Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Time Out Kids???


Andy R

Recommended Posts

I noticed in the "Other Games" thread that the topic of violent movies, games, music etc... gets blamed for what seems to be a recent rise in violence with kids and teens. I will digress some that it probably doesn't help but I have maintained for years that the larger issue is the "Time out Kids" My Girlfriend who was a teacher also concurs with my theory as well.

 

I think the biggest issues with the kids of the "Time out" generation is they have no understanding, or fear of consequence. I see the way parents let their kids behave now days and just think "Man I would have gotten my As$ blistered if I were to act that way when I was that age" And I would have too and you know what......?????? I didn't act that way for that very reason. Fear of consequence. I'm not advocating beating kids to death but It only took a few times for me to learn growing up that I had a choice..... If I do this I'm gonna get my As$ beat..... Hmmmmm Don't really want my As$ beat I guess I will pass on that. When A whoopin didn't scare me anymore I got grounded for months! No TV, No Guitar, No Music, No friends, No Nothing...... There was a consequence for my action.

 

Same thing in school I was a paddle connoisseur. I got paddled by every teacher in the place at least once for various reasons and if it were a really bad thing I would get it when I got home too! But ya know what, I never threw screaming fits, talked back to my parents, robbed, murdered or stole.... Because i knew there would be consequences. I'm glad for that! It made me a fairly respectable adult.

 

I just don't believe kids now have any fear of consequence.... Do whatever they want and maybe they get sent to there room with TV, Internet, Xbox, Cell Phone... Rob or murder somebody.... Oh well what's the worst that can happen????

 

 

Sorry if this is too controversial....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/fbi-reports-drop-in-violent-crime.html

 

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

 

It's interesting that you conflate behavioral problems in youth with incidences of violent crimes (you mention robbery, murder and theft.) I'm not sure that the issue here really has to do with crime as, as we can see, crime rates have been reduced since 1992--and not out of some sort of fudging of police statistics, and not through a more lenient police force. It's a trend that is inconsistent with both your proposal and the proposal of youth's desensitization due to violent media.

 

Just to go off-topic and briefly discuss violent youth in regards to violent media: the Columbine shooters are often cited as an incidence of individuals who were supposedly "inspired" by both violent video games and industrial music, but the major misinterpretation of this incidence is that it is often forgotten that correlation does not imply causation--meaning that, the assumption is that if the two had not been introduced to violent games and industrial music they would not have committed this crime, which is a complete fallacy. Klebold and Harris played DOOM and listened to KMFDM, BUT DOOM sold about ten million copies by 1995, and KMFDM has sold approximately two million records in the United States. By the faulty logic which assumes that Klebold and Harris were "inspired" to kill twelve students and a teacher and to injure twenty-one more students by listening to KMFDM and playing DOOM, there should have also been millions more committing mass killings in high schools across the U.S.. As it stands, school shootings are still relatively rare (although troublesomely, the numbers were quite high in the nineties, and they continue to occur,) and a large number of them are not, in fact, committed by students. At any rate, Klebold and Harris were social outcasts (and I'm not defending their actions here, which are and will always be tragic and inexcusable) who were intensely upset at their community who probably would have done what they had done, violent video games or not.

 

As to the idea that children are less discouraged from hooliganism or violence due to a lack of punishment by their parents? Well, I'm not sure. In all of my years in public schools in New York City, I held witness to no more than two fights, and this is from someone who went to a middle school with a large working-class constituency. I know that, in this case, the evidence I reference is circumstantial, but if it's all the same to you I'm not entirely certain that today's children are any more or any less predisposed to violence than earlier generations. To me, it's more likely that the older generations are warmly (and foolishly) nostalgic for the "good old days" that never really were. Changing cultural values and changing socioeconomic realities appear to actually be at the root of decreasing violence in our culture.

