Natural consequences.

Often when discussing child discipline by parents the question comes up
on allowing the child to learn by "Natural Consequences."

The argument that comes flying back usually consist of, "Let him get
hit by a car?" "Burned by the pot of scalding water on the stove?" etc.


Non spankers tend to snort at that foolishness, but there IS a validity
to the rebuttal.

The problem lies in confusion of terms.

What non-spankers really mean (and often their words say so but the pro
spank crowd inserts their own translation...."natural consequences") is
"Logical" consequences.

It would not be logical to allow a child to run into the street and get
hit by a car, but it would be logical to take him, as the Embry
experiment taught, and have him sit and watch other children doing
'safe play.'

It woul be a logical consequence, if he is NOT going out toward the
street during his play, to praise and reward. That TOO is a logical
consequence of behavior.

Too often this is misunderstood by those that want to argue against
non-spanking and replacement of spanking with other parenting methods.

Then to, "Reasoning with the child" comes up in the argment, with the
pros claiming that one cannot reason with a child over everything.

The answer of course is that non-spankers do NOT present 'reasoning' as
the only alternative.

Non-spankers by habit and need have to have a larger repertoire of
parenting tactics. Spanking is easy...when 'nothing else works.'

The question spankers should ask themselves is this: "How did a little
child manage to have MORE skills to aggravate me than I have to correct
her without spanking?"

In other words, spankers, just how stupid and ignorant do you wish to
remain?

doan't dumb?

0:-

Some non-spank parents also make a distinction between Natural consequences and Logical consequences when the "true" Natural consequence is inappropriate.

Example: Your child loses his shoes in the Middle of Winter. The Natural consequence would be he goes shoeless until new shoes can be purchased, but that is not appropriate at this time of year (but would be in the summer imho) Logical concequence would be A) He has to wear shoes that are too small for him until new shoes can be purchased and/or B) he gets no say in the shoes that are purchased to replace the lost ones and if their ugly...hey sorry you had nice shoes that you didn't take care of.

Originally Posted by 0:-

Often when discussing child discipline by parents the question comes up
on allowing the child to learn by "Natural Consequences."

The argument that comes flying back usually consist of, "Let him get
hit by a car?" "Burned by the pot of scalding water on the stove?" etc.


Non spankers tend to snort at that foolishness, but there IS a validity
to the rebuttal.

The problem lies in confusion of terms.

What non-spankers really mean (and often their words say so but the pro
spank crowd inserts their own translation...."natural consequences") is
"Logical" consequences.

It would not be logical to allow a child to run into the street and get
hit by a car, but it would be logical to take him, as the Embry
experiment taught, and have him sit and watch other children doing
'safe play.'

It woul be a logical consequence, if he is NOT going out toward the
street during his play, to praise and reward. That TOO is a logical
consequence of behavior.

Too often this is misunderstood by those that want to argue against
non-spanking and replacement of spanking with other parenting methods.

Then to, "Reasoning with the child" comes up in the argment, with the
pros claiming that one cannot reason with a child over everything.

The answer of course is that non-spankers do NOT present 'reasoning' as
the only alternative.

Non-spankers by habit and need have to have a larger repertoire of
parenting tactics. Spanking is easy...when 'nothing else works.'

The question spankers should ask themselves is this: "How did a little
child manage to have MORE skills to aggravate me than I have to correct
her without spanking?"

In other words, spankers, just how stupid and ignorant do you wish to
remain?

doan't dumb?

0:-

beccafromlalaland wrote:
Some non-spank parents also make a distinction between Natural
consequences and Logical consequences when the "true" Natural
consequence is inappropriate.

Example: Your child loses his shoes in the Middle of Winter. The
Natural consequence would be he goes shoeless until new shoes can be
purchased, but that is not appropriate at this time of year (but would
be in the summer imho) Logical concequence would be A) He has to wear
shoes that are too small for him until new shoes can be purchased
and/or B) he gets no say in the shoes that are purchased to replace the
lost ones and if their ugly...hey sorry you had nice shoes that you
didn't take care of.

It's possible that behaviorist methods have reached their effective
limit. Research shows these methods to not in fact teach the child
problem solving and self management.

If it's parent applied, it will often be seen by the child as punishment
and manipulation.

After all, if we lose our own shoes what do we do?

