# Saying "no" or "don't"



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

How do you all feel about those words? "Negative" instructions, I guess you'd call them.
I do use "don't" with ds, along with an explanation, and a redirection (that honors the impulse of course







) "No" doesn't feel natural for me to say. lol
He responds well to it, and most times I say "don't" or "how about we NOT jump on the bed with shoes on" or "I'd rather you not dribble juice on the couch" he complies even before I give him an explanation or an acceptable alternative (though I imagine he knows an alternative is coming. kwim?)

I guess I'm wondering if I'm setting up a stage for resistance when he gets older. Does that make sense? Or if it's inherently bad for his self esteem, or self discipline.

I know a lot of people prefer "Juice is not for dribbling" or something. I guess my thinking is that its a lot to ask for him to connect that "juice is not for dribbling" to the fact that I want him to stop dribbling it. kwim? Don't get me wrong, I don't underestimate how smart he is and how much he can understand. I guess it just seems more direct to straight out tell him that I don't want something to be done.

I never add anything that says that dribbling juice is bad. I just say it makes a mess, and we have to clean it up. Iow, what I say never makes him feel "bad" (or he doesn't act like it anyways). He just runs with me to get a towel to wipe it up.

alright, interested in opinions here!


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

I don't think there's anything inherently "bad", nothing that will damage a child's self-esteem or self-discipline, about saying "don't....."

However, I think saying "don't...." is really unclear. There's a quote from somewhere (







) that says "You can't do a don't." I think that's true. I'm guilty of saying "don't...." very often, but I think it's unclear. Instead I do try to remember to make my request more positive (meaning, the request is a "do" rather than a "don't"): instead of "don't jump on the bed" maybe "please get off the bed" or "jump on the floor instead." KWIM?

I'm trying to imagine juice-dribbling. I'd probably say "oh, it's spilling, let's wipe it up."


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

I have heard that with young kids--I guess I'm thinking under 3--negative instuctions aren't very effective. They don't really hear the "don't." When you say "don't dump the juice," they hear "dump the juice." It's not really that they don't understand, but that they lack the impulse control to follow those kinds of instructions. It's much more effective to tell them what they can do.


----------



## cheery (Jul 29, 2004)

i avoid negatives of all forms. often if-then statements prove effective. if you spill juice the roaches will move in, etc


----------



## mbravebird (May 9, 2005)

I think the difference is in how personal the limit feels to them. "Juice is not for dribbling" makes it about the nature of the juice, not about them and their desire to play with juice. They experience it more as a piece of information, rather than as your desire to stop what they want. I know it seems like it might not make a difference, but it does in our household.

It makes a difference both in how I think about it and how ds experiences it, imo. And it seems to make cooperation easier for ds. Again, less like he's giving up a personal power, and more like he's just learning how the world works.

I also find that, when I'm having a bad parenting day, I feel more burdened and snappy when saying "Don't dribble the juice!" than when saying "The juice is not for dribbling". It reminds me that it's not about me or him, it's just the process of parenting for me and learning for him. Also, in my experience a "not for" can be said more playfully than a "don't" statement can.

FWIW, just like you, I would probably focus on the clean-up part of the juice spilling, too. I might say the "not for" statement as an afterthought in that situation, maybe even playfully as we were cleaning it up, but I'd probably focus on cleaning it up together more. That is, if I'm having a good parenting day, lol.


----------



## sally Z (Aug 7, 2005)

I was just going to ask somthing similar, I need to say No less, it is now dd fav word









is it okay to ever show displeasure with what they are doing and how do you do it in a way that does not leave them feeling like they are bad?


----------



## CaraboosMama (Mar 31, 2005)

I agree that the negatives are crummy if over use. With the juice example, usually I would say something like "The juice is spilling! Let's clean it up!" or "Lets be careful with the juice." I think the big key for me is making sure I tell my dd what I WANT her to do than just what I don't want her to do. I save the big loud "NO" for an immediate danger situation. This way, she knows it's serious - it startles her because there isn't usually any yelling in our house & she responds right away.


----------



## CaraboosMama (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sally Z*
I was just going to ask somthing similar, I need to say No less, it is now dd fav word









is it okay to ever show displeasure with what they are doing and how do you do it in a way that does not leave them feeling like they are bad?

I think this can be important w/ hitting/other physical roughness. My dd will sometimes get too rough with toys (not necessarily being violent - just banging on something & then on me or dh or the cats







) I tell her that I don't like being hit & it hurts me & tell her she can bang on her drum, the couch, pots & pans, etc. I think saying something calmly & simply - "I don't like when xyz happens" rather than directing the negativity specifically at your dd is important. If you say it, suggest a different, appropriate behaviour, and move on - you are teaching your dd to consider other's feelings and teaching what behaviour is acceptable in your home w/o passing judgement on her as a person.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

I have always used "don't" and "no". It was never "unclear" to my dd's what this meant. It was a quick and easy way to deal with unsafe situations. I also explained but I simply did not worry much about this. I have seen no negative effects from this. My dd's are ages 12-9


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

I pretty much avoid it as much as I can with my one year old, and then it works when it's really unsafe. I think overuse can really make a kid tune you out. I also avoid it with my 3 year old because it draws a line in the sand, and then there's no negotiating, which usually leads to a fight, which I prefer to avoid. So I use phrases like,

"We'll see,"

or

"Yes, we can do that tomorrow, but right now it's time for a nap,"

or

"Instead of..., let's ..."


