Kids should work...

On 3 Dec 2003 04:02:25 GMT, Ignoramus29143
wrote:

In article , Kane
wrote:
where is that pdf?
http://www.nopunish.net/PWP.pdf

thanks.

There are only two possible incidences that a child would be
oppositional and inconsiderate given his developmental level.

The first is when he has been given poor information by the world
around but more often by his caregiver. You see, a child acts
exactly,
barring my next caveat, as nature intended and is always precisely
on
target developmentally. A patient loving parent knows this an
parents
accordingly with information, exploration support, and above all,
kindness.

In the only other instance that a child would be oppositional and
inconsiderate given his developmental level, she would likely be
dysfuctional mentally or physcially and unable to perform at
developmental level.

How about the possibility that he wants something and thinks that he
can get it at the expense of others.

That fits my description of the two states of being. He is either
physiologically dysfunctional in a way that compromises learning and
judgement (autistic children come most easily to mind as a clear
example), or he is psychologically dysfunctional either because the
situation is new to him, or he has poor information to allow for
approriate learning and the psychologically appropriate development to
occur on schedule.

A punishment does not have to be physical.


If you buy into the idea that a child is doing "wrong" when they are
doing a behavior you do not approve or and do not with them to do and
you think you can make them do a wanted behavior, even if only to
stop, and punishment is your choice, ask why you chose it?

And what might work better. There are NO non-punitive parenting
tactics that work less well than spanking. Spanking mainly just fast,
and distracts a child from the unwanted activity, but, as is evidenced
time and again, the child STILL has the urge to do what he was trying
to do before he was distracted.

They then grow up with, at the very least, feelings of free floating
anxiety about themselves (since we are always trying to find out how
to do new thing, or old things better...unless of course it is spanked
out of us).

But children, like adults, respond to incentives and there is nothing
wrong, ni my ignorant opinion, with constructive a good model
incentive system.

One of the extraordinary things that happened to me as I homeschooled
my children was that they wanted to learn faster than I could deliver
the goods. Worked me to a frazzle, a joyful one of course.

The became so accustomed to me as their coach that in time for days
and days they would just forge on ahead, but when something new came
up or and old thing wanted to be done in a new way, the had the
feeling of safety that allowed them to try it...and they needed me
even less.

My daughter, by age 11 was more mature than most adults, yet she could
still play, and was joyfilled person. Still is 30 years later. And a
fulltime learner...accounting right now.

It is doubly hard to deal with if one moves to a punishment model,
bot
for the child, and for the caregiver. Problems with worsen, at the
expense of healing, and outside of possibly gaining some compliance
through fear, the side effects can be threatening to the child and
later society. Prisons bear this out. There is a great deal of
mental
illness and psychologically poor developmental progress among
inmates.

I would not make such broad statements as I see no firm basis in
evidence for them.

I've worked in the prison system. It's what I saw and what penologists
report. Prison psychological testing and observation shows extremely
retared social skill, right down to the inability to cooperatively
play (or work) with others typical of a three year old when they are
tired.

I'm not making broad statements. Do some reading.

In either case, why would you punish at all? What IS it you wish
the
child to learn, say when she hits a playmate, or destroys something
you care about, or is noise in a place you wish her to be quiet, or
if
she keeps dropping her food on the floor?

That regardless of how much some things are wanted, doing them has
unpleasant consequences. It is a good lesson in life.

Of course. Why do YOU have to be one delivering the unpleasant
consequences? Can't you figure out how to build that safely into the
environment?

Just pick up the food, trash it, and don't replace it. Which is a mild
punishment model, or...............

Figure out what the learning exercise is the child is
performing...that IS what child behavior is about, and a great deal of
adult behavior. We become, way past being conscious of it, superb
drivers by practice practice practice.

Often that is all the child is doing.

I'll write your next question for you and answer it.

Courtesy quotes:
"What in the world has dropping food on the floor got to do with
learning anything?"

When a early childhood development specialist just hired by the school
district moved in down the road from me ask me that in 1973 or 74,
being the bright introsupective intellectually advance character I was
(R R R R) I piped up with "Social skills...she trying to get me to do
things for her, training me" with a broad slaphappy grin on my face,
I'm sure.

The patient man, a part time college instructor set some boundaries
and restated the question differently... Do not think about food in
the usual way, nor the highchair, but of their physical characterists
and their interaction with the eviroment they are in.

I thought he was out of his mind...but...in time, with his patience, I
got it. The objects..food, had mass and weight. I dropped they would
fall. The highchair had height so one could view the falling object
longer and observe it's behavior in the physical universe...

When I got it my response was an incredulous "Noooo...gravity
experiements?"

He responded by pointing out other things I knew about child learning
behaviors just by simple observation....they repeat things they wish
to study and learn...we even help them with rhymes and songs and
patticake mantras.

My child was dropping things to study gravity, and he also would push
a chair to the wall and climb up and switch the light on and off
endlessly, and poor water back and forth and back and forth and
b..well, you get the picture.

So then, I had to ask myself, are all these behaviors that bother me
BAD behaviors or are they learning behaviors.

i

Best. Kane

On 2 Dec 2003 22:17:06 -0800, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

Gerald Alborn wrote
In other words, you think "survival of the
fittest" plays into the evolution of what
many consider to be "societal norms?" If
cp survived, it just has to be right, right Doan?
-Jerry-

It worked for John Glenn,

That wasn't the question, but no, IT didn't work for John Glenn. His
and other human's extraordinary ability to survive and prosper even
the worst of circumstances "worked." What might he have been, given
his genetic legacy, had he never been spanked?

Abraham Lincoln and

You know for certain he was spanked do you?

Consider for a moment before you answer. Contrary to the popular
biased reporting on who and what he was, he risked the republic, and
made a choice that killed more per capita than any US war before or
since.

The issue was commerce, and he chose to side with the bully boy
northern industrial crowd. That he picked up on the slavery issue was
not only secondary...he despised "Negros."

