don't fit you?
Psychologists do study personality. But despite that I still think as human beings our theories of mind are based on our own understanding of our mind. Those neurons that fire in our brain emulate the behavior in our brain. So the advice that any psychologist gives is based on that. But I am not a fish, so I don't know how it is like to be a fish, a psychologist in this case.
I have just received bad advice before from a psychologist and looking back on it was because they don't know me and could not have known me in the few hours I spent with them. In order to know me they would have to go through a lot of people, and very few people are like me in personality terms. So to know me they would have to go through many many people before they had enough experience with people with my sort of psychology or temperament... to give me any sort of advice that would work with my temperament and actually add value to my life.
I have just received bad advice before from a psychologist and looking back on it was because they don't know me and could not have known me in the few hours I spent with them. In order to know me they would have to go through a lot of people, and very few people are like me in personality terms. So to know me they would have to go through many many people before they had enough experience with people with my sort of psychology or temperament... to give me any sort of advice that would work with my temperament and actually add value to my life.
> I have just received bad advice before from a psychologist
Exactly. It doesn't take much Zen magic to figure out when someone is useless to you. (OK, maybe sometimes it does, but nevertheless it doesn't.)
Plus it's doubly off-putting when they are being useless while feeling good about themselves because they think they are helping. I have a gut feeling that some psychologists are driven by their own insecurity about being useful.
Exactly. It doesn't take much Zen magic to figure out when someone is useless to you. (OK, maybe sometimes it does, but nevertheless it doesn't.)
Plus it's doubly off-putting when they are being useless while feeling good about themselves because they think they are helping. I have a gut feeling that some psychologists are driven by their own insecurity about being useful.
[deleted]
One of the biggest causes of poor dog behaviour is failure by the breeder to properly socialize the puppy. Puppies should be handled frequently, starting from newborn and preferably by as many people as possible. This imprints the dog with the concept that human=boss,parent,good person.
> Maybe they are written by non-parents or their children are much easier
To be frank, the article tips are pretty sound and well-accepted, including from specialists who deal with much more difficult children then you and me on a daily basis.
First point, there's a tendency to see one's kids as special, be it especially gifted, or difficult, or an astonishing critical thinker for their age. It's quite understandable, since we have an infinitely deeper relationship with them than with any other kid. Secondly, it's much more difficult to deal with relationship issues when you are involved in them; that explains why you can often clearly see what's wrong in others' relationships (parent/kids or S.O.), but yours always seem more complicated by several order of magnitude. And thirdly, we can also find it quite irritating to be given some basic tips when we are experiencing hell and we feel like we are so past that kind of "pop psych". It's like, "Do you think we've not tried that already?".
Of course, a few tips are no magic bullet (sorry for the cliché), and sometimes the problems are just too serious, but on the whole they just deliver, to the surprise of many parents when they see it used successfully by specialists. I'm not one of them but I know a few, and I personnally use the "give them a choice" tip and if done correctly, I have found it to work very, very well--for parenting and in life in general.
To be frank, the article tips are pretty sound and well-accepted, including from specialists who deal with much more difficult children then you and me on a daily basis.
First point, there's a tendency to see one's kids as special, be it especially gifted, or difficult, or an astonishing critical thinker for their age. It's quite understandable, since we have an infinitely deeper relationship with them than with any other kid. Secondly, it's much more difficult to deal with relationship issues when you are involved in them; that explains why you can often clearly see what's wrong in others' relationships (parent/kids or S.O.), but yours always seem more complicated by several order of magnitude. And thirdly, we can also find it quite irritating to be given some basic tips when we are experiencing hell and we feel like we are so past that kind of "pop psych". It's like, "Do you think we've not tried that already?".
Of course, a few tips are no magic bullet (sorry for the cliché), and sometimes the problems are just too serious, but on the whole they just deliver, to the surprise of many parents when they see it used successfully by specialists. I'm not one of them but I know a few, and I personnally use the "give them a choice" tip and if done correctly, I have found it to work very, very well--for parenting and in life in general.
Please humor me, and an honest question. And please be honest. Do you have kids? How many?
I have three boys, ages 10m, 2.5y, and 4.5y. I can confirm that in my case (at least for the two older boys), pretty much all the advice in the article is correct. As I read, I realized that I have been occasioning upon the recommended parenting strategies almost by happenstance.
It's neat to see those specific strategies called out though - I can immediately think back to times when I tried that and realize, "ohhh, so that's why it worked so well." Should help me focus more on those strategies.
It's neat to see those specific strategies called out though - I can immediately think back to times when I tried that and realize, "ohhh, so that's why it worked so well." Should help me focus more on those strategies.
I have three girls. I swear to God, the first two were fairly difficult with getting them to eat healthy, each in their own way - but hey, we are smart & informed, we handled them!
The third one broke us. We got to the point where both me & my wife were begging her, "come on, eat this, it has lots of chocolate!"
All these kind of advice works... until it doesn't. Yes, many parents don't know how to handle their kids. It's also often genuinely hard - I learned to not judge people for "not doing the right thing", without knowing the full story.
The third one broke us. We got to the point where both me & my wife were begging her, "come on, eat this, it has lots of chocolate!"
All these kind of advice works... until it doesn't. Yes, many parents don't know how to handle their kids. It's also often genuinely hard - I learned to not judge people for "not doing the right thing", without knowing the full story.
One kid, seven. Got three brothers (the eldest got four kids). Most of my friends got kids too, some of them "difficult". For what it's worth, I was a pretty difficult child too.
my dad has lots of advice for me and my wife about the correct parenting of our kids (his grandkids). he usually gives it to us over the hour dinner we eat with him once a week.
Sound and well-accepted are very different things - in the area of parenting, appealing to the authority of experts is really asking to be wrong. That said, I do have a bunch of kids, and in my personal limited experience, the particular advice in the article is sound, as far as it goes. If you have enough energy, there's almost always a way to defuse the situation. Real parents with a few kids and too little sleep do not always have enough energy or time to defuse the situation. Given what I see nursery school teachers do every day, I'd be pretty surprised if the experts can't get good results in a clinic, but that doesn't necessarily carry over to home.
There was a TV programme in the UK called The 3 Day Nanny, about a super nanny who would come in and sort out problem children and parents in 3 days. It ran for a few seasons.
Fast forward till she had her own child, and I saw an interview with her. She was completely shattered. Like a wreck. She had her own difficult child, and coupled with little available help from others, she couldn't cope. She looked and sounded defeated and expressed that she felt guilty that, of all people, she was not coping.
There is a reason some parents "get it right" and, I'm sorry to say, but thats just as likely down to the kid.
Fast forward till she had her own child, and I saw an interview with her. She was completely shattered. Like a wreck. She had her own difficult child, and coupled with little available help from others, she couldn't cope. She looked and sounded defeated and expressed that she felt guilty that, of all people, she was not coping.
There is a reason some parents "get it right" and, I'm sorry to say, but thats just as likely down to the kid.
I wonder if this has anything to do with kids learning how to work around their own parents' parenting style. They'll have had years to learn how to disobey their own parents by the time this woman comes into the picture. If her style is different enough, the kids won't know how not to behave.
Then when she has a kid, her kid learns exactly the mental tricks needed to be able to disobey her, by virtue of spending 24×7 with her.
Nature equips kids with instincts, one of which is to be selfish, the others of which can be exploited by parents to override that instinct. But nature also equips kids with a brain, and it is only natural that selfishness uses the brain to learn how not to be manipulated by those other instincts. But that takes time; hence the above results.
Then when she has a kid, her kid learns exactly the mental tricks needed to be able to disobey her, by virtue of spending 24×7 with her.
Nature equips kids with instincts, one of which is to be selfish, the others of which can be exploited by parents to override that instinct. But nature also equips kids with a brain, and it is only natural that selfishness uses the brain to learn how not to be manipulated by those other instincts. But that takes time; hence the above results.
I firmly believe in nuture over nature, but...
Some kids have physical issues like bags of energy or stomach/sleep issues and some parents equally have physical or mental problems dealing with that. And everything goes out the window when you've had a month or four with no sleep. I think a lot of people discount that side of things - it's like in the fight world: everyone has a game plan until they get punched in the face.
Some kids have physical issues like bags of energy or stomach/sleep issues and some parents equally have physical or mental problems dealing with that. And everything goes out the window when you've had a month or four with no sleep. I think a lot of people discount that side of things - it's like in the fight world: everyone has a game plan until they get punched in the face.
I think it's also different for her because it's different when it's not your kid. Enforcing rules and boundaries is really easy on Monday when you're not going to be there on Thursday.
It's also easier to enforce rules on kids that you don't have a deep, visceral attachment to.
Exactly this. People compare stories about what they did and try to figure out what was right or wrong, but in the end, so often it's just a matter of what the kid in question is like.
Something very similar happens in business, IMO. Managers talk about different styles or techniques but in the end, the success of their team is as much about the team members' skills and dynamics as it is about the manager.
Something very similar happens in business, IMO. Managers talk about different styles or techniques but in the end, the success of their team is as much about the team members' skills and dynamics as it is about the manager.
I looked this up because the only nanny show I know of in the UK was SuperNanny with Jo whats-her-name[1], and I didn't think this was her. It's not:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/family/kathryn-mewes-the-su...
Totally unaware of this woman, and her show.
--
[1] Edit: It's Jo Frost.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/family/kathryn-mewes-the-su...
Totally unaware of this woman, and her show.
--
[1] Edit: It's Jo Frost.
The best show was "House of Tiny Tearaways", with Dr Tanya Byron. (She's a paediatric psychologist.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_of_Tiny_Tearaways
Is there a link for this? I would love to satiate my need for schadenfreude.
See my link posted to the parent [post].
Alternative interpretation:
All parents become a wreck with kids, and having a nanny come to help you focus on alternative parenting strategies is helpful.
Once you're down in the trenches, it's sometimes hard to rise above the tantrums and emotions and calmly reason about the latest psychological parenting research methods instead of just screaming, "GO TO YOUR ROOM!"
All parents become a wreck with kids, and having a nanny come to help you focus on alternative parenting strategies is helpful.
Once you're down in the trenches, it's sometimes hard to rise above the tantrums and emotions and calmly reason about the latest psychological parenting research methods instead of just screaming, "GO TO YOUR ROOM!"
[deleted]
For some reason kids tend to listen to other adults more then their parents.
There are 3 additional ideas that are important, but I didn't see you mention in your comment.
1) You praise the heck out of the child when they do accept the choice. This is hard because you have to remember to notice NON-drama, which is typically not noteworthy to people. You over-remember when things went bad and under-remember when things went fine. I do too--everyone does. (Politicians exploit the heck out of this BTW.)
2) You don't defer your whole life to arguing with the child. If it's time to go, you go, sweater or not. The key thing is that it's not punishment. It's just Life... or The Schedule. Don't act mad, just calmly firm. If the kid won't wear a sweater, they get cold. Bring the one you prefer as a backup if you want.
3) (Hardest) You model the behavior you want. Play a pick a sweater game when it's NOT time to go and there is no pressure. If they do it right or sort of right, praise the part they did right and do it again.
None of this is easy. FWIW I have a young kid and would grade myself at around 50% or less on these. But it's a model to work toward.
1) You praise the heck out of the child when they do accept the choice. This is hard because you have to remember to notice NON-drama, which is typically not noteworthy to people. You over-remember when things went bad and under-remember when things went fine. I do too--everyone does. (Politicians exploit the heck out of this BTW.)
2) You don't defer your whole life to arguing with the child. If it's time to go, you go, sweater or not. The key thing is that it's not punishment. It's just Life... or The Schedule. Don't act mad, just calmly firm. If the kid won't wear a sweater, they get cold. Bring the one you prefer as a backup if you want.
3) (Hardest) You model the behavior you want. Play a pick a sweater game when it's NOT time to go and there is no pressure. If they do it right or sort of right, praise the part they did right and do it again.
None of this is easy. FWIW I have a young kid and would grade myself at around 50% or less on these. But it's a model to work toward.
Re #3: i think it's a very astute observation that parenting should be much more proactive than reactive. If you play the long game and model your kids' behavior in situations when they aren't struggling or you're having a fight, you both seem to learn much easier.
Heck, I would say that parenting ultimately starts when we're kids ourselves with the values and experiences we are taught. For instance, most of us don't care for kids until we're in our 30s, which makes parenting that much harder. Imagine how different it must have been historically when older kids care for the younger ones, giving everyone involved experience with parenting. On a personal level I'm fortunate to have three great nieces in various ages and try to learn what I can from them and of course parent them in myriads tiny ways (it's impossible to avoid, I've realized. You either make conscience efforts or not but you can't avoid parenting if you interact with kids).
Heck, I would say that parenting ultimately starts when we're kids ourselves with the values and experiences we are taught. For instance, most of us don't care for kids until we're in our 30s, which makes parenting that much harder. Imagine how different it must have been historically when older kids care for the younger ones, giving everyone involved experience with parenting. On a personal level I'm fortunate to have three great nieces in various ages and try to learn what I can from them and of course parent them in myriads tiny ways (it's impossible to avoid, I've realized. You either make conscience efforts or not but you can't avoid parenting if you interact with kids).
> For me personally, having kids has resolved the nature vs nurture debate squarely in the "nature" side.
Amen to that. I have 3 boys. We put in the same ingredients and got wildly different results with all three. I'm convinced that parenting is more about working with what comes factory installed than it is about moulding some ideal human from a formless block of potential.
Incentives and punishments that work with one don't work with the others; we have to really become students of our children to understand what they do and don't respond to, and to parent them accordingly. If my sample size of 3 is any indication, trying to fit children through a one-size-fits-all mold is going to fail miserably.
Amen to that. I have 3 boys. We put in the same ingredients and got wildly different results with all three. I'm convinced that parenting is more about working with what comes factory installed than it is about moulding some ideal human from a formless block of potential.
Incentives and punishments that work with one don't work with the others; we have to really become students of our children to understand what they do and don't respond to, and to parent them accordingly. If my sample size of 3 is any indication, trying to fit children through a one-size-fits-all mold is going to fail miserably.
I have 5 kids and I can also attest to this. Each one is different. In our case, the children are in two personality groups: the 1st and 3rd child have a similar personality type, and the 2nd and 4th have a similar personality type that vastly differs from the first type (the 5th is too young to really be expressive right now). Each child is unique in their own way, and they all respond to different risk-reward profiles.
Before I had kids, my grandmother, who had 11, tried to tell me that you just couldn't do much about your kids's personalities. I was naive and didn't believe her until I had 2 and saw the difference first hand.
I am NOT trying to downplay the importance of nurture, but parents have a larger challenge than many non-parents or single-parents expect. It's not just about formulating a good environment (in fact, formulating an environment that is too easy is probably a substantial developmental detriment). Your kids come out the way they are, and you have to really understand their personalities and challenges and then teach them ways to cope with the world while accepting that you can't change their core internal traits. It's an intellectually and emotionally intense labor of love that lasts for decades, and it shapes both parent and child.
Before I had kids, my grandmother, who had 11, tried to tell me that you just couldn't do much about your kids's personalities. I was naive and didn't believe her until I had 2 and saw the difference first hand.
I am NOT trying to downplay the importance of nurture, but parents have a larger challenge than many non-parents or single-parents expect. It's not just about formulating a good environment (in fact, formulating an environment that is too easy is probably a substantial developmental detriment). Your kids come out the way they are, and you have to really understand their personalities and challenges and then teach them ways to cope with the world while accepting that you can't change their core internal traits. It's an intellectually and emotionally intense labor of love that lasts for decades, and it shapes both parent and child.
I have four daughters. Can confirm.
Well, there's also the fact that unless you are homeschooling and preventing your children from experiencing human and media contact, your nurture input is only part of a whole. I learned a lot of what I did and did not want to be like from my parents growing up, but I also learned a lot from my siblings[1] and my friends, and my school experiences.
That is, you may provide the same ingredients, but ultimately the kid's the baker, and you're not even really in the kitchen to see what goes on. Who knows what makes it into the final product?
1: Aside from the normal older brother semi-worship for a while, I also witnessed what sounded like him coughing up a lung every morning for a winter or two with chronic bronchitis from smoking. Peer pressure to smoke (and there was quite a bit, most my friends did) isn't quite the hurdle you might think it to be when you have that in mind.
That is, you may provide the same ingredients, but ultimately the kid's the baker, and you're not even really in the kitchen to see what goes on. Who knows what makes it into the final product?
1: Aside from the normal older brother semi-worship for a while, I also witnessed what sounded like him coughing up a lung every morning for a winter or two with chronic bronchitis from smoking. Peer pressure to smoke (and there was quite a bit, most my friends did) isn't quite the hurdle you might think it to be when you have that in mind.
Except the differences start showing up long before school age.
And upfront, they were all treated differently. Not by fault, mind you, but just by happenstance. You probably didn't fawn so much over the second, and even less on the third. Not because they are less special, but more because you had a sense of what you are doing. You came into the second and third child with a battery of things to try because you tried some on your first child.
You are probably less strict with the youngest child and worry a bit more over the oldest.
Plus you and your spouse (or whoever) have aged and matured with time, so each child gets to know a slightly different version of you, your spouse, your parents and family. The more spaced out your children are, the more this will become so.
You are probably less strict with the youngest child and worry a bit more over the oldest.
Plus you and your spouse (or whoever) have aged and matured with time, so each child gets to know a slightly different version of you, your spouse, your parents and family. The more spaced out your children are, the more this will become so.
Well sure. Notice I said homeschooling and preventing most contact (which actually makes homeschooling redundant).
Kids likely won't turn out the same even with the exact same environmental inputs, but I'm just pointing out that we often vastly over estimate our ability to control those environmental inputs in the first place, so the point is somewhat moot.
Kids likely won't turn out the same even with the exact same environmental inputs, but I'm just pointing out that we often vastly over estimate our ability to control those environmental inputs in the first place, so the point is somewhat moot.
[deleted]
Although to be fair, having older or younger siblings probably changes your boys a lot too.
haha exactly. I love when really smart people write articles about dealing with children and then you discover they are non-parents themselves. Or, they are work-a-aholics and never interact with their own kids 24/7 like full time parents do.
Or they are parents, but they're not me.
I've got two kids, both teenagers now. In my view it's not just that kids are different, but that parents are different too. My impression is that most parenting advice assumes that the parents themselves have unlimited self discipline, organization, and emotional stamina.
I've got two kids, both teenagers now. In my view it's not just that kids are different, but that parents are different too. My impression is that most parenting advice assumes that the parents themselves have unlimited self discipline, organization, and emotional stamina.
and unlimited time. So much advice of the form: "Really sit down with the child during a tantrum. Listen to their concerns, and make sure they feel heard. Only then engage with them in problem solving.". Uh. Sure. I'll just do that. I mean, dinner is going to burn, we'll be late for swimming, and I was on my way to wipe my other child's butt before helping my _other_ other child with their homework.
I can only assume that the people constructing the advice have a nanny and/or a housekeeper.
I can only assume that the people constructing the advice have a nanny and/or a housekeeper.
I don't have a nanny or a housekeeper. My solution to that have been: Sometimes let dinner get ruined, and include a discussion of consequences. Sometimes allow yourself to be late, and do the same. Sometimes tell them they have to wait and ignore them - yes I know its hard - while helping your other kids.
A ruined dinner or getting late to swimming are one time events. Teaching your kids that tantrums will "work" in all the wrong ways will affect your life for a long time.
A ruined dinner or getting late to swimming are one time events. Teaching your kids that tantrums will "work" in all the wrong ways will affect your life for a long time.
As much as I hate parenting advice, this. Trying to hold everything together and simultaneously shape the habits of humans with free will and their own ideas without resorting to violence doth a crazy person make.
So sometimes we eat burned dinner cuz someone was acting like an asshole. Sometimes play dates "fall through" because someone thought they'd obligate a parent to do something they hadn't even discussed. Good God nothing teaches like bad experiences, and my wife and I can maintain some shred of sanity. Actually that's not fair, our children are a joy ( and exhausting).
It's one thing for your teenager to sob because she didn't have any spending money for the surprise trip somewhere with great shopping because she blew all her money instead of saving it for a great opportunity. It's a completely other thing to have to learn that lesson as an adult.
So sometimes we eat burned dinner cuz someone was acting like an asshole. Sometimes play dates "fall through" because someone thought they'd obligate a parent to do something they hadn't even discussed. Good God nothing teaches like bad experiences, and my wife and I can maintain some shred of sanity. Actually that's not fair, our children are a joy ( and exhausting).
It's one thing for your teenager to sob because she didn't have any spending money for the surprise trip somewhere with great shopping because she blew all her money instead of saving it for a great opportunity. It's a completely other thing to have to learn that lesson as an adult.
Yeah - this is often a problem for me. You've got a boundary of getting to work on time. Which means getting kiddo to school on time. You child doesn't want to eat breakfast, but you know that your child will be more difficult for the teacher at school if they haven't eaten. So the simple "just take them without food, 'they won't starve'" doesn't work because you know this is likely to cause problems in the day. You want the best solution. So all the child has to delay and play and it's fun for them to do this. Repeat this process every day for 18 years.
We have both a nanny and housekeeper (not live-in, part-time), and I would never think to construct this ludicrous advice.
It's hard enough even with that help. Kids have their own minds and personalities and methods of coping with a vast world they just don't understand and can be overwhelming. One-size-fits-all suggestions such as "never punish" just trivialize how complicated little human beings really are.
It's hard enough even with that help. Kids have their own minds and personalities and methods of coping with a vast world they just don't understand and can be overwhelming. One-size-fits-all suggestions such as "never punish" just trivialize how complicated little human beings really are.
I became a better manager after having kids. Not because I'm managing people like they're kids, but just because of dealing with those kinds of impossibly, comically insane situations.
Children are great instructors on what's going through everyone else's head. I really don't think people's natural impulses ever stop being childlike, they just learn how to control, cope with, or hide them (to an extent anyway).
That makes children hugely instructive for how to deal with your colleagues. Understand that underneath the facade, everyone has that native wiring that kids lay bear. What kind of things do children respond well to? What do they pull away from? How do you bring the child back to your good side when they're upset?
While the incentives may become more complex with adults, the fundamentals and principles are the same, and children are a powerful lens into the human psyche.
That makes children hugely instructive for how to deal with your colleagues. Understand that underneath the facade, everyone has that native wiring that kids lay bear. What kind of things do children respond well to? What do they pull away from? How do you bring the child back to your good side when they're upset?
While the incentives may become more complex with adults, the fundamentals and principles are the same, and children are a powerful lens into the human psyche.
I get the impression most of the people on this site are workaholics.
Turns out most of our concept of being "busy" or "a workaholic" is an illusion. If you sit down and track how you use your time, you'll probably find you don't work anywhere near as much as you think and you use a lot of spare time very inefficiently.
I have an infant. I spend a lot of time with him. During the week I probably take care of him more than my wife does, because she goes to work very early. I also work in a VR startup, scrambling to get projects done. Somehow, I still find time to cook dinner with my wife, watch the latest episode of whatever one TV show we are following, get a few house chores done, and waste time on HN and Twitter. The only times it feels like I'm too busy to get everything done is when I'm wasting too much time on HN and Twitter.
I have an infant. I spend a lot of time with him. During the week I probably take care of him more than my wife does, because she goes to work very early. I also work in a VR startup, scrambling to get projects done. Somehow, I still find time to cook dinner with my wife, watch the latest episode of whatever one TV show we are following, get a few house chores done, and waste time on HN and Twitter. The only times it feels like I'm too busy to get everything done is when I'm wasting too much time on HN and Twitter.
It sounds like you are, in fact, not very busy (except with family stuff). Which is a good thing!
I'm the engineering lead for all of our VR projects (both software and hardware), I organize two different meetups, one bi-weekly, the other monthly.
What I don't do is I don't watch very much television and I don't hang out in bars anymore. I'm married so I don't have to chase girls. I don't play video games anymore (hell, I don't even like non-VR games anymore, but we don't have room in our apartment for a Vive, which is the only VR system I would bother with for personal use). I don't go to the gym every day (only days I take the baby to swim class). I don't have any illusions that I'll be a rock-star, so I'm not in any bands.
Every person I know who thinks they are busy are actually just split and confused on their purpose in life. I have a friend who has a boat and a giant home theater system and he has to stay at work for so much overtime to cover the cost of it all he never gets to enjoy either. If he'd admit that he liked watching TV more than he liked fishing, or vice versa, he'd be a lot happier and actually do more. But he doesn't actually do anything extra in that time at work, because overtime is a fallacy and actually anti-productive. So he'd even be getting more done at work if he wasn't... at work all the time!