 

My issue is that, if there is a rising trend in violence amongst youth, it's probably more related to a weakening of parental engagement in general, mixed with society's discouragement (due to nifty things such as the psychological community and progressive parenting) of things like schoolyard fights. Basically, the times are gone when two kids could have a disagreement, get into a fistfight, and then become best friends within the week. The trend is now to send both kids into counseling, involve the families, diagnose the kids with behavioral issues or neurotic/psychotic tendencies, and give the kids medication and counseling while strictly denying them the ability to settle the issue between them on their own terms. Perhaps one day one of the kids shows up in the cafeteria with a sawn-off shotgun and kills the other kid in cold blood, as opposed to a two-minute brawl in the schoolyard that equates to maybe three punches before they get pulled apart and sent home. Whether the parents choose to punish or not is up to them, but frankly I get the feeling that how the parents react is really irrelevant as far as the lesson that is learned.

 

Then, at the same time, there is deviant behavior (see: Klebold and Harris) which likely manifests regardless of parental supervision and regardless of how many violent games or industrial CDs they own.

 

I dunno, it's a complex issue, but now that I think about it I do see your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree punishment is lacking because that takes time and effort much easier to let a TV or a video game raise your kids. It wasn't just parents either, almost all adults had to be respected and/or feared now parents talk about suing if anyone talks badly to their child. todays kids aren't even smart enough to not walk in front of cars because they are sure that nobody would dare hit them, I'm sure my own father would have hit me himself with the family car if I would of just stood in the road or walked down the middle of the road in a parking lot. The kids in my neighborhood are horrible because it's a game to them they slowly walk out of the road leaving bikes and balls or hockey nets in the road making cars stop for them or negotiate the mine field of their toys and It's our on fault though for pampering them because they can learn, the same group of kids run for the sidewalk when I turn a corner onto our street in my jeep they know that I will be happy to scatter them like quail and run over all the toys and bikes and crap they leave in the street no matter what their whiny parents say later, and it works they stand on the sidewalk and politely wave to me while they terrorize all the other neighbors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/fbi-reports-drop-in-violent-crime.html

 

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

 

It's interesting that you conflate behavioral problems in youth with incidences of violent crimes (you mention robbery, murder and theft.) I'm not sure that the issue here really has to do with crime as, as we can see, crime rates have been reduced since 1992--and not out of some sort of fudging of police statistics, and not through a more lenient police force. It's a trend that is inconsistent with both your proposal and the proposal of youth's desensitization due to violent media.

 

Just to go off-topic and briefly discuss violent youth in regards to violent media: the Columbine shooters are often cited as an incidence of individuals who were supposedly "inspired" by both violent video games and industrial music, but the major misinterpretation of this incidence is that it is often forgotten that correlation does not imply causation--meaning that, the assumption is that if the two had not been introduced to violent games and industrial music they would not have committed this crime, which is a complete fallacy. Klebold and Harris played DOOM and listened to KMFDM, BUT DOOM sold about ten million copies by 1995, and KMFDM has sold approximately two million records in the United States. By the faulty logic which assumes that Klebold and Harris were "inspired" to kill twelve students and a teacher and to injure twenty-one more students by listening to KMFDM and playing DOOM, there should have also been millions more committing mass killings in high schools across the U.S.. As it stands, school shootings are still relatively rare (although troublesomely, the numbers were quite high in the nineties, and they continue to occur,) and a large number of them are not, in fact, committed by students. At any rate, Klebold and Harris were social outcasts (and I'm not defending their actions here, which are and will always be tragic and inexcusable) who were intensely upset at their community who probably would have done what they had done, violent video games or not.

 

As to the idea that children are less discouraged from hooliganism or violence due to a lack of punishment by their parents? Well, I'm not sure. In all of my years in public schools in New York City, I held witness to no more than two fights, and this is from someone who went to a middle school with a large working-class constituency. I know that, in this case, the evidence I reference is circumstantial, but if it's all the same to you I'm not entirely certain that today's children are any more or any less predisposed to violence than earlier generations. To me, it's more likely that the older generations are warmly (and foolishly) nostalgic for the "good old days" that never really were. Changing cultural values and changing socioeconomic realities appear to actually be at the root of decreasing violence in our culture.