Wear too small shoes for a while for the logical consequence, or do we
go and buy another pair and move on?

I think, if we are going to apply a "logical" consequence it should be
in the nature of teaching about economics -- budgeting.

"We need shoes for you honey to keep your feet safe, but the $48.95 they
cost I won't have for snacks and desserts for the next two weeks."

You are sharing in the "consequences" and that, to a child that enjoys
an atmosphere of trust and cooperation and support with the parent may
-- no, will -- have more impact than any consequence that might appear
punishing if applied only to him or her.

We are all in it together, aren't we? Family, that is?

If you lose your shoes does he or she get to consequence you? Nope, you
actually cut back on other expenditures and all share in that.

Both you and she are inspired to work to cut loss and increase gain.

Just my 36.7 cents worth (1975 dollars adjusted for inflation)

Kane



0:- Wrote:

Often when discussing child discipline by parents the question comes up
on allowing the child to learn by "Natural Consequences."

The argument that comes flying back usually consist of, "Let him get
hit by a car?" "Burned by the pot of scalding water on the stove?"
etc.


Non spankers tend to snort at that foolishness, but there IS a
validity
to the rebuttal.

The problem lies in confusion of terms.

What non-spankers really mean (and often their words say so but the
pro
spank crowd inserts their own translation...."natural consequences")
is
"Logical" consequences.

It would not be logical to allow a child to run into the street and
get
hit by a car, but it would be logical to take him, as the Embry
experiment taught, and have him sit and watch other children doing
'safe play.'

It woul be a logical consequence, if he is NOT going out toward the
street during his play, to praise and reward. That TOO is a logical
consequence of behavior.

Too often this is misunderstood by those that want to argue against
non-spanking and replacement of spanking with other parenting methods.

Then to, "Reasoning with the child" comes up in the argment, with the
pros claiming that one cannot reason with a child over everything.

The answer of course is that non-spankers do NOT present 'reasoning'
as
the only alternative.

Non-spankers by habit and need have to have a larger repertoire of
parenting tactics. Spanking is easy...when 'nothing else works.'

The question spankers should ask themselves is this: "How did a little
child manage to have MORE skills to aggravate me than I have to
correct
her without spanking?"

In other words, spankers, just how stupid and ignorant do you wish to
remain?

doan't dumb?

0:-





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Hahaha! Applying the logic of an adult to that of a child. If there
is anything that can be learned from the Embry study, it's that "Young
children lack the cognitive skills to link the abstraction to the concrete
circumstances..."

AFfromDreamLand

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

beccafromlalaland wrote:
Some non-spank parents also make a distinction between Natural
consequences and Logical consequences when the "true" Natural
consequence is inappropriate.

Example: Your child loses his shoes in the Middle of Winter. The
Natural consequence would be he goes shoeless until new shoes can be
purchased, but that is not appropriate at this time of year (but would
be in the summer imho) Logical concequence would be A) He has to wear
shoes that are too small for him until new shoes can be purchased
and/or B) he gets no say in the shoes that are purchased to replace the
lost ones and if their ugly...hey sorry you had nice shoes that you
didn't take care of.

It's possible that behaviorist methods have reached their effective
limit. Research shows these methods to not in fact teach the child
problem solving and self management.

If it's parent applied, it will often be seen by the child as punishment
and manipulation.

After all, if we lose our own shoes what do we do?

Wear too small shoes for a while for the logical consequence, or do we
go and buy another pair and move on?

I think, if we are going to apply a "logical" consequence it should be
in the nature of teaching about economics -- budgeting.

"We need shoes for you honey to keep your feet safe, but the $48.95 they
cost I won't have for snacks and desserts for the next two weeks."

You are sharing in the "consequences" and that, to a child that enjoys
an atmosphere of trust and cooperation and support with the parent may
-- no, will -- have more impact than any consequence that might appear
punishing if applied only to him or her.

We are all in it together, aren't we? Family, that is?

If you lose your shoes does he or she get to consequence you? Nope, you
actually cut back on other expenditures and all share in that.

Both you and she are inspired to work to cut loss and increase gain.

Just my 36.7 cents worth (1975 dollars adjusted for inflation)

Kane



0:- Wrote:

Often when discussing child discipline by parents the question comes up
on allowing the child to learn by "Natural Consequences."