When you want to do a certain something, you necessarily have to choose to give up doing other things. I want to build a company and a happy family.
You are right, I'm "not very busy". Because being busy is an illusion. It doesn't matter to how much you get done if your TODO list is 10 items long or 100 items long if you can only get through 9 items in a week (and you will definitely find enough items to replace those 9 in that week). Those 90 extra items don't get done whether or not they are on your list. But if they are on your list, you convince yourself you're "busy". If anything, the anxiety of not being able to make even a 10% dent in a gigantic pile of tasks might even hurt your productivity.
What I don't do is I don't watch very much television and I don't hang out in bars anymore. I'm married so I don't have to chase girls. I don't play video games anymore (hell, I don't even like non-VR games anymore, but we don't have room in our apartment for a Vive, which is the only VR system I would bother with for personal use). I don't go to the gym every day (only days I take the baby to swim class). I don't have any illusions that I'll be a rock-star, so I'm not in any bands.
Every person I know who thinks they are busy are actually just split and confused on their purpose in life. I have a friend who has a boat and a giant home theater system and he has to stay at work for so much overtime to cover the cost of it all he never gets to enjoy either. If he'd admit that he liked watching TV more than he liked fishing, or vice versa, he'd be a lot happier and actually do more. But he doesn't actually do anything extra in that time at work, because overtime is a fallacy and actually anti-productive. So he'd even be getting more done at work if he wasn't... at work all the time!
When you want to do a certain something, you necessarily have to choose to give up doing other things. I want to build a company and a happy family.
You are right, I'm "not very busy". Because being busy is an illusion. It doesn't matter to how much you get done if your TODO list is 10 items long or 100 items long if you can only get through 9 items in a week (and you will definitely find enough items to replace those 9 in that week). Those 90 extra items don't get done whether or not they are on your list. But if they are on your list, you convince yourself you're "busy". If anything, the anxiety of not being able to make even a 10% dent in a gigantic pile of tasks might even hurt your productivity.
Henry Thoreau talked about this in Walden [1]. He built and lived in a hut by Walden lake for 2 years around 1900. There was a Irish family or such like that lived near by. The man he spoke to served him coffee, a luxury of the day, but had to work all hours to afford it. Walden had none of the luxuries but lived a more stress free life.
[1]: https://www.walden.org/Thoreau/Well, his mother and his sister supported him quite a bit.
sure, musk has 5 kids! how much time does he get with them vs. work I wonder.
When you have that kind of money you have 10 babysitters, nannies, assistants, cooks, cleaners, drivers etc. And you can get a day off almost whenever you want too.
I love it when they show on TV how brave some superstar is who manages to raise children while having a busy career. They never show the nannies, cooks and cleaning personnel.
Then we try to sell that story to single moms with low-paying jobs, and tell them to suck it up when they're breaking down due to the stress and unattainability of it.
And or get yelled at if you suggest that intentionally walking into single parenthood without excellent circumstances is not a great idea.
how about when said brave superstar LEANS IN and delivers a lecture to the planet via book (sheryl sandberg)?
Kids don't want babysitters, nannies, daycares,money, toys, rewards. They just want time with their parents. The more time you can spend with your child, the better. Hard to do in this day and age.
Yeah, but rich people can (have the option, not that they necessarily do it) have both ( babysitters, nannies, daycares, money, toys, rewards AND time with their children).
For many poor working people time with their children is a luxury -- but they can't even give them all the other stuff, sometimes not even decent food and shelter, much less an education.
For many poor working people time with their children is a luxury -- but they can't even give them all the other stuff, sometimes not even decent food and shelter, much less an education.
yeah right. I'm sure musk thinks, hmmm today instead of working all day on a fun project I think I'll parent! You can't have it both ways. I'm sure musk sacrificed father/kid relationships for work success in a major way. It's not possible to have it all.
>yeah right. I'm sure musk thinks, hmmm today instead of working all day on a fun project I think I'll parent!
Many rich people do that all the time. If he doesn't think his kids is a "fun project" too, then that's his choice, not something born out of necessity.
>You can't have it both ways.
You can, if you have "fuck you money", which Musk has 10000 times over.
It's the poor people who work 2 shifts and barely have the money to provide for their family that can't have both time and money at the same time.
>I'm sure musk sacrificed father/kid relationships for work success in a major way. It's not possible to have it all.
First of all, nobody mandates that you SHOULD have it all. You can make your own balance and opt to sacrifice maximum work success. Musk is not a slave. If he is a "slave to work success" that's his personal choice.
There are rich people that have excellent in-person, relationships with their kids, and can shun work and meetings for their personal time, whether with kids, spouse, other interests, etc. Gates, for one, stepped down as CEO at 45 and went part-time with MS stuff at 50.
Many rich people do that all the time. If he doesn't think his kids is a "fun project" too, then that's his choice, not something born out of necessity.
>You can't have it both ways.
You can, if you have "fuck you money", which Musk has 10000 times over.
It's the poor people who work 2 shifts and barely have the money to provide for their family that can't have both time and money at the same time.
>I'm sure musk sacrificed father/kid relationships for work success in a major way. It's not possible to have it all.
First of all, nobody mandates that you SHOULD have it all. You can make your own balance and opt to sacrifice maximum work success. Musk is not a slave. If he is a "slave to work success" that's his personal choice.
There are rich people that have excellent in-person, relationships with their kids, and can shun work and meetings for their personal time, whether with kids, spouse, other interests, etc. Gates, for one, stepped down as CEO at 45 and went part-time with MS stuff at 50.
> You can, if you have "fuck you money", which Musk has 10000 times over.
You can have "fuck you money", but you can't have "fuck you time". Sure, the capitalist HN crowd will argue that money can buy you time (e.g. by having people do your chores for you, etc) but ultimately there is a finite amount of bedtime moments, meals, Sunday mornings, etc in your kid's lives. Try as you might, fuck you money won't change that.
You can have "fuck you money", but you can't have "fuck you time". Sure, the capitalist HN crowd will argue that money can buy you time (e.g. by having people do your chores for you, etc) but ultimately there is a finite amount of bedtime moments, meals, Sunday mornings, etc in your kid's lives. Try as you might, fuck you money won't change that.
>but ultimately there is a finite amount of bedtime moments, meals, Sunday mornings, etc in your kid's lives. Try as you might, fuck you money won't change that.
I think you've misunderstood the concept of fuck you money, at least as it relates to time.
They don't buy you more time -- they buy you the luxury to be you that decides what you do with your finite time. And bonding with your children is entirely up to you (or Musk's in this example) decision if you have those.
Besides, nobody argued that there's not a "finite amount of bedtime moments, meals, Sunday mornings, etc in your kid's life" -- just that when you are rich it's upon you (and not, e.g. your boss or financial necessities, or drudgery work like cooking, and cleaning and such) to spend more of your time with your kid during those moments.
I think you've misunderstood the concept of fuck you money, at least as it relates to time.
They don't buy you more time -- they buy you the luxury to be you that decides what you do with your finite time. And bonding with your children is entirely up to you (or Musk's in this example) decision if you have those.
Besides, nobody argued that there's not a "finite amount of bedtime moments, meals, Sunday mornings, etc in your kid's life" -- just that when you are rich it's upon you (and not, e.g. your boss or financial necessities, or drudgery work like cooking, and cleaning and such) to spend more of your time with your kid during those moments.
> money buys you the luxury to be you that decides what you do with your finite time
This is an illusion. Ultimately, you have to choose what is a priority in your life. There will be moments, many of them, where you have to choose between a board meeting or making it to bedtime, or taking a business trip across the world or a weekend spent hiking with your kids.
If you choose too many of the latter, at some point your board will get sick of you, your executives will stop trusting you, etc.
If you're prioritizing the things that let you be the CEO of a company, you're necessarily deprioritizing the things that let you spend the most time with your kids.
The problem with "fuck you money" is that it also easily lets you fuck yourself.
This is an illusion. Ultimately, you have to choose what is a priority in your life. There will be moments, many of them, where you have to choose between a board meeting or making it to bedtime, or taking a business trip across the world or a weekend spent hiking with your kids.
If you choose too many of the latter, at some point your board will get sick of you, your executives will stop trusting you, etc.
If you're prioritizing the things that let you be the CEO of a company, you're necessarily deprioritizing the things that let you spend the most time with your kids.
The problem with "fuck you money" is that it also easily lets you fuck yourself.
The point of having "fuck you money" is that you have money enough that if your kids are more important to you than your company, you can tell your board to fuck off and hire someone else to run the company.
You don't have "fuck you money" if you are still dependent on being CEO to maintain the lifestyle you want. You have fuck you money when whether or not you work is down to what you want rather than what you need.
You don't have "fuck you money" if you are still dependent on being CEO to maintain the lifestyle you want. You have fuck you money when whether or not you work is down to what you want rather than what you need.
>>money buys you the luxury to be you that decides what you do with your finite time
>This is an illusion. Ultimately, you have to choose what is a priority in your life.
Notice how you just confirm the same thing I said. So, hardly an illusion.
"Ultimately, you have to choose what is a priority in your life" == "it's you that decides what you do with your finite time"
>There will be moments, many of them, where you have to choose between a board meeting or making it to bedtime, or taking a business trip across the world or a weekend spent hiking with your kids.
That's exactly what I said. Musk gets to chose.
>If you choose too many of the latter, at some point your board will get sick of you, your executives will stop trusting you, etc.
So, at worse you'll be off the board, and still left with b/millions in the bank. And only if you do it all the time.
Still, not the same kind of problem as not being able to spend time with your kids because you work all the time or you'll fall behind on rent and be homeless, etc...
>If you're prioritizing the things that let you be the CEO of a company, you're necessarily deprioritizing the things that let you spend the most time with your kids.
The whole point is that you don't HAVE to "prioritize the things that let you be the CEO of a company".
And you'll still be rich, with a home, with money to educate and feed your children etc if you DON'T.
Notice how you just confirm the same thing I said. So, hardly an illusion.
"Ultimately, you have to choose what is a priority in your life" == "it's you that decides what you do with your finite time"
>There will be moments, many of them, where you have to choose between a board meeting or making it to bedtime, or taking a business trip across the world or a weekend spent hiking with your kids.
That's exactly what I said. Musk gets to chose.
>If you choose too many of the latter, at some point your board will get sick of you, your executives will stop trusting you, etc.
So, at worse you'll be off the board, and still left with b/millions in the bank. And only if you do it all the time.
Still, not the same kind of problem as not being able to spend time with your kids because you work all the time or you'll fall behind on rent and be homeless, etc...
>If you're prioritizing the things that let you be the CEO of a company, you're necessarily deprioritizing the things that let you spend the most time with your kids.
The whole point is that you don't HAVE to "prioritize the things that let you be the CEO of a company".
And you'll still be rich, with a home, with money to educate and feed your children etc if you DON'T.
My kid has rejected false choices from almost as soon as we began offering it to her. Would you like the toy or the book for the car? (Screaming) I don't want car, I want home and show! Makes me giggle how often it fails with her.
That said, I've noticed well set patterns work very well with her even if she doesn't like certain aspects of them. She even gets cranky when I forget to do a certain part of the pattern even if she hates what the event is. (Daddy you didn't close the gate!)
Every kid is different, totally agree.
That said, I've noticed well set patterns work very well with her even if she doesn't like certain aspects of them. She even gets cranky when I forget to do a certain part of the pattern even if she hates what the event is. (Daddy you didn't close the gate!)
Every kid is different, totally agree.
This is not a real choice but a simple manipulation aiming to provide the illusion of choice.
The purpose of parenting is not to control the children but to support them in learning themselves and the world.
Human beings are intelligent and wired for success. It doesn't take long before we start realizing the difference between choices that don't matter to us and ones that do.
If you're looking for parenting practices that support self knowledge in a collaborative and respectful environment, I recommend "Raising Our chikdren, Raising Ourselves" by Naomi Alford.
Offering fake choices does not respect the intelligence nor dignity of human beings.
And, we need to acknowledge that manipulation is probably a better approach than psychological abuse (time outs) and threats to a child's physical safety (spanking).
The purpose of parenting is not to control the children but to support them in learning themselves and the world.
Human beings are intelligent and wired for success. It doesn't take long before we start realizing the difference between choices that don't matter to us and ones that do.
If you're looking for parenting practices that support self knowledge in a collaborative and respectful environment, I recommend "Raising Our chikdren, Raising Ourselves" by Naomi Alford.
Offering fake choices does not respect the intelligence nor dignity of human beings.
And, we need to acknowledge that manipulation is probably a better approach than psychological abuse (time outs) and threats to a child's physical safety (spanking).
Yes. Natural consequences and contrived consequences are two very different things.
Exactly. A good example of natural consequences:
You forgot your jacket. It rains. You get wet.
A good example of manipulation/constructed "consequences":
You didn't write your homework. You don't get to play video games.
And, by the way, if you want your kid to hate a specific video game, turn it into (home)work. This is the approach schools take to killing our children's creativity and natural curiosity.
You forgot your jacket. It rains. You get wet.
A good example of manipulation/constructed "consequences":
You didn't write your homework. You don't get to play video games.
And, by the way, if you want your kid to hate a specific video game, turn it into (home)work. This is the approach schools take to killing our children's creativity and natural curiosity.
Any question ending with '..., okay' is asking for permission.
I (as a parent of 2 very easy kids) always avoid those type of permission-asking questions when presenting choice. Instead I offer, not ask: "You can wear the green or the red. What do you choose?"
I (as a parent of 2 very easy kids) always avoid those type of permission-asking questions when presenting choice. Instead I offer, not ask: "You can wear the green or the red. What do you choose?"
Choice among humans increases the likelihood of compliance. And choice isn't important, it's the appearance of choice that's important.
This sounds astoundingly similar to what software developers are doing when they remove features and customisability and then retort "but you can still choose between X and Y"l nevermind the fact that X and Y are still a horrible substitute for the A-to-Z that they replaced --- and more unsettlingly, it seems like it does work on much of the user population.
This sounds astoundingly similar to what software developers are doing when they remove features and customisability and then retort "but you can still choose between X and Y"l nevermind the fact that X and Y are still a horrible substitute for the A-to-Z that they replaced --- and more unsettlingly, it seems like it does work on much of the user population.
The best advice I've seen is to give them limited responsibility, and then let them deal with the limited consequences. Your job as a parent is to short term care for your children, but long term make them independent and functional in society.
If you never let them wear their shorts and tshirt in the snow when they really want to, they will never respect the cold or your advice.
If you never let them wear their shorts and tshirt in the snow when they really want to, they will never respect the cold or your advice.
> My 4 year will always ask for a 3rd option that isn't there, or just reject the framing entirely.
Because children of that age (and younger) have two traits that will always trump logic:
1. Defiance (better described as a need to understand independence)
and
2. A lack of long-term thinking
When a child - who wishes to experience control - wants a cookie, a choice between a banana and an apple is untenable.
Be wary of interpretations that give you broad-reaching advice on how to essentially manipulate children. This - child psychology and help - is a huge industry; interpreting studies to fit a narrative is simple and rarely meets argument.
Because children of that age (and younger) have two traits that will always trump logic:
1. Defiance (better described as a need to understand independence)
and
2. A lack of long-term thinking
When a child - who wishes to experience control - wants a cookie, a choice between a banana and an apple is untenable.
Be wary of interpretations that give you broad-reaching advice on how to essentially manipulate children. This - child psychology and help - is a huge industry; interpreting studies to fit a narrative is simple and rarely meets argument.
What's more likely--that you understand children better than people who spend their entire lives working on that, or that you have misunderstood the advice the article gave?
The point of the article is not that offering a binary choice is a panacea. The point is that you have to model the behavior you want, and reinforce it with praise. Just saying "no cookie" does not give the kid a positive action they can take. Offering a choice of what they can have gives them something to do. And the few times they do it, you have to be ready to make a big deal about how great that was.
Of course a kid who wants a cookie is going to be diappointed if you offer a banana or an apple. No one can change that. What you can train the kid to do is better manage disappointment. As they learn to do that--through positive reinforcement--the drama goes down. That's what the article is about.
The point of the article is not that offering a binary choice is a panacea. The point is that you have to model the behavior you want, and reinforce it with praise. Just saying "no cookie" does not give the kid a positive action they can take. Offering a choice of what they can have gives them something to do. And the few times they do it, you have to be ready to make a big deal about how great that was.
Of course a kid who wants a cookie is going to be diappointed if you offer a banana or an apple. No one can change that. What you can train the kid to do is better manage disappointment. As they learn to do that--through positive reinforcement--the drama goes down. That's what the article is about.
Your baseless presumption aside, my response was more general than related specifically to this article.
More than one four year old of my acquaintance know a bullshit false dichotomy when they see one.
People don't acknowledge this enough, one size doesn't fit all.
It bothers me most when people discuss diet and obesity. "Just don't eat so much!" is often given as slightly condescending advice. Such advice reflects a personal experience where your body isn't screaming in hunger 24 hours a day. Different people have different metabolisms too, turning food into energy to be spent, or locking it away instantly as fat -- makes a huge difference. Calories-In-Calories-Out is a rather limited view of the situation.
Our internal experiences differ, it affects who we are and how we behave. We all have to be responsible and deal with our personal realities in an adult manner. But it's rather lame to assume that anyone who is challenged by things you find simple is either stupid or lacking in willpower.
It bothers me most when people discuss diet and obesity. "Just don't eat so much!" is often given as slightly condescending advice. Such advice reflects a personal experience where your body isn't screaming in hunger 24 hours a day. Different people have different metabolisms too, turning food into energy to be spent, or locking it away instantly as fat -- makes a huge difference. Calories-In-Calories-Out is a rather limited view of the situation.
Our internal experiences differ, it affects who we are and how we behave. We all have to be responsible and deal with our personal realities in an adult manner. But it's rather lame to assume that anyone who is challenged by things you find simple is either stupid or lacking in willpower.
Different people have different metabolisms too, turning food into energy to be spent, or locking it away instantly as fat -- makes a huge difference
This is not true - at least the "huge" part.
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-t...
"Metabolic rate does vary, and technically there could be large variance. However, statistically speaking it is unlikely the variance would apply to you. The majority of the population exists in a range of 200-300kcal from each other and do not possess hugely different metabolic rates."
Calories-In-Calories-Out is a rather limited view of the situation.
https://examine.com/nutrition/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-l...
"In conclusion, losing weight requires a negative energy balance, which can be obtained by eating less, as we have seen, but also by exercising more."
This is not true - at least the "huge" part.
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-t...
"Metabolic rate does vary, and technically there could be large variance. However, statistically speaking it is unlikely the variance would apply to you. The majority of the population exists in a range of 200-300kcal from each other and do not possess hugely different metabolic rates."
Calories-In-Calories-Out is a rather limited view of the situation.
https://examine.com/nutrition/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-l...
"In conclusion, losing weight requires a negative energy balance, which can be obtained by eating less, as we have seen, but also by exercising more."
It's like saying, driving a car requires a neutral energy balance, you need to put in just as much gas as you burn.
While 100% true. It's not helpful information. It doesn't mention the fact that different cars burn fuel at a different rate. That some drivers can afford a higher octane fuel. And that a poorly tuned vehicle with incorrect tire pressure will require more fuel.
The point is, that there are many factors that go into weight gain and loss. And while in terms of basic physics it does indeed boil down to energy balance, that ignores a great many factors that affect both ones internal demand for more energy and ones ability to make use of ingested energy rather than turning it into fat.
While 100% true. It's not helpful information. It doesn't mention the fact that different cars burn fuel at a different rate. That some drivers can afford a higher octane fuel. And that a poorly tuned vehicle with incorrect tire pressure will require more fuel.
The point is, that there are many factors that go into weight gain and loss. And while in terms of basic physics it does indeed boil down to energy balance, that ignores a great many factors that affect both ones internal demand for more energy and ones ability to make use of ingested energy rather than turning it into fat.
And yet for each of us, where we're at right now, we lose weight by eating less and exercising more that we are right now. Its a wonderfully self-calibrating system.
Nobody likes that answer. Personal accountability sucks.
It doesn't matter what people like, what matters are the facts of the situation. I'm arguing that answers like yours are self serving reinforcement of your own ideas about morality which blind you to the possibility that you're just wrong in thinking that everyone is on the same playing field.
That does NOT mean we aren't all personally responsible. It means that you should consider having compassion and less contempt for people who fail where you succeed.
Are there cases of pure gluttony and laziness leading to obesity? Damn straight there are, and I'm not arguing otherwise. But whether you believe me or not there are real challenges that _some_ fat people face that you (presumably) and I just don't have to deal with.
Think of it this way, if someone is born with only one leg. They still have all the same personal responsibility you and I have to live their life as an adult. But both of us will understand if they struggle with certain things we're able to accomplish with ease. You wouldn't dream of saying that person lacks personal accountability because he struggles with walking.
So why do you presume to know FOR SURE that everyone who is fat got that way because of a failing of personal accountability? Perhaps they were just born without a leg... so to speak...
I hope you'll reconsider your position. At least to admit there is a possibility that other people have unseen handicaps that you just don't have to deal with.
That does NOT mean we aren't all personally responsible. It means that you should consider having compassion and less contempt for people who fail where you succeed.
Are there cases of pure gluttony and laziness leading to obesity? Damn straight there are, and I'm not arguing otherwise. But whether you believe me or not there are real challenges that _some_ fat people face that you (presumably) and I just don't have to deal with.
Think of it this way, if someone is born with only one leg. They still have all the same personal responsibility you and I have to live their life as an adult. But both of us will understand if they struggle with certain things we're able to accomplish with ease. You wouldn't dream of saying that person lacks personal accountability because he struggles with walking.
So why do you presume to know FOR SURE that everyone who is fat got that way because of a failing of personal accountability? Perhaps they were just born without a leg... so to speak...
I hope you'll reconsider your position. At least to admit there is a possibility that other people have unseen handicaps that you just don't have to deal with.
> So why do you presume to know FOR SURE that everyone who is fat got that way because of a failing of personal accountability?
Nope. I think we both agree there are edge cases for every situation. Where I find fault with your premise is that it is presumed everyone with a "problem" (weight, anxiety, depression, etc.) all fall into the "edge-case" category, where in fact 99% of them do not. Despite that, I get annoyed when we as a people assume that the the majority of people fall into the minority group.
Being very over-weight is a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. I posit that the same argument can be made about anxiety, or depression, et al.
> I hope you'll reconsider your position. At least to admit there is a possibility that other people have unseen handicaps that you just don't have to deal with.
Sure thing, absolutely. I'l even go as far as to say I don't need to reconsider this. I agree with your point. Where I take umbrage is with the fact that people are allowed to shirk personal responsibility, hiding under the guise of "this problem is bigger than me", when in fact is isn't. The majority take advantage of the sincere problems (missing a leg) of the minority, which to me is slap in the face of people who need the real help and attention.
Nope. I think we both agree there are edge cases for every situation. Where I find fault with your premise is that it is presumed everyone with a "problem" (weight, anxiety, depression, etc.) all fall into the "edge-case" category, where in fact 99% of them do not. Despite that, I get annoyed when we as a people assume that the the majority of people fall into the minority group.
Being very over-weight is a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. I posit that the same argument can be made about anxiety, or depression, et al.
> I hope you'll reconsider your position. At least to admit there is a possibility that other people have unseen handicaps that you just don't have to deal with.
Sure thing, absolutely. I'l even go as far as to say I don't need to reconsider this. I agree with your point. Where I take umbrage is with the fact that people are allowed to shirk personal responsibility, hiding under the guise of "this problem is bigger than me", when in fact is isn't. The majority take advantage of the sincere problems (missing a leg) of the minority, which to me is slap in the face of people who need the real help and attention.
Sure there are corner cases. But almost everybody can lose weight almost always by simply eating less and exercising more. The rest of the billion-dollar industry preys upon our low self-control by promising some magic cure. That requires no effort.
Of course. As I said above, we all have to live with our personal realities and behave as adults. But I can't help feel that your answer is exactly what I'm arguing against. It feels right, but it lacks compassion or insight into other aspects that are just as valid and germane.
With my kid I adopted the "Parenting with Love and Logic" approach which suggests that we (parents) pick too many battles with our kids and should instead let them learn first hand the consequences of their choices. So in the case of the coat, if the child refuses to wear one then they get to experience what cold feels like.