He, and others of his time, and right up until recently, would refer
to them with the most hideously brutal but sibulantly sounding quasi
polite "Nigras," usually delivered in a stage whisper so the object of
their taunt could hear them.

If ever there was a term that made my blood boil more than the
brutally frank vicious, "******" "Nigras" would be it. There is a
whole universe of hate and dispicable arrogance in it that delegates
blacks to an even worse place in the social order.

the founding fathers.

All spanked were they? You have some evidence?

Yah know, your conversations about the grandmother, the grandfather,
the child, and oddly, even the mother..whose name you do not share,
whose activities and presence in her own house remain a mystery
because you speak of her in only the most self centered terms, sound
so much like those racist bigots I refer to above.

Isn't that terribly unfair of me though....

Kane

On 2 Dec 2003 22:50:30 -0800, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

Don't disagree with LaVonne, she's an ""expert""!
chuckle

Like you are an expert at what to do to get children back from CPS?

The whole thread seems so "academic" as to be
out there in LaLa Land. Ego stroking and
people feeling very philosophical and all..

Yes. That academic thing and philosophical discourse kind of puts your
teeth on edge, eh?

Figgers.

Look, There goes LaVonne, the Pied Piper of Dinkytown!

Look their goes the Whore with his ass prolapsed out of his mouth.

And now to reply to AdotaDad below:


AdoptaDad wrote

Hiyah, guy.

Many animals use what amounts to some form of physical
discipline when rearing their offspring.
It's not uncommmon at all.

Actually it is just that. It is rare that the caregiver animal (often
only the female as boar bears kill the young routinely if she doesn't
protect) resorts to pain infliction to cause aversion.

Sometimes at weaning, but that is more reactive and instinctual than
thoughful

Sometimes in extreme danger, but some animals do nothing at all to
their young aversively, except move away if the cub, calf, fawn, kid,
kitten, pup, is annoying them.

In addition, there are several species that actually
eat their young.

Pigs more commonly, even the mothers do it. Stress and or a
nutritional imbalance seem to trigger it. It isn't smile for
discipline.

Given my druthers, I'd rather be
beaten than eaten.

Given mine, I'd rather be neither. And since I do, as a human being,
have that choice far more than any animal does.

And since I'm the male of my species, I'm rather
thankful I'm not a black widow spider or preying mantis.

It all comes back to being human doesn't it now?

And that we have choices animals do not.

Humans are no more (or less) base than the other
species on this planet.

Some humans, but on average we do not do the things that are "base"
that animals do. Besides that's such a value judgement, now isn't it.

Hindo's do things I consider base, but then I suppose they consider my
actions and inactions of their action, pretty base.

Just why is it I don't once a year take abundle of little specil
knives on cords and scourge my back by whiping myself with them?

Darned if I know.

But I do know that hitting a child and excusing it through the
rationale that it's "discipline," or "how to show them you love them,"
is about as "base" as we can be.

And children are not mentally animals.

Neither are thee and me, but sometimes I do wonder about thee.

R R R

No malice, just having fun. Thanks for being candid. If I had to
accept a child being spanked you are one of the very few that I'd bow
my head and close my eyes and accept.

But remember, I do NOT have to accept that.

Kane

On 3 Dec 2003 04:02:25 GMT, Ignoramus29143
wrote:


In either case, why would you punish at all? What IS it you wish the
child to learn, say when she hits a playmate, or destroys something
you care about, or is noise in a place you wish her to be quiet, or if
she keeps dropping her food on the floor?

That regardless of how much some things are wanted, doing them has
unpleasant consequences. It is a good lesson in life.

That's a lesson, but it doesn't seem to me to address the underlying
lesson most parents want the child to learn in these situations and
it's one they learn through the natural consequences when they do
these things in situations where the parent doesn't have the control
anyway.

If s/he hits a playmate, it is likely that the playmate will hit back.
If s/he destroys something that s/he cares about and can't
replace it, s/he learns that destruction means that the thing will not
reappear magically, if s/he is noisy and others are upset, s/he learns
that they will probably not come and play.

The underlying lesson, I would want my child to learn though is
empathy for the other person's feelings and that cannot be taught
by punishment at all. Aside from that, I wanted my children to learn
how to make amends for things they did wrong.

When a child hits a playmate, I want them to understand that it hurts
the other child and that hurting any person is not a good thing. I
want them to make amends for the action and to learn to solve the
problem using words rather than physical action. All this needs to be
talked about with the child and the child needs to practice better
solutions. So focusing on what the child can do the next time that
s/he is frustrated is a much better way to teach them not to hit.

When a child destroys something you care about, the action you
take should depend on whether or not the destruction was accidental
or purposeful. After you figure out the motivation, you can deal with
the underlying emotions and problems. Still, what I want is for them
to take *my* feelings into consideration and they don't learn that
from being punished. They learn that from the fact that you
acknowledge and take their emotiions into consideration and that
you model consideration for others in your own life. I would want
the child to try to make amends. They can attempt repairs, save up
money to buy you a replacement, etc. If the *thing* can't be fixed or
replaced, they may want to do something else nice for you to help
you get over your upset.

When a child is noisy in a place where others need them to be quiet,
again the thing I want them to learn is to consider other people's
feelings. We would leave the area and go to a place where the child
*can* be noisy. Or we might find a quiet activity the child likes
that can be done. And it would be important to talk about why you
wish the child to be quiet in this situation. Punishing the child
doesn't accomplish much in terms of a long term solution where
the child understands when to be quiet and/or how to take the other
people's feelings into account.

When a child is dropping food on the floor, the logical result is that
the meal is over and that the child helps clean up the mess. This can
seem like a punishment, I suppose, but it's all in the attitude.
Generally toddlers begin dropping food when they are no longer hungry
because it's *fun* to explore what happens when they do so. They are
not doing this to annoy, but because they are not hungry and being in
the chair is boring after a while. So let them go play. It makes no
sense to punish them for exploring, imo.

i


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On 3 Dec 2003 14:20:08 GMT, Ignoramus11065
wrote:

In article , toto wrote:
On 3 Dec 2003 04:02:25 GMT, Ignoramus29143
wrote:


In either case, why would you punish at all? What IS it you wish
the
child to learn, say when she hits a playmate, or destroys
something
you care about, or is noise in a place you wish her to be quiet,
or if
she keeps dropping her food on the floor?