 

My issue is that, if there is a rising trend in violence amongst youth, it's probably more related to a weakening of parental engagement in general, mixed with society's discouragement (due to nifty things such as the psychological community and progressive parenting) of things like schoolyard fights. Basically, the times are gone when two kids could have a disagreement, get into a fistfight, and then become best friends within the week. The trend is now to send both kids into counseling, involve the families, diagnose the kids with behavioral issues or neurotic/psychotic tendencies, and give the kids medication and counseling while strictly denying them the ability to settle the issue between them on their own terms. Perhaps one day one of the kids shows up in the cafeteria with a sawn-off shotgun and kills the other kid in cold blood, as opposed to a two-minute brawl in the schoolyard that equates to maybe three punches before they get pulled apart and sent home. Whether the parents choose to punish or not is up to them, but frankly I get the feeling that how the parents react is really irrelevant as far as the lesson that is learned.

 

Then, at the same time, there is deviant behavior (see: Klebold and Harris) which likely manifests regardless of parental supervision and regardless of how many violent games or industrial CDs they own.

 

I dunno, it's a complex issue, but now that I think about it I do see your point.

 

My god...

Now only if we can turn this into a court case and change parents and schools...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not worth it.

You can't legislate social change, so on and so forth...

Unless one declares martial law or so...

But even then, there is no %100 success rate.

 

You ever think studies done on humans are one of our biggest flaws we have done to help mankind?

Discovering our flaws can just make our flaws worse in some cases.

I mean, medical studies help us live longer and all that jazz...but sometimes, i think its best for us to not know our selves completely.

 

 

Sorry if that makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless one declares martial law or so...

But even then, there is no %100 success rate.

 

You ever think studies done on humans are one of our biggest flaws we have done to help mankind?

Discovering our flaws can just make our flaws worse in some cases.

I mean, medical studies help us live longer and all that jazz...but sometimes, i think its best for us to not know our selves completely.

 

 

Sorry if that makes no sense.

 

If nothing else, I think it's dangerous to attempt to subvert or deny our own humanity, and in ways I think it's damaging for an easily-misinformed public to become apprised of psychological theories by way of second-hand sources. Freudian and Jungian analysis have both become essentially rejected by the psychological community, and yet on a social level we still reference the theories heavily because on some level they entice us, and on some level we really don't know better. The advances made by the behavioral and cognitive psychologists have been largely ignored by the public, as they are relatively obscure as well as they are also somewhat harder to comprehend for most people.

 

I also agree that, in ways, psychology is damaging to the human culture at essence, because it attempts, whether successfully or otherwise, to demystify human behavior, and in doing so, causes a desire to subvert or change behaviors that are naturally and essentially human. At the same time, moral panic is a very powerful force, and often times something very minute can cause a great uproar in society due to some perceived threat to the established morals of that society. As a moral relativist I'm not generally swayed by these issues, but again, in ways it is definitely a part of human nature which sends people into these kinds of panics. Also, I'm not certain whether or not the practice alone of questioning humanity is essentially damaging...frankly, I can't say for sure as I don't have enough information at hand to draw a sufficient conclusion. But it's certainly something to wonder about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed in the "Other Games" thread that the topic of violent movies, games, music etc... gets blamed for what seems to be a recent rise in violence with kids and teens. I will digress some that it probably doesn't help but I have maintained for years that the larger issue is the "Time out Kids" My Girlfriend who was a teacher also concurs with my theory as well.

 

I think the biggest issues with the kids of the "Time out" generation is they have no understanding, or fear of consequence. I see the way parents let their kids behave now days and just think "Man I would have gotten my As$ blistered if I were to act that way when I was that age" And I would have too and you know what......?????? I didn't act that way for that very reason. Fear of consequence. I'm not advocating beating kids to death but It only took a few times for me to learn growing up that I had a choice..... If I do this I'm gonna get my As$ beat..... Hmmmmm Don't really want my As$ beat I guess I will pass on that. When A whoopin didn't scare me anymore I got grounded for months! No TV, No Guitar, No Music, No friends, No Nothing...... There was a consequence for my action.

 

Same thing in school I was a paddle connoisseur. I got paddled by every teacher in the place at least once for various reasons and if it were a really bad thing I would get it when I got home too! But ya know what, I never threw screaming fits, talked back to my parents, robbed, murdered or stole.... Because i knew there would be consequences. I'm glad for that! It made me a fairly respectable adult.