Time outs have worked very well for me too. Some behavior is simply unacceptable and ignoring it only teaches them they can repeat it.
Lastly, I think there's a tendency to forget that, with kids, they're basically completely different people every few days/weeks. We've gone through a lot of phases with our son and sometimes the best solution is to simply wait it out. More often than not the behavior changes as his brain changes.
Time outs have worked very well for me too. Some behavior is simply unacceptable and ignoring it only teaches them they can repeat it.
Lastly, I think there's a tendency to forget that, with kids, they're basically completely different people every few days/weeks. We've gone through a lot of phases with our son and sometimes the best solution is to simply wait it out. More often than not the behavior changes as his brain changes.
Having worked in education with a wide range of kids (age, temperament, etc.), my view is that these articles are a good read. However, they are written for the masses. To get views. They distill (I hope) tons of research and case studies into a catchy, generalized piece of advice. It sounds good and is definitely worth trying, but under no means should anyone point to such an article as an end all be all solution to raising children. Your example is exactly why. Matters in life are rarely so simple as to be explained away in a single article. There's always going to be a part of the bell curve that gets left out when writing articles like this. Just something for everyone to keep in mind.
I can second this. And if I give a 3rd choice, he wants a 4th. I've tried many of the 'common' advices but they don't really seem to work that well with mine. With mine seems a bit of 'indifference' works wonders.
'We are going out now', 'no, I don't want to, scream, etc, etc', 'Ok, stay there, when you are ready to talk to me and go out, I'll start talking to you again, until then, I'll be in the kitchen/bedroom/whatever'. This usually gives him 5 minutes to think a bit, then comes back, apoligises and we go on our way. I've tried pretty much everything before this, and seems it was the only thing that works with mine.
'We are going out now', 'no, I don't want to, scream, etc, etc', 'Ok, stay there, when you are ready to talk to me and go out, I'll start talking to you again, until then, I'll be in the kitchen/bedroom/whatever'. This usually gives him 5 minutes to think a bit, then comes back, apoligises and we go on our way. I've tried pretty much everything before this, and seems it was the only thing that works with mine.
This trick popped up as the top post on r/lifeprotips a few days ago. The top comment was someone whose kid figured it out.
"Would you like to buy me one set of nunchucks or 2 sets?"
https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/5g9pai/lpt_mot...
"Would you like to buy me one set of nunchucks or 2 sets?"
https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/5g9pai/lpt_mot...
[deleted]
My personal experience from two young children is that it works, most of the time. Obviously there are still issues - maybe the young one wants to bring some toy to school on a non-toy day - in this case getting to choose the color of sweater isn't going to help.
But mostly this approach seems to work. Now we as parents still need to remember to use this approach, which we unfortunately often forget in the morning rush.
But mostly this approach seems to work. Now we as parents still need to remember to use this approach, which we unfortunately often forget in the morning rush.
My wife is a teacher, she always says poblems need to be fixed where it's easiest to fix them. So if a kid brings a toy to school on a non toy day, she will confiscate it (and give it back at the end of the day). She only needs to set one example for an entire year.
> My 4 year will always ask for a 3rd option that isn't there, or just reject the framing entirely.
Exactly my situation. My 2 year old just keep on it until she feels otherwise. Though one thing I have seen to work is to employ her into something adult like allow her to stir the liquid while making scrambled eggs :)
Exactly my situation. My 2 year old just keep on it until she feels otherwise. Though one thing I have seen to work is to employ her into something adult like allow her to stir the liquid while making scrambled eggs :)
If you allow your kid to get away with the 3rd option, then your kid now knows that your choices aren't genuine. None of these kind of methods work if you let them know that when you say there are two alternatives there really are three.
And I've seen this work often enough when we've had friends of my son come over that we often see act up around their parents, but that will try that shit once with us and then follow our sons cue once they see that all they achieve is getting ignored, that I tend to think that whether this works or not is more often down to follow-through.
That doesn't mean it's a one size fits all solution. You do need to adapt what kind of options you present, and how you respond if they try to push the boundaries - kids are not stupid; if you keep offering "options" when they know there are other alternatives that are on the table if they say the right things, then they'll try to challenge you for it.
And I've seen this work often enough when we've had friends of my son come over that we often see act up around their parents, but that will try that shit once with us and then follow our sons cue once they see that all they achieve is getting ignored, that I tend to think that whether this works or not is more often down to follow-through.
That doesn't mean it's a one size fits all solution. You do need to adapt what kind of options you present, and how you respond if they try to push the boundaries - kids are not stupid; if you keep offering "options" when they know there are other alternatives that are on the table if they say the right things, then they'll try to challenge you for it.
To me a person who stubbornly presents two choices when there is in fact a reasonable third is an asshole.
Maybe don't create contrived situations where a toddler can crush your logic and it becomes a battle of wills.
Maybe don't create contrived situations where a toddler can crush your logic and it becomes a battle of wills.
My oldest son quite often comes up with a third, better alternative. The fact that I consider and sometimes accept them might make some other situations harder, because obviously he often cannot understand more complex situations and then there is a conflict. Saying no to a perfectly reasonable suggestion (because it wasn't mine) might teach him to never argue, but I wouldn't want that.
I've read that when you're instructing a child to do something, whether you're a parent or a teacher, you should never end the instruction with "Okay?".
In our house the question is used to ascertain whether the child heard his parent and if so, the probability of compliance with the request/observation/dire threat to the well-being of a favored toy. At no time has it been construed by any of the parties as the parent (noun) requesting permission to parent (verb).
If some tips work and some tips don't, then nurture matters, but it is correlated to nature.
If nurture didn't matter, tips would be totally irrelevant.
If nurture didn't matter, tips would be totally irrelevant.
same - my 3yo will ALWAYS respond to false choice with "NEITHER!"
> And choice isn't important, it's the appearance of choice that's important
i dont understand how this isnt immediately a red flag for dystopian orwellian oppression. I guess u can do it to kids, they cant defend themselves.
i dont understand how this isnt immediately a red flag for dystopian orwellian oppression. I guess u can do it to kids, they cant defend themselves.
> Let’s say you have an adolescent daughter and she says to you, “Mom, you are such a bitch. What have you ever done for me? You only think of yourself.”
> The teen may be at the dinner table and just being quiet and not saying negative things. Well, when you're starting out, one of the positive-opposites can sometimes be reinforcing the non-occurrence of the behavior. And you just say, “Marion, it's nice having dinner with you, it's nice that you're here.” What that does is reinforce the likelihood that Marion will be at the dinner table and not say negative things.
So, I love this here.
Taming the 4 year old requires a psychological trick on the 4 year old. Taming the 14 year old apparently requires a psychological trick on the 40 year old.
For the teens, the psychologist's advice is literally "Well, maybe don't be such a bitch in the first place, Mom."
> The teen may be at the dinner table and just being quiet and not saying negative things. Well, when you're starting out, one of the positive-opposites can sometimes be reinforcing the non-occurrence of the behavior. And you just say, “Marion, it's nice having dinner with you, it's nice that you're here.” What that does is reinforce the likelihood that Marion will be at the dinner table and not say negative things.
So, I love this here.
Taming the 4 year old requires a psychological trick on the 4 year old. Taming the 14 year old apparently requires a psychological trick on the 40 year old.
For the teens, the psychologist's advice is literally "Well, maybe don't be such a bitch in the first place, Mom."
> Let’s say you have an adolescent daughter and she says to you, “Mom, you are such a bitch. What have you ever done for me? You only think of yourself.”
Maybe it's because I grew up as a kid in another culture (Eastern Europe) and some time ago (I'm 36 now) but do kids nowadays really call their parents "bitch"? My parents almost never laid their hands on me (the couple of times they actually did I had deserved it) but, nevertheless, it would have been out-of-this-world for me or for any other kid to call their parents names like these. It reminds me of this Eddie Murphy sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldUbxfOtjqw .
Maybe it's because I grew up as a kid in another culture (Eastern Europe) and some time ago (I'm 36 now) but do kids nowadays really call their parents "bitch"? My parents almost never laid their hands on me (the couple of times they actually did I had deserved it) but, nevertheless, it would have been out-of-this-world for me or for any other kid to call their parents names like these. It reminds me of this Eddie Murphy sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldUbxfOtjqw .
I'm the US, and under 30. That shit would not remotely fly. Didn't even grow up in a conservative area.
I remember growing up, I had an acquaintance who was kind of outwardly rude to his parents - never swore at them though - and that was incredibly uncomfortable. I only experienced that once.
When I imagine the made-up teenager in the posted article, it's some spoiled, estranged kid in Beverly Hills with an absent father and an anxious, over-young mother paying for a 24/7 nanny.
Which is to say, a completely alien experience. I do feel that some other cultures may be too deferential towards their parents' wishes, meaning I probably fall on the Beverly Hills side of the spectrum, as far as people from those cultures are concerned. Still. That's beyond belief. I would have been abused for that.
I remember growing up, I had an acquaintance who was kind of outwardly rude to his parents - never swore at them though - and that was incredibly uncomfortable. I only experienced that once.
When I imagine the made-up teenager in the posted article, it's some spoiled, estranged kid in Beverly Hills with an absent father and an anxious, over-young mother paying for a 24/7 nanny.
Which is to say, a completely alien experience. I do feel that some other cultures may be too deferential towards their parents' wishes, meaning I probably fall on the Beverly Hills side of the spectrum, as far as people from those cultures are concerned. Still. That's beyond belief. I would have been abused for that.
No, I'm 20 and from the US, and never would've dreamed of calling my parents a word like this. I mean never. We may of had disagreements but this was one line I would never cross.
Similar experience but I know this exists. Some people going through their teens get pretty cruel.
Definitely a minority
Definitely a minority
I think if you're at the point where your teenage child would even remotely consider calling you a bitch to your face I think any parenting strategy would be a day late and a dollar short. At that point maybe it's about relationship boundaries and damage control. You don't get to the point where a normal and mentally/emotionally healthy teenager calls their mother a bitch without a parent creating an environment where that was eventually going to happen.
Kids will call their parents the worst things they think will get a reaction without getting them in too much trouble.
My son would never go that far - he dislikes "bad words" to the extent that it frustrates us because he'll tell us off for relatively innocent things, and insist on at most spelling out words he consider bad....
But he'll still on occasion try to say something he knows is hurtful when he is angry and want to get a reaction.
So if it sound crazy that someone would call their parents "bitch", it generally just reflects what they've gotten away with before and gotten the right reaction from.
My son would never go that far - he dislikes "bad words" to the extent that it frustrates us because he'll tell us off for relatively innocent things, and insist on at most spelling out words he consider bad....
But he'll still on occasion try to say something he knows is hurtful when he is angry and want to get a reaction.
So if it sound crazy that someone would call their parents "bitch", it generally just reflects what they've gotten away with before and gotten the right reaction from.
Psychologists don't see an unbiased samples of families. What's unthinkable in a high functioning family like yours would, at some points when I was growing up, have been extremely mild in mine. I don't know what the base rate is, but it's certainly not something you can guess from a single sample.
I definitely wouldn't say it's common (and was a huge 'don't go there' in my family). However, I have seen some families where the parents aren't around as much or aren't responsible for discipline or structure, and this definitely does happen. It really depends on the parent child relationship, since that word would get grounding/timeout/huge reaction in my family, whereas the parents I've seen this happen to either get sullen or are aghast at their child.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that laying hands on them would fix things. But there's usually a lack of someone being there who can send them to their room or give them any kind of punishment for their poor decisions/actions.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that laying hands on them would fix things. But there's usually a lack of someone being there who can send them to their room or give them any kind of punishment for their poor decisions/actions.
My dad and I are very casual. We enjoy fighting (wrestling), pushing each other into strangers, tampering with food, turning car seat heaters on sneakily on a hot day. Very normal for us to call each other names when these things occur. I don't think there is anything I could say to him that he'd even blink at.
That sounds like a very healthy kind of mutual respect, even in the case of "disrespectful" names, though. It's not about the word in particular, it's about the communication of contempt behind it.
FWIW, as a former full time mom with two late twenties adult kids, my sons tell me that me not being a bitch is why they never went through the asshole rebellious teen stage. There was nothing to rebel against. They had no reason to be angry at me.
(Though, to be fair, my younger son started to be a pain in the ass teen and then I explained the somatopsychic effects of puberty to him one day in front of his brother and best friend, in part by saying "Your problem is called testosterone, not my bitch mother" and they were all three easier to deal with after that.)
(Though, to be fair, my younger son started to be a pain in the ass teen and then I explained the somatopsychic effects of puberty to him one day in front of his brother and best friend, in part by saying "Your problem is called testosterone, not my bitch mother" and they were all three easier to deal with after that.)
I think adults often forget how much awe they had as kids for the amazing adults in their lives.
It's literally not. There's a huge difference between "being a bitch" and "not actively reinforcing the bo.nd with your child."
The teenager is really just a petulant, kind of half-assed adult. The psychologist frames it the same way as the 4 year old, but knows it's really an entirely different ball game. The teenager actually has a functioning long-term memory, for instance.
Obviously the theoretical teenager and my comment are exaggerating it, but there's truth in there.
Obviously the theoretical teenager and my comment are exaggerating it, but there's truth in there.
The 4 year old also has a functioning long-term memory. Our oldest (4 1/2 now) often recounts minuscule, random details of events 6-12 months ago that neither me nor my wife had mentioned since.
It's true that most adults have few memories from childhood, but that's something else entirely.
It's true that most adults have few memories from childhood, but that's something else entirely.
My nearly 5 year old remembers events from last Christmas in great detail, so they have a better long term memory than many people credit them for
This is why I treat my kids as adults who just aren't quite ready for adulthood. You can't fool most kids. We're the dull ones, not them, they're just inexperienced.
[deleted]
> Tone of voice dictates whether you're going to get compliance or not. "Sarah, put on the green coat or the red sweater. We're going to go out, okay?" Choice among humans increases the likelihood of compliance. And choice isn't important, it's the appearance of choice that's important. Having real choice is not the issue, humans don't feel too strongly about that, but having the feeling that you have a choice makes a difference.
My son has dry skin and has to have a special cream on his face before he goes to bed - normally when he's tired and terribly uncooperative.
In order to get him to allow us to put the cream on his face, we often just give him the choice of which side of the face we should start with. I don't give him the choice to have the cream or not. It works brilliantly. A friend told us that tip. Awesome.
My son has dry skin and has to have a special cream on his face before he goes to bed - normally when he's tired and terribly uncooperative.
In order to get him to allow us to put the cream on his face, we often just give him the choice of which side of the face we should start with. I don't give him the choice to have the cream or not. It works brilliantly. A friend told us that tip. Awesome.
This is also a very effective technique when brushing a toddler's teeth. "Top or bottom teeth first?"
My other tactics for routines are "Which animal should we brush teeth like tonight?", "OK, we're going to brush your ears. Teeth!? No. No, maybe your eyebrows. OK, teeth then." and "Close your eyes and I'll choose your clothes and get you dressed so it will be a surprise."
My other tactics for routines are "Which animal should we brush teeth like tonight?", "OK, we're going to brush your ears. Teeth!? No. No, maybe your eyebrows. OK, teeth then." and "Close your eyes and I'll choose your clothes and get you dressed so it will be a surprise."
With my son, "time for a bath!", no matter how excited, yields crying. "Would you rather watch trains or buses after your bath?" yields an excited choice.
(As with all parenting advice: usually.)
(As with all parenting advice: usually.)
If you want to avoid promising TV/iPad as a reward, good alternatives are:
"If you get in the bath, I'll go and choose a bath toy that you've never even played with before." (And then I find something random in the kitchen - ladle, colander, Tupperware, etc.)
or "If you get dressed, I'll tell you something interesting about Mercury." (Or owls, or bullet trains or anything you can come up with.)
Used the Mercury one with my 4yo, planning to tell him about the massive valley recently discovered. He shot back immediately "Dad, I already know it's really hot on one side and cold on the other side!"
If they're out of control and won't listen to reason, I often just talk somewhat quietly to them about something I know they'll find interesting, and they usually stop screaming so they can hear what it is.
"If you get in the bath, I'll go and choose a bath toy that you've never even played with before." (And then I find something random in the kitchen - ladle, colander, Tupperware, etc.)
or "If you get dressed, I'll tell you something interesting about Mercury." (Or owls, or bullet trains or anything you can come up with.)
Used the Mercury one with my 4yo, planning to tell him about the massive valley recently discovered. He shot back immediately "Dad, I already know it's really hot on one side and cold on the other side!"
If they're out of control and won't listen to reason, I often just talk somewhat quietly to them about something I know they'll find interesting, and they usually stop screaming so they can hear what it is.
I can't speak for llimllib, but I didn't read their comment as being a reward for having a bath. The key bit of the suggestion is that having a bath is implicit in the whole situation.
Similarly, me (+spouse) have never offered any reward for completing any task - and see many other parents having to enter into a what-if kind of negotiation. I like your Mercury example, but would consider taking it further: "I can't tell you about Mercury until you're dressed". It sounds logical enough to a 5-6 year old (even though these things are not logically connected).
I guessing these tactics will have to change at some point - but we've successfully navigated around most of the tantrum stage so far.
Similarly, me (+spouse) have never offered any reward for completing any task - and see many other parents having to enter into a what-if kind of negotiation. I like your Mercury example, but would consider taking it further: "I can't tell you about Mercury until you're dressed". It sounds logical enough to a 5-6 year old (even though these things are not logically connected).
I guessing these tactics will have to change at some point - but we've successfully navigated around most of the tantrum stage so far.
Or even "once you're dressed, I can tell you something about Mercury".
I agree that it shouldn't be a reward - more a thing to do or discuss after the task is done that isn't an option before it's done. Because as I imagine most parents know, any perceived offered reward does become grounds for negotiation.
It's not a reward, I always let him watch buses on the iPad after the bath while I dry him off. He likes it and I don't see any problem with it. Just meant to give an example of a way that changing the framing works with a two year old (/anybody)
Sorry, reward was the wrong word. My primary intention was to suggest a mechanism that didn't involve screen time, as many parents are sensitive to that.
> or "If you get dressed, I'll tell you something interesting about Mercury."
Gonna have to try this one - my son loves collecting facts. Thismay prove very helpful. Even if it turns out not - thanks for the idea, it's a good one.
Gonna have to try this one - my son loves collecting facts. Thismay prove very helpful. Even if it turns out not - thanks for the idea, it's a good one.
I like that this tactic is educational and costs nothing, so you don't need to fall back to a treat. It becomes almost a form of currency within the house. My daughter is younger so in her case (for incentives or distracting her out of a tantrum) I'll talk about the neighbour's cat or birds doing things, etc.
My son loves these kind of facts so much he has books on them and knows more than I do. He kept quizzing me on some size or distance or mass where the answer was a couple of septillion (European ones, not your small American ones).
How about bubble baths?
I always loved bubble baths.
I always loved bubble baths.
It's interesting to me that my parents did essentially the opposite for raising my sister and I: they created a spinner that would randomly choose whether mom or dad would help us get ready for bed that night. We completely accepted the decision of the spinner because that was The Way of the World.
I find I have lot a easier time getting my son to accept hard dictates when I don't provide a reason - it's just the way it is. "Because I said so" is surprisingly effective[1], I think because he's learned that when I say it there is no more discussing.
Reasons provide a point of discussion - and my boy will discuss endlessly anything he's given the opportunity to. Particularly if discussing the reasons means not having to do the thing he doesn't want to do.
The problem I have is that I remember always wanting to know why (hell, I still do). So I have a default explain-first mentality that I've become increasingly aware I need to break.
It's a hard balance to find. You want the child to know the whys of what he's doing - but you don't want each reason to turn into an endless discussion.
[1] he's not happy about it, but it is remarkable effective :D
Reasons provide a point of discussion - and my boy will discuss endlessly anything he's given the opportunity to. Particularly if discussing the reasons means not having to do the thing he doesn't want to do.
The problem I have is that I remember always wanting to know why (hell, I still do). So I have a default explain-first mentality that I've become increasingly aware I need to break.
It's a hard balance to find. You want the child to know the whys of what he's doing - but you don't want each reason to turn into an endless discussion.
[1] he's not happy about it, but it is remarkable effective :D
This technique worked for us a bit in the toddler years, but it became ineffective for both kids around 4 or 5. They clue in quite quickly and start pushing for ... other options.
The important thing is to give them a choice but be firm on the original requirement. Teach them that some things in life must be done (like brushing one's teeth) but they still allow for some level of autonomy, which I think is an important lesson to learn. They're going to encounter this again in life and if they are able to cope by focusing on the choices between the smaller details of a larger, more difficult or unnapealing task, that's a win in my book.
I don't mean this in a snarky way, but have you ever just left it up to him? How old is your son? I understand your thinking if his skin condition is very serious, but if it's just a matter of him being uncomfortable because he forgot, then that's the type of thing I would be totally hands-off about.
Yes, they don't do it. How long should the experiment continue?
So, I got downvoted but I would say indefinitely if it's not a serious condition. Your child is actually capable of having priorities in life if you let him, and apparently the skin dryness thing must not bother him that much.
EDIT: Noticed you're not the GP.
EDIT: Noticed you're not the GP.
Does he favor the Republican or Democrat side of his face?
(Locke was onto something ...)
(Locke was onto something ...)
Damn, why did this get downvoted?
Humor is discouraged on this site.
I think it is a brilliant, if unintended meta-comentary on US politics: for most elections, the public is offered the choice "Democrat or Republican".
Thank you, it was very much intended.
(Locke prattled about consent of the governed, and this little bit of child psychology brilliantly shows how easy it is to achieve in practice.)
(Locke prattled about consent of the governed, and this little bit of child psychology brilliantly shows how easy it is to achieve in practice.)
I try to give them a choice in what they want on their bread, but they always want something I'm not offering, or they want nothing, or they ignore me. So I just make their choice for them, but give them time to interrupt me. Sometimes they're ignoring me so hard that they miss their opportunity, and then we've got a problem.
> Punishment might make you feel better, but it won’t change the kid’s behavior. Instead, he advocates for a radical technique in which parents positively reinforce the behavior they do want to see until the negative behavior eventually goes away.
We adopted a puppy a little more than a year ago and this was the exact advice we were given for how to train her. Puppies and little kids are remarkably similar, and the key to training a dog is not to "punish" them when they do something wrong (they'll just get scared of you), but rather to reinforce the good behaviors, reward them when they listen, and essentially just ignore them when they don't.
In practice, after a year, this technique has worked great. Our puppy listens to us, respects us, and despite being absolutely crazy, will drop everything if she hears us call her. We didn't even need to train her to avoid eating the baby's toys since I think she understood that she received more praise when playing with "her" toys.
Our baby is only six months old so we'll have to report back in a decade as to whether this approach works well with kids too. :)
We adopted a puppy a little more than a year ago and this was the exact advice we were given for how to train her. Puppies and little kids are remarkably similar, and the key to training a dog is not to "punish" them when they do something wrong (they'll just get scared of you), but rather to reinforce the good behaviors, reward them when they listen, and essentially just ignore them when they don't.
In practice, after a year, this technique has worked great. Our puppy listens to us, respects us, and despite being absolutely crazy, will drop everything if she hears us call her. We didn't even need to train her to avoid eating the baby's toys since I think she understood that she received more praise when playing with "her" toys.
Our baby is only six months old so we'll have to report back in a decade as to whether this approach works well with kids too. :)
Punishment might make you feel better, but it won’t change the kid’s behavior.
This claim (from the article) is nonsense. I've changed the behavior of my kids countless times with punishment.
I realize that the attitude I am supposed to take is that when someone with Ivy League credentials espouses a currently fashionable theory that my own observations contradict, I am supposed to believe the theory and not my own lying eyes or I'm "anti-intellectual". Credentials over evidence.
I'll take the risk. But I'm still interested in these theories, because I'm always looking for better ideas to try. A theory that is false overall can have useful parts. Maybe "punishment won't change behavior; reward will" is wrong, but some variation such as "lots of reward with a bit of punishment work much better than lots of punishment with a bit of reward" IS true, or is true for at least one of my kids. (But then, this weaker claim is something I already believe and it abandons the "never punish" enlightened part that was what really made it attractive to The Atlantic.)
Also, theories like these, even if not true, remind me not to overgeneralize from my own observations.