That regardless of how much some things are wanted, doing them has
unpleasant consequences. It is a good lesson in life.

That's a lesson, but it doesn't seem to me to address the
underlying
lesson most parents want the child to learn in these situations and
it's one they learn through the natural consequences when they do
these things in situations where the parent doesn't have the
control
anyway.

If s/he hits a playmate, it is likely that the playmate will hit
back.
If s/he destroys something that s/he cares about and can't
replace it, s/he learns that destruction means that the thing will
not
reappear magically, if s/he is noisy and others are upset, s/he
learns
that they will probably not come and play.

The underlying lesson, I would want my child to learn though is
empathy for the other person's feelings and that cannot be taught
by punishment at all. Aside from that, I wanted my children to
learn
how to make amends for things they did wrong.

Perhaps we just see the term punishment differently.

If I tell my son to stop throwing things or else I won't play with
him
and take away what he throws, and then he continues throwing things
and I follow through, to me, it is punishment. But it does fit your
description of social interaction.

Naturally, the point is that punishment should be a model of social
interaction, to the extent reasonably possible.

So, tell us, when was the last time you were at a restaurant and
caught your wife "playing" with her food and said, "well young lady if
you aren't hungry then you certainly don't need dessert?"

So much for social interaction derived "punishment."

When a child destroys something you care about, the action you
take should depend on whether or not the destruction was accidental
or purposeful.

absolutely.

What would be the difference?

Is it not possible that, like any physical scientist, the destruction
of something is often the study of that object?

And finally, is the object more important than the child and your
relationship with each other?

Most everyone thinks they "teach" children not be destructive, but
frankly it's more likely the child has become old enough to have some
understanding of the losses involved in destruction of something.
Before then we put things up.

And in any case, it does not hurt to communicate that you are very
upset that your valuable thing is broken.

Actually if the child is young enough and you overload them enough it
can hurt by confusing and frightening them about things they do not
understand. There is entirely enough naturally occuring fright in a
child's life. And it's our job to not add to it but to protect the
child until she is old enough developmentally (has the capacity) to
process whatever is frightening effectively...then lessons can be
taught, and not before...not the lessons one thinks they are teaching.

After you figure out the motivation, you can deal with
the underlying emotions and problems. Still, what I want is for
them
to take *my* feelings into consideration and they don't learn that
from being punished.

Punishment may be a part of learning. I agree that there is more to
learning than just punishment and rewards that seem to be unrelated
to
the action.

Also, a punishment should be seen as fair and reasonable.

Example.

Child throws a cup around after having been told not to. Cup is taken
away. Is it punishment? Yes, as far as I understand. Is this
punishment directly related to the offense? Yes. Does it model a
typical life situation? Sure. Does it seem reasonable and fair to the
child? Yes.

To broad an application. It very often happens that parents make
demands on the child beyond their capacity to understand...thinking
the child will understand if their's enough discomfort involved.

It seems not to occur to the parent in this scenario that discomfort
may be completely counter productive to learning when the child is too
young to overcome the pain and cut through to the lesson.

If you are trying to figure out how a light fixture is put together
and you haven't unplugged it, just your worrying about getting shocked
is enough to considerably reduce your learning.

If the exploritory child has to spend too much time worrying about
what YOU might do to him or her next they are not focusing on their
learning. If you are seen as the one that keeps them safe AND
patiently assists when the are exploring then learning is at a
maximum.

Why are classrooms set up as they are? To create safe learning
environments...otherwise when we wanted a child to learn his letters
and numbers we'd set up in a building excavation site, during work
hours.

When a child is noisy in a place where others need them to be
quiet,
again the thing I want them to learn is to consider other people's
feelings. We would leave the area and go to a place where the
child
*can* be noisy. Or we might find a quiet activity the child likes
that can be done. And it would be important to talk about why you
wish the child to be quiet in this situation. Punishing the child
doesn't accomplish much in terms of a long term solution where
the child understands when to be quiet and/or how to take the other
people's feelings into account.

When a child is dropping food on the floor, the logical result is
that
the meal is over and that the child helps clean up the mess. This
can
seem like a punishment, I suppose, but it's all in the attitude.
Generally toddlers begin dropping food when they are no longer
hungry
because it's *fun* to explore what happens when they do so. They
are
not doing this to annoy, but because they are not hungry and being
in
the chair is boring after a while. So let them go play. It makes
no
sense to punish them for exploring, imo.

I find that cleaning after making a mess helps a lot wrt preventing
messes.

Age, developmental level please.

If he makes a mess, (like drops food), I say no big deal, now let's
clean it. It's not even a punishment.

That IS a teaching situation if the child is old enough to help. And
if it is, as it usually is, exploratory behavior (look at the delight
of the child when you put something back on their highchair tray and
babble at them %$$!$#%@#%$&*& - what the child hears when you say,
"don't throw that") then simply giving them something to throw that
isn't messy can be very useful.

This gravity experiment is one of the most intense learning
experiences of the human child. I believe it is so because the effects
of gravity are one of the very few instinctual responses humans have.
Fear of falling is universal from birth with all children.

Does this gravity long term research for the child "take"? Remember
the first time you brought home a helium filled balloon? It defied all
the experimental outcomes the child had been seeing in HIS research.

Naturally it intregued him no end. And for life, something that defies
gravity holds fascination for us.

i

Kane

On 3 Dec 2003 14:33:17 GMT, Ignoramus11065
wrote:

In article , Kane
wrote:
On 3 Dec 2003 04:02:25 GMT, Ignoramus29143
How about the possibility that he wants something and thinks that
he
can get it at the expense of others.