The argument that comes flying back usually consist of, "Let him get
hit by a car?" "Burned by the pot of scalding water on the stove?"
etc.


Non spankers tend to snort at that foolishness, but there IS a
validity
to the rebuttal.

The problem lies in confusion of terms.

What non-spankers really mean (and often their words say so but the
pro
spank crowd inserts their own translation...."natural consequences")
is
"Logical" consequences.

It would not be logical to allow a child to run into the street and
get
hit by a car, but it would be logical to take him, as the Embry
experiment taught, and have him sit and watch other children doing
'safe play.'

It woul be a logical consequence, if he is NOT going out toward the
street during his play, to praise and reward. That TOO is a logical
consequence of behavior.

Too often this is misunderstood by those that want to argue against
non-spanking and replacement of spanking with other parenting methods.

Then to, "Reasoning with the child" comes up in the argment, with the
pros claiming that one cannot reason with a child over everything.

The answer of course is that non-spankers do NOT present 'reasoning'
as
the only alternative.

Non-spankers by habit and need have to have a larger repertoire of
parenting tactics. Spanking is easy...when 'nothing else works.'

The question spankers should ask themselves is this: "How did a little
child manage to have MORE skills to aggravate me than I have to
correct
her without spanking?"

In other words, spankers, just how stupid and ignorant do you wish to
remain?

doan't dumb?

0:-





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Doan wrote:
Hahaha! Applying the logic of an adult to that of a child. If there
is anything that can be learned from the Embry study, it's that "Young
children lack the cognitive skills to link the abstraction to the concrete
circumstances..."

Forever?

You seem so out of touch with reality. The sample was age specific. And
the report included comments on children older than that were beginning
to be in fact growing more able to make abstract connections.

If what you say is true, then you must be referring to yourself. None
of the rest of us failed to pass out of the earlier stage.

0:-

0:- wrote:
Doan wrote:
Hahaha! Applying the logic of an adult to that of a child. If there
is anything that can be learned from the Embry study, it's that "Young
children lack the cognitive skills to link the abstraction to the concrete
circumstances..."

Forever?

You seem so out of touch with reality. The sample was age specific. And
the report included comments on children older than that were beginning
to be in fact growing more able to make abstract connections.

If what you say is true, then you must be referring to yourself. None
of the rest of us failed to pass out of the earlier stage.

0:-

Gosh, I nearly forgot.

Your comment then would suggest that becca chose a pointless
consequence, if the age range is in fact what you refer to.
Consequencing a child that young would be an abstraction to concrete
relationship in the example given.

Why not take that up with her?

Or did you mean to?

But you are always welcome to contribute. Did you have an idea what
might work better with toddler and preschool children?

Perhaps the bastinado...after all, the application is being delivered
to the area most involved -- such a natural consequence, and logical to
boot.

We bow, if this is what you would suggest, to your superior logic.

Possibly then we should be smacking a child in the mouth when they
mispeak, and cracking them across the hand with a stick when they
mistouch, birching their legs that carry them where you told them not
to go, and caning their bottoms when they soil their diapers?

After all, it's logical...though I'm not sure about age appropriate.

What do you think?

0:-

On 3 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
Hahaha! Applying the logic of an adult to that of a child. If there
is anything that can be learned from the Embry study, it's that "Young
children lack the cognitive skills to link the abstraction to the concrete
circumstances..."

Forever?

Forever young?

You seem so out of touch with reality. The sample was age specific. And
the report included comments on children older than that were beginning
to be in fact growing more able to make abstract connections.

Hahaha! I specificly said "young chidlren", STUPID!

If what you say is true, then you must be referring to yourself. None
of the rest of us failed to pass out of the earlier stage.

0:-


Grow up! ;-)

AFfromDreamLand

Doan wrote:
On 3 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

Hahaha! Applying the logic of an adult to that of a child. If there
is anything that can be learned from the Embry study, it's that "Young
children lack the cognitive skills to link the abstraction to the concrete
circumstances..."

Forever?


Forever young?


You seem so out of touch with reality. The sample was age specific. And
the report included comments on children older than that were beginning
to be in fact growing more able to make abstract connections.


Hahaha! I specificly said "young chidlren", STUPID!

A six year old is a young child. A pre teener is not. A toddler is a
toddler. And a preschooler is a preschooler.

Everyone else recognizes such categories. Why not you?