Their theory: Punishment doesn't change behavior. My observation: Yes, it does. So my theory: Punishment changes behavior. The truth: No, it doesn't. (As in, not necessarily) Me: Oops.
So, I'll keep reading and considering, but no, the basic claim of "don't punish, because it doesn't work" is wrong even if rewards also change behavior.
This claim (from the article) is nonsense. I've changed the behavior of my kids countless times with punishment.
I realize that the attitude I am supposed to take is that when someone with Ivy League credentials espouses a currently fashionable theory that my own observations contradict, I am supposed to believe the theory and not my own lying eyes or I'm "anti-intellectual". Credentials over evidence.
I'll take the risk. But I'm still interested in these theories, because I'm always looking for better ideas to try. A theory that is false overall can have useful parts. Maybe "punishment won't change behavior; reward will" is wrong, but some variation such as "lots of reward with a bit of punishment work much better than lots of punishment with a bit of reward" IS true, or is true for at least one of my kids. (But then, this weaker claim is something I already believe and it abandons the "never punish" enlightened part that was what really made it attractive to The Atlantic.)
Also, theories like these, even if not true, remind me not to overgeneralize from my own observations.
Their theory: Punishment doesn't change behavior. My observation: Yes, it does. So my theory: Punishment changes behavior. The truth: No, it doesn't. (As in, not necessarily) Me: Oops.
So, I'll keep reading and considering, but no, the basic claim of "don't punish, because it doesn't work" is wrong even if rewards also change behavior.
I think the idea isn't so much that punishment doesn't get results, but rather that those results come with side effects. Usually, this is some harboured anger, or avoidance of the parent.
Yes, punishment gets changes behavior, but it's not always a 100% positive change.
It should have been phrased better in the article.
Yes, punishment gets changes behavior, but it's not always a 100% positive change.
It should have been phrased better in the article.
You're projecting your own reasonable beliefs onto the article. It really was as stupid as SiVal said.
It follows the rules of political correctness: Any evidence supporting a taboo idea must the denied. Any advantages of a taboo practice must be denied.
It follows the rules of political correctness: Any evidence supporting a taboo idea must the denied. Any advantages of a taboo practice must be denied.
Calling out something for "political correctness" (or any one of another dozen or so convenient shorthands for political footballs) is a lazy argument. I'm sure there are things you disagree with in the article. What are they? Why? Do you have something more to add to the point SiVal made? Personal experience? References to research? Add something constructive to the discussion.
I think the article is talking about this here:
"You don't try to suppress— “Don't give me attitude for all I've done for you!” What research shows is that it will lead to escape behavior on the part of the child. It will lead them to avoid you as soon as they get home from school and it will model negative interactions toward you."
"You don't try to suppress— “Don't give me attitude for all I've done for you!” What research shows is that it will lead to escape behavior on the part of the child. It will lead them to avoid you as soon as they get home from school and it will model negative interactions toward you."
My wife and I got a 5 month old border collie about 3 months ago. The approach that ended up working for us was to use positive reinforcement for almost all the things we wanted trained, and then only use negative reinforcement for one or two things we really didn't want him to do.
We chose to punish (spank/"bad dog"/shake an empty soda can with pennies inside it) for only two things: pottying in the house, and chasing/herding the cats.
We think they were good choices for the negative reinforcement because they were things we really wanted to stop ASAP, and they happened relatively infrequently, so it's not like he was being constantly punished.
At 8 months old, he's now an ideal citizen of our house.
I do think the breed had a lot to do with the success of this technique, though. Border Collies are smart (I'm told they have the intelligence of a 4 y/o?), so I think him being able to quickly learn things, and him being able to connect things beyond just one step was important.
By "connecting things beyond one step", I mean, I suspect with a less-intelligent dog you might have the problem of like, if they potty outside and then you wait to give them a treat until you're inside (because the dog is distracted by them if you have them outside) they might not get that the treat is for pottying.
We chose to punish (spank/"bad dog"/shake an empty soda can with pennies inside it) for only two things: pottying in the house, and chasing/herding the cats.
We think they were good choices for the negative reinforcement because they were things we really wanted to stop ASAP, and they happened relatively infrequently, so it's not like he was being constantly punished.
At 8 months old, he's now an ideal citizen of our house.
I do think the breed had a lot to do with the success of this technique, though. Border Collies are smart (I'm told they have the intelligence of a 4 y/o?), so I think him being able to quickly learn things, and him being able to connect things beyond just one step was important.
By "connecting things beyond one step", I mean, I suspect with a less-intelligent dog you might have the problem of like, if they potty outside and then you wait to give them a treat until you're inside (because the dog is distracted by them if you have them outside) they might not get that the treat is for pottying.
> We chose to punish (spank/"bad dog"/shake an empty soda can with pennies inside it) for only two things: pottying in the house, and chasing/herding the cats.
No need to hit your dog to accomplish this. Also during your training, unless you caught the dog in the act of potty in the house he might not even be able to connect the dots between potty and punishment given the time between the 2 acts and from his mind you might be arbitrarily spanking him.
If the dog pottys in the house the only one at fault is the human (assuming its not medical related) for not letting him out enough.
How can you be sure than your hitting was the the reason the dog stopping going inside and not his development of routine for "this is where I go potty" and the puppy's natural ability to develop their bladder to hold it longer?
We rescue huskies (no longer puppies). God love em, but they are not known for their intelligence or trainability. We are just proactive when house training, know that accidents happen, reflect on why they happened ("oops ya.. I did forget about them" or "OK I guess we arent ready to leave them alone for x hours yet"), and keep at the routine.
RE your "less intelligent" comment I agree. We kept them on leashes until they did their business and then rewarded on the spot. Afterwards they were let loose to run wild in the yard or go back inside.
No need to hit your dog to accomplish this. Also during your training, unless you caught the dog in the act of potty in the house he might not even be able to connect the dots between potty and punishment given the time between the 2 acts and from his mind you might be arbitrarily spanking him.
If the dog pottys in the house the only one at fault is the human (assuming its not medical related) for not letting him out enough.
How can you be sure than your hitting was the the reason the dog stopping going inside and not his development of routine for "this is where I go potty" and the puppy's natural ability to develop their bladder to hold it longer?
We rescue huskies (no longer puppies). God love em, but they are not known for their intelligence or trainability. We are just proactive when house training, know that accidents happen, reflect on why they happened ("oops ya.. I did forget about them" or "OK I guess we arent ready to leave them alone for x hours yet"), and keep at the routine.
RE your "less intelligent" comment I agree. We kept them on leashes until they did their business and then rewarded on the spot. Afterwards they were let loose to run wild in the yard or go back inside.
Punishment always changes behavior only when you're looking/enforcing. You'll never know if you police kid enough.
Is that your goal?
Is that your goal?
Replace your first word with "Reward" and re-read it.
My own observation is that both of these claims are partly true but that there is some effect that remains even when they think they are not observed. Parents often see what kids think they don't, so I have empirical evidence of this (as all parents do).
My own observation is that both of these claims are partly true but that there is some effect that remains even when they think they are not observed. Parents often see what kids think they don't, so I have empirical evidence of this (as all parents do).
I don't buy the idea that punishment and reward are just different sides of the same coin.
Reward works well for building a healthy rapport and relationship. I don't think punishment is entirely ineffective, but if it isn't rare and judicious it may well end up causing more harm than help. The problem is that the response to punishment is visible immediately while the downsides may only appear many years later.
Reward works well for building a healthy rapport and relationship. I don't think punishment is entirely ineffective, but if it isn't rare and judicious it may well end up causing more harm than help. The problem is that the response to punishment is visible immediately while the downsides may only appear many years later.
Rewarding someone when they do what you want is just as sleazy and manipulative as punishing them when they do what you don't want. It might be the fact that a child doesn't realize that, but an adult undoubtedly (eventually) would, and be just as resentful.
Similar to what I've been reading about in a book about democracy. Rules that are regarded as legitimate barely require enforcement, people will follow them of their own volition. Rules that don't have legitimacy are actively resisted.
If punishment changes behavior, why does anyone get more than one speeding ticket? Why does recidivism exist at all?
Punishment primarily changes the visibility of behavior. Kids who get punished by their parents a lot learn to avoid their parents and hide their feelings and behaviors. To the parent it can look like the punishment worked.
Punishment primarily changes the visibility of behavior. Kids who get punished by their parents a lot learn to avoid their parents and hide their feelings and behaviors. To the parent it can look like the punishment worked.
If you were trown in jail, brutally raped and had 50% of your income confiscated for the rest of your life as a punishment, trust me, pretty much nobody would be speeding.
For most people, the (cost of punishment * chance of being caught) is less than reward of whatever they're doing.
For most people, the (cost of punishment * chance of being caught) is less than reward of whatever they're doing.
Then increase the reward. It's not a coincidence that most criminals are poor people. They have less to lose.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Keep on at it. My partner and I fostered rescue puppies (mainly larger breeds) for several years before having kids. We taught bite inhibition, toilet training and general manners to umpteen puppies using positive reinforcement while they were in our care. We've used remarkably similar techniques on our children now aged 3.5 and 1.5yo. Every child is unique so YMMV but we have been very happy with the way our kids have responded to our approach.
Getting angry seems to just stimulate fear in our kids which shuts down communication and halts any opportunity for them to learn something positive from a challenging situation. I want a child who can communicate and is expressive. It's a long game so I feel like having a child who learning to communicate when they're 3 is more likely to communicate when they're a teenager facing bigger, real world problems.
Good luck with yours
Getting angry seems to just stimulate fear in our kids which shuts down communication and halts any opportunity for them to learn something positive from a challenging situation. I want a child who can communicate and is expressive. It's a long game so I feel like having a child who learning to communicate when they're 3 is more likely to communicate when they're a teenager facing bigger, real world problems.
Good luck with yours
We are also firmly on the positive reinforcement / attachment parenting camp. It does work wonders.
That being said, especially with kids older than ~3, we believe some form of negative consequences for bad behaviour are necessary. Especially if they e.g. push or hit another child. And I don't mean using physical punishment, more like "I'm taking this toy away from you now". The important thing is that the child is old enough to understand what they're doing is wrong, and that the consequence is relatively immediate.
Also, being angry is an emotion kids need to learn about. This means (IMO) it's OK for a parent to be visibly angry sometimes, as long as you are able to remain a good role model while angry. I.e. yelling at / insulting someone, hitting someone etc. is very much out of the picture. But yelling into the air "Aargh I'm so angry!!!" and then being able to cool down and acknowledge afterwards why you were angry is likely good for a child to see. Again, assuming that the child is old enough to understand, and that you discuss/explain it afterwards.
That being said, especially with kids older than ~3, we believe some form of negative consequences for bad behaviour are necessary. Especially if they e.g. push or hit another child. And I don't mean using physical punishment, more like "I'm taking this toy away from you now". The important thing is that the child is old enough to understand what they're doing is wrong, and that the consequence is relatively immediate.
Also, being angry is an emotion kids need to learn about. This means (IMO) it's OK for a parent to be visibly angry sometimes, as long as you are able to remain a good role model while angry. I.e. yelling at / insulting someone, hitting someone etc. is very much out of the picture. But yelling into the air "Aargh I'm so angry!!!" and then being able to cool down and acknowledge afterwards why you were angry is likely good for a child to see. Again, assuming that the child is old enough to understand, and that you discuss/explain it afterwards.
> Being angry is an emotion kids need to learn about. This means (IMO) it's OK for a parent to be visibly angry sometimes, as long as you are able to remain a good role model while angry.
Very true. The thing is, if you are somehow able to bottle up your negative emotions in front of your kids all the time, you're either superhuman, or you're letting them fester in some other way... Kids should learn that they have an impact on their parents' lives too, and they need to see examples of how we deal with it.
Some parents get pouty and act just like a toddler until they cave and give the kid something the kid wants. Other parents get angry, maybe even raise their voice, but then take control of their emotion and apologize to the kid, but still don't cave to whatever the kid (often irrationally) desires.
Physical punishment (outside of restraint, e.g. When one kid hurts another) is a different conversation entirely, of course.
Very true. The thing is, if you are somehow able to bottle up your negative emotions in front of your kids all the time, you're either superhuman, or you're letting them fester in some other way... Kids should learn that they have an impact on their parents' lives too, and they need to see examples of how we deal with it.
Some parents get pouty and act just like a toddler until they cave and give the kid something the kid wants. Other parents get angry, maybe even raise their voice, but then take control of their emotion and apologize to the kid, but still don't cave to whatever the kid (often irrationally) desires.
Physical punishment (outside of restraint, e.g. When one kid hurts another) is a different conversation entirely, of course.
The trouble with a puppy is that it's hard to know whether or not "chasing them to get $VALUABLE_ITEM out of their mouth" is a reward or not :)
I am pretty sure a behaviourist in most cases would say that it is a punishment, and they would encourage you to try and switch $VALUABLE_ITEM for a "higher value object", which might be their favourite toy, a toy that squeaks or maybe even food if they are very foodie.
> the key to training a dog is not to "punish" them when they do something wrong
And yet getting caught in the act of doing something wrong and being "punished" (harsh words in the case of a dog) is remarkable effective, particularly in combination with positive reinforcement for the things done well.
> We adopted a puppy a little more than a year ago and this was the exact advice we were given for how to train her
This works remarkably well until you have a dog for which it doesn't work. We've adopted several dogs - some as puppies, some grown - and found that most of the time, for most of the animals, these practices work. But sometimes -and for some dogs - they don't work at all, or with greatly reduced effectiveness.
It depends on what drives the dog and that dog's personality.
> Our baby is only six months old so we'll have to report back in a decade as to whether this approach works well with kids too. :)
Yes. And no. It depends entirely on the personality of your child - and to a limited extent, your own. That's the frustrating thing about these kinds of articles (as well as dog training articles). They position themselves with such authority that we seem to be expected to believe that they're handing down a Great Universal Truth*.
It's not. In my opinion, there is only one - living things (dog or child) are complicated creatures. There are so many variables unique to each living thing in your care that there's not much room left for The One True Way.
[1] My favorite of these is a popular dog trainer who - with all sincerity - says that when you pull on a dog's collar, the dog will pull back because it's physics. The dog must provide an equal and opposite reaction. It's amazing how many people buy into the rationale. What the trainer advocates is perfectly fine in many cases - but I can't get past the pseudo-scientific non-logic.
And yet getting caught in the act of doing something wrong and being "punished" (harsh words in the case of a dog) is remarkable effective, particularly in combination with positive reinforcement for the things done well.
> We adopted a puppy a little more than a year ago and this was the exact advice we were given for how to train her
This works remarkably well until you have a dog for which it doesn't work. We've adopted several dogs - some as puppies, some grown - and found that most of the time, for most of the animals, these practices work. But sometimes -and for some dogs - they don't work at all, or with greatly reduced effectiveness.
It depends on what drives the dog and that dog's personality.
> Our baby is only six months old so we'll have to report back in a decade as to whether this approach works well with kids too. :)
Yes. And no. It depends entirely on the personality of your child - and to a limited extent, your own. That's the frustrating thing about these kinds of articles (as well as dog training articles). They position themselves with such authority that we seem to be expected to believe that they're handing down a Great Universal Truth*.
It's not. In my opinion, there is only one - living things (dog or child) are complicated creatures. There are so many variables unique to each living thing in your care that there's not much room left for The One True Way.
[1] My favorite of these is a popular dog trainer who - with all sincerity - says that when you pull on a dog's collar, the dog will pull back because it's physics. The dog must provide an equal and opposite reaction. It's amazing how many people buy into the rationale. What the trainer advocates is perfectly fine in many cases - but I can't get past the pseudo-scientific non-logic.
While this is framed here as a "radical" technique, it's just BF Skinner's Operant Conditioning, which has been one of the foundations of behavioral psychology for nigh on 100 years.
If you're wondering if it really works, yes, it does. One of the key elements of it, especially when using it on people, is accepting that the subject is likely to execute the behavior badly for the first few iterations, but you have to positively reinforce it just the same as if they'd done it perfectly if you want them to get better. If you can't manage this, and you get angry at them, you're jeopardising the whole thing.
There's a nice clip from one of Jordan Peterson's lectures here, talking about these techniques in the context of intimate relationships:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VM1UA0pCMQ
If you're wondering if it really works, yes, it does. One of the key elements of it, especially when using it on people, is accepting that the subject is likely to execute the behavior badly for the first few iterations, but you have to positively reinforce it just the same as if they'd done it perfectly if you want them to get better. If you can't manage this, and you get angry at them, you're jeopardising the whole thing.
There's a nice clip from one of Jordan Peterson's lectures here, talking about these techniques in the context of intimate relationships:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VM1UA0pCMQ
So... this is one of my pet peeves about developmental psychology.
This "punishment doesn't work" mantra is rampant in the field, and it's totally unsupported by the scientific evidence.
What is true is that punishment on its own is relatively ineffective, and that you need to reward desired behavior to shift it from something undesirable to something desirable.
But if you read the learning literature, it's pretty clear that the most effective way to change behavior is to punish undesired behavior and reward desired behavior.
The article is promulgating this ideological distortion of operant conditioning that's common in developmental psychology.
Maybe there are better or worse ways of implementing punishment, and the best thing is to combine it with rewards; in fact, sometimes rewards on its own will work. But the idea that punishment is ineffective is incorrect.
This "punishment doesn't work" mantra is rampant in the field, and it's totally unsupported by the scientific evidence.
What is true is that punishment on its own is relatively ineffective, and that you need to reward desired behavior to shift it from something undesirable to something desirable.
But if you read the learning literature, it's pretty clear that the most effective way to change behavior is to punish undesired behavior and reward desired behavior.
The article is promulgating this ideological distortion of operant conditioning that's common in developmental psychology.
Maybe there are better or worse ways of implementing punishment, and the best thing is to combine it with rewards; in fact, sometimes rewards on its own will work. But the idea that punishment is ineffective is incorrect.
> One of the key elements of it, especially when using it on people, is accepting that the subject is likely to execute the behavior badly for the first few iterations, but you have to positively reinforce it just the same as if they'd done it perfectly if you want them to get better.
(Good) parents all do this all the time. I think it goes as far as being instinct. E.g. the first time your child uses a spoon by himself, there's going to be porridge all over him, table, chair and floor, with a comparably minute amount going into his mouth. But you still smile, applaud and praise him.
(Good) parents all do this all the time. I think it goes as far as being instinct. E.g. the first time your child uses a spoon by himself, there's going to be porridge all over him, table, chair and floor, with a comparably minute amount going into his mouth. But you still smile, applaud and praise him.
What I've learned about parenting:
* Your kids may grow up to act like you, so act in a way that you want your children to emulate.
* Talk to them in a way and have expecations of them that are developmentally appropriate. Use your wisdom and conscience to determine how to do this.
* Expect your children to have certain responsibilties and behave in a certain way, to start working for the familiy or for others when they become old enough (possibly to make their own money), volunteer to help others, and respect their parents, family, others, and themselves.
Beyond that, it just depends on the situation.
I've seen some bad parenting, though. It usually involves anger, psychosis, manipulation, spoiling, irrationally defending their child, drug use, etc. If you or your child is the common thread in problems, it's probable that you or your child are at fault. If you can't handle things, get outside help. And if your kid is exhibiting bad or dangerous behavior to themselves or others, get help.
* Your kids may grow up to act like you, so act in a way that you want your children to emulate.
* Talk to them in a way and have expecations of them that are developmentally appropriate. Use your wisdom and conscience to determine how to do this.
* Expect your children to have certain responsibilties and behave in a certain way, to start working for the familiy or for others when they become old enough (possibly to make their own money), volunteer to help others, and respect their parents, family, others, and themselves.
Beyond that, it just depends on the situation.
I've seen some bad parenting, though. It usually involves anger, psychosis, manipulation, spoiling, irrationally defending their child, drug use, etc. If you or your child is the common thread in problems, it's probable that you or your child are at fault. If you can't handle things, get outside help. And if your kid is exhibiting bad or dangerous behavior to themselves or others, get help.
I couldn't read more than a paragraph of this article it's so ridiculous. The idea that positive reinforcement is a radical idea? Ridiculous. The idea that you can ignore destructive behaviour until it goes away? Ridiculous.
It's about addressing the situation. As a parent the best thing is when I get to positively reinforce my child's behaviour, because it means I've seen them do something wonderful. (Helping a sibling, taking initiative, etc.) But if I didn't stop them when they are throwing toys at their little brother or sister then we've got bigger problems.
It's about addressing the situation. As a parent the best thing is when I get to positively reinforce my child's behaviour, because it means I've seen them do something wonderful. (Helping a sibling, taking initiative, etc.) But if I didn't stop them when they are throwing toys at their little brother or sister then we've got bigger problems.
That's the core issue. Lots of bad habits don't lend themselves well to only positive reinforcement because the habit itself provides a positive reinforcement to the individual. They'll continue to do whatever because it's fun even if it's self-destructive in the end.
You captured my thoughts on this as well. Positive reinforcement is great and all, but there needs to be an options for a "stick" rather than always a "carrot". Your example is good, but also when they are acting out in public especially if it affects others around them.
"Sarah, put on the green coat or the red sweater. We're going to go out, okay?" Choice among humans increases the likelihood of compliance. And choice isn't important, it's the appearance of choice that's important. Having real choice is not the issue, humans don't feel too strongly about that, but having the feeling that you have a choice makes a difference.
This was the main take away for me. It seems like it might be useful for managing employees / colleagues too.
This was the main take away for me. It seems like it might be useful for managing employees / colleagues too.
Anytime someone does "choice framing" (or other "persuasion techniques") on me, they have automatically placed themselves on thin ice.
Most of the time, I will ignore it because it isn't important enough for me. If I know you are a "sales/marketing" type, I may simply ignore this part of your personality because I realize you can't turn it off.
If I think it's important, I will call you out on it. I will inform you quite strongly that I will come to my own conclusions after I have considered my options. If you want my support, present me with your evidence and arguments.
If this is a business power play, I'm going to call one or two other people over who will want the choice to go different directions, sit back, and watch everything melt down into a gigantic argument.
Don't manipulate people around you to do things they don't want to do. Align your goals and tasks so that people want to do the thing you want them to do. Otherwise, you'll get a reputation for "playing poker" all them time, and then people will start avoiding you.
Or worse, they'll start sending someone like me over to deal with you. And they'll laugh as you get increasingly frustrated that you are interacting with someone you can't manipulate. (Yes, I'm speaking from both personal and business experience).
Most of the time, I will ignore it because it isn't important enough for me. If I know you are a "sales/marketing" type, I may simply ignore this part of your personality because I realize you can't turn it off.
If I think it's important, I will call you out on it. I will inform you quite strongly that I will come to my own conclusions after I have considered my options. If you want my support, present me with your evidence and arguments.
If this is a business power play, I'm going to call one or two other people over who will want the choice to go different directions, sit back, and watch everything melt down into a gigantic argument.
Don't manipulate people around you to do things they don't want to do. Align your goals and tasks so that people want to do the thing you want them to do. Otherwise, you'll get a reputation for "playing poker" all them time, and then people will start avoiding you.
Or worse, they'll start sending someone like me over to deal with you. And they'll laugh as you get increasingly frustrated that you are interacting with someone you can't manipulate. (Yes, I'm speaking from both personal and business experience).
I don't understand how people think this is honest. You're clearly using your cognitive advantage (or in the case of a boss, usually an organizational info advantage) to trick the other person. I remember as I grew up noticing when adults were doing this, and I resented them for it. Why would I want my kids to feel that way about me?
It's not "tricking", unless you're letting your toddler dictate whether you should leave the house. Toddlers don't have a choice over that; instead, you're giving the toddler a choice appropriate to their level. That helps build their cognitive abilities and takes the focus away from whether they want to leave the house (a choice they shouldn't make), to whether they want the sweater or coat (a choice reasonable for them).
You're using a cognitive advantage to distract them from expressing displeasure about something they reasonably don't like. Just because the toddler doesn't have a say over whether you're leaving the house doesn't mean you're not tricking him.
If two people are dating, the boyfriend is well within his rights to unilaterally break off the relationship. But if he broached the issue with his girlfriend by saying "Would you rather be just friends or simply not see each other any more?" in order to distract her from the breakup, she would rightfully be resentful. (That example is extreme to illustrate the point, but the idea is the same.)
If two people are dating, the boyfriend is well within his rights to unilaterally break off the relationship. But if he broached the issue with his girlfriend by saying "Would you rather be just friends or simply not see each other any more?" in order to distract her from the breakup, she would rightfully be resentful. (That example is extreme to illustrate the point, but the idea is the same.)