That fits my description of the two states of being. He is either
physiologically dysfunctional in a way that compromises learning
and
judgement (autistic children come most easily to mind as a clear
example), or he is psychologically dysfunctional either because the
situation is new to him, or he has poor information to allow for
approriate learning and the psychologically appropriate development
to
occur on schedule.

Okay, so to you it is a matter of definition, a person who wants as
much as he can get away with is dysfunctional.

No no..you misunderstand. To want the entire universe is healthy,
normal, and good in the child of a certain age. In fact the really
young child, say up to about two years, isn't even aware she is a
separate part of the universe.

The major characteristic developmentally of the 2 -3 year old child is
becoming a separate being. It is terribly stressful, the child doesn't
really understand what is going on, but nature demands she learn
it...hence we get the "terrible twos." All the difficulties for the
parent are nothing compared to the difficulties for the child.

Patience is paramount at that time.

To me it is just a
rational economic behavior (I have economics background). Why get
less
than you can get away with? Why not maximise your utility function?

The job of the parent then is to teach this economy of effort and gain
or loss. Whacking the kid, or even punishing them isn't of much use.
It simply distracts them from learning "economics."

In any case, however you label it, people do respond to
incentives. Real life is all about incentives. Therefore, there is
nothing wrong with contructing an incentive system at home, as it
would help the child prepare for the incentive system in real life.
A
good incentive system should be both relevant to the child's
development level, as well as be somewhat realistic of what he will
encounter in real life.

An example please.

The problem with beating children as an incentive system is that
first, it does not fit modern life (where adults are almost never
beaten), and second, it does not take child development into account
at all.

Nor does it take into account basic learning theory based on proven
experiments (including brain scan research) on how learning best takes
place, or is diminished by distraction.

Not to mention a couple of millinium of some of us just seeing by
observation what does and doesn't work with a bit more clarity than
others. My best work has been with talking to grandmas. They may not
have sophisticated academic descriptions, but they a lifetime of
watching children grow up, at two sets of them.

It is just easy for dumb parents.

Sometimes the most intelligent do not get it because they are unable
to project their thinking into the world as the child experiences it
through taste, touch, sight etc.
A punishment does not have to be physical.


If you buy into the idea that a child is doing "wrong" when they
are
doing a behavior you do not approve or and do not with them to do
and
you think you can make them do a wanted behavior, even if only to
stop, and punishment is your choice, ask why you chose it?

I have to confess that I do not understand what you wanted to say.

One word typo I think.."or" for "of." I rewrite and edit..

If you buy into the idea that a child is doing "wrong" when they are
simply executing a behavior you do not approve of, and you think you
make them do a behavior you want them to, why would you ever use
punishment?

That isn't how we learn very much in life. Look at all the models of
teaching we have at our disposal. If you took up a subject to learn
would you consider that pain was going to be your best learning
incentive?

Usually all it does is cause one to avoid, and aversive response.

And what might work better. There are NO non-punitive parenting
tactics that work less well than spanking. Spanking mainly just
fast,
and distracts a child from the unwanted activity, but, as is
evidenced
time and again, the child STILL has the urge to do what he was
trying
to do before he was distracted.

sometimes it is helpful to satisfy the urge in a productive
fashion. For example, if the child likes throwing, give him a ball
and
do it outdoors.

With a bit of thought that response can be extrapolated for just about
every learning situation a child might be in. And virtually everything
has a lesson in it for the child...even being tired an cranky.

Do I wish to teach that child that we are patient with tired and
cranky people, or do I slap his face for whining?

But children, like adults, respond to incentives and there is
nothing
wrong, ni my ignorant opinion, with constructive a good model
incentive system.

One of the extraordinary things that happened to me as I
homeschooled
my children was that they wanted to learn faster than I could
deliver
the goods. Worked me to a frazzle, a joyful one of course.

The became so accustomed to me as their coach that in time for days
and days they would just forge on ahead, but when something new
came
up or and old thing wanted to be done in a new way, the had the
feeling of safety that allowed them to try it...and they needed me
even less.

My daughter, by age 11 was more mature than most adults, yet she
could
still play, and was joyfilled person. Still is 30 years later. And
a
fulltime learner...accounting right now.

not sure how it is related.

Ah....outcomes?

Congrats on having great kids.

More a product of me figuring out when to step back than when to
punish.

It is doubly hard to deal with if one moves to a punishment
model,
bot
for the child, and for the caregiver. Problems with worsen, at
the
expense of healing, and outside of possibly gaining some
compliance
through fear, the side effects can be threatening to the child
and
later society. Prisons bear this out. There is a great deal of
mental
illness and psychologically poor developmental progress among
inmates.

I would not make such broad statements as I see no firm basis in
evidence for them.

I've worked in the prison system. It's what I saw and what
penologists
report. Prison psychological testing and observation shows
extremely
retared social skill, right down to the inability to cooperatively
play (or work) with others typical of a three year old when they
are
tired.

I'm not making broad statements. Do some reading.

Can you recommend some specific reading.

If it has to do with parenting I'd recommend, Smart Love, by the
Piepers. Practical but with reasonable clear theory to support their
suggested methods.

Works extremely well with older or even more dysfunctional kids. They
are foster and adoptive, as well as bio parents and family counselors
and college professors. A more interesting read than it might sound
with that description.

http://tinyurl.com/w1uw

for commentary, reviews, and source.

Then there's one for younger children rearing as well...though it
follows through to all ages in childhood:

Dr. Thomas Gordon's Parent Effectiveness Training, or PET.

http://www.thomasgordon.com/store/index.cfm#family


In either case, why would you punish at all? What IS it you wish
the
child to learn, say when she hits a playmate, or destroys
something
you care about, or is noise in a place you wish her to be quiet,
or
if
she keeps dropping her food on the floor?

That regardless of how much some things are wanted, doing them has
unpleasant consequences. It is a good lesson in life.

Of course. Why do YOU have to be one delivering the unpleasant
consequences? Can't you figure out how to build that safely into
the
environment?

Why not me?

