Subject:
|
Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:47:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
645 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.
First off, quick comment. Negative reinforcement is the wrong term here -
negative reinforcement refers to the removal of a bad effect, in response to
a good action. Negative reinforcement receives the *same* effect as positive
reinforcement, not the opposite. Psych 101, guys. You're talking about a
punishment.
> 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.
That's true, but there's a limit to that. At some point you just *can't* let
a kid not have any bad effect to his wrong actions. When a kid crosses that
line, I think it is well and fair to give him/her a strict disciplinary
action. I would say "no TV for the day" or something of the sort; and in
very extreme cases, I would even smack them (not too hard, not enough to
leave an impression on the behind, but enough to leave an impression on the
mind). As a kid I received the smack, once in a long time. I was slapped on
the cheek *once*, when I hit my mother at the age of 12, and believe me, it
only hurt for a little bit, but it left a very strong don't-cross-that-line
impression. Now I think my mother was extremely justified, even though at
the time I was really upset.
> > 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?
I don't think Dave *is* expecting the impossible. He is simply realizing (if
I read him correctly) that a punishment leaves a certain impression on a
child that no discussion can. And I think he's right, when the punishment is
not abused, overused, or unenforced. However, positive (*or* negative)
reinforcement is a lot more effective than punishment, and should be used
more often. (No, I don't mean constant bribing, I mean giving the child
encouragement with words, expressing pride in them, or maybe on occasion
promising a reward if the child shows real effort towards the goal the
parent wants them to acheive. (1))
> > 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?
I don't think I'm following your train of thought here. What're you getting at?
> > 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.
>
> 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?
But perhaps a fair warning a few times, and offering alternative options
("here, draw on this paper taped to the wall"), and then if the action
repeats, *then* giving an appropriately sized punishment... that would be
much more effective. I wouldn't ground a child for a week for drawing on the
freakin wall... ;-)
-Shiri
(1) This treatment was pretty effective on my parents' side, IMO. When I was
little, I had to get shots and blood tests often, and every time I would be
"brave" (not wiggle around, sit quietly while getting the shot) I'd get a
big kiss and hug, nice encouraging words, and maybe a small treat at the
cafeteria, etc. Once, after a series of many shots, I got a big present,
too. It didn't result in me becoming a total spoiled brat... I think. ;-)
Now I get shots every week and I don't get the treats anymore, but then
again I've grown up a bit since I was three...
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
67 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