Are you suggesting 4-year-old children are emotionally mature enough to properly express their displeasure with something in a productive manner? Maybe some are, but others are very hair triggered with their emotions and interpret not getting their way as if they were being murdered. Perhaps working around these fatal emotion exceptions is better than running into them every day, at least until the child's brain has had time for a few major revisions.
In your second paragraph, are you suggesting there is no such thing as an amicable breakup? One where exes can still be friends? The "I don't have romantic feelings for you, but would like to remain friends" tactic is quite popular. Obviously the recipient of that message will interpret it in a variety of ways depending on their investment in the relationship. If the person has a negative reaction to it, they likely wouldn't have responded any better to "I am leaving you, goodbye" either.
In your second paragraph, are you suggesting there is no such thing as an amicable breakup? One where exes can still be friends? The "I don't have romantic feelings for you, but would like to remain friends" tactic is quite popular. Obviously the recipient of that message will interpret it in a variety of ways depending on their investment in the relationship. If the person has a negative reaction to it, they likely wouldn't have responded any better to "I am leaving you, goodbye" either.
> Perhaps working around these fatal emotion exceptions is better than running into them every day, at least until the child's brain has had time for a few major revisions.
Perhaps. Parenting is complicated. But we shouldn't pretend it's not a trick, and that we aren't doing something the child may rightfully resent.
> In your second paragraph, are you suggesting...
No.
> If the person has a negative reaction to it, they likely wouldn't have responded any better to "I am leaving you, goodbye" either.
The point of being honest is not necessarily because it secures the best response.
Perhaps. Parenting is complicated. But we shouldn't pretend it's not a trick, and that we aren't doing something the child may rightfully resent.
> In your second paragraph, are you suggesting...
No.
> If the person has a negative reaction to it, they likely wouldn't have responded any better to "I am leaving you, goodbye" either.
The point of being honest is not necessarily because it secures the best response.
If the goal of the parent is "get child to grandmas, so I can go to work to continue to take care of this child", while the child's goal is "I want to continue to watch cartoons in this very spot and not move, and I'll have a tantrum if I am told to move due to poor impulse/emotional controls in my under-developed brain, unless I am 'tricked'", then who's goals are more important? If the child resents such a "trick" later in life, then the child is still showing traits of emotional immaturity, and a lack of understanding on how the world operates.
Also don't put honesty on too high a pedestal. Being honest about every single thing can have very damaging effects and negative consequences. Having no social tact so you can ride an honesty high horse is not necessarily superior to little white lies and/or trickery.
Also don't put honesty on too high a pedestal. Being honest about every single thing can have very damaging effects and negative consequences. Having no social tact so you can ride an honesty high horse is not necessarily superior to little white lies and/or trickery.
You are attributing large sweeping claims to me that I'm not making.
To be honest, I am actually not.
> If the goal of the parent is "get child to grandmas"
> while the child's goal is "I want to continue to watch cartoons"
> who's goals are more important?
As an adult, if I want to spend the day on the sofa watching cartoons, who has the right to stop me, and drag me off somewhere else?
> At what point/age is it OK to control someone, and when/why does that stop?
When they have not established an ability to control their life or take care of themselves? See how long the infant or toddler lasts without supervision. See the teenager make the best choices for their lives without the ability to earn a living(although technically I moved out at 17).
When they can afford their own self determination as defined by the society they live in?
Parental control is more of a gradient that should ease as the child gets closer to adulthood. The goal of the parent should be to make a self-sufficient independent individual. That's not always their goal though.
>As an adult, if I want to spend the day on the sofa watching cartoons, who has the right to stop me, and drag me off somewhere else?
Your landlord, mortgage company, local tax auditor would have the legal right to evict you if you failed to make good on earlier promises to pay rent, mortgage, taxes. If you're living with someone else who is paying for your ability to watch cartoons then they could probably kick you out whenever they felt like it.
When they have not established an ability to control their life or take care of themselves? See how long the infant or toddler lasts without supervision. See the teenager make the best choices for their lives without the ability to earn a living(although technically I moved out at 17).
When they can afford their own self determination as defined by the society they live in?
Parental control is more of a gradient that should ease as the child gets closer to adulthood. The goal of the parent should be to make a self-sufficient independent individual. That's not always their goal though.
>As an adult, if I want to spend the day on the sofa watching cartoons, who has the right to stop me, and drag me off somewhere else?
Your landlord, mortgage company, local tax auditor would have the legal right to evict you if you failed to make good on earlier promises to pay rent, mortgage, taxes. If you're living with someone else who is paying for your ability to watch cartoons then they could probably kick you out whenever they felt like it.
> The "I don't have romantic feelings for you, but would like to remain friends" tactic is quite popular
Has this ever, in the history of mankind, actually worked?
Has this ever, in the history of mankind, actually worked?
In my experience it works very well. I've had people say that to me, and I've said that to other people, and I'm relatively happy on both ends of it. In fact, I'm currently in a very healthy relationship with someone who I've said that to several years ago. So it "works" however you want to measure it. The trick is not to be 15 years old.
> the boyfriend is well within his rights to unilaterally break off the relationship.
> But if he broached the issue with his girlfriend by saying
> "Would you rather be just friends or simply not see each other any more?"
> in order to distract her from the breakup, she would rightfully be resentful.
Unless he deliberately did that to distract from the breakup…but even then, it doesn't exactly seem all that negative. Having made the decision to break off the relationship, providing options to deal with that and offer positive ways forward doesn't seem all that bad.
For me, I'm struggling to see how the example fits. Sure, she may be upset at the breakup of the relationship, but providing options for responding to that seems more positive than negative.
I don't disagree with the principle, but the example: a relationship is based on mutual consent, and withdrawal of that consent isn't a trick or unacceptable.
It's clearly not a fair comparison. At some point you need to introduce an age of determination or at least a grade to have a reasonable conversation about the ethics of parenting. Parents are required to do all sorts of things in their kids' best interest that wouldn't otherwise be reasonable / appropriate.
The point of the example was not that it was a perfect analogy, it was merely to rebut the idea that a parent's prerogative to choose destination doesn't mean there's no transgression.
I already addressed the child's-interest defense in another comment. Yes, there are of course cases where parents transgressions may be justified (and required) in order to help the child, but we shouldn't pretend there is no transgression, in particular because we should always try to secure the good outcome for the child without the transgression.
I already addressed the child's-interest defense in another comment. Yes, there are of course cases where parents transgressions may be justified (and required) in order to help the child, but we shouldn't pretend there is no transgression, in particular because we should always try to secure the good outcome for the child without the transgression.
You are comparing a 4 yo to an 18(?) yo.
Should a 4 yo be allowed to live alone? Drive a car? Date?
It is about choice and responsibillity on a suitable level for the maturity of the child.
And a parent-child relationship is very different from an adult-adult relationship either way.
Your commen makes absolutely no sense.
Should a 4 yo be allowed to live alone? Drive a car? Date?
It is about choice and responsibillity on a suitable level for the maturity of the child.
And a parent-child relationship is very different from an adult-adult relationship either way.
Your commen makes absolutely no sense.
The assumption implicit in your argument is that the relationship is equal (as in the case of a boyfriend/girlfriend). I'm not sure that same assumption holds for a parent and a child, as much as the media tells you otherwise.
The point of the example was merely to rebut the idea that a parent's prerogative to choose destination doesn't mean there's no transgression. Finding some way that it differs from the parent-child relationship isn't relevant unless you explain why the asymmetry would imply there was no transgression.
Children learn their own forms of manipulative behavior at an early age(e.g. cry to get attention or what you want), but with less logical understanding of their own wants/needs. Put children on the same level, and hold the child to the same moral standard you're trying to hold parents to and they fail completely at it. It's not a matter of the parent manipulating the innocent child, but rather the parent diverting around the child's own manipulative behaviors. Perhaps no one should be manipulative ever, but go ahead and try explaining that to someone with the cognitive and emotional maturity of a 4 year old.
In an adult-adult relationship, the two parties should be equals, with similar cognitive and emotional maturity. They should treat each other as such. This isn't always the case. Even loving seemingly healthy relationships may involve some form of manipulative behavior on both sides.
Transgressions occur all the time, in all relationships, you have you to use judgement to figure out which ones get a pass, and which ones don't.
In an adult-adult relationship, the two parties should be equals, with similar cognitive and emotional maturity. They should treat each other as such. This isn't always the case. Even loving seemingly healthy relationships may involve some form of manipulative behavior on both sides.
Transgressions occur all the time, in all relationships, you have you to use judgement to figure out which ones get a pass, and which ones don't.
Any cognitive advantage that is abused will be seen as manipulative, absolutely. The way to make "the illusion of choice" work is to be selective about it. You start out by giving the 4 year old the illusion of choice (the jacket or the sweater), but what you're really doing is coaching the child to make appropriate decisions. After a few times, you won't have to give the child the choice anymore, because they will know the parameters of the choices for the challenge facing them. You could simply say "let's get ready to go out."
Same thing with a boss. (S)he can use this cognitive tool to coach good decisions. People like choice and they like being right. Using this method allows for both.
Same thing with a boss. (S)he can use this cognitive tool to coach good decisions. People like choice and they like being right. Using this method allows for both.
You're justifying it as being in the child's (or employee's) interest, but you're not actually denying the transgression.
Lying becomes less worse when you lie for someone else's benefit but (1) that doesn't make it not lying, (2) the other person can still rightfully resent it, (3) you generally shouldn't trust yourself to only lie in another's interest. Regarding the last one: I often see normal, reasonably good parents lie to their children just to get relief, and I'm sure they can justify it to themselves as in the child's interest, but it's really just self-serving.
(You can replace "lie" with "white lie", "trick", or whatever euphemism you want for this mild, but real, transgression.)
I think one good check on this is whether the child would be OK with it after-the-fact, assuming some hypothetical wisdom and hindsight (like becoming an adult). If they aren't OK with it, then you probably shouldn't do it. And I'm telling you right now: as an adult, I don't like the fact that adults did this to me when I was a child.
Lying becomes less worse when you lie for someone else's benefit but (1) that doesn't make it not lying, (2) the other person can still rightfully resent it, (3) you generally shouldn't trust yourself to only lie in another's interest. Regarding the last one: I often see normal, reasonably good parents lie to their children just to get relief, and I'm sure they can justify it to themselves as in the child's interest, but it's really just self-serving.
(You can replace "lie" with "white lie", "trick", or whatever euphemism you want for this mild, but real, transgression.)
I think one good check on this is whether the child would be OK with it after-the-fact, assuming some hypothetical wisdom and hindsight (like becoming an adult). If they aren't OK with it, then you probably shouldn't do it. And I'm telling you right now: as an adult, I don't like the fact that adults did this to me when I was a child.
What's the lie? They have a choice, which you present. There isn't some third option you're hiding, and the choice presented isn't false.
On that note: On the Decay of the Art of Lying, by Mark Twain: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2572/pg2572.html
> I don't like the fact that adults did this to me when I was a child.
I'm curious to know more about this. Was it cases like "the jacket or the sweater" or was it something more serious?
If your parent distracted you from not getting ice cream by giving you a toy, would you be OK with that? Basically you are distracting them because they don't yet have the cognitive awareness to distract themselves.
I'm curious to know more about this. Was it cases like "the jacket or the sweater" or was it something more serious?
If your parent distracted you from not getting ice cream by giving you a toy, would you be OK with that? Basically you are distracting them because they don't yet have the cognitive awareness to distract themselves.
I got downvoted for making essentially the same point (elsewhere in this same discussion). I think you are 100% correct, but are not likely to win the argument. People don't like having it pointed out that what is convenient for them is not actually ethical, even if that isn't how you are framing it. They will defend to their death their right to claim "well, it is in the best interest of (the child, employee, whomever)" and ignore the larger point.
The irony is this is being suggested by an article that posits we should be nicer to our kids and not punish them. But deception and manipulation, that's apparently totes okay! It is so much nicer!
I don't believe in a punishment model. I also did not lie to my kids, nor deceive them nor manipulate them. I have a great relationship with my now adult sons who know they can trust me because I don't pull any of that bullshit. And that's what really matters to me. I sometimes wish I could figure out to share that information effectively to help other parents, but people who justify their shitty behavior don't actually want to be helped. They want the rest of the world to be nicer to benefit themselves, but they don't want to have to deal with the man in the mirror. He's fine. It's everyone else that is bad.
And it is usually fruitless to try to debate it.
Best.
The irony is this is being suggested by an article that posits we should be nicer to our kids and not punish them. But deception and manipulation, that's apparently totes okay! It is so much nicer!
I don't believe in a punishment model. I also did not lie to my kids, nor deceive them nor manipulate them. I have a great relationship with my now adult sons who know they can trust me because I don't pull any of that bullshit. And that's what really matters to me. I sometimes wish I could figure out to share that information effectively to help other parents, but people who justify their shitty behavior don't actually want to be helped. They want the rest of the world to be nicer to benefit themselves, but they don't want to have to deal with the man in the mirror. He's fine. It's everyone else that is bad.
And it is usually fruitless to try to debate it.
Best.
It goes both ways. If a boss says "do X" you may not have a gracefull opportunity to respond. But if a boss says "wold you rather do X or Y" you are more likely to be able to say "how about Z because...".
Granted, in a healthy relationship neither party has must resort to such tricks.
Granted, in a healthy relationship neither party has must resort to such tricks.
[deleted]
The other important thing is to recognise that children can't plan. If you're in a hot room and ask a child to put some warm clothing on they're not going to be able to plan for the cold weather outside, and they'll reject the clothing because they're warm.
At that point you can turn it into a huge thing, or you can just take the coat with you until you get outside and they get cold. At which point you let them put it on. And if they still don't want it, well, most children aren't going to let themselves get hypothermic.
At that point you can turn it into a huge thing, or you can just take the coat with you until you get outside and they get cold. At which point you let them put it on. And if they still don't want it, well, most children aren't going to let themselves get hypothermic.
What I find fascinating is that it seems that it's (maybe I'm wrong) a very recent development in child psychology, but it's used against us by the marketing departments many times every day.
> It seems like it might be useful for managing employees / colleagues too.
Please don't treat your colleagues/employees like a fucking child.
Please don't treat your colleagues/employees like a fucking child.
[deleted]
If you're implementing the 'positive reinforcement over negative' approach into your life, it's important to trust the large body of research that demonstrates its effectiveness. Be skeptical of your own internal perception of its effects. I find that when I'm working to make positive reinforcement work, the outlier failures stand out so much larger in my mind. I struggle to understand that it's working in the long run despite my infrequent emotional reactions of anger, frustration, failure, etc.
There's some fascinating reading on the cognitive biases that are at play here in Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
There's some fascinating reading on the cognitive biases that are at play here in Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
This is possibly a good long term approach, but what to do when you need to put the situation under the control quickly, and kids just don't cooperate? I had such experience when my 4yo kid was at some point fascinated by kitchen stove, turning the gas knobs on/off. It's just something that you can't slowly teach him not to do, you need to draw the line right away, for his own safety. You can't reason with kid that small, and it's too dangerous to let him learn the lesson by trying, so you just have to scare him out of it.
In my experience our natural reaction to the actually dangerous stuff was scary enough by itself. Our kid immediately dropped behaviors that were plain dangerous and somehow kept on those that were merely "bad".
Edit: by natural reaction I mean the quick leap towards the child while screaming "NOooooooo!", not anything purposefully scary.
Edit: by natural reaction I mean the quick leap towards the child while screaming "NOooooooo!", not anything purposefully scary.
In such a case you still have the option to make the behavior physically impossible, by placing a physical barrier around the dangerous object; no different from a fire-guard in front of an open fire, or a childproof gate at the bottom of a flight of stairs. In my own experience, my kids got the message about the stove by being told sternly not to touch it and why it was dangerous, calmly but firmly and seriously. Other stuff took repeating, but never more than 3 times (kids have moments when they're just not taking information in, and we're constantly telling them what to do, so factor that in, you need to repeat the really important stuff)
A workmate once told me that he found his young son fiddling with the dials next to a hot stove. So he took his son's hand and briefly placed it on the hot part. The son ran away crying but he learned his lesson.
That's a good way to build trust with your son. And to be a decent human being. But, sarcasm aside, there is a huge line between scaring / yelling at your kid and physical harm and this is way over the line.
This is what rational me says I should do, because it makes sense. But I can't imagine my wife understanding, and the questions at pre-school, etc. Assuming it was a small burn, because that's what would cause a child to cry. Plus I might hate myself for doing it. It's a short jump from "I touched my son's hand to the hot stove to teach him it's bad" to CPS knocking on my door.
Intentionally burning your kid is not good. Also, you run the risk of teaching them that it's mom or dad that's dangerous, rather than the stove. If you're willing to burn them, let them do it to themselves. If not, then teach it without hurting them.
Kids often has a reason for doing things, including not cooperating. Where he trying to get attention? emulating? You can't reason with kids out of those.
Trying to scare kids into compliance is rarely a effective method, and has some very nasty side effects. If long term approaches can't be used, child proof gas knobs exist.
Trying to scare kids into compliance is rarely a effective method, and has some very nasty side effects. If long term approaches can't be used, child proof gas knobs exist.
Child proof knobs exist, yes, but there are million of other dangerous things all around us. In my eyes, trying to fix the world instead of teaching the kid to follow some basic rules is a completely wrong approach. It's like the Sleeping Beauty fairy tale, you just can't hide all the spindles in the kingdom, it never works.
[deleted]
"No negative reinforcement" is what gives us kids that run screaming around in restaurants and stores. Sorry, I disagree with an absolute ban.
As a parent, I think that there is something far more important than positive or negative reinforcement. In my opinion, the fact that the child should believe at a very deep level that you are far more stubborn than they are is the single most important thing.
Without that, the child knows they can avoid the consequences altogether.
As a parent, I think that there is something far more important than positive or negative reinforcement. In my opinion, the fact that the child should believe at a very deep level that you are far more stubborn than they are is the single most important thing.
Without that, the child knows they can avoid the consequences altogether.
Yeah, they need to be sure you are crazier then them and you will followup on most things you promise.
>"No negative reinforcement" is what gives us kids that run screaming around in restaurants and stores. Sorry, I disagree with an absolute ban.
The whole point of the article is that those children lack positive reinforcement, and that if the parents were paying attention to the children when the children were good the children wouldn't end up screaming in a restaurant.
The whole point of the article is that those children lack positive reinforcement, and that if the parents were paying attention to the children when the children were good the children wouldn't end up screaming in a restaurant.
How you modify your children's behavior is beside the point, IMO. What's really important is whether the modification is in the child's best interest, or merely convenient or beneficial to the parent.
Some folks get it and won't fuck up their kids too badly, even with bad technique. Others don't and will do lasting harm, even without using abusive techniques to get compliance.
Some folks get it and won't fuck up their kids too badly, even with bad technique. Others don't and will do lasting harm, even without using abusive techniques to get compliance.
Good point. My dad with his behavior might have gotten me and my brother to behave. But the problem is that it permanently destroyed his relationship with us and caused issues for us later in life. I do keep in touch with my dad and care about him but I can never really be close to him because of they way he has always acted.
I think people have to realize that kids also have to be kids. One can't expect them to be as quiet and well behaved as grown ups. I am very much against the popularity of French child raising as it seems to frequently create subdued children, who can sit quiet at the restaurant but who has lost the spark.
I remember some fellow Norwegians married into a french family comment on how when they were at a park the Norwegian kids ran around and had fun and the French kids looked at dumbfound with: You can do that?! Can we do that as well?
I assume this is not the average behavior. Or I hope, but I think it gives an idea of how you don't want your kids to end up.
I think people have to realize that kids also have to be kids. One can't expect them to be as quiet and well behaved as grown ups. I am very much against the popularity of French child raising as it seems to frequently create subdued children, who can sit quiet at the restaurant but who has lost the spark.
I remember some fellow Norwegians married into a french family comment on how when they were at a park the Norwegian kids ran around and had fun and the French kids looked at dumbfound with: You can do that?! Can we do that as well?
I assume this is not the average behavior. Or I hope, but I think it gives an idea of how you don't want your kids to end up.
This article is dangerous. On the surface it may sound good, but there is behavior so vile and harmful to the child, family or neighbors that never showing negative reinforcement is extremely dangerous with some children.
It does have some merits though, showing plenty of positive reinforcement will likely reduce the amount of negative reinforcement needed.
It does have some merits though, showing plenty of positive reinforcement will likely reduce the amount of negative reinforcement needed.
You don't want never negative, or never stern to put a lighter touch on it—but many people, probably the audience of this article at large, simply don't know enough behavior theory to even know of the alternative.
Save the negative reinforcement and punishment for situations where it's absolutely clear and necessary—that's the best way to keep it an effective tool anyway. Maybe 60% positive, and 10% negative, with the other part just not being reinforced (an incredibly powerful behavioral tool all on its own).
It's the same with dogs (not as a derogatory comparison—just the truth of the science). I negatively reinforce for biting only, and only after they're at an age where they can comprehend the association between the bite and the punishment. It's remarkably effective. For nearly everything else, positive reinforcement is orders of magnitude more effective.
Overall, the most important part is to be a majority positive player, which makes you an overwhelmingly positive symbol in your child's (or pup's) life. This has primary effects that far outweigh the alternatives and negative side-effects of negative punishment and negative reinforcement methods.
I don't agree that the article is dangerous—people are unlikely to give up negative reinforcement altogether, but being introduced to a wider diversity of well-proven methods will only help, and we need more of it.
Save the negative reinforcement and punishment for situations where it's absolutely clear and necessary—that's the best way to keep it an effective tool anyway. Maybe 60% positive, and 10% negative, with the other part just not being reinforced (an incredibly powerful behavioral tool all on its own).
It's the same with dogs (not as a derogatory comparison—just the truth of the science). I negatively reinforce for biting only, and only after they're at an age where they can comprehend the association between the bite and the punishment. It's remarkably effective. For nearly everything else, positive reinforcement is orders of magnitude more effective.
Overall, the most important part is to be a majority positive player, which makes you an overwhelmingly positive symbol in your child's (or pup's) life. This has primary effects that far outweigh the alternatives and negative side-effects of negative punishment and negative reinforcement methods.
I don't agree that the article is dangerous—people are unlikely to give up negative reinforcement altogether, but being introduced to a wider diversity of well-proven methods will only help, and we need more of it.
Note that negative reinforcement is reinforcement. It reinforces (i.e. encourages) a behaviour by stopping something unpleasant. e.g. your kid asks you nicely to turn off that dad music, you flip the stereo off, your kid feels better and learns to ask nicely. e.g.2. your kid screams that he hates carrots, you take the carrots off the plate, your kid feels better and learns to scream. When you say negative reinforcement you mean punishment.
Correct—I meant Positive Punishment (which is hard to remember, since it's decidedly not positive in the obvious sense).
I wonder how it equips children for the real world where there is both positive and negative reinforcement. If they only deal with positive reinforcement, will they have the emotional conditioning to deal with negative reinforcement. For example, dealing with a negative review or getting skipped for a promotion. Something we probably all experienced, getting yelled at by a manager.
Anecdotally, being raised by an asian mom. I was subjected to negative reinforcement of her disappointment if i didn't do well. I attribute that to both my and my sister success because we both didn't want to deal with the shame of failure.
Anecdotally, being raised by an asian mom. I was subjected to negative reinforcement of her disappointment if i didn't do well. I attribute that to both my and my sister success because we both didn't want to deal with the shame of failure.
Perhaps you are conflating failure with discipline.
We need to allow kids to fail, because you will fail in real life. Sports with no scores is dumb.
Fairly tangential to if we yell at our kids or not.
We need to allow kids to fail, because you will fail in real life. Sports with no scores is dumb.
Fairly tangential to if we yell at our kids or not.
Sports with no scores is fun
From what I've seen, if the adults don't keep score, the kids will do it themselves.
Please quote sources to back this up. You are proposing the exact opposite of what the article says, because of what?
The concept of positive reinforcement to shape the behavior of children and animals comes from the work of B. F. Skinner [1], the world's most widely known and influential behaviorist psychologist.
Key Works
* 1938 The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis
* 1948 Walden Two
* 1953 Science and Human Behavior
* 1957 Verbal Behavior
* 1971 Beyond Freedom and Dignity
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner
As an aside, this is the reason that it's important to have some understanding of the liberal arts along with formal training in math and computer science.