Relationship. Are you your child's coach and supporter? Are you
committed to those roles sufficiently to take the time and trouble to
learn what she is ready for developmentally and educationally at any
given point in her progress?

Would you, when you want your wife to be more cooperative and not keep
moving your sock drawer, or if she has asked you to show her how to
start the lawn mower, start thinking "how can I punish her into doing
this right?"

Just pick up the food, trash it, and don't replace it. Which is a
mild
punishment model, or...............

it is a punishment model.

Yes, I know...that's what the "............" designated...that there
was more to come...............


I kind of agree with the general message that punishment is not a
total
answer to developing the child into a successful and balanced
adult. However, life is all about consequences and punishments and
therefore letting a child learn this is helpful.

I beg your pardon? Could it be that you have become convinced of
something that isn't true?

Life is most definately NOT "all about consequences and punishments."

Think a bit about what you said and start asking yourself if life
could possibly be about other than those.

Example: you eat too much, you become obese. It's a
punishment.

Cultural imposed viewpoint. Not in some cultures...just ours.

Example: you cheat on your spouse, and ruin your
marriage. It's a punishment.

Clue, some people, so pain based in their upbringing, seek things for
gratification and are willing to take the risk no matter how much pain
to themselves and others might ensue.

Example: you lie on your resume, lose the
job. Etc etc.

And if you live in a reward/punishment belief system then you are very
tempted to simply get better at cheating and lying. Whereas if you
have developed conscience you tend to seek an inner sense of self
worth that includes a moral component.

So, if a child learns that actions have consequences, that would help
him think forward a little bit as they grow up.

If that were in fact how humans work many political models, including
socialism and communism would have taken over the world by now.

Both could work, of course, if people were more universally moral.

They cannot be if they are reward/punishment oriented over the
empathic conscience based model. And you don't teach or learn that by
pain reliant based methods.

i

Kane

Ignoramus11065 wrote:

I have a kind of related question... Related to child
safety. Sometimes, they say, it is important to scare a child enough
so that he does not do dangerous things such as playing with
electrical outlets. Other people would say that no, we should
chidproof outlets and not be too coercive. Yet others would respond
that you canno tprotect all outlets in all homes where the child would
be.

The thing is, since about 1.5 year old, my son has been pretty good at
removing the childproof caps on outlets. So I figure, we have wooden
floors anyway, so the floor is not grounded, I will let him plug and
unplug things.

My question is, just how really dangerous 125v is. I have been jolted
with 125 volts a few times and it is not even very painful. 220v is
painful but survivable. On the other hand, children may react to it
differently. Our floor is insulated, again.

Any thought on chidren and electric power outlets.

i

I have very clear memories of inserting things like paper clips
so as to bridge the 2 slots of the receptacles! Quite a brilliant
display as a result! (About age 4) Wonder I wasn't blinded by
the molten metal...
Jim

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 04:49:05 -0600, "Donna Metler"
wrote:


"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...
Donna,

Animals cannot speak. Animals communicate through body language
and
vocalizations. This is why mana cats swat their kittens on the
nose.
Mama
cat is raising her babies to survive in their world.

I can speak, and so can you. I didn't need to raise my children
with
hitting. I taught my children to survive and prosper as humans.
Mama cat
is teaching her children to survive as cats.

See the difference, Donna?

LaVonne


I'm not pro-spanking.

Your arguments are those of an apologist.

However,

See?

the claim was that NO animals use physical
punishment-and it only takes one counterexample to disprove such a
claim.

Okay, split hairs. But hairsplitters are usually ignoring relevant
portions of the issue.

I'd also argue that most child development theorists who advocate
spanking
do so only with quite young children,

As long as you qualify with the word "most" then you don't have to
face, by that deflection..you think..the argument of others.

who aren't exactly capable of higher
level reasoned discourse,

So pain is the best response?

and usually only in situations where an immediate
adversive response is necessary.

Name a few.

Which is exactly the mama cat's response.

Yes.

I am not a cat. I am a human. Cat's have zero capacity (despite
Disneyfication) to understand the effects of an action performed now
into the future. The are limited to a very short span of time, most of
it the reactions of a predator, and great for cats..usually.

Though I do notice rather a lot of them flat in the road.

Humans, on the other hand, can contemplate cause and effect subtleties
that NO animal can. They are linear to a great degree...we are more
dimensional in our thinking and experiencing.

The cat mother cannot know if the kitten will have later problems with
being an adult cat, and doesn't care. Cats respond very much as
predators to their experiences. A swat to a kitten teaches by example,
to swat. Hence they do so with their littermates, building the skill
to kill.

In fact, outside of tongue self washing, eating and sleeping,
predatory behavior is about all cats do, and hence the learn it.

I think I had more plans for my children than that.

But there are societies that DO teach children, by example, to be
violent and even homocidal as a valuable human trait. I understand
some Afghan tribesmen (but of course their women as well) skin their
captives for entertainment....live. Recently too, as reported by
journalists following the war with Al Queda and the Taliban. Some of
their own fell to tribesman.

There's an old Kipling, I think it was, poem about the fallen wounded
cradling their rifle to their in anticipation of the women of the
tribe they were fighting coming onto the field to deal, using their
little knives, with the wounded british soldiers.

Ah yes, here it is:

"
Rudyard Kipling

The Army

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle an' blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

I wonder if they were referring to a no-spank culture the women
peopled.

Kane

On 3 Dec 2003 15:57:27 GMT, Ignoramus11065
wrote:

In article , Kane
wrote:
On 3 Dec 2003 14:20:08 GMT, Ignoramus11065
wrote:

In article , toto
wrote:
On 3 Dec 2003 04:02:25 GMT, Ignoramus29143
wrote:


In either case, why would you punish at all? What IS it you
wish
the
child to learn, say when she hits a playmate, or destroys
something
you care about, or is noise in a place you wish her to be
quiet,
or if
she keeps dropping her food on the floor?

That regardless of how much some things are wanted, doing them
has
unpleasant consequences. It is a good lesson in life.

