Subject:
|
Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:18:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
735 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Shiri Dori writes:
> > 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.
Why is there a limit? What is it? What is it based on? You go on to say some
pretty commonly accepted stuff, but I'm not infering what this limit is. (And
simply by being popular, doesn't make it right.)
> At some point you just *can't* let
> a kid not have any bad effect to his wrong actions.
It sounds like you think I'm advocating shielding children from the natural
consequences of their actions. I am not. Most parents do that. I sometimes
do it on impulse, but when life or limb is not at stake, letting your kids
learn the cause and effect is the way to go.
> When a kid crosses that
> line, I think it is well and fair to give him/her a strict disciplinary
> action.
Why? Why does a child (what ages are we talking about, btw?) need authority
that you and I do not?
> I would say "no TV for the day" or something of the sort;
No TV for the day is an absolutely fabulous consequence for breaking the TV.
What it has got to do with mouthing off, I have no idea.
> 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).
What do you consider very extreme? I'm certainly willing to defend myself, but
I can't think of any but the most improbably extreme cases where some kind of
physical discipline is justified.
> 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.
What it taught you is that if you strike someone you are likely to be whacked
back (I consider that a good and just repercussion) and that the person in the
world who is supposed to love and care for you above all else is willing to
hurt you in order to force your compliance with their own agenda (I consider
that bad).
> Now I think my mother was extremely justified, even though at
> the time I was really upset.
I think there are negative consequences to physical discipline even when it is
justified. I agree that that case may have been justified, but possibly not
the _best_ solution.
> > 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.
As I suggested above, I agree. It leave the "impression" that the adults in
their life are willing to use any tools necessary to coerce the child into
jumping through the hoops that the parent finds valuable rather than helping
the child to figure out what _they_ think is important and then helping them
achieve along those lines.
What I don't get is Dave's suggested the punishment is needed because a child
isn't fully able to abstract about morals, or whatever. I'm not sure how that
has any bearing on the use of punishment if we all agree that punishing them
isn't going to improve their morals, or whatever. I guess if all you care
about is behavior modification rather than nurturing, punishment is an adequate
tool. But maybe you shouldn't have kids.
> And I think he's right, when the punishment is
> not abused, overused, or unenforced.
In the sense that the word 'abuse' means 'mis-use' (not in the legal sense that
we tend to think of it) an authority relationship between parent and child is
itself abusive. The notion that one person should even be able to control and
punish another is vile.
> However, positive (*or* negative)
> reinforcement is a lot more effective than punishment, and should be used
> more often.
Again, I'm not that hot on the behaviorist psycology that premises all this.
It is demonstrably effective for getting an animal to behave in a certain well
defined way when you aren't concerned about side effects like mental health. I
prefer to be nice and help kids find and meet their own inner needs.
> (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))
I guess that providing a reward for a parentally-decided upon goal is OK, but I
think it bears substantial risk of inhibiting the child's intrinsic motivation.
There are lots of examples studied that I could cite, but one of the best is
when the researchers had first graders draw something (I don't recall). First
graders pretty typically love to draw. There were three groups in the study,
For one group, the officials came into the classrooms and just gave them
supplies and asked them to draw for them. Another group was repeatedly given
verbal praise for producing drawings. The third group was paid some small
amount of cash for each drawing. The drawings produced by the first group were
more sophisticated than the other two, which should come as no surprise. But
the really alarming result of this (and other similar) studie(s) is that the
kids who were paid lost their innate joy for drawing to a measurable extent.
Those rewarded with verbal praise did too, but to a lesser extent. The
thinking is that once they have been rewarded, they come to view that activity
as a means to a reward. It is then beneath them to perform some valuable
activity for free, even if they previously loved to do it on their own.
I think that you can generalize from this example (if you believe that it
happened and that there are lots of similar studies with similar results --
using both kids and adults in the workplace) that there is significant risk to
normally approved of behavior modification techniques. If you want a more
serious reading on this, check out Alfie Kohn's _Punished by Rewards._ (I'm
not all the way through it yet, but I've read enough to at least preliminarily
buy in.)
> > > 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?
I'm saying that taking away TV rights for a day is an extra layer of arbitrary
punishment that is probably not really linked to the "poor" behavior that has
aggrivated the parent. If the behavior actually is bad, then there are
implications that will affect the child regardless of what the parent does. No
layering on of extra punishment is needed.
As an example, if a child reaches out and grabs a jar of olives in the
supermarket while sitting in the cart, the family has to pay for those wasted
olives. What that means for the child is that some other thing that costs
$3.12 can not be purchased. Under ideal conditions, since it was the child who
wasted the money, it is fair for the family to take that $3.12 out of luxury
items that would have been the child's discretion. (I can imagine lots of
scenarios where the parents really are to blame for the broken jar and then
that handling would be inappropriate.) That loss of spending power is a
natural and logical consequence to the child's actions. Smacking the hand,
yelling at the child, restricting their activity through "time out" or TV
limiting, lengthy guilt trips, and lots of other common parental responses are
all completely inappropriate and more damaging than just letting it go.
> > > 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... ;-)
One problem with "appropriately sized punishment" is that you get to decide,
but they don't. If your child is repeatedly drawing on the wall, there is a
reason. Find and address the reason. Punishment is like taking asprin when
you have a tooth ache, it attempts to solve the symptom rather than the cause.
My first guess with the crayons on the wall (assuming repeated doings) would be
that there is a power struggle and the child has found a way to push the
parent's buttons. Help the child to feel enabled, don't punish him for it at
all. Hell, you'd be better off winking at him when you find him coloring on
the wall, picking up a crayon and adding stuff to the drawing with him. Have a
good time with it leave it up for a few days and then both of you work together
to clean it up. Once he knows how hard it is to clean up, he'll probably ask
_you_ to put paper up instead.
Chris
|
|
Message has 3 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
|
|
|
|