Key Works
* 1938 The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis
* 1948 Walden Two
* 1953 Science and Human Behavior
* 1957 Verbal Behavior
* 1971 Beyond Freedom and Dignity
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner
As an aside, this is the reason that it's important to have some understanding of the liberal arts along with formal training in math and computer science.
Of course there is extremely bad and dangerous behavior. But then there is extremely bad and dangerous behavior we don't have true control over - typical examples are compulsive, drug induced or depressed behavior. And yes, all of them need professional attention but that does not preclude us spending significant time with such persons.
With negative feedback it gets tricky very quickly as there is such a thing called intermittent re-enforcement - one provides inconsistent strong negative feedback and behavior gets worse and more persistent.
Enforcing hard limits consistently requires careful thinking and acting. It does have value in some cases. There is however a risk getting stuck thinking about the problem not solution. The author argues a solution focused approach is more effective in most cases. I don't think he covered clinical or criminal situations.
With negative feedback it gets tricky very quickly as there is such a thing called intermittent re-enforcement - one provides inconsistent strong negative feedback and behavior gets worse and more persistent.
Enforcing hard limits consistently requires careful thinking and acting. It does have value in some cases. There is however a risk getting stuck thinking about the problem not solution. The author argues a solution focused approach is more effective in most cases. I don't think he covered clinical or criminal situations.
There's a mild difference between punishment and negative reinforcement, and this article is just arguing against <punishment>.
The difference between punishment and negative reinforcement is in how one models the relationship between cause and effect, and how you are increasing or decreasing behavioral frequency.
The important aspect behind punishment or negative reinforcement isn't negativity or pain, but a model of learning that has since fallen out of favor versus bayesian causal learning models.
The difference between punishment and negative reinforcement is in how one models the relationship between cause and effect, and how you are increasing or decreasing behavioral frequency.
The important aspect behind punishment or negative reinforcement isn't negativity or pain, but a model of learning that has since fallen out of favor versus bayesian causal learning models.
Fully understand what you're describing, though it's worthwhile to consider the articles position which essentially states that negative reinforcement will likely prolong and intensify the behavior which prompted the reaction in the first place.
I like some of the ideas in this article, but brushing off punishment as ineffective seems short-sighted.
For parents with kids who end up at a clinic because of problem behavior, punishment is ineffective. There is a selection bias going on here. Punishment, as noted in the article, is the first go-to for most parents. In situations where that works, they don't end up at a clinic for problem behavior.
If the first go-to for parents were offering shallow choices and rewarding desirable behavior, clinicians would probably find that problem behavior can't be solved that way. They might even be finding that the most effective way to deal with problem behavior is to just punish it immediately and decisively.
In other words, there is a large toolkit to be used to solve behavioral problems. Different tools work in different situations.
For parents with kids who end up at a clinic because of problem behavior, punishment is ineffective. There is a selection bias going on here. Punishment, as noted in the article, is the first go-to for most parents. In situations where that works, they don't end up at a clinic for problem behavior.
If the first go-to for parents were offering shallow choices and rewarding desirable behavior, clinicians would probably find that problem behavior can't be solved that way. They might even be finding that the most effective way to deal with problem behavior is to just punish it immediately and decisively.
In other words, there is a large toolkit to be used to solve behavioral problems. Different tools work in different situations.
I agree that punishment sometimes has to be used. But I think the reason why they emphasized why it didn't work, is because punishment is the go to tool for parents almost no matter what you tell them. Despite know all this advice I easily fall into the trap myself, and I see clearly how inefficient it usually is.
Punishment is often the simple way out when you are too tired to really put the effort into doing it the proper way. Making sure you observe proper behavior and complement on that requires more effort. If I got a good amount of energy I am also usually able to convince my child to go with what I want them to without shouting, or threaten with punishment. But that often requires more imagination and when you are tired and worn out, there is no energy left to be imaginative.
Punishment is often the simple way out when you are too tired to really put the effort into doing it the proper way. Making sure you observe proper behavior and complement on that requires more effort. If I got a good amount of energy I am also usually able to convince my child to go with what I want them to without shouting, or threaten with punishment. But that often requires more imagination and when you are tired and worn out, there is no energy left to be imaginative.
Choice increases the likelihood of compliance. And choice isn't important, it's the appearance of choice.
Oh, ha ha ha. Maybe for some kids, but not for most high IQ kids. They tend to not fall for that, recognize they are being gamed and "what's good for the goose (parent) is good for the gander (offspring)." So let the games begin! Because they will take that and run with it.
That sort of manipulative crap isn't even good parenting. It's a nice trick sometimes, but it is often badly misused by parents who have no real intentions of doing right by their kids and are just trying to figure out what's most convenient for the parent.
Oh, ha ha ha. Maybe for some kids, but not for most high IQ kids. They tend to not fall for that, recognize they are being gamed and "what's good for the goose (parent) is good for the gander (offspring)." So let the games begin! Because they will take that and run with it.
That sort of manipulative crap isn't even good parenting. It's a nice trick sometimes, but it is often badly misused by parents who have no real intentions of doing right by their kids and are just trying to figure out what's most convenient for the parent.
> Punishment might make you feel better, but it won’t change the kid’s behavior. Instead, he advocates for a radical technique in which parents positively reinforce the behavior they do want to see until the negative behavior eventually goes away.
The first sentence as written is incomplete. Of course punishment changes behavior. This is well established through a long line of experiments going back to the 1940s or earlier. To complete the sentence, there should be a "permanently" added to it somewhere, since the association between the punishment and the behavior wears off over time.
The association between positive reinforcement and behavior also wears off over time, but that is easy to maintain by occasionally rewarding the good behavior. You don't have to reward it every time. You might reward frequently when trying to to teach the good behavior and then you can decrease the frequency.
I think a good way to think of reward and punishment is that reward encourages repeating the behavior that is rewarded, whereas punishment encourages not repeating the behavior that is being punished. When you punish a bad behavior, that doesn't necessarily lead toward good behavior. It could simply lead to different bad behavior.
That's not to say that there is no room for punishment of bad behavior. Rather, it should depend on how bad the behavior is. If the behavior is something that is very bad, in the sense that it seriously harms people or animals or causes major economic damage, then punishment might be appropriate. For instance, if you have a kid who has taken to lighting cats and dogs (or smaller children) on fire, then severe immediate punishment might be appropriate, to get that behavior to stop now. That gives you a window until the association between the bad behavior and the punishment wears off to try to reward enough good behavior that the kid won't have time to go back to the bad behavior later.
The first sentence as written is incomplete. Of course punishment changes behavior. This is well established through a long line of experiments going back to the 1940s or earlier. To complete the sentence, there should be a "permanently" added to it somewhere, since the association between the punishment and the behavior wears off over time.
The association between positive reinforcement and behavior also wears off over time, but that is easy to maintain by occasionally rewarding the good behavior. You don't have to reward it every time. You might reward frequently when trying to to teach the good behavior and then you can decrease the frequency.
I think a good way to think of reward and punishment is that reward encourages repeating the behavior that is rewarded, whereas punishment encourages not repeating the behavior that is being punished. When you punish a bad behavior, that doesn't necessarily lead toward good behavior. It could simply lead to different bad behavior.
That's not to say that there is no room for punishment of bad behavior. Rather, it should depend on how bad the behavior is. If the behavior is something that is very bad, in the sense that it seriously harms people or animals or causes major economic damage, then punishment might be appropriate. For instance, if you have a kid who has taken to lighting cats and dogs (or smaller children) on fire, then severe immediate punishment might be appropriate, to get that behavior to stop now. That gives you a window until the association between the bad behavior and the punishment wears off to try to reward enough good behavior that the kid won't have time to go back to the bad behavior later.
As a parent of 3 boys, something the article doesn't mention is that "time out" is very often not used as a punishment, but just as a strategy to help the parent gather their senses.
When you have several kids screaming and breaking things, it's extremely unlikely you'll have the mental capacity to react in a positive healthy manner. Separating the children and doing a 5-minute time out gives just enough time for me to breathe and gather my senses. Then I'm much more likely to follow up with positive parental strategies.
Usually something like, "Oh you stayed in your room quietly for the whole 5 minutes! Great job, I love you so much. Give me a hug. I'm sorry daddy was so stressed and we had to do a time out. Why don't we read a book to help us all feel better?"
That kind of 5-minute break + positive dialog almost always results in a 180 degree change in mood in the house.
When you have several kids screaming and breaking things, it's extremely unlikely you'll have the mental capacity to react in a positive healthy manner. Separating the children and doing a 5-minute time out gives just enough time for me to breathe and gather my senses. Then I'm much more likely to follow up with positive parental strategies.
Usually something like, "Oh you stayed in your room quietly for the whole 5 minutes! Great job, I love you so much. Give me a hug. I'm sorry daddy was so stressed and we had to do a time out. Why don't we read a book to help us all feel better?"
That kind of 5-minute break + positive dialog almost always results in a 180 degree change in mood in the house.
This sort of thing needs a part 2: "What to do when you child sees through your tricks".
I'm not joking about that one. It will happen. Even pets figure out some training techniques, causing them to stop being effective.
I'm not joking about that one. It will happen. Even pets figure out some training techniques, causing them to stop being effective.
Ideally, at that point the child is smart enough that you can reason with them, and at that point your "tricks" (aka civilized behavior) has made enough of a molding effect on their personality and relationship with you.
It's thought to be very adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint. If you have a partner, significant other, or a child, if they do 10 nice things, that 11th one that you didn't like, you're going to really be all over.
One wonders how, if it doesn't work, it was so adaptive.
One wonders how, if it doesn't work, it was so adaptive.
One perspective on this comes from game theory and the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. In some cases the optimal strategy is "tit-for-tat". If your opponent defects and sells you out, then the best strategy for the next round is to retaliate and defect in response. [0]
Obviously this is simplified, but it shows how a mechanism for identifying opposition could be advantageous. In the social environment of early humans, maybe this made sense evolutionarily, but is now inconvenient in the different situations in which most people live now.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#The_iterate...
Obviously this is simplified, but it shows how a mechanism for identifying opposition could be advantageous. In the social environment of early humans, maybe this made sense evolutionarily, but is now inconvenient in the different situations in which most people live now.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#The_iterate...
From a survival point of view, a false positive (identifying something as threatening) is way less threatening than a false negative (misidentifying something threatening as non-threatening). See a shadow move in the trees? Acting as if there might be a tiger is better for your survival than assuming it's just the wind.
Organisms adapt to reproduce, not to foster positive social relationships
For more information, here is the website for the center run by tge psychologist being interviewed: http://yaleparentingcenter.yale.edu/
It's not about punishing, it should be about discipline - discipline comes from teaching - we should be teaching our children in every situation and not punishing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_discipline "The word discipline is defined as imparting knowledge and skill, in other words, to teach"
I have a nearly 5yo and a nearly 2yo and i have to admit it has been tough, but we have managed without time outs and punishments and spankings
I grew up afraid of "the slipper" and "the wooden spoon" and don't have a good relationship with my parents and do not want that to my children
we practise time in, instead of time out when you leave the child by themselves and they don't have the maturity to realise what they have done wrong, we remove them from the situation and sit with them and explain what the issue was after they have calmed down - as talking to them mid-tantrum will not have any effect as they won't be able to process anything we say
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_discipline "The word discipline is defined as imparting knowledge and skill, in other words, to teach"
I have a nearly 5yo and a nearly 2yo and i have to admit it has been tough, but we have managed without time outs and punishments and spankings
I grew up afraid of "the slipper" and "the wooden spoon" and don't have a good relationship with my parents and do not want that to my children
we practise time in, instead of time out when you leave the child by themselves and they don't have the maturity to realise what they have done wrong, we remove them from the situation and sit with them and explain what the issue was after they have calmed down - as talking to them mid-tantrum will not have any effect as they won't be able to process anything we say
The core of the article is hard to disagree with: positive reinforcement is much more important effective than punishment.
But what if the kid just doesn't want to do what you want to reinforce? Just repeating your preferred choices aren't going to work. Kids are not stupid: they can tell that you're just trying to ignore what they want and push your choices. They'll frequently resist either actively or passively.
My approach to my son is: I praise him when he does something that looks right to me. When I disagree, I argue and reason with him like an adult. I try to project him on the receiving end to show how he's being unreasonable.
A large part of it is just understanding the kid's temperament and style of thinking and finding out effective ways of dealing with it through experimentation. A lot of empathy. When they see you're trying to understand their frustration they become more thoughtful.
This article has many good ideas but generalizing them sounds like an immature approach.
But what if the kid just doesn't want to do what you want to reinforce? Just repeating your preferred choices aren't going to work. Kids are not stupid: they can tell that you're just trying to ignore what they want and push your choices. They'll frequently resist either actively or passively.
My approach to my son is: I praise him when he does something that looks right to me. When I disagree, I argue and reason with him like an adult. I try to project him on the receiving end to show how he's being unreasonable.
A large part of it is just understanding the kid's temperament and style of thinking and finding out effective ways of dealing with it through experimentation. A lot of empathy. When they see you're trying to understand their frustration they become more thoughtful.
This article has many good ideas but generalizing them sounds like an immature approach.
Anyone who writes this kind of stuff needs to disclose that:
1) They are a parent. 2) They have used their suggested technique on their own children.
1) They are a parent. 2) They have used their suggested technique on their own children.
Step 0: Always treat your kid like an actual human being (apply Kant).
Step 1: Identify if your kid leans introvert or extrovert (lemon squeeze at a very young age seems to work but it shouldn't be hard to figure it out with other methods).
Step 2: Structure the reward structure accordingly. Guess what, some kids want to go to the zoo and some kids would rather play with Legos by themselves.
Hot fixes like providing choices to give an incentive to go outside seem a bit broken to me. I'd much rather provide a good reason to go outside (or figure out that the child actually wants to stay inside and...stay inside).
tl;dr: If in doubt spend more time with the child. I feel very strongly that as a parent the thing you should optimize for is "will this allow me to spend more time with the child?" If you are already in a rush in the morning to make your important meeting there's a fundamental flaw in your approach.
Step 1: Identify if your kid leans introvert or extrovert (lemon squeeze at a very young age seems to work but it shouldn't be hard to figure it out with other methods).
Step 2: Structure the reward structure accordingly. Guess what, some kids want to go to the zoo and some kids would rather play with Legos by themselves.
Hot fixes like providing choices to give an incentive to go outside seem a bit broken to me. I'd much rather provide a good reason to go outside (or figure out that the child actually wants to stay inside and...stay inside).
tl;dr: If in doubt spend more time with the child. I feel very strongly that as a parent the thing you should optimize for is "will this allow me to spend more time with the child?" If you are already in a rush in the morning to make your important meeting there's a fundamental flaw in your approach.
How to get your kids to do the right thing, convince them that it's the right thing to do. Child too young / stupid to understand moral or ethical questions? Try not to fuck them up too much while you hope they grow out of it.
That's what all these things boil down to. I get that a huge part of good parenting is not letting the, "Why don't you understand?!" frustration get to you. All this advice comes from a place of not wanting parents to beat their kids. The experts should perhaps realize that their own conescending, obviously taken too far advice only serves to make parents not trust them. Of course seeing that would require that they understand the human psychology they insist underlies their advice.
That's what all these things boil down to. I get that a huge part of good parenting is not letting the, "Why don't you understand?!" frustration get to you. All this advice comes from a place of not wanting parents to beat their kids. The experts should perhaps realize that their own conescending, obviously taken too far advice only serves to make parents not trust them. Of course seeing that would require that they understand the human psychology they insist underlies their advice.
I don't understand: how do you reinforce behaviour that is the default?
Do you tell your kids every minute "I appreciate you didn't break the window/throw the glass on the floor/pour milk on the carpet/put play-doh in the washing machine"?
I get that it works for clearly delimited things like "put on your clothes properly" or "don't make a mess during dinner" but that doesn't cover 90% of the time that I need to tell my daughter "don't do that" :( .
Do you tell your kids every minute "I appreciate you didn't break the window/throw the glass on the floor/pour milk on the carpet/put play-doh in the washing machine"?
I get that it works for clearly delimited things like "put on your clothes properly" or "don't make a mess during dinner" but that doesn't cover 90% of the time that I need to tell my daughter "don't do that" :( .
Some behaviors - as with throwing toys and pouring out milk - are normal and will pass. In the meantime, you can do things such as notice when milk is still in the cup and point out, with a silly voice, that you are pouring the milk into the cup because milk likes to be inside of things. Just occasionally, not constantly. Then just remind her when it gets on the floor, and tell her the negative consequences (as is age appropriate). You can have her play with play-doh in a safer space and with more oversight - showing her how to be neat about it while you two play.
You reinforce good behaviour by paying a lot of attention to your child when they're being good.
Children crave attention. If you don't give them that attention when they're being good they'll be bad.
Children crave attention. If you don't give them that attention when they're being good they'll be bad.
So much of this sounds like "control".
> "it's BF Skinner's Operant Conditioning"
> "Choice increases the likelihood of compliance"
> "There are a whole bunch of things that happen…and you can get the child to comply"
"Control" is how you ensure good decisions are being made. You don't get the best for your child without controlling what they get.
Where do you draw the line between "psychological tricks" and just "wanting the best for someone"? And is it possible to unintentionally play a psychological trick on someone?
And frankly, what would you do instead? Let your kid run wild? Brand helpful parenting knowledge as "psychological tricks" and decide to do whatever feels intuitive instead?
And frankly, what would you do instead? Let your kid run wild? Brand helpful parenting knowledge as "psychological tricks" and decide to do whatever feels intuitive instead?
Make no mistake, you want control over everyone around you.
Even if it's simply to control them from doing something undesirable to you.
Headphones control how someone can interact with you. How you dress/act forces control on how people respond to you.
We build our systems around this.
Even if it's simply to control them from doing something undesirable to you.
Headphones control how someone can interact with you. How you dress/act forces control on how people respond to you.
We build our systems around this.
Why do so many of these child psychologists not have children of their own?
Edit: This is hyperbole. I am talking about this particular child psychologist not having children. I understand it doesn't mean he might not have a great understanding of how a child's mind works but it means he has never had the stress of raising a child and knowing how hard it is to keep your cool with them. Especially when they are as energetic as my own children.
Edit: This is hyperbole. I am talking about this particular child psychologist not having children. I understand it doesn't mean he might not have a great understanding of how a child's mind works but it means he has never had the stress of raising a child and knowing how hard it is to keep your cool with them. Especially when they are as energetic as my own children.
This is an incredibly powerful comment, I was just looking to see myself if this psychologist have children of his own and came to the same conclusion that he doesn't. The absolute arrogance to not have children of your own but preach to others how they should raise theirs...
-edit -> and be in your late seventies, having long forgotten what it is to raise kids or see your peers raise their own kids.
-edit -> and be in your late seventies, having long forgotten what it is to raise kids or see your peers raise their own kids.
> Why do so many of these child psychologists not have children of their own?
They know what they'd be letting themselves in for
They know what they'd be letting themselves in for
Why are so many economists broke?
My fiance recently graduated in psychology, and we have two kids. This article basically mirrors our current sentiment of how we want to raise our kids.
I have one thing to add: Don't beat yourself up if you fail to do it right. After things escalated, talk to the kid honestly, tell her what you felt, and ask her what she felt. And try to do it better the next time over.
I have one thing to add: Don't beat yourself up if you fail to do it right. After things escalated, talk to the kid honestly, tell her what you felt, and ask her what she felt. And try to do it better the next time over.
What if the kid has no interest in talking to you?
Then let her. Would you want to be forced to talk to someone? My benchmark is "What would I feel if my father did this".
Maybe you should think, "What would I feel if my father did this while I was screaming at him, throwing objects at him, and hitting him?"
Little kids don't grasp a situation that good. If you don't expect them to have an adult brain, it's a lot easier to deal with them. Your emotions are generated by what you think is true - if you think that the little brat is hitting you just for the lulz, then you will get very angry.
wait, and try again later. kids don't hold grudges forever.
This is a yes, but.
You must re-enforce the behaviour you want, however you can't tolerate bad behaviour.
You are not there to be friends with your kid. If the child has hit you, sit it in time out.
Why is this good? A) the child learns that it wastes time, and b) it puts space between you and your child. reduces the chance of antagonising each over.
On the flipside you must take an interest in your child.
You must re-enforce the behaviour you want, however you can't tolerate bad behaviour.
You are not there to be friends with your kid. If the child has hit you, sit it in time out.
Why is this good? A) the child learns that it wastes time, and b) it puts space between you and your child. reduces the chance of antagonising each over.
On the flipside you must take an interest in your child.
It sounds like you are giving advice on a technique without actually having experience with that technique. Maybe you should try the 'no time-out' method for a while.
Many interesting comments here. I think to a large part I came to the conclusions in this article myself by trial and error. I agree as someone said here that you have to really become a student of your child. Don't just try the same old rubbish that doesn't work. Try other approaches and make mental notes of what works.
I don't naturally get angry, so I simulated anger just to see if it worked. My experience is that anger and scolding sort of kind of works but is very inefficient and often has diminishing returns. You reach a point where simply getting more angry doesn't work. Quite the opposite it just makes things worse.
I was positively surprised by how much more efficient positive reinforcement was. Just a little bit could often create a lot bigger change than lots of screaming and shouting could produce.
The problem is that it is often far more complicated to do. It requires more thinking, because it is not always obvious what the opposite of the bad behavior is and when you should praise.
E.g. my second child would go ballistic on the changing table. It became almost completely impossible to put him there because he had so many negative associations from being held in place while being changed. I realized I had to make it into a positive experience. My solution was to bring him there when he didn't need clothing or diaper changes and only put him there to do fun things. Gradually I got him to think positively about lying on the changing table, and then I could actually start praising him for complying with getting changed. But just realizing I had to take him there to do something entirely different from what the purpose of the changing table is wasn't obvious to me at first.
So my advice is, try to figure out how you child thinks. A lot of this comes down to having empathy with your child and seeing the world from their perspective. Once you know that you can more effectively employ various best practices.
I don't naturally get angry, so I simulated anger just to see if it worked. My experience is that anger and scolding sort of kind of works but is very inefficient and often has diminishing returns. You reach a point where simply getting more angry doesn't work. Quite the opposite it just makes things worse.
I was positively surprised by how much more efficient positive reinforcement was. Just a little bit could often create a lot bigger change than lots of screaming and shouting could produce.
The problem is that it is often far more complicated to do. It requires more thinking, because it is not always obvious what the opposite of the bad behavior is and when you should praise.
E.g. my second child would go ballistic on the changing table. It became almost completely impossible to put him there because he had so many negative associations from being held in place while being changed. I realized I had to make it into a positive experience. My solution was to bring him there when he didn't need clothing or diaper changes and only put him there to do fun things. Gradually I got him to think positively about lying on the changing table, and then I could actually start praising him for complying with getting changed. But just realizing I had to take him there to do something entirely different from what the purpose of the changing table is wasn't obvious to me at first.
So my advice is, try to figure out how you child thinks. A lot of this comes down to having empathy with your child and seeing the world from their perspective. Once you know that you can more effectively employ various best practices.
> So my advice is, try to figure out how you child thinks. A lot of this comes down to having empathy with your child and seeing the world from their perspective. Once you know that you can more effectively employ various best practices.
Wow, this is very well put.
Wow, this is very well put.
We are about 3-4 days (due the 7th) away from having our first child and this article is a terrifying reminder of what is to come.
I have a rather good temperament and equanimity (ironic given the above) but my wife despite being brilliant sadly does not (in all other things she is superior to me).
Luckily we have a very good behavioral therapist and or already familiar with the psychology of punishment/reward. That being said my wife's biggest fear is having a child with the same temperament as she does.
I have a rather good temperament and equanimity (ironic given the above) but my wife despite being brilliant sadly does not (in all other things she is superior to me).
Luckily we have a very good behavioral therapist and or already familiar with the psychology of punishment/reward. That being said my wife's biggest fear is having a child with the same temperament as she does.
Respect the responsibility but don't fear the outcome. These things don't happen overnight. No matter your kid's temperament or how you do as parents, it all develops one day at a time over a very long time and you have essentially infinite opportunities to learn and adjust.
Congrats and enjoy :)
Congrats and enjoy :)
This book really helped me address problem behavior:
https://www.amazon.com/Healing-Stories-Challenging-Behaviour...