That's a lesson, but it doesn't seem to me to address the
underlying
lesson most parents want the child to learn in these situations
and
it's one they learn through the natural consequences when they do
these things in situations where the parent doesn't have the
control
anyway.

If s/he hits a playmate, it is likely that the playmate will hit
back.
If s/he destroys something that s/he cares about and can't
replace it, s/he learns that destruction means that the thing
will
not
reappear magically, if s/he is noisy and others are upset, s/he
learns
that they will probably not come and play.

The underlying lesson, I would want my child to learn though is
empathy for the other person's feelings and that cannot be taught
by punishment at all. Aside from that, I wanted my children to
learn
how to make amends for things they did wrong.

Perhaps we just see the term punishment differently.

If I tell my son to stop throwing things or else I won't play with
him
and take away what he throws, and then he continues throwing things
and I follow through, to me, it is punishment. But it does fit your
description of social interaction.

Naturally, the point is that punishment should be a model of social
interaction, to the extent reasonably possible.

So, tell us, when was the last time you were at a restaurant and
caught your wife "playing" with her food and said, "well young lady
if
you aren't hungry then you certainly don't need dessert?"

my wife does not play with her food.

Metaphor dysfunctional are yah?

But at times, I do punish her. Meaning I do things that are
unpleasant
to her and are meant to deter her from doing what she did, in
response
to acts that I do not like.

Got a prenup?

So much for social interaction derived "punishment."

???

Yes, it's obvious.

When a child destroys something you care about, the action you
take should depend on whether or not the destruction was
accidental
or purposeful.

absolutely.

What would be the difference?

Is it not possible that, like any physical scientist, the
destruction
of something is often the study of that object?

The question is what was the purpose.

Yes, that is the question.

TO study something or just to
annoy me.

No, that is decidedly NOT the question.

Was it something that he was told not to touch. etc etc.

How old is he?

What is his capacity?

What do kids normally explore at this age and how do they normally go
about doing so?

But the most important question and the one that should be asked
instead of the indictment question you proposed (rhetorically
accusator) is this: "How can I help my child?"

And finally, is the object more important than the child and your
relationship with each other?

I do not destroy the child... just tell him not to turn off my
computer, etc.

That isn't a punishment. It's a social interaction. If he won't turn
it off on request that is a teaching opportunity. If you are too lazy
to engage in one turn of the computer, and remove the child
physically. Do not pose it as a punishment, but just a demonstration
that you have more power. Then be prepared to pay the consequences
when the child is no longer powerless...a teen.

Want to know where difficult teens come from? Use your
methods...punish.

And in any case, it does not hurt to communicate that you are very
upset that your valuable thing is broken.

Actually if the child is young enough and you overload them enough
it can hurt by confusing and frightening them about things they do
not understand. There is entirely enough naturally occuring fright
in a child's life. And it's our job to not add to it but to protect
the child until she is old enough developmentally (has the
capacity)
to process whatever is frightening effectively...then lessons can
be
taught, and not before...not the lessons one thinks they are
teaching.

Fair enough.

After you figure out the motivation, you can deal with
the underlying emotions and problems. Still, what I want is for
them
to take *my* feelings into consideration and they don't learn
that
from being punished.

Punishment may be a part of learning. I agree that there is more to
learning than just punishment and rewards that seem to be unrelated
to
the action.

Also, a punishment should be seen as fair and reasonable.

Example.

Child throws a cup around after having been told not to. Cup is
taken
away. Is it punishment? Yes, as far as I understand. Is this
punishment directly related to the offense? Yes. Does it model a
typical life situation? Sure. Does it seem reasonable and fair to
the
child? Yes.

To broad an application. It very often happens that parents make
demands on the child beyond their capacity to understand...thinking
the child will understand if their's enough discomfort involved.

It seems not to occur to the parent in this scenario that
discomfort
may be completely counter productive to learning when the child is
too
young to overcome the pain and cut through to the lesson.

sure. like potty training a 1 month old. But there is a point when
they can understand and avoid doing certain things if properly
motivated.

I find a lot of folks don't have a very good grasp of those times. And
not only a poor grasp but a very poor capacity to apply what they
thinkk they no very well, as in:

"My child is 4, so he better play cooperatively (as the marker shows)
or I'm going to punish him."

Some children, perfectly healthy developmentally, just aren't ready
for that particular marker. They want their truck and they aren't
going to share.

Same goes for the idiocy of public school that shows in age grouping
isolation rather then easily demonstratable development capacity.

Reading, for instance. Some children, as I was, are roaring along at
three and four. Some aren't really ready until ten or so. My brother
was a lousy reader until he was seven...maybe he never caught up with
me. He is a millionaire retired industrialist, major company VP,
today...from the R&D side. A scientist. Still holds NO college
degree...not even a bachelor's. He is an administrative scientist
these days.

He is having a lousy retirement, to my mind, but to him - heaven. They
keep paying him to come back and solve yet more problems for them.

He was never spanked. And for that matter I can't remember mom or dad
punishing him for anything. Admonishions of course, but no
punishments. He was waaaaaay too busy with his science experiments.

If you are trying to figure out how a light fixture is put together
and you haven't unplugged it, just your worrying about getting
shocked
is enough to considerably reduce your learning.

If the exploritory child has to spend too much time worrying about
what YOU might do to him or her next they are not focusing on their
learning. If you are seen as the one that keeps them safe AND
patiently assists when the are exploring then learning is at a
maximum.

It is a question of degree and not absolutes.

Could you be a bit more obtuse?

It is a question of optimizing for better odds of desired outcomes.

Game, set, match.....R R R I think I won the obtusenous round.

Why are classrooms set up as they are? To create safe learning
environments...otherwise when we wanted a child to learn his
letters
and numbers we'd set up in a building excavation site, during work
hours.

I loved playing at building sites...

Yes. While contruction was underway? In the path of danger? What did
you learn, besides you are lucky?

I find that cleaning after making a mess helps a lot wrt preventing
messes.

Age, developmental level please.