 

I just don't believe kids now have any fear of consequence.... Do whatever they want and maybe they get sent to there room with TV, Internet, Xbox, Cell Phone... Rob or murder somebody.... Oh well what's the worst that can happen????

 

 

Sorry if this is too controversial....

 

[confused] ... Well this is quite ............. interesting???

 

Andy, you seem like a nice enough fellow, but based on your childhood behavior in your above statement, one might think you would have a complete understanding of kids that are without "fear of consequence." And through your past childhood misgivings, you would have some level of empathy.

 

I started my public school experience in the 60's, and I don't recall any kids I knew that had their butts beat-in by every teacher.... and I hung out with some pretty wild kids.

 

If there is an issue that exists with our younger generation, IMO it stems from the poor example set by adults... I've found through my experience that middle aged adults have more of an an issue with authority in comparison to younger adults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well here's my 2 cents.

 

When I was a child my mother broke fly swatters on my butt and kept going with the metal handle. When she died at a very young age, I was 15 and found myself with a father who didn't know how to handle a wild bundle of energy like me, so he just let me do anything. That's when I started getting into real trouble.

 

Now that I'm grown and understand cause and effect, I've got a daughter who is a 100 times smarter then I ever was. Yeah, we did go through the terrible 2's, at which point I sent her to her room without anything except her anger. For her that was way better then a whooping. Later we did the disgusted teen ager, but we kept on giving her loving guidance. Now that she's an architect, she agrees that a stricter parent is best, if applied with genuine interest in the child's good.

 

I guess that all this blatter is my conviction is that we're all flawed individuals and will revert to the animal instinct that is in all of us, unless guided. Sure parents make mistakes, but at the end I know that my mother was trying to make me a better person and not just taking out her anger on my arse.

 

Thanks for the thread Andy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was never beat as a child, and I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I believe I was smart enough to see the errors in my ways and feel rueful without disciplinarian actions. You guys know that I am silly sometimes and yes I am an A$$ alot, but am I any less because my parents did not hit me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[confused] ... Well this is quite ............. interesting???

 

Andy, you seem like a nice enough fellow, but based on your childhood behavior in your above statement, one might think you would have a complete understanding of kids that are without "fear of consequence." And through your past childhood misgivings, you would have some level of empathy.

 

I started my public school experience in the 60's, and I don't recall any kids I knew that had their butts beat-in by every teacher.... and I hung out with some pretty wild kids.

 

If there is an issue that exists with our younger generation, IMO it stems from the poor example set by adults... I've found through my experience that middle aged adults have more of an an issue with authority in comparison to younger adults.

 

Yes I got paddled quite a few times in Junior high but mostly for meaningless little things, flipping a pea at somebody once, and a few more minor acts of rebellion against teachers but not for anything major. For what I did I deserved it same with the parents. Certainly nothing that kids get away with today. Point was there were consequences to my actions and I did generally consider these things before I chose to do something too stupid. Especially with my parents. I didn't have violent video games, in fact I didn't have a video game player until I got my first apartment. I did have Albums my mom frowned on a bit starting at a young age.... Kiss, and She loved it when I brought home We sold our Soul for Rock N Roll by Black Sabbath but she didn't take them away from me. If she really didn't want me to have them I wouldn't have had them though.... Luckily she was young enough to understand that it was just music ( She was 17 when she had me).

 

Through out my childhood I only remember a few times where I got my butt whooped for something I had done. Point is that stuck with me from an early age and I had a healthy fear and respect for my parents. There was no back talking or arguing it was yes Ma'm and I had better look happy about the decision. When my little brother who is 11 years younger came around Mom was a bit more "Laid back" with him and he is pretty much an irresponsible mess at 30 years old. So when I look back I'm glad I was raised the way I was. I have a lot of respect for My mom, when she was 17 she was living in Germany with a 1 year old Baby while my dad was in the military (by the way he split when I was 4) I can't imagine doing something like that now and I am 41!

 

In the end no I don't have much empathy for some of these kids or the parents that do not do whatever it takes ( I'm not advocating brutal beating here, more of whatever their child truly responds to) to make their children respect authority and or suffer real consequences for their actions.