When you can sing a couple and the kid puts away their shoes, it makes it feel like magic.
https://www.amazon.com/Healing-Stories-Challenging-Behaviour...
When you can sing a couple and the kid puts away their shoes, it makes it feel like magic.
How can this be applied to internet forums?
In the early/ier days of HN, one response to an unsubstantiated comment was "Can you elaborate?", which shows interest, respect, and gives guidance - instead of a blind downvote (numerically negative feedback).
In the early/ier days of HN, one response to an unsubstantiated comment was "Can you elaborate?", which shows interest, respect, and gives guidance - instead of a blind downvote (numerically negative feedback).
Have kids. Validate their feelings. Set boundaries. Enforce boundaries. Talk with your kids. Teach them. Don't try to change them. Embrace them.
Spanking and timeouts are not required for this.
Spanking and timeouts are not required for this.
This was explained very well decades back in "Punished By Rewards" - one of the most useful book I've read.
Alfie Kohn's book is about bribes being a bad strategy, not quite about punishment being a bad strategy.
The two are related, though. The article here is explaining how meaningful, relationship-building positive-reinforcement is an effective strategy.
Alfie Kohn's work is easy to misinterpret -- the title of his book mentions "gold stars" as a bad idea, but misses the meaning of a gold star. A gold star isn't a bribe in the sense of an "incentive program", it's a tangible expression of appreciation* -- which is what the article here argeus in favor of.
*as long as the star is its own reward, not some sort of currency used to buy rewards.
The two are related, though. The article here is explaining how meaningful, relationship-building positive-reinforcement is an effective strategy.
Alfie Kohn's work is easy to misinterpret -- the title of his book mentions "gold stars" as a bad idea, but misses the meaning of a gold star. A gold star isn't a bribe in the sense of an "incentive program", it's a tangible expression of appreciation* -- which is what the article here argeus in favor of.
*as long as the star is its own reward, not some sort of currency used to buy rewards.
What this teaches your kid is that there are no consequences to selfishness and antisocial behavior.
Having only read part of the article and having gone through toddler years with 2 kids having ADHD and ODD my only insights are:
Get good at child psychology the art of manipulation. You're a team against the kids - keep up a united front, regardless of your marital situation. If you don't learn to manipulate those kids into doing what you want, they will very quickly learn to manipulate you into doing what they want. If you don't consistently maintain a united front, they will play one of you off against the other, every. single. time. and one of you will become the enemy they hate and the other their best friend. This isn't fair to the parent that ends up the enemy and is detrimental to their relationship.
Some kids are easy going laid back and compliant. Most of them have their own free will and will largely do what they want, regardless of what you want them to. Get used to not having complete control at all times, because if you try and maintain control at all times, one thing I can guarantee is that your kids will feel powerless and ultimately begin to despise you.
Give them compassion and understanding and try to give them enough rope to run without hanging themselves. YouTube has plenty enough videos to scare the crap out of them from doing stupid shit that will hurt or kill them. It's also got a great many videos that will inspire and educate them. It's a great tool. Use it as liberally as you need.
I can count on one hand the number of times my kids have been spanked. They're now 8 and almost 7. Those spankings yielded almost zero result and reflects more on my inability to maintain control of myself under the stress they put me under than their behaviour. All it did was exacerbate already intolerable behaviour. Did they deserve it? Yes. Did it yield the result I wanted? No. Should I have held my temper? Probably. The fact that it didn't yield the result I wanted says it was a futile exercise. It didn't teach them anything, they didn't respect me for it, they feared me for it. Do I want my kids to fear me? Absolutely not. Plus, they were some age less than 8 and 6. They're expected to act out. They're kids. I'm an adult, I should be able to control myself better - and I largely do.
No amount of framing decisions to stimulate cooperation work. No amount of forcing them to comply works. Neither one of them seem to have any sense of guilt unless they think they've really hurt you and you show them real honest vulnerability... and you can't show that card too often or they'll just think you're unable to stand up for yourself and then they'll never learn to respect you.
Okay, so there's not so much advice there. But I'll tell you, every kid is different. Some tools work on some and have counter effects on others. You need an arsenal of techniques and you need to pick and choose them for each situation, like a Marine, you don't take the same tools into every operation, you pick the best tool in your arsenal to complete your mission.
Sometimes spanking will work on some kids, other times it will just make the situation ten times worse. Sometimes timeout will work, other times it'll just drag out the torture for both of you. Sometimes shutting down the argument and dictating how things are going to happen is the only way. Other times, you just have to pick your battles and say to yourself - does the outcome of this situation even really matter? Why do I feel the need to argue and enforce my will here? If you're worried about how they dress reflects on you, let them watch shows like "What not to wear" so they learn a sense of style. But honestly, they're kids, does it really matter? Their friends will tell them if they look like an idiot. Peer pressure can be a wonderful thing.
Sometimes the easiest path is just relinquishing control of everything inconsequential and only controlling the things that really matter: Don't let them hurt or kill themselves or anyone else and don't let them damage or destroy anything that doesn't belong to them.
Get good at child psychology the art of manipulation. You're a team against the kids - keep up a united front, regardless of your marital situation. If you don't learn to manipulate those kids into doing what you want, they will very quickly learn to manipulate you into doing what they want. If you don't consistently maintain a united front, they will play one of you off against the other, every. single. time. and one of you will become the enemy they hate and the other their best friend. This isn't fair to the parent that ends up the enemy and is detrimental to their relationship.
Some kids are easy going laid back and compliant. Most of them have their own free will and will largely do what they want, regardless of what you want them to. Get used to not having complete control at all times, because if you try and maintain control at all times, one thing I can guarantee is that your kids will feel powerless and ultimately begin to despise you.
Give them compassion and understanding and try to give them enough rope to run without hanging themselves. YouTube has plenty enough videos to scare the crap out of them from doing stupid shit that will hurt or kill them. It's also got a great many videos that will inspire and educate them. It's a great tool. Use it as liberally as you need.
I can count on one hand the number of times my kids have been spanked. They're now 8 and almost 7. Those spankings yielded almost zero result and reflects more on my inability to maintain control of myself under the stress they put me under than their behaviour. All it did was exacerbate already intolerable behaviour. Did they deserve it? Yes. Did it yield the result I wanted? No. Should I have held my temper? Probably. The fact that it didn't yield the result I wanted says it was a futile exercise. It didn't teach them anything, they didn't respect me for it, they feared me for it. Do I want my kids to fear me? Absolutely not. Plus, they were some age less than 8 and 6. They're expected to act out. They're kids. I'm an adult, I should be able to control myself better - and I largely do.
No amount of framing decisions to stimulate cooperation work. No amount of forcing them to comply works. Neither one of them seem to have any sense of guilt unless they think they've really hurt you and you show them real honest vulnerability... and you can't show that card too often or they'll just think you're unable to stand up for yourself and then they'll never learn to respect you.
Okay, so there's not so much advice there. But I'll tell you, every kid is different. Some tools work on some and have counter effects on others. You need an arsenal of techniques and you need to pick and choose them for each situation, like a Marine, you don't take the same tools into every operation, you pick the best tool in your arsenal to complete your mission.
Sometimes spanking will work on some kids, other times it will just make the situation ten times worse. Sometimes timeout will work, other times it'll just drag out the torture for both of you. Sometimes shutting down the argument and dictating how things are going to happen is the only way. Other times, you just have to pick your battles and say to yourself - does the outcome of this situation even really matter? Why do I feel the need to argue and enforce my will here? If you're worried about how they dress reflects on you, let them watch shows like "What not to wear" so they learn a sense of style. But honestly, they're kids, does it really matter? Their friends will tell them if they look like an idiot. Peer pressure can be a wonderful thing.
Sometimes the easiest path is just relinquishing control of everything inconsequential and only controlling the things that really matter: Don't let them hurt or kill themselves or anyone else and don't let them damage or destroy anything that doesn't belong to them.
>> having ADHD and ODD
I strongly suspect that we're looking at the same combination in our son. Sadly I'm reluctant to take my concerns to a medical professional because ODD has a strong correlation with abuse. While I've no doubt that some of my and my wife's parenting has contributed to this, abuse isn't happening -- it's literally been his personality since he could first talk. Still, it's enough to make me uncomfortable going into a situation where that's the assumption[1]
Was yours a medical diagnosis - and if so, did you run into any troubles around that aspect?
> If you're worried about how they dress reflects on you,
This raises an interesting problem though. I find I'm reinforcing societal norms that aren't consistent with my own - because I'm aware that he has to function among peers and adults every day in a social environment. Their reactions to negative behavior aren't enough to prevent him from doing it.
Encouragingly, the couple of situations I've explained that for [in simplified form] have resulted in major improvement (such as using 'inappropriate' language - I personally think it's fine if you know the meanings and usage of the words and when it's ok to use them, regardless of age. After explaining that other adults and parents didn't view it that way, and that it means they won't want him playing with their children and will think poorly of us as a family, that particular problem stopped.)
> Sometimes the easiest path is just relinquishing control of everything inconsequential and only controlling the things that really matter: Don't let them hurt or kill themselves or anyone else and don't let them damage or destroy anything that doesn't belong to them.
This, as a lesson slowly being learned.
I strongly suspect that we're looking at the same combination in our son. Sadly I'm reluctant to take my concerns to a medical professional because ODD has a strong correlation with abuse. While I've no doubt that some of my and my wife's parenting has contributed to this, abuse isn't happening -- it's literally been his personality since he could first talk. Still, it's enough to make me uncomfortable going into a situation where that's the assumption[1]
Was yours a medical diagnosis - and if so, did you run into any troubles around that aspect?
> If you're worried about how they dress reflects on you,
This raises an interesting problem though. I find I'm reinforcing societal norms that aren't consistent with my own - because I'm aware that he has to function among peers and adults every day in a social environment. Their reactions to negative behavior aren't enough to prevent him from doing it.
Encouragingly, the couple of situations I've explained that for [in simplified form] have resulted in major improvement (such as using 'inappropriate' language - I personally think it's fine if you know the meanings and usage of the words and when it's ok to use them, regardless of age. After explaining that other adults and parents didn't view it that way, and that it means they won't want him playing with their children and will think poorly of us as a family, that particular problem stopped.)
> Sometimes the easiest path is just relinquishing control of everything inconsequential and only controlling the things that really matter: Don't let them hurt or kill themselves or anyone else and don't let them damage or destroy anything that doesn't belong to them.
This, as a lesson slowly being learned.
With regards to the medical diagnosis - this is the back story, sorry it's a little long winded:
So our eldest was born with 2 holes in her heart. She is the one suffering ODD. She was a difficult baby from the very outset, she wouldn't feed and was in hospital for the first 3 months of her life with her mother living in with her and me providing relief outside of work so she could get some much needed rest so it was a round the clock affair for 3 months until she was released just in time for Christmas. Of course this took a toll on everyone involved. She went round after round of tests, had a feeding tube and had to be fed through this every 2 hours, after which she would guarantee to throw up and need changing and cry the entire time and need to be carried around the halls of the hospital to attempt to stem the constant crying. While my daughter won't be able to remember any of this, it would be remiss to assume there was no psychological trauma left.
Fast forward 4 years and she had to go in for open heart surgery. She was old enough to understand what was happening and while we were as gentle as we could be, we couldn't shield her from the truth and we kept up a positive strength with her to help bolster a confidence in her that we lacked ourselves. To say this was traumatic is an understatement and I think all of us share in that trauma - some of which remains to this day. The killer was when she asked how we could have abandoned her at the hospital to be cut open like that... if you ever want to feel like you were cut in two and had your beating heart ripped out of your chest - that was that moment. We were by her side throughout, but there is trauma that she most definitely needs help with. In fact, in many ways, I think there is trauma all round that we'd benefit from help with.
We resisted for ages going for medical diagnosis because we didn't want to be "those parents" - you know, the ones that medicate their kids because they just can't cope with kids being kids. We asked ourselves many times if this behaviour was just normal kids and that our perspective was just skewed. In the end we went in to the hospital after our eldest had a throw down tantrum where she was looking like she was going to cause serious physical damage that lasted for too long to ignore and we sat down with the psychiatrist and said to them - we're not looking for medication, we're not looking for her to get a psychiatrist, we want real honest to God unbiased, objective advice on her behaviour and if this is normal and our perspective is whacked or if she needs medical assistance.
We all did questionnaires, her school teachers did questionnaires - we were very forthright with the teachers and told them what was going on and what we were experiencing at home and asked them for their input and gave them our support.
One thing I learned from this is that most teachers won't raise their concerns with parents because more often than not, parents will come back with the attitude "that's your job, they're our problem at home, when they're at school they're your problem" or if the teacher raises the prospect of the fact that your child may have something that needs to be dealt with professionally, parents get defensive. Our going to the teachers I think was liberating for everyone involved - the teachers thanked us for our support and have been incredibly incredibly supportive with us in return.
Anyway, after a week under observation at the in-patient psychological wing of the hospital and having in-class support at school, it was determined that our first does indeed have at least ADHD and suspected ODD.
Is there stigma? Yes. Does it affect how she's treated at school, to an extent yes, but on the whole the staff have been amazing and collaborative with us. Building a relationship with them helps a huge amount. Frequently the problem kids that you hear about being ostracized and mistreated are because the teachers have little choice but to remove the problem from their class to spare the rest of their class and that they have absolutely no support from the parents. Knowing that they have our full support and that we have theirs has been very reassuring. I know they're both treated like gold at school and their teachers have nothing but positive things to say about them both which considering the difficulties we've gone through, I'd say I'm very thankful and incredibly grateful.
> Their reactions to negative behavior aren't enough to prevent him from doing it.
With regards to your point about societal norms - if the negative behaviour hasn't been enough to prevent him doing it, it doesn't matter to him enough right now to make him change his belief. Eventually he will either become self conscious enough to change this, or he'll find a sense of style he enjoys that will change this, or he won't care and if he doesn't care - does this really matter? Only he can really answer that.
So our eldest was born with 2 holes in her heart. She is the one suffering ODD. She was a difficult baby from the very outset, she wouldn't feed and was in hospital for the first 3 months of her life with her mother living in with her and me providing relief outside of work so she could get some much needed rest so it was a round the clock affair for 3 months until she was released just in time for Christmas. Of course this took a toll on everyone involved. She went round after round of tests, had a feeding tube and had to be fed through this every 2 hours, after which she would guarantee to throw up and need changing and cry the entire time and need to be carried around the halls of the hospital to attempt to stem the constant crying. While my daughter won't be able to remember any of this, it would be remiss to assume there was no psychological trauma left.
Fast forward 4 years and she had to go in for open heart surgery. She was old enough to understand what was happening and while we were as gentle as we could be, we couldn't shield her from the truth and we kept up a positive strength with her to help bolster a confidence in her that we lacked ourselves. To say this was traumatic is an understatement and I think all of us share in that trauma - some of which remains to this day. The killer was when she asked how we could have abandoned her at the hospital to be cut open like that... if you ever want to feel like you were cut in two and had your beating heart ripped out of your chest - that was that moment. We were by her side throughout, but there is trauma that she most definitely needs help with. In fact, in many ways, I think there is trauma all round that we'd benefit from help with.
We resisted for ages going for medical diagnosis because we didn't want to be "those parents" - you know, the ones that medicate their kids because they just can't cope with kids being kids. We asked ourselves many times if this behaviour was just normal kids and that our perspective was just skewed. In the end we went in to the hospital after our eldest had a throw down tantrum where she was looking like she was going to cause serious physical damage that lasted for too long to ignore and we sat down with the psychiatrist and said to them - we're not looking for medication, we're not looking for her to get a psychiatrist, we want real honest to God unbiased, objective advice on her behaviour and if this is normal and our perspective is whacked or if she needs medical assistance.
We all did questionnaires, her school teachers did questionnaires - we were very forthright with the teachers and told them what was going on and what we were experiencing at home and asked them for their input and gave them our support.
One thing I learned from this is that most teachers won't raise their concerns with parents because more often than not, parents will come back with the attitude "that's your job, they're our problem at home, when they're at school they're your problem" or if the teacher raises the prospect of the fact that your child may have something that needs to be dealt with professionally, parents get defensive. Our going to the teachers I think was liberating for everyone involved - the teachers thanked us for our support and have been incredibly incredibly supportive with us in return.
Anyway, after a week under observation at the in-patient psychological wing of the hospital and having in-class support at school, it was determined that our first does indeed have at least ADHD and suspected ODD.
Is there stigma? Yes. Does it affect how she's treated at school, to an extent yes, but on the whole the staff have been amazing and collaborative with us. Building a relationship with them helps a huge amount. Frequently the problem kids that you hear about being ostracized and mistreated are because the teachers have little choice but to remove the problem from their class to spare the rest of their class and that they have absolutely no support from the parents. Knowing that they have our full support and that we have theirs has been very reassuring. I know they're both treated like gold at school and their teachers have nothing but positive things to say about them both which considering the difficulties we've gone through, I'd say I'm very thankful and incredibly grateful.
> Their reactions to negative behavior aren't enough to prevent him from doing it.
With regards to your point about societal norms - if the negative behaviour hasn't been enough to prevent him doing it, it doesn't matter to him enough right now to make him change his belief. Eventually he will either become self conscious enough to change this, or he'll find a sense of style he enjoys that will change this, or he won't care and if he doesn't care - does this really matter? Only he can really answer that.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed reply.
> f you ever want to feel like you were cut in two and had your beating heart ripped out of your chest - that was that moment.
Just reading it and thinking of the situation hurts - I can't quite imagine living with/through it.
> We asked ourselves many times if this behaviour was just normal kids and that our perspective was just skewed.
This, so many times. The frustrating thing is when describing many of the behaviors, there is nothing on the surface to differentiate it from a kid being a kid. It's only the continued nature of them over time that raises concerns with us. We were deterred by our family physician early on when we first raised these concerns.
We're currently in the process of going through the school's evaluation and paperwork. I do agree - they were hesitant to ask us to take this route because of that usual response from parents, and they seemed honestly surprised when we agreed to do the evaluation. I'm still on the fence around pulling in medical help, because medicating a six year old isn't on my list of things to do...
> Does it affect how she's treated at school, to an extent yes, but on the whole the staff have been amazing and collaborative with us
That's good to know, though certainly it'll vary by school district. The school has been very supportive in our discussions so far, and in how they handle him in class.
Thanks again for taking this time, it's very helpful.
> f you ever want to feel like you were cut in two and had your beating heart ripped out of your chest - that was that moment.
Just reading it and thinking of the situation hurts - I can't quite imagine living with/through it.
> We asked ourselves many times if this behaviour was just normal kids and that our perspective was just skewed.
This, so many times. The frustrating thing is when describing many of the behaviors, there is nothing on the surface to differentiate it from a kid being a kid. It's only the continued nature of them over time that raises concerns with us. We were deterred by our family physician early on when we first raised these concerns.
We're currently in the process of going through the school's evaluation and paperwork. I do agree - they were hesitant to ask us to take this route because of that usual response from parents, and they seemed honestly surprised when we agreed to do the evaluation. I'm still on the fence around pulling in medical help, because medicating a six year old isn't on my list of things to do...
> Does it affect how she's treated at school, to an extent yes, but on the whole the staff have been amazing and collaborative with us
That's good to know, though certainly it'll vary by school district. The school has been very supportive in our discussions so far, and in how they handle him in class.
Thanks again for taking this time, it's very helpful.
Yeah, I'm still on the fence about medication but I will tell you this for sure. The medication has made the difference between it being more manageable. I won't say it cures all the behaviours, but it takes the edge off. When used with other tools, like learning to discuss and manage her feelings with a therapist, it's made her temper and behaviour on the whole much more bearable.
I live in a very poor Asian country where most every parent has never given a single thought to behavior theory or been exposed to the whole parenting industry. It's mostly just feed your kid, let them run around unsupervised with other kids outside, and have the oldest child handle certain responsibilities like getting everybody to school on time. Having worked with kids back in the US and here, the contrast in behavioral problems and social anxiety is so markedly different that it's definitely shaped the way I'll parent my own children. The kids here are much less needy and so much more confident and independent, whereas I can barely spend two minutes around a western kid without getting royally annoyed. My own parents were very hands-off and I plan to be even more so.
I have to agree here. I lived in a tiny village in Laos for 4 months a few years back, and I have to say, the six year-olds were more mature, independent, and emotionally sophisticated than some 16 year-olds I knew back home.
Favorite slightly-related story: while teaching a class of 8 year-olds one day, a student in the back opened up his desk, and pulled out a machete. My heart stopped for a beat. He then proceeded to sharpen his pencil with the machete, then place it back in his desk.
Man, I miss Laos.
Anyways, the North American trend to never leave your kids unattended really seems to have stifled their independence and ability to strive on their own, and it's so evident when you travel to some developing countries.
Favorite slightly-related story: while teaching a class of 8 year-olds one day, a student in the back opened up his desk, and pulled out a machete. My heart stopped for a beat. He then proceeded to sharpen his pencil with the machete, then place it back in his desk.
Man, I miss Laos.
Anyways, the North American trend to never leave your kids unattended really seems to have stifled their independence and ability to strive on their own, and it's so evident when you travel to some developing countries.
I live in Cambodia going on about 4 years now. I almost said the exact same thing in my post, that the 6 year olds in my alley act pretty much like little adults. You see them buying things from the market, helping their parents, socializing with kids twice their age, etc. They almost never fight or cry, and if they do there's no parent rushing over to console them unless it's something serious. But, parents here are still very compassionate and work extremely hard toward giving their children a good future.
One of my favorite stories actually comes from my wife. Early on in our relationship she told me that as a kid her favorite thing to do was to pretend to be a cook. I assumed this meant that she had some toy cookware, something like the equivalent of a kid's tea party. But, as I inquired more, she explained that her play cooking involved sneaking off with her mom's knives and pans, buying a few vegetables from nearby sellers, starting a fire in one of those little firepots that are common here, and sometimes even going to the local pond to catch a fish! It's no wonder that she's a good cook now and also I think it's part of the reason she's been extremely successful professionally despite a lot of adversity.
One of my favorite stories actually comes from my wife. Early on in our relationship she told me that as a kid her favorite thing to do was to pretend to be a cook. I assumed this meant that she had some toy cookware, something like the equivalent of a kid's tea party. But, as I inquired more, she explained that her play cooking involved sneaking off with her mom's knives and pans, buying a few vegetables from nearby sellers, starting a fire in one of those little firepots that are common here, and sometimes even going to the local pond to catch a fish! It's no wonder that she's a good cook now and also I think it's part of the reason she's been extremely successful professionally despite a lot of adversity.
You know one thing poor asian countries don't have? Laws, HOAs, enforcement of those laws, and child protective services. See what happens in the US when you leave your underage kids unattended in a $public_location in a well-to-do-upscale neighborhood.
> Favorite slightly-related story: while teaching a class of 8 year-olds one day, a student in the back opened up his desk, and pulled out a machete. My heart stopped for a beat. He then proceeded to sharpen his pencil with the machete, then place it back in his desk.
Haha. We did this all the time. Well, not with machetes, but what ten-year-old rural boy doesn't carry a pocket knife or a leatherman?
In high-school, the only concession to the no-weapons-on-campus policy was that if we were going hunting before or after school, you had to park in the lot across the street, so that your rifle or shotgun wasn't technically on-premises. My father remembers going to elementary school with his friends and they just locked up their 30-30s in their lockers, and would go do a quick deer drive at noon recess.
Haha. We did this all the time. Well, not with machetes, but what ten-year-old rural boy doesn't carry a pocket knife or a leatherman?
In high-school, the only concession to the no-weapons-on-campus policy was that if we were going hunting before or after school, you had to park in the lot across the street, so that your rifle or shotgun wasn't technically on-premises. My father remembers going to elementary school with his friends and they just locked up their 30-30s in their lockers, and would go do a quick deer drive at noon recess.
That's great and all, but is it possible that extended "childhood" is essential for being better adjusted in the western world? I wonder how many machete wielding 8 year olds grow up to be competitive in university.
> I wonder how many machete wielding 8 year olds grow up to be competitive in university.
I'm guessing more than you would think, because this isn't that dissimilar to rural kids in the US.
I'm guessing more than you would think, because this isn't that dissimilar to rural kids in the US.
To the parent poster's credit, I think there there might be something to it, the kid is busy learning, and perhaps if he/she is spending all day learning social/environmental survival skills instead of learning academics, they are going to be less equipped to handle a 15 year carer of school. than the "western" kid.