2.5 yo

Just barely for some children. It is easy to assume they are learning
something they are not. You think they are learning cooperation. They
think they are learning more physics and you are their teacher.

They are right, you aren't, if you think cooperation and compliance is
being learned. 4, 4.5 age maybe..but easily recognized at 5 to 6, and
then the critical thinking capacity makes them somewhat less compliant
again....you, the parent, now has feet of clay.

There IS no tooth fairy or easter bunny.

i

Kane

On 3 Dec 2003 16:41:38 GMT, Ignoramus11065
wrote:

In article , Kane
wrote:

Okay, so to you it is a matter of definition, a person who wants as
much as he can get away with is dysfunctional.

No no..you misunderstand. To want the entire universe is healthy,
normal, and good in the child of a certain age.

why is it not normal for any adult?

It is good and normal, as it is good and normal to curtail the urge to
the legal and morally defensible.

The child learns this one way or another. Pain parenting disrupts the
learning of adult responsibility and results in little problems such
as Enron and degradation of the environment.

And whether it is "normal" according to some definition is beside the
point,

Then you have the problem. YOU are one defining by social standards. A
definition.

at least it is "frequent".

Yes, I would worry greatly about a 99 percent non-aquisative
individual. I think they need to be watched for signs of dementia.
Even the most altruistic has something they want more of. Mother
Teresa was a bear for going after support for her cause.

The major characteristic developmentally of the 2 -3 year old child
is
becoming a separate being. It is terribly stressful, the child
doesn't
really understand what is going on, but nature demands she learn
it...hence we get the "terrible twos." All the difficulties for the
parent are nothing compared to the difficulties for the child.

I frankly do not see much difficulties so far.

If you aren't a punishing controller then I wouldn't expect you to.
You either know or have life experience from your own childhood that
doesn't set off any alarm bells to "correct" on the scale many parents
do.

To me it is just a
rational economic behavior (I have economics background). Why get
less
than you can get away with? Why not maximise your utility function?

The job of the parent then is to teach this economy of effort and
gain
or loss. Whacking the kid, or even punishing them isn't of much
use.
It simply distracts them from learning "economics."

we started to repeat ourselves.

Why yes "we" did.

In any case, however you label it, people do respond to
incentives. Real life is all about incentives. Therefore, there is
nothing wrong with contructing an incentive system at home, as it
would help the child prepare for the incentive system in real life.
A
good incentive system should be both relevant to the child's
development level, as well as be somewhat realistic of what he will
encounter in real life.

An example please.

taking away a toy that is being abused.

Whose toy is it? You may have just suppressed a world class physicist
in the making.

not playing with the child.

A child's play is a child's work, her educational work. Not helping
her is tantamount to someone disrupting your work and education.
Bedtime, child working alone, and other such times are the "not
playing" time for a parent. And parents instinctively even if unaware,
will set things up to keep the child's environment enriched if
possible, so "Grandpa and grandma, here we come."

if he destroys something that he was told not to destroy,

He may not have understood. HIS imperative is to explore. Yours, quite
frankly as far as nature is concerned, is seconday or less. A great
deal of the potential of human beings is lost by subversion enforcing
our wishes on children.

Those who do more sitting back and watching and managing the
enviroment for maximum interaction with minimum safety risks see
little miracles. Have you read Magical Child, Joseph Chilton Pearce?

At four his son could play complex classical piano with gusto and
confidence. A few months in public school and it disappeared, while
the child was busyily doing what children are doing in a good part of
public school life, learning to comply and please the teacher.

not to fetch
him a second item.

Or to get items less destructable or that can be cheaply sacrificed.
You don't want him to do his juggling practice with your little glass
unicorn collection...should you belt him, or give him some bean bags?

We are so stuck on compliance being learning.


sometimes it is helpful to satisfy the urge in a productive
fashion. For example, if the child likes throwing, give him a ball
and
do it outdoors.

With a bit of thought that response can be extrapolated for just
about
every learning situation a child might be in. And virtually
everything
has a lesson in it for the child...even being tired an cranky.

sure.

Do I wish to teach that child that we are patient with tired and
cranky people, or do I slap his face for whining?

you are making absolute statements

You ask absolute questions.

instead of looking at specific
situations.

You give to spare examples. I even had to ask for the age of the
child.

And I did not ask you to critique my question, only to answer it. If
you are unable to because of the wording then explain the parameters
you WILL respond to.

You are beginning to appear suspiciously like a troll or like the more
obtuse and ethically challenged denizens of these ngs.

Sometimes I do not reward whining. Sometimes I do. It depends on the
specific circumstances. In general I do not reward unreasonable
whining.

A whine is a sob unanswered. Children don't whine because they like to
whine, they whine because they feel some need.

I knew that my son had picked up whining from other children, and
interesting, even moreso from adults he was in contact with. Adults
are inveterate whiners, we just give it polite names. Check out
Greegor.

I got it that he wanted something and that I was feeling resistence
instead of figuring out what he wanted and helping him get it, or
giving it to him if I could.

I fixed it. And I fixed it by fixing him...because I knew there was
something that he wanted more than the momentary need....he wanted to
have a more effective means of getting what he needed or wanted than
whining was proving to be.

Whining kids whose parents simple cut them off teach some very
interesting escalations, including stealing what they want, or finding
others more easily whined at (I've known a few women that went from
man to man with that strategy). In our circle they are a verb. "Oh,
please don't try to Jane me."

No, I fixed him by asking if he'd like to learn how to ask so people
will listen and comply more. He said yes.

I said, lowering my voice deeply, "ASK LIKE THIS."

He had been wanting an icecream.

What came out of him was a bass foghorn sounding, "DAAAADDDDYYYY,
CAAAAAN IIIII HAAAAVE AAAAN IIIIIICECREEEEEAM?" People nearby listen
were nearly ROTLFTAO.

But it worked. And he and I improved our relationship.

I find most requests children have that are expresed by whining, if
you look past the whine for a moment, are perfectly acceptable
requests poorly stated. I want my child to know how to make poweful,
but reasonably stated, requests of the world around him or her.

