Subject:
|
Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:51:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
801 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.)
Heehee - for a second there I thought you were saying that just coz *I* was
popular doesn't mean I'm right. ROFL!
OK, let me give a few examples, since it *is* a grey area, as Dave correctly
pointed out (and you seemed to agree).
I'm claiming there is a limit to how far a parent can get pushed without
punishing.
Certainly when there's a danger to life or limb (be it the offender, or
*someone else*) I think that the child can NOT go without punished
consequences. Say my two kids are fighting. Sure, I might let them fight it
out for awhile between them, to see if they can sort it out and relax on
their own account, but if it's getting really violent I'm not going to let
them hurt each other seriously. Certainly if my child is beating up someone
in preschool, and my kid is a lot stronger, and hurt the other child - I
would punish him for doing that. And I would expect the other parent to
punish their child if the situation was reversed.
Note I'm not talking middle or high school age here. This is toddler to
mid-elementary school age range. About 2-10, I'd say. I think if my child
hasn't matured enough by the time they've passed 14-15 to listen to reason,
I'm in trouble. Then again, I was quite the spoiled brat until we moved
here, and even now I'm not all that helpful around the house - but I try.
Another example for where I'd draw that limit would be when there was danger
to someone else's property. I'm not going to let my kids play somewhere they
can break a neighbor's window until they are old enough to pay for it (which
would be a *direct* consequence, right?). If they *do* break a window and
couldn't possibly afford fixing it, I would pay but punish them some other
way (offering help around the neighbor's house or something - I dunno.
Giving them extra chores, cutting the allowance, taking their ball away,
y'know? Something mildly related to the offence, but maybe not entirely linked).
Does that make sense? Do you need more examples for clarification?
> > 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.
No, that's not what I meant, I could tell you advocate Rosseau's idea of
child-rearing (if the kid breaks his window, let him get sick, etc.). I
think that's fair and well (when no danger, etc. etc.), but sometimes (Dave
pointed that out very well in his parallel reply) the consequences are not
imidiately apparent to the younger child. In those cases, I would take
different measures and "make up" a bad effect, so they realize it was wrong,
even if they wouldn't otherwise realize it. Capish?
> > 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?
Like I said, we're talking younger ages. Even early teens, maybe (after
that, any extreme measure would cause a bigge and worse flare back, *at
which point* I agree with you about creating a divide between the
team-feeling of the parent and the child. As a teenager myself, believe me,
I *know* - I live it every day ;-). My sister is 11, and just yesterday she
was being *extremely* rude to my mother, after carrying on pretty badly for
the past two weeks, promising things and not living up to her promises. Now,
my mother *could* let the effects of her actions gain up on her; but then
she would have to go to camp without clothes, and that's not really an
option. ;-) So my mom *did* let her go on the immediate effect, but gave her
a different punishment instead.
Now, I'm not saying I totally agree with what my mom did. She was letting
her off a bit easy and my sister is a tad (ahem!) spoiled. But my mom's not
getting younger nor healthier, and her high blood-pressure problems make
fighting a Very Bad Thing (tm). And yeah, my sister is the baby of the
family, with a gap of 12.5 years between my oldest sister and her; so she's
more spoiled than the rest of us. But it'll catch up on her (like it did,
and will continue to, on me) and she'll grow out of it. Maybe if *I* was her
mother, I'd be more strict and root the spoiledness out earlier, but who's
to say?
> > 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.
Heh. When my sister broke the TV (seriously!!) we had no TV for a few weeks.
But mouthing off often comes from stuff kids hear on TV (or in school). So
yeah, I see a relation.
> > 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.
I consider a great deal of rudeness and swearing at the parent, coming from
a very young child to be inappropriate, and that follows later too. I'm not
saying swearing in the air, at life, is wrong (heck, I do it *all* the time,
not that you can tell on lugnet). Just that swearing and rudeness to the
parent, or a teacher, and at a tender age I'd also say to a sibling or a
peer, is totally uncalled for.