 

My girlfriend and I watch Supper Nanny every now and then and are blown away by how clueless these people are and what these kids get away with.

 

I don't blame violent video games or music, movies etc... for stuff like Columbine I blame poor parenting for the most part. We grew up with some pretty violent movies, cartoons, and let's not forget the 3 stooges but I never thought I could take a saw across someones head or pull their face off of a clothes Iron.

 

I appreciate all the other thoughts and opinions above. It was just something that got me thinking from what was said in the video game topic and thought I would throw it out there and see what others think since their seems to be a diverse age range, opinions, beliefs etc... I agree my opinion is only that and is not based on any "True Facts" it's just my personal and some other people I know's view on it. The great thing about the forum is I get great feedback on about any subject which is always considered and makes me think and reconsider some of my views. Which I do often. That's why I encourage people to have an opinion, voice their opinion with some intelligence and be open minded to other's thoughts, opinions, and feelings. You might just learn something and think differently.

 

The topic just kinda popped in my head and look at all of the interesting feedback that it has received. msp_thumbup.gif

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies in advance for the wordy response. As a teacher and parent I find this topic interesting. Okay, here goes...

 

I think part of the problem is that we often use the terms discipline and punishment to describe what should be called behavior modification. I see discipline as training to act in accordance with a system of rules. Whereas punishment is penalty inflicted for a broken rule. Behavior Modification, however, is the use of conditioning to teach desirable behavior and reduce undesirable behavior - and it takes time and patience. Many parents today seem to busy to be bothered with this.

 

To modify behavior the adult has to consider the concept of consequence - the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier. There are two good types of consequences for modifying behavior: natural and logical. Consequences can be either positive or negative. When your child feeds his pet, it lives. This is a positive natural consequence of his actions. When your daughter cleans her room and you praise (or reward) her, she has experienced the positive logical consequences of her behavior.

 

Generally the trouble starts with negative consequences, however. When your toddler touches the AC outlet and gets a shock, she has just experienced a negative natural consequence of that action and will not likely repeat it. However, as parents, natural consequences are not always the best choice. Waiting until your son jumps off the roof to learn his lesson is not generally recommended. [biggrin]

 

This leaves the parent often having to manufacture consequences for misbehavior. At this point the consequence chosen should be the most logical possible - i.e. the closer the consequence resembles a natural consequence, the more effective it will be.

 

Most of us found as children that if we broke curfew, we didn't go out the rest of the week. A pretty reasonable logical consequence. By the same token, by demonstrating responsibility, we often were extended new freedoms by our parents - again a reasonable, logical consequence.

 

As I see it, the real problem with spanking is that it is as far from the natural consequence as possible. The child is not learning to modify his behavior because the behavior is undesirable, only to avoid the pain of the spanking. There is a disconnect between the action and the consequence. Short term result achieved (perhaps) -- long-term result, not so much.

 

I have never spanked any of my children. The baby is 14 months, but the older two are now 13 and 15, and they are raved about by other adults as being models of good behavior. Instead of punishing them when they misbehaved, I took the time to explain the reasons their behaviors were inappropriate and manufactured good, logical consequences when needed. I also intervened immediately -- I mean like lightning. [biggrin] Many parents wait too long to intervene. They are too busy talking on their cell phones.

 

Now let's discuss "time-out" specifically. To me time out is a device for modifying the behavior of toddlers. See the toddler can't understand the logical consequences I might create for his or her misbehavior. In fact they don't even understand the natural consequences of some dangerous behaviors! So if my toddler continues to approach the hot oven, assuming I don't want him to experience the natural consequence of a burn on the hand, I have two choices: initiate pain in the form of a swat on the butt or hand or remove him from the situation until he is able to understand either the natural or logical consequences of his actions. That removal is time out (or redirection).

 

The problem with timeout, as I see it, is that parents continue to use it after the child is old enough to be reasoned with. They use it as a punishment. "Go to your room and don't come out until you can be nice to your sister!" is not a good logical consequence of stealing your sister's toy. Losing your own toy for a period of time determined (ideally) by the parent and the child is a much more logical consequence of the misbehavior. I quit using time out once my children could listen and speak well enough to be reasoned with.

