Subject:
|
Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:49:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
580 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
>
> > From a simply pragmatic standpoint, I never saw the "no supper" punishment
> > as that effective, including those few occasions when I was subject to it.
> > It was too vague a punishment to have any lasting effect, even in terms of
> > negative reinforcement.
>
> Punishment doesn't teach what the punisher normally expects. It merely teaches
> the recipient to avoid being caught. It also creates a divide between the
> authority and the punished, rather than bringing them together team-wise.
>
> > However, I absolutely don't buy into the thinking that very young children
> > can formulate complex reasoning about right and wrong when it comes to
> > abstract matters
>
> But I didn't say they could. And punishing them doesn't make them do so either
> (since we both agree that they can't). Why not just work with their
> limitations by not expecting the impossible?
>
> > not feasible simply to explain the situation to the child without forming
> > some tangible negative (not necessarily physical) association with the "bad"
> > behavior.
>
> The universe has it's own way of handling 'negative' behavior. If a child does
> stuff that pisses you off, then the child has to deal with a pissed off person.
> Just like I do, if I piss you off. Why does a child need some kind of
> artificial extra consequence above and beyond what we all get?
>
> > The child may be made to realize briefly that coloring on
> > the wall with crayon is objectionable, but that won't stop the child from
> > doing it again in the future.
Several weeks ago, my step-son was going too close to the road. My wife and
I gave him warnings and examples ("that's danger!") as to why he shouldn't
get too close. He disobeyed soon after and was caught by me. I gave him
another warning and repeated the examples. He did it again and I caught
him. This time he recieved several firm swats on his rump. After he calmed
down, my wife and I talked to him yet again as to why he shouldn't go near
the road. Then we exchanged hugs and had some fun. He has not gone too
close to the road since.
Anytime he gets swated, we make sure he understands we still love him then
we have some "fun time" together. This is to make sure he understands that
he only gets swated when he does "bad things", and that sometimes good boys
do "bad things". Though he may get punished, it does not make him a "bad
boy", it only means that he did a bad thing and is still a good boy, so we
can still play together.
>
> And you think that some kind of artificial consequence will? And even if it
> will, what is the cost in terms of relationship and personal autonomy? In
> ability to decide for itself?
>
> Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
67 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