Also under the very extreme is fighting to the point of someone getting
hurt. As well as going through/breaking/taking things a sibling specifically
asked not to. (The again, the latter sibling is also to blame for not doing
a better job hiding/locking it.) Etc.
> > 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).
No, I don't think that's what I learned. I learned something that society
woulda taught me sooner or later, and that is that people of more authority
than me should be respected to a certain degree. I'm not gonna bow down in
front of my parents, teachers or anyone else because of this; just watch my
manners and words a bit more. Fair or not?
> > 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.
What would *you* do if you were my mother?
> > > 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.
No, I think you're taking it to the extreme. There is a difference between
the occasional, relatively rare smack than a constant abuse (Dave clearly
makes that distinction in his newer post). Any tools? Nah. I don't think
most parents are asking their children to jump through some impossible
hoops. Keeping your hands to yourself and watching out not to hurt anyone is
not impossible, nor just valuable in the parents' eyes. Some things need to
be instated looooong before the child can decide what he or she wants out of
life. I mean, seriously.
> 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.
Aww, c'mon (don't make it that personal). And yeah, in early age, the
objective IS behavior modification. To an extent. Kids gotta be taught
somehow. The issues of morals are slowly introduced throughout the childood
development, as the issues change from simple stuff (don't hit him, don't
throw metal objects at people) to a bit more complex and perhaps optional
things (you shouldn't swear at that girl, because it's not nice and she
won't want to play with you anymore). Later on (hitting 9, 10 or so),
reprecussions can be discussed ahead of time and the connected moral issues
become more central. It's a process, not a bam-wham-you're-grown-up thing.
> > 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.
I meant mis-use, yes, but in the sense that someone is not using that
authority to instate an "you're a bad boy who needs punishment" attitude.
The control and punishment is for *children*, for cryin out loud, they are
not fully grown adults who can make all their decisions on their own. I can
let my kid eat ice cream and sweets and mcdonalds all day, and he or she
might *not* get sick. But they also won't be getting all the vitamins and
minerals they need n order to grow, and they can't comprehend that yet! If
my teen decides to live on fast-food, I'll point out that it isn't a very
smart decision, but let her do whatever she wants. But not my 5-year-old -
I'd make him eat balanced food, with *some* sweets but not too much. Get the
difference?
> > 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.
Me too. But first you gotta teach them to *listen*! If they don't know how
to do that, how will they figure out what they want? They won't know what
the options are.
> > (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.
Hmmm. Maybe, true. But hey, that builds on the same behaiviorist psychology
I was quoting above. ;-) Anywho, you're right to some extent. But I'm not
talking about things that kids love to do on their own. Plus, I believe that
verbal and emotional encouragement is worlds more valuable to a child's
self-esteem than anything else. You can make or break a kid's talent by
early-on en/discouragement. And I will never let any Aunt Petunia tell my
kids their drawings look like something picked out of the toilet, etc. ;-)
I will encourage them to create, play, build and study what they enjoy, but
not push them too much; let them find their own spot, their passion. But I
think that has *nothing* to do with punishments.
> 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.)
I'll see what I can do (busy summer).
> 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.
YES, but - key here, ding ding - the implications may not be apparant. Dave
is stressing that. When the implications are not immdetiately obvious to the
child (like in the case of high blood pressure - a two year old child won't
understand he's damamging his mother's health, for pete's sake!), then the
bad behavior goes unnoticed by the child. The kid didn't feel any immediate
consequence, so I guess it wasn't bad, huh?
> 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.
Yeah, but a 2-5 year old may not be old enough to understand the intangible
concept of money. That's the key idea here. The consequences would not be
obvious to a young child.
> > 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.
Maybe, or maybe he won't be willing to help clean out. Have you thought
about that? "C'mon mommy, let's draw on the wall again, why erase our pretty
drawing?" So either you end up doing it alone (because most people don't
wants crayon drawings in their living room if they're hosting people there,
etc ;-), or it stays up. What did you accomplish then?
-Shiri
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