 

So at last we come to the child who throws himself on the floor in the supermarket in front of Andy R and prompts him to initiate this fine topic. [biggrin]What is the best logical consequence for this behavior? (Remember, your goal is to modify the inappropriate behavior).

 

Simple: let him flop around on the floor. He's only wasting his own time. You've got all day. Pull up a chair. Sit down and relax. Enjoy the show. Get over your own embarrassment - this is about what's best for the child.

 

I can assure you I have done this, and my children learned that throwing fits got them nowhere. I have stopped in the middle of public places and explained firmly to my children exactly was wrong with their behavior at that moment. And yes, I actually have pulled the car off the road, not just threatened to do so. [biggrin] I asked my older children once to stop doing something - and only once. After that I sat them down, looked them in the eye, and explained things to them. They learned that I had high expectations for their behavior because I loved them. And they learned to enjoy the natural and logical consequences of their own good behaviors.

 

BTW, I too love guitars! (Though I occasionally do spank them). #-o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kids need discipline and its all to obvious when the adult wasn't as a child. How's the saying go "spare the rod spoil the child". I would always make my children aware of the consequences, both good and bad for everything and then I stressed the importance of making good decisions in life. I have spanked my kids but I only needed to a couple of times with each child. IMO kids will do what they believe will please their parents if given the opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies in advance for the wordy response. As a teacher and parent I find this topic interesting. Okay, here goes...

 

I think part of the problem is that we often use the terms discipline and punishment to describe what should be called behavior modification. I see discipline as training to act in accordance with a system of rules. Whereas punishment is penalty inflicted for a broken rule. Behavior Modification, however, is the use of conditioning to teach desirable behavior and reduce undesirable behavior - and it takes time and patience. Many parents today seem to busy to be bothered with this.

 

To modify behavior the adult has to consider the concept of consequence - the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier. There are two good types of consequences for modifying behavior: natural and logical. Consequences can be either positive or negative. When your child feeds his pet, it lives. This is a positive natural consequence of his actions. When your daughter cleans her room and you praise (or reward) her, she has experienced the positive logical consequences of her behavior.

 

Generally the trouble starts with negative consequences, however. When your toddler touches the AC outlet and gets a shock, she has just experienced a negative natural consequence of that action and will not likely repeat it. However, as parents, natural consequences are not always the best choice. Waiting until your son jumps off the roof to learn his lesson is not generally recommended. [biggrin]

 

This leaves the parent often having to manufacture consequences for misbehavior. At this point the consequence chosen should be the most logical possible - i.e. the closer the consequence resembles a natural consequence, the more effective it will be.

 

Most of us found as children that if we broke curfew, we didn't go out the rest of the week. A pretty reasonable logical consequence. By the same token, by demonstrating responsibility, we often were extended new freedoms by our parents - again a reasonable, logical consequence.

 

As I see it, the real problem with spanking is that it is as far from the natural consequence as possible. The child is not learning to modify his behavior because the behavior is undesirable, only to avoid the pain of the spanking. There is a disconnect between the action and the consequence. Short term result achieved (perhaps) -- long-term result, not so much.

 

I have never spanked any of my children. The baby is 14 months, but the older two are now 13 and 15, and they are raved about by other adults as being models of good behavior. Instead of punishing them when they misbehaved, I took the time to explain the reasons their behaviors were inappropriate and manufactured good, logical consequences when needed. I also intervened immediately -- I mean like lightning. [biggrin] Many parents wait too long to intervene. They are too busy talking on their cell phones.

 

Now let's discuss "time-out" specifically. To me time out is a device for modifying the behavior of toddlers. See the toddler can't understand the logical consequences I might create for his or her misbehavior. In fact they don't even understand the natural consequences of some dangerous behaviors! So if my toddler continues to approach the hot oven, assuming I don't want him to experience the natural consequence of a burn on the hand, I have two choices: initiate pain in the form of a swat on the butt or hand or remove him from the situation until he is able to understand either the natural or logical consequences of his actions. That removal is time out (or redirection).