Young child is non-specific and suggests you are sloppy in your wording.


If what you say is true, then you must be referring to yourself. None
of the rest of us failed to pass out of the earlier stage.

0:-


Grow up! ;-)

Stop stealing my expressions, child.

And try responding with something other than vapid and pointless one
liners.

Do you think that both becca and I would presume that children as young
as pre-school would be able to respond in a cognitive sense to consequences?

If not, why would you make the disparaging remark, connecting her and my
exchange to the Embry study on preschoolers, other than to harass?

Neither she nor I, in any of the posts on this subject, made mention of
age, as we worked to explore parenting methods not based on CP. You seem
disturbed by such efforts.

Is this the way you "let parents make up their own minds?"

You never seem to harass folks that support spanking when they come
here. Odd, isn't it?

And you haven't offered, I notice, any other suggestions as to what
might be more effective than what we are trying peacefully to explore
together.

You wouldn't be trying again to set us in conflict, would you?

Are you disrupting, or contributing?


AFfromDreamLand


Any questions?

Kane




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Despite the effort to sidetrack us, I'm interested in exploring
parenting methods with you. We've at least two well schooled and highly
experiences sources here to tap into if they have any thoughts on the
subject.

As you can see, I'm hoping to encourage folks to explore supportive
rather than punitive methods tactics.

Thank you for hanging in here and continuing to contribute.

Kane



0:- wrote:
beccafromlalaland wrote:

Some non-spank parents also make a distinction between Natural
consequences and Logical consequences when the "true" Natural
consequence is inappropriate.

Example: Your child loses his shoes in the Middle of Winter. The
Natural consequence would be he goes shoeless until new shoes can be
purchased, but that is not appropriate at this time of year (but would
be in the summer imho) Logical concequence would be A) He has to wear
shoes that are too small for him until new shoes can be purchased
and/or B) he gets no say in the shoes that are purchased to replace the
lost ones and if their ugly...hey sorry you had nice shoes that you
didn't take care of.


It's possible that behaviorist methods have reached their effective
limit. Research shows these methods to not in fact teach the child
problem solving and self management.

If it's parent applied, it will often be seen by the child as punishment
and manipulation.

After all, if we lose our own shoes what do we do?

Wear too small shoes for a while for the logical consequence, or do we
go and buy another pair and move on?

I think, if we are going to apply a "logical" consequence it should be
in the nature of teaching about economics -- budgeting.

"We need shoes for you honey to keep your feet safe, but the $48.95 they
cost I won't have for snacks and desserts for the next two weeks."

You are sharing in the "consequences" and that, to a child that enjoys
an atmosphere of trust and cooperation and support with the parent may
-- no, will -- have more impact than any consequence that might appear
punishing if applied only to him or her.

We are all in it together, aren't we? Family, that is?

If you lose your shoes does he or she get to consequence you? Nope, you
actually cut back on other expenditures and all share in that.

Both you and she are inspired to work to cut loss and increase gain.

Just my 36.7 cents worth (1975 dollars adjusted for inflation)

Kane



0:- Wrote:

Often when discussing child discipline by parents the question comes up
on allowing the child to learn by "Natural Consequences."

The argument that comes flying back usually consist of, "Let him get
hit by a car?" "Burned by the pot of scalding water on the stove?"
etc.


Non spankers tend to snort at that foolishness, but there IS a
validity
to the rebuttal.

The problem lies in confusion of terms.

What non-spankers really mean (and often their words say so but the
pro
spank crowd inserts their own translation...."natural consequences")
is
"Logical" consequences.

It would not be logical to allow a child to run into the street and
get
hit by a car, but it would be logical to take him, as the Embry
experiment taught, and have him sit and watch other children doing
'safe play.'

It woul be a logical consequence, if he is NOT going out toward the
street during his play, to praise and reward. That TOO is a logical
consequence of behavior.

Too often this is misunderstood by those that want to argue against
non-spanking and replacement of spanking with other parenting methods.

Then to, "Reasoning with the child" comes up in the argment, with the
pros claiming that one cannot reason with a child over everything.

The answer of course is that non-spankers do NOT present 'reasoning'
as
the only alternative.

Non-spankers by habit and need have to have a larger repertoire of
parenting tactics. Spanking is easy...when 'nothing else works.'