Can you recommend some specific reading.

If it has to do with parenting I'd recommend, Smart Love, by the
Piepers. Practical but with reasonable clear theory to support
their
suggested methods.

thanks, I bought it... $1.73.

I'm unaware that it's out anywhere at that price. Where did you find
it? Last I heard it was in hard back only and ran about $20.

Dr. Thomas Gordon's Parent Effectiveness Training, or PET.

I read that one...

Did you understand it, and did you find anyone to practice the skills
with...not a child, an adult partner?

Of course. Why do YOU have to be one delivering the unpleasant
consequences? Can't you figure out how to build that safely into
the
environment?

Why not me?

Relationship. Are you your child's coach and supporter? Are you
committed to those roles sufficiently to take the time and trouble
to
learn what she is ready for developmentally and educationally at
any
given point in her progress?

I do not think that taking away a cup which he was using to spill
water everywhere, is going to ruin our relationship.

Then why did you go on, keeping the relationship, with......

He wants to spill
water, fine, do it in the sink. You want to spill it on the floor,
you
get your cup taken away. Is this going to ruin our relationship? I do
not think so.

Not if you respond to his spilling activity with more acceptable
spilling activity for learning. If you take it away and ignore the
need to experiment with the physical environment you are not getting a
better relationship and you are in fact risking it.

Ever wonder why so many blame their parents for their own failings.
Could be they are on to something, but I notice that if the person
came from a punishment household they still do the same things to
their kids.

Example: you eat too much, you become obese. It's a
punishment.

Cultural imposed viewpoint. Not in some cultures...just ours.

try carrying around a 50 lbs sack of sand for one day, all day, and
come back and tell me if that was not punishment.

If that sack was empty when I began and it took five years to get to
50lbs in roughly equal installments, I am merely strong now. I'm not
very discomfited by it at all.

If what you say is true when we hit fifty pounds as a child we should
be in great discomfort.

I am about 30lbs over what I would prefer right now. Still others
might envy me as I carry it on a 6.2 frame with considerable muscle
mass under it. I hardly notice it. Pants tightness is probably the
only discomfort.

The same would be true in other cultures where 50lbs more weight than
I would like is common and admired.

Example: you cheat on your spouse, and ruin your
marriage. It's a punishment.

Clue, some people, so pain based in their upbringing, seek things
for
gratification and are willing to take the risk no matter how much
pain
to themselves and others might ensue.

and they get punished

Really?

I notice you forgot to put in that they got caught. There is a part of
you that knows the truth, even with you execute your sophistry.

Only the caught get punished. And the pain oriented household tends to
spit out children upon the world that are highly skilled at cheating
of all kinds and at getting away with it. When they do get caught they
tend to just improve their cheating skills, not stop them.

The serial marriage cheater, for instance. It's classic. He cheats
with someone. Get's caught and divorced. You think he's punished.

He thinks he's just learning how to cheat better, and the lady he
cheated with gets to be his next victim..that he learns from.

Example: you lie on your resume, lose the
job. Etc etc.

And if you live in a reward/punishment belief system then you are
very
tempted to simply get better at cheating and lying. Whereas if you
have developed conscience you tend to seek an inner sense of self
worth that includes a moral component.

Concepts such as conscience etc, are very difficult to detect based
on
solid evidence.

Really. I find them extraordinarily easy to detect on extremely small
bits of evidence. I have seen children, very young, go to take
something not theirs, and not knowing anyone is looking, decide to put
it back. These were unspanked children, with little punishment in
their lives....just developing conscience too.

E.g. if you give people an opportunity to cheat,

I find that concepts such as "cheat" actually a bit harder to detect,
and sometimes very difficult to find any solid evidence on. I think
law enforcement has a similar experience to mine.

and
they know they won't suffer consequences, in aggregate they do
cheat.

On the contrary. I and many of the children in famlies that use
non-punitive methods of child rearing do NOT cheat just because we can
get away with it. We have well developed consciences NOT based on fear
of consequences.

It's not that we don't fear the consequences, it's that this isn't the
motivator that is the strongest for us. It is a comfort with ourselves
motivation that is the sure thing.

Some do not, but most do.

Yes, most do, and it has been widely claimed in these ngs and studies
cited that 90+% of people are spanked as children...in other words
punished.

Does that tell you anything?

You aren't examining a properly mixed sample. By their scarcity in the
population and environment those that have morality as a result of
conscience development by empathy rather than by fear, are difficult
to study.

I have been fortunate enough for the past 30 years to come into a
great deal of contact with people that do not spank and rarely use
punishment with their children and I saw the results.

It's very intersting to watch a child of 10 or so struggle with a
moral question who has NOT been punishment parented, and one who has
been. The latter has no struggle to speak of. Just a go or no go
response.

The former, on questioning, reports considerably memory recall going
on when the challenge arose. "Shall I try a puff on that joint being
offered?" and then strong memories of their trusted parent came up.
And they couldn't.

Not that the punished child doesn't remember mom or dad, for split
second before they internalize, "**** you dad" and externally, "Yeah,
pass it over."

I do not remember specific studies
etc, nor do I have any desire to spend time finding it out, but I
remember that I have seen several of them when I was studying
economics.

The researchers would very likely have a thorough mix, given the 90 vs
10 percent ration, out of any demographic they drew their sample from.
Highly unlikely they were looking at ANY adults that experienced non
pain parenting.

As time passes we may see some results, but for now there isn't much
but anecdotal observations.

So, if a child learns that actions have consequences, that would
help
him think forward a little bit as they grow up.

If that were in fact how humans work many political models,
including
socialism and communism would have taken over the world by now.

Both could work, of course, if people were more universally moral.

I do not want to digress into a million philosophical distractions
here...

I wasn't proferring a million. I was offering the thought that the
model chosen or thrust upon one doesn't matter as much as the
character of the individuals.

i

Kane



They cannot be if they are reward/punishment oriented over the
empathic conscience based model. And you don't teach or learn that
by
pain reliant based methods.

i

Kane