 

The problem with timeout, as I see it, is that parents continue to use it after the child is old enough to be reasoned with. They use it as a punishment. "Go to your room and don't come out until you can be nice to your sister!" is not a good logical consequence of stealing your sister's toy. Losing your own toy for a period of time determined (ideally) by the parent and the child is a much more logical consequence of the misbehavior. I quit using time out once my children could listen and speak well enough to be reasoned with.

 

So at last we come to the child who throws himself on the floor in the supermarket in front of Andy R and prompts him to initiate this fine topic. [biggrin]What is the best logical consequence for this behavior? (Remember, your goal is to modify the inappropriate behavior).

 

Simple: let him flop around on the floor. He's only wasting his own time. You've got all day. Pull up a chair. Sit down and relax. Enjoy the show. Get over your own embarrassment - this is about what's best for the child.

 

I can assure you I have done this, and my children learned that throwing fits got them nowhere. I have stopped in the middle of public places and explained firmly to my children exactly was wrong with their behavior at that moment. And yes, I actually have pulled the car off the road, not just threatened to do so. [biggrin] I asked my older children once to stop doing something - and only once. After that I sat them down, looked them in the eye, and explained things to them. They learned that I had high expectations for their behavior because I loved them. And they learned to enjoy the natural and logical consequences of their own good behaviors.

 

BTW, I too love guitars! (Though I occasionally do spank them). #-o

 

All very good and well thought responses. It is replies like these that make me reassess my logic and opinions on things. msp_thumbup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think Surfpup did an excellent job of separating things into bits that make good sense and that I think most of us can agree with whether we agree about parental role at various points in learning.

 

Frankly I think we also want to look back at some of the habits of our neolithic brethren whose culures have been detailed in word, picture and videos of some sort.

 

It seems to me parents in those cultures tend to allow far more "danger" for children than "modern" parents - but with more oversight through the child's development at least up to around age 7 or so - the classical "age of reason."

 

On the other hand, there has been a tendency to use small disincentives for little kids placing bobby pins into electric recepticals such as grabbing the hand and lightly tapping it with a "No, No." There are some neolithic equivalents.

 

The forbidding of dangerous activities is far less in a rural than urban environment, but I think the youngsters who survive, as most do, riding horses and moving cattle and running tractors end up far tougher in "the good way" than urban children whose only "adult-like" adventures tend to be antisocial.

 

I'd agree that the role of parents and other adults around children are huge role models whether they realize it or not. Frankly I think the joy all of us on this "board" feel at making music is a generally excellent example of creative endeavor.

 

I don't have kids but I've worked with a lot of kids and teens as an instructor of various stuff and frankly I've been proud even of the achievements of the less talented as well as those endowed with greater talent to do stuff.

 

I will, however, admit that the lack of recognition of reality by such as martial arts students who insisted on wearing all sorts of jewelry regardless of safety generally convinced me that I didn't care to continue teaching such folks, because I figured they already had their minds made up on some unrealistic beliefs.

 

And... I do have to add that if I don't think much of a pre-teen kid's attitude, I've usually not taken the parents' money. A 7 year old raised in a household where veracity and hard work are not valued, for example, probably will continue in the family's pattern of behavior.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love your children.

Show them you do by your actions.

Tell them everyday with your words.

Listen to what they say

Be mindful of what you say.

They are like a sponge.

Be respectful and consistent.

 

They'll love you for it.

 

 

Thank you Cookie; that was beautifully eloquent.

 

Matt

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All people are different.

Kids are people, too.

 

Both very true statements.

 

 

I spanked my kids a total of maybe 3 times between the ages of 2 and 4, and only when they did things that endangered them. And by "spanked" I mean no more than 5 swats with my hand or a plastic flyswatter. No damage done. (Schools here permit a total stranger to swat my child with a board up to 5 times.... [rolleyes] )

 

I made sure to hold them and love them afterwards so they would understand that I wasn't mad at them, only concerned about their well being. I've been able to use logic and common sense, encapsulated in humor, to raise 3 wonderful, healthy, well adjusted children.

 

Ymmv.

 

 

Be it TV, movies, video games, whatever... you cannot say "This causes kids to do <blah>" anymore than you can say something will cause all adults to do <blah>.

 

 

It's common sense, really, but so easily lost when dealing with the young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...