All these kids go to school too (though here it's still only 4 hours a day, which I am envious of) and from tutoring a number of them in English I can attest to the fact that the kids in my neighborhood are very 'book smart' too. It might surprise people not from here, but nowadays everybody in Phnom Penh has tablets and smart phones and they spend a lot of time on those learning. Intellectually they're more than capable enough to succeed in higher academics, but financial difficulties may limit some of them.
I really dislike how American behavior is always equated with western. The US is just one part of the west. I think many of us in Europe have the exact same view on Americans and how they raise their kids. I am a Norwegian married to an American and I got to say American parenting seems claustrophobic and paranoid to me.
American kids are under tight and organized control all the time. They got their playdates, piano playing, soccer practice, etc. Their parents are driving them everywhere to all sorts of activities. These kids never seem to have a life of their own.
There are of course huge differences in Europe in how kids are raised. But at least in Norway kids tend to allowed to roam a lot more freely. It is more normal to walk to school yourself or be outside by yourself. Parents tend to not arrange playdates. They go over to each others house themselves. And a lot more of their day isn't organized in any way.
I saw this when studying at college in the US. American college students were a lot more immature than European college students IMHO. They seemed unaccustomed to having this much freedom, and not having parents looking the over the shoulder all the time. American college also felt very nanny like. A lot of rules and regulations as if you are still a child.
It is rather ironic that in the land of individualism and freedom, there is so much control and regulation on peoples lives. I think Americans have mistaken economic freedom for personal freedom.
American kids are under tight and organized control all the time. They got their playdates, piano playing, soccer practice, etc. Their parents are driving them everywhere to all sorts of activities. These kids never seem to have a life of their own.
There are of course huge differences in Europe in how kids are raised. But at least in Norway kids tend to allowed to roam a lot more freely. It is more normal to walk to school yourself or be outside by yourself. Parents tend to not arrange playdates. They go over to each others house themselves. And a lot more of their day isn't organized in any way.
I saw this when studying at college in the US. American college students were a lot more immature than European college students IMHO. They seemed unaccustomed to having this much freedom, and not having parents looking the over the shoulder all the time. American college also felt very nanny like. A lot of rules and regulations as if you are still a child.
It is rather ironic that in the land of individualism and freedom, there is so much control and regulation on peoples lives. I think Americans have mistaken economic freedom for personal freedom.
> I really dislike how American behavior is always equated with western.
Sorry about that. I tend to lump Westerners together because as a whole they do have so much more in common with each other than they do with Cambodians, and I've been here for a while now and don't really socialize with many non-Cambodians. Except for speaking in English typically with my wife (who is Cambodian) I speak more in Khmer than I do English, so it's pretty easy for me to get into the mentality of grouping all Westerners together unfairly (especially because here they tend to share other traits like being tourists, teachers, or NGO workers). But, my bad! I realize that the hover-parenting phenomenon is far, far worse in the US than in Europe.
And as you said the college experience in the US does involve a lot of hovering and nannying, hence my repeated near expulsion! Long story short, but the sole reason I was not expelled involved successfully hiding under a bed.
> It is rather ironic that in the land of individualism and freedom, there is so much control and regulation on peoples lives. I think Americans have mistaken economic freedom for personal freedom.
Americans are just delusional and most have no conception of what freedom really is. In my home state they can't even buy a beer on a Sunday, to give a sort of trivial but emblematic example. Too much propaganda rots the brain :)
Sorry about that. I tend to lump Westerners together because as a whole they do have so much more in common with each other than they do with Cambodians, and I've been here for a while now and don't really socialize with many non-Cambodians. Except for speaking in English typically with my wife (who is Cambodian) I speak more in Khmer than I do English, so it's pretty easy for me to get into the mentality of grouping all Westerners together unfairly (especially because here they tend to share other traits like being tourists, teachers, or NGO workers). But, my bad! I realize that the hover-parenting phenomenon is far, far worse in the US than in Europe.
And as you said the college experience in the US does involve a lot of hovering and nannying, hence my repeated near expulsion! Long story short, but the sole reason I was not expelled involved successfully hiding under a bed.
> It is rather ironic that in the land of individualism and freedom, there is so much control and regulation on peoples lives. I think Americans have mistaken economic freedom for personal freedom.
Americans are just delusional and most have no conception of what freedom really is. In my home state they can't even buy a beer on a Sunday, to give a sort of trivial but emblematic example. Too much propaganda rots the brain :)
Don't lump all the West together. I feel the same when I travel from Norway to the UK. Even my children were astonished at how childish children were in the UK.
It's interesting that in rich Asian countries like Japan, Korea, Singapore, the stereotype is of Tiger Moms whose parenting attitude is the polar opposite of what you describe.
Perhaps taking a hands-off approach is more likely to result in well-adjusted, independent children AND children who learn and earn less.
Perhaps taking a hands-off approach is more likely to result in well-adjusted, independent children AND children who learn and earn less.
First, the whole "tiger mom" thing is not universal. And more to the point, does not mean the sort of constant monitoring like in the US. In Korea and Japan (don't know about Singapore), independence in young children is highly valued. Many grade schools in Japan, for example, require that children go to school on their own. At six years old, they walk, take the subway, etc. Parents routinely send six, seven or eight year olds out alone on errands.
Japan even has a TV show that follows around little kids being sent out on their first independent task. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5k5XTZy0rA
Expecting and demanding high achievement is not the same thing as smothering children with constant monitoring.
Japan even has a TV show that follows around little kids being sent out on their first independent task. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5k5XTZy0rA
Expecting and demanding high achievement is not the same thing as smothering children with constant monitoring.
That is a Western stereotype of Eastern parenting, _not_ how they necessarily parent.
Plus there's some selection/survivorship bias in immigrant populations. (Nor is it unique to Asian immigrants!)
Plus there's some selection/survivorship bias in immigrant populations. (Nor is it unique to Asian immigrants!)
(Edit: I'm detaching this from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13101402 and marking it off-topic. That example wasn't a clear enough one to make the point about, because the commenter wasn't being snarky or doing anything particularly wrong. Maybe next time it comes up more clearly I'll try again.)
I know it's nitpicky, but please don't use quotation marks when you're not actually quoting someone, and especially not when putting words in someone's mouth for rhetorical effect. (That generally isn't a great thing to do either, but was harmless in this case because you did it to praise, not denounce.)
We ask this, partly because the internet is stateless and text fragments are prone to misinterpretation, but also because it's one of those things that subtly degrade substantive discussion.
I know it's nitpicky, but please don't use quotation marks when you're not actually quoting someone, and especially not when putting words in someone's mouth for rhetorical effect. (That generally isn't a great thing to do either, but was harmless in this case because you did it to praise, not denounce.)
We ask this, partly because the internet is stateless and text fragments are prone to misinterpretation, but also because it's one of those things that subtly degrade substantive discussion.
But... quote marks are grammatically correct. They're the only way to mention words and phrases you're not actually using them.
Yes, the things we write are subject to misinterpretation, particularly when stripped of the their context. But asking people to avoid correct use of punctuation isn't going to make that less likely. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Yes, the things we write are subject to misinterpretation, particularly when stripped of the their context. But asking people to avoid correct use of punctuation isn't going to make that less likely. Quite the opposite, in fact.
These quote marks were not semantically correct. It is not a point of grammar. The comment literally reads:
> the psychologist's advice is literally "[not a quote]"
When you put something in the form of a quotation, the accepted meaning is that it is a quotation. In this case it is, literally, not something the psychologist actually advised.
> the psychologist's advice is literally "[not a quote]"
When you put something in the form of a quotation, the accepted meaning is that it is a quotation. In this case it is, literally, not something the psychologist actually advised.
Not at all. When you put some words inside quotes, you're saying you want to talk about those words, without using them yourself. I can say, for example, that I've never heard anyone claim, "The sun is made of purple gumdrops," because that would be ridiculous. I know that the sun is actually made of hot gases, and you know that I know that.
The problem with SerLava's comment was that it put words in the author's mouth, not his punctuation.
The problem with SerLava's comment was that it put words in the author's mouth, not his punctuation.
That is why I said "in the form of a quotation" which includes mentioning the psychologist directly before introducing the quote. Roughly, the form of a quotation is an attribution, followed (or preceded) by a direct quotation enclosed in quotation marks, or by an indirect quotation without quotation marks.
The problem was the potential impression of putting words in the author's mouth, and punctuation was part of what created that impression.
In your example there is actually no need for the quotation marks, although they do not create any ambiguity because you didn't attribute the words to anyone in particular.
It seems like you mostly agree with me, but you have a funny way of showing it.
The problem was the potential impression of putting words in the author's mouth, and punctuation was part of what created that impression.
In your example there is actually no need for the quotation marks, although they do not create any ambiguity because you didn't attribute the words to anyone in particular.
It seems like you mostly agree with me, but you have a funny way of showing it.
It looks like what I posted might not have been clear. I mean: please don't use quotation marks to make it look like you're quoting someone when you're not really quoting them. In particular, please don't do that thing where people sarcastically put words in someone's mouth and then add quotation marks around those words to amplify the rhetorical effect.
Uses of quotation marks for quoting someone, or for doing something that doesn't look like quoting someone (e.g. "self-referentially") are fine.
Uses of quotation marks for quoting someone, or for doing something that doesn't look like quoting someone (e.g. "self-referentially") are fine.
Interesting, i can see where the risk of confusion is. But wondering how it could have been written for similar effect...
" For the teens, the psychologist's advice is literally: well, maybe don't be such a bitch in the first place, Mom. "
Feels a bit confusing. Is there a better way?
" For the teens, the psychologist's advice is literally: well, maybe don't be such a bitch in the first place, Mom. "
Feels a bit confusing. Is there a better way?
Actually you're making me think that I picked a bad example to plant a flag on. The general point, about not using quotation marks as a rhetorical device or snark weapon, is a good one: it really does subtly degrade online discourse. But the example doesn't show that as clearly as it might, and the commenter was being a good sport and didn't do anything wrong. Sorry!
This type of explanation and review is a great example of why I appreciate the manner and spirit of moderation on HN.
Part of the confusion arises from use of the word "literally" in literally the opposite of its sense.
This is how fictional dialogue is commonly written in English lit. I do not see what the original poster could be doing wrong by following commonly accepted grammar. Perhaps this is just hitting a pet peeve of yours.
In fictional dialogue the quotes are there to show what a character said, not what they didn't say—that would be confusing! As it is here.
Again, the quotation marks are fine, as long as you write carefully enough make it entirely clear that you're not quoting somebody on the thread. And if it's a pet peeve of his, it's one he inherited from the site --- it's a longstanding thing here.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
How else are you supposed to indicate that you're rephrasing something someone else said? It's generally pretty clear when something is an actual quote, and putting the quote in italics makes it very clear that it was not actually said.
Something like this, perhaps:
For the teens, the psychologist's advice is literally: Well, maybe don't be such a bitch in the first place, Mom.
For the teens, the psychologist's advice is literally: Well, maybe don't be such a bitch in the first place, Mom.
While readable, it's roughly as unpleasant to read as not indicating that it's a rephrasing at all.
"literally"?
"Essentially" might fit better. Fitting "distilled" in there might work too.
Literally has also been used for emphasis while not being literally true, since, I'm told, at least the period Shakespeare was slinging ink around.
In prose, without quotation marks. I found it jarring the first time I got corrected for casually using quotation marks on HN (many years ago --- I think by Paul Graham!) and felt for sometime afterwards that it was evidence about how needlessly prickly the site is. But I'm now glad to have left the habit of using question marks rhetorically behind in pretty much all of my writing.
You can still use quotes if you really want to; you just have to write clearly that you aren't making a literal quotation --- to be clear that you're not putting words in someone else's mouth. But I find that it's rarely worth the effort to do so.
You can still use quotes if you really want to; you just have to write clearly that you aren't making a literal quotation --- to be clear that you're not putting words in someone else's mouth. But I find that it's rarely worth the effort to do so.
Who is this "we" you're asking on behalf of?
HN moderators. I realize that's not always clear, but something in me resists putting "mod" labels beside our usernames.
Even if it's sometimes confusing I think that's a subtle but powerful thing. Even when you're moderating you're not set apart from us and it feels more like a discussion and less adversarial. Not sure if that's what you intended but I appreciate it.
That's well put and expresses the feeling nicely. Thanks!
The long run plan is to set up the system (moderation, software, and community) so well that it regulates itself. In that case having 'mod' next to moderators' names would be a field of boliauns. http://zucchinigirl.tripod.com/faery/field.html
The long run plan is to set up the system (moderation, software, and community) so well that it regulates itself. In that case having 'mod' next to moderators' names would be a field of boliauns. http://zucchinigirl.tripod.com/faery/field.html
Vibrant communities need strong moderators and no technical system (code or otherwise) can replace them.
You should have. I inadvertently argued against your opinionated choice when it's completely your right to enforce such a thing as a moderator.
Yes, I realize it's confusing sometimes, especially to new users, who deserve better from HN.
But the minimalism and informality of this site is valuable too, no one's ever had 'mod' next to their name here, and it feels like it would break the spell or something.
But the minimalism and informality of this site is valuable too, no one's ever had 'mod' next to their name here, and it feels like it would break the spell or something.
If this fairly nonstandard usage rule is significant enough to reply to someone to correct them on it, shouldn't it be listed in the guidelines?
The parent's usage is very common, so it seems a bit harsh for a mod to call them out on it, even if fairly politely, when they are not clearly in violation of anything they have been told.
The parent's usage is very common, so it seems a bit harsh for a mod to call them out on it, even if fairly politely, when they are not clearly in violation of anything they have been told.
HN is a "common law" community. Not everything is written down in a single place; the rules evolve as they're refined and reinterpreted by the mods.
I wonder what the best example of a "civil law" community on the Internet would be --- a message board where everything you weren't supposed to do was spelled out completely.
I wonder what the best example of a "civil law" community on the Internet would be --- a message board where everything you weren't supposed to do was spelled out completely.
Civil law doesn't mean that everything is spelled out in detail. Ambiguous and vague characterisations in legal definitions are simply necessary to make a legal system work.
I think the real difference is that in common law "some other judges ruled this way a decade ago" is persuasive, while under civil law it doesn't really hold much weight.
I think the real difference is that in common law "some other judges ruled this way a decade ago" is persuasive, while under civil law it doesn't really hold much weight.
[deleted]
Interesting, I didn't know that was a standard! Thank you.
That is because it is not. If anything the opposite is actually standard.
Actually, if you read much about journalism, you will know that what is put in quotation marks and attributed to someone is to be taken rather seriously.
That's only true in journalism. Just because we link to news stories primarily doesn't mean this site has a journalistic flavor or should follow those conventions.
Attributing words to someone is something one should be cautious about, regardless of the context. It isn't a peculiarity of journalism.
I was responding to the idea that such a convention about quotation marks doesn't exist. It absolutely does. Journalism is the most familiar example, but academic writing, non-fiction books, and other contexts are held to the same standard.
I was responding to the idea that such a convention about quotation marks doesn't exist. It absolutely does. Journalism is the most familiar example, but academic writing, non-fiction books, and other contexts are held to the same standard.
My youngest is not motivated by rewards or punishment. He just doesn't care. If I reward him with something good, he will accept it, but the loss of the reward will not motivate him to do things. Similarly he won't like being punished but the punishment won't stop him from doing things that he wants to. His teachers told us the same thing, which creates problems because when he decides he wants to misbehave, there's nothing that will motivate him to behave until he chooses to behave.
I don't spank him, but I'll give him timeouts but I've come to terms with the fact that he is motivated by different things than other kids. The techniques in the article won't work for my child at all. Hopefully he will mature and we can reason with him in other ways.
I don't spank him, but I'll give him timeouts but I've come to terms with the fact that he is motivated by different things than other kids. The techniques in the article won't work for my child at all. Hopefully he will mature and we can reason with him in other ways.
Wow. Add The Atlantic to the growing list of sites I'll never visit anymore, thanks to what must be the world's most obnoxious ad-begging landing/redirect page I've seen in my entire life. Totally objectionable.
Positive reinforcement is hardly "radical".
I agree that it shouldn't, but it is. I need only talk to my mother, she has some very strange ideas of how to raise kids, explaining a lot of my knee-jerk reactions when communicating with my own kids.
My mother told me recently that my six-year-old nephew's personality was already set in stone, and his occasional bursts of energy were proof he needed "tough love" and "a wake-up call," including changing schools. She also seems to have forgotten that my father hit us with his belt. Very strange indeed.
It is in any a violent and punitive society.
It is in the context of the US where violence against the child is common place; widely accepted; even if the parent has used a weapon to do so; even if it's not a parent but a school[1]; and where there's no hope that hitting children will ever become illegal.
[1] a weirdly large number of schoolchildren are still hit in the US.
[1] a weirdly large number of schoolchildren are still hit in the US.
Hitting children is legal in the US?
In some sense, yes. The line between "punitive corporal punishment" and "assault" is blurred in deference to parents' judgment.
So it's legal for a parent to spank their child with their hand or even a weapon such as a belt. It stops being legal once "lasting" physical injury (e.g. welts, bruises, broken skin) occurs.
We have a very barbaric "society" here in many respects.
So it's legal for a parent to spank their child with their hand or even a weapon such as a belt. It stops being legal once "lasting" physical injury (e.g. welts, bruises, broken skin) occurs.
We have a very barbaric "society" here in many respects.
No. Child abuse is taken seriously in the US, and hitting children in schools with get people fired, if not prosecuted. I'm sure it does still happen, but that does not mean it is widely accepted.
"According to the Department of Education, over 166,000 students in public schools were physically punished during the 2011–2012 school year."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_corporal_punishment_in_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_corporal_punishment_in_...
While that is a large number, it is less than a half of a percent of the entire student body of the USA. As I said, it happens. But isn't the norm.
Also, If you are going to cherry pick quotes, try the last 3 paragraphs of the Overview section, which talk about how it is not widely accepted, and the efforts to outlaw it.
Or, just this one: "Most urban public school systems, even in states where it is permitted, have abolished corporal punishment. "
Also, If you are going to cherry pick quotes, try the last 3 paragraphs of the Overview section, which talk about how it is not widely accepted, and the efforts to outlaw it.
Or, just this one: "Most urban public school systems, even in states where it is permitted, have abolished corporal punishment. "
It's an enormous number. Less than a half percent is still nearly one in 200. That means it either happens in most schools, or it happens a lot in some schools.
Just once would be an outrage in most western countries. The fact that there's no outrage about this in the US, shows that it's accepted. Maybe not everywhere, but in enough places to reach this big number. The fact that it's permitted at all shows that it's accepted. And that's just the school. If it's this accepted to do it at school, how common is it really at home?
But I suppose it fits the general American love for harsh punishment. I think it's also the only western country that still has the death sentence, and it has more people in prison than any other country in the world.
Just once would be an outrage in most western countries. The fact that there's no outrage about this in the US, shows that it's accepted. Maybe not everywhere, but in enough places to reach this big number. The fact that it's permitted at all shows that it's accepted. And that's just the school. If it's this accepted to do it at school, how common is it really at home?
But I suppose it fits the general American love for harsh punishment. I think it's also the only western country that still has the death sentence, and it has more people in prison than any other country in the world.
I'm not cherry-picking, I'm highlighting, but leaving the link so that people can judge for themselves.
I mostly made the reply because your post implied that it was something that a few rogue teachers did (as it inevitably happens in any country), especially to people not used to a decentralized schooling system.
I mostly made the reply because your post implied that it was something that a few rogue teachers did (as it inevitably happens in any country), especially to people not used to a decentralized schooling system.
This definitely depends on where you live. I don't know if it's still called "swats" like it was when I got hit (with a long wooden paddle!) in school, but any poll taken around here would find a majority in favor of corporal punishment in educational settings.
Regarding schools that's on a state by state and district by district basis. It is very legal for a principal or other officers of a school to use corporal punishment if the state and local laws permit it.
Since you are only talking about schools (also in the replies) I take it that it is legal at home, yes?
Abuse is not legal. Physical discipline is legal. Drawing the line between the two is up to the court system.
According to other commenters, even belts and paddles are apparently legal. That is well beyond "normal" spanking and deeply into abuse. But in many countries, even "normal" spanking is considered abuse, exactly because it's so easy for parents to cross that line in anger.
And pretending there's a difference is ignorance.
Pretending there isn't a difference is ignorance.
It depends on the state.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934191.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934191.html
Yes. There isn't a single US state where corporal punishment by parents is illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment_in_the_hom...
> Corporal punishment of children by parents or other legal guardians is legal in the United States and social acceptance is generally high, through allowances made for "moderate physical discipline" (using this or similar language) in most states' laws regarding assault, criminal battery, domestic violence and/or child abuse. Whether an instance of corporal punishment exceeds these bounds is usually decided on a case-by-case basis in family court proceedings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment_in_the_hom...
> Corporal punishment of children by parents or other legal guardians is legal in the United States and social acceptance is generally high, through allowances made for "moderate physical discipline" (using this or similar language) in most states' laws regarding assault, criminal battery, domestic violence and/or child abuse. Whether an instance of corporal punishment exceeds these bounds is usually decided on a case-by-case basis in family court proceedings.
Thank you! It's too late to edit my comment.
What? Would this be news to anyone 2016?
My Mom "fined" me, taking away or reducing my allowance.
If all the punishments I could have endured, this really worked.
If all the punishments I could have endured, this really worked.
It's kind of ironic that this is the most apt way to train pets, as well.
That this could be considered "controversial" 2016 is just mind blowing to me.
You think parenting is a solved problem?
I recall there was a bit of a reaction against the strictness of Victorian parenting in the 1800s that advocated essentially this. That children are precious little things who should be allowed freedom and not be punished. Those kids were known to have serious impulse control issues as adults and often had difficulty working in structured or formal environments like offices or courthouses. So it strikes me that if you're never going to give time outs for uncontrolled and inappropriate or destructive behavior, then you need to replace it with something significantly more powerful than what is being offered in the article. I think the psychologist is taking the position that positive reinforcement is better than negative and taking it to an extreme that I have a seriously hard time believing will be beneficial to the long-term mental health of the child.
The most successful, caring, well educated and thoughtful people I know came from the worst upbringings. They grew up in households with abusive parents, homelessness as a child and general chaos.
At the same time the biggest burnouts, felons, drug-addicts and the like that I know personally (and in the statistics) came from ... the worst upbringings. They grew up in households with abusive parents, homelessness as a child and general chaos.
On the flip side, most of the people I know who were raised in peace, calm, consistent love, and wealth are generally pretty middling and while they live a fine life aren't really making huge impacts as I see from group 1 above. Maybe it's that the story isn't as compelling so we don't read about those as much. Chalk it up to sampling error.
From a social scientist perspective, group 3 is the ideal upbringing because it's consistent and the lower bound outcome is generally still desirable.
However there is just something about the ridiculous struggle that seems to either make diamonds or spent coal. From the perspective of population distribution for groups 1 and 2 it's overwhelmingly spent coal that comes out, but that 1% that becomes diamonds are really spectacular.
At the same time the biggest burnouts, felons, drug-addicts and the like that I know personally (and in the statistics) came from ... the worst upbringings. They grew up in households with abusive parents, homelessness as a child and general chaos.
On the flip side, most of the people I know who were raised in peace, calm, consistent love, and wealth are generally pretty middling and while they live a fine life aren't really making huge impacts as I see from group 1 above. Maybe it's that the story isn't as compelling so we don't read about those as much. Chalk it up to sampling error.
From a social scientist perspective, group 3 is the ideal upbringing because it's consistent and the lower bound outcome is generally still desirable.
However there is just something about the ridiculous struggle that seems to either make diamonds or spent coal. From the perspective of population distribution for groups 1 and 2 it's overwhelmingly spent coal that comes out, but that 1% that becomes diamonds are really spectacular.
> "Sarah, put on the green coat or the red sweater. We're going to go out, okay?" Choice among humans increases the likelihood of compliance. And choice isn't important, it's the appearance of choice that's important.
I've gotten this exact advice from so many articles and pop psych pieces. Maybe they are written by non-parents or their children are much easier, but it never works for me. My 4 year will always ask for a 3rd option that isn't there, or just reject the framing entirely.
I suspect much of this advice depends on your child's temperament. Tips that work for one family will not work for another, and it will even vary between kids in the same family. For me personally, having kids has resolved the nature vs nurture debate squarely in the "nature" side.