The question spankers should ask themselves is this: "How did a little
child manage to have MORE skills to aggravate me than I have to
correct
her without spanking?"

In other words, spankers, just how stupid and ignorant do you wish to
remain?

doan't dumb?

0:-








--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Kane,

Becca made a common error in her interpretation of natural consequences.
She strayed into punitive discipline.

If a child looses his/her shoes in the middle of the winter, forcing the
child to wear shoes that are too small is punishment, it's painful, and
it's bad for the child's feet.

While a parent may not need to buy the most expensive shoes to replace
the lost shoes, a little understanding goes a long way. How about, "I'm
sorry you lost your shoes. I don't have the money to buy the same
shoes, but let's go find something you like and we can afford?"

I did it many times, with a child who repeatedly lost her coat. She's
now a graduate of Northwestern University and working as an AmeriCorp
volunteer.

LaVonne

0:- wrote:
Despite the effort to sidetrack us, I'm interested in exploring
parenting methods with you. We've at least two well schooled and highly
experiences sources here to tap into if they have any thoughts on the
subject.

As you can see, I'm hoping to encourage folks to explore supportive
rather than punitive methods tactics.

Thank you for hanging in here and continuing to contribute.

Kane



0:- wrote:

beccafromlalaland wrote:

Some non-spank parents also make a distinction between Natural
consequences and Logical consequences when the "true" Natural
consequence is inappropriate.

Example: Your child loses his shoes in the Middle of Winter. The
Natural consequence would be he goes shoeless until new shoes can be
purchased, but that is not appropriate at this time of year (but would
be in the summer imho) Logical concequence would be A) He has to wear
shoes that are too small for him until new shoes can be purchased
and/or B) he gets no say in the shoes that are purchased to replace the
lost ones and if their ugly...hey sorry you had nice shoes that you
didn't take care of.



It's possible that behaviorist methods have reached their effective
limit. Research shows these methods to not in fact teach the child
problem solving and self management.

If it's parent applied, it will often be seen by the child as
punishment and manipulation.

After all, if we lose our own shoes what do we do?

Wear too small shoes for a while for the logical consequence, or do we
go and buy another pair and move on?

I think, if we are going to apply a "logical" consequence it should be
in the nature of teaching about economics -- budgeting.

"We need shoes for you honey to keep your feet safe, but the $48.95
they cost I won't have for snacks and desserts for the next two weeks."

You are sharing in the "consequences" and that, to a child that enjoys
an atmosphere of trust and cooperation and support with the parent may
-- no, will -- have more impact than any consequence that might appear
punishing if applied only to him or her.

We are all in it together, aren't we? Family, that is?

If you lose your shoes does he or she get to consequence you? Nope,
you actually cut back on other expenditures and all share in that.

Both you and she are inspired to work to cut loss and increase gain.

Just my 36.7 cents worth (1975 dollars adjusted for inflation)

Kane



0:- Wrote:

Often when discussing child discipline by parents the question comes up
on allowing the child to learn by "Natural Consequences."

The argument that comes flying back usually consist of, "Let him get
hit by a car?" "Burned by the pot of scalding water on the stove?"
etc.


Non spankers tend to snort at that foolishness, but there IS a
validity
to the rebuttal.

The problem lies in confusion of terms.

What non-spankers really mean (and often their words say so but the
pro
spank crowd inserts their own translation...."natural consequences")
is
"Logical" consequences.

It would not be logical to allow a child to run into the street and
get
hit by a car, but it would be logical to take him, as the Embry
experiment taught, and have him sit and watch other children doing
'safe play.'

It woul be a logical consequence, if he is NOT going out toward the
street during his play, to praise and reward. That TOO is a logical
consequence of behavior.

Too often this is misunderstood by those that want to argue against
non-spanking and replacement of spanking with other parenting methods.

Then to, "Reasoning with the child" comes up in the argment, with the
pros claiming that one cannot reason with a child over everything.

The answer of course is that non-spankers do NOT present 'reasoning'
as
the only alternative.

Non-spankers by habit and need have to have a larger repertoire of
parenting tactics. Spanking is easy...when 'nothing else works.'

The question spankers should ask themselves is this: "How did a little
child manage to have MORE skills to aggravate me than I have to
correct
her without spanking?"

In other words, spankers, just how stupid and ignorant do you wish to
remain?

doan't dumb?

0:-