----------



## charmander (Dec 30, 2003)

I don't stop myself from using the words "no" or "don't" but lately I've been trying to state what I'm trying to say in a positive rather than negative way.

For example, instead of saying "Don't run down the hallway, " I'll instead say "Please walk down the hallway." ......or.....

"Don't hit the cat" gets restated as "Please pet the cat gently."

or

"You can't go outside unless you put your shoes on...." gets replaced with "You need to put your shoes on before you go outside. It really doesn't take any more effort on my part to change the negative to the positive once you start being conscious of it.

Honestly, though, I think it would be weird to never say no or don't - especially when there is danger involved, or if it is on a point where there is no negotiating.


----------



## Catrinel (Jul 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
I have always used "don't" and "no". It was never "unclear" to my dd's what this meant. It was a quick and easy way to deal with unsafe situations. I also explained but I simply did not worry much about this. I have seen no negative effects from this. My dd's are ages 12-9

I agree that it's quick and easy to say "no" but as Mvbravebird said above it's also about the longer term effect on how the child feels and the immediate effect on how you feel (less angry). I have used with DS words like "I don't think X likes it when you snatch his toy", it turns the focus on how the other person might be feeling.


----------



## lisac77 (May 27, 2005)

I sometimes find myself getting in a rut where "don't" or "no" come out of my mouth every five minutes. I think if a kid hears these words too often they tend to edit out the "don'ts."

Like a PP, I simply turn the negative into a positive. In addition it tells DS clearly what I want him to do rather than what I don't want him to do.

"Please use your walking feet."
"You may sit or lie down on the couch. I will get the trampoline if you want to jump."
"Please leave the dishes on the table."
etc....


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Catrinel*
I agree that it's quick and easy to say "no" but as Mvbravebird said above it's also about the longer term effect on how the child feels and the immediate effect on how you feel (less angry). I have used with DS words like "I don't think X likes it when you snatch his toy", it turns the focus on how the other person might be feeling.

As I said I used it when quick was important: When safety was involved.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

You know, we have rarely used "No." The issue I find is that on the rare occasions when it slips out or needs to slip out, or if it comes from another adult, DD gets VERY upset. It's not the spirit of the prohibition, since she is generally willing to go along if it is phrased differently--it seems to be the feel and sound of the word itself.







It's as though just hearing "No" rather than "Jump on the floor, not the couch" or "If you want to color, let's get some paper" or "Show me how you can touch the cat gently" is shockingly abrupt and feels terribly bad to her.

On the one hand, you could see this as proof of the way lots of "No"s shut a child down. On the other hand, it worries me a little. We are not homeschooling. I plan to send her to preschool soon. She is going to hear "No," from adults and other kids. And at times I have to admit that I wish I had the "power" to just issue a two-letter command. no suggestions, no alternatives, no explanations, and have my child obey.







: I don't really plan to change the way we do things, but it does make me think.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

I think "don't" is useful, and I use it. "X is not for Y" statements annoy me, and I never use them. If you say, "Juice is not for dribbling," you're basically taking your own personal preference and pretending it's a factual statement about the way the world is. WHY is juice not for dribbling? And even if it is not FOR dribbling, can't it be dribbled anyway? You haven't made it absolutely clear that you don't want the juice dribbled, or given any reason why it would be a problem to dribble it. I think it's much clearer and more honest to say, "Don't dribble your juice," and then explain why dribbling juice is a bad idea.


----------



## blessed (Jan 28, 2006)

I just explain why I don't want her to do whatever and pick her up or othewise physically remove her, usually redirecting her in the process. That seems to work really well.

She really, really understands ultimatums, as in 'honey, if you pour your juice out on the chair I'll have to take it away', so that helps alot. The key there is in the consistency. She _never_ gets more than one warning - ever! I tell her what I'm going to do, and I do it. It makes it simple for her to understand and follow. I also make sure that the message and the actions are gentle and matter of fact. Just the way it is, ma'am! No hard feelings; no one is upset or mad, no power struggle. Just a fact of life.

And I reserve such approaches for those rare things that are relatively important. Emptying out the bathroom drawer onto the floor or splashing in the dog's water bowl are fine. Playing with the sharp scissors or pouring milk onto the sheets aren't goinig to be allowed.


----------



## marsupial*mama (May 13, 2006)

Quote:

He responds well to it, and most times I say "don't" or "how about we NOT...
My guess is that he's responding to your physical communication and tuning out the words. _That's_ why it works for you.

Quote:

As I said I used it when quick was important: When safety was involved.
Actually, this is the best time to _avoid_ using a negative communication. Tell a child _what to do_ and preferably _how to do_ and you will get compliance because you are speaking to both the conscious and unconscious language centres simultaneously. The suggestion is as clear as it can possibly be.

Quote:

"X is not for Y" statements annoy me, and I never use them. If you say, "Juice is not for dribbling," you're basically taking your own personal preference and pretending it's a factual statement about the way the world is.
Exactly!! It's artificial and subjective. "Drink your juice" would be the simplest and most congruent way to communicate what you want your child to do. Or, "Put it on the table" or, weird but effective, "Keep your juice in the cup!"

If I say, "Don't think of an elephant" what is the first thing to think of? It is not possible to think in negatives. The mind can only comprehend and imagine positives. By using 'don't' you are implanting an idea that you cannot negate. When parents use 'don't', they are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you tell a child, "Don't spill your juice" there is no alternative but to spill the juice. If your perceive that your child comprehends this message it is only because your facial expression and demeanor do not align with the verbal communication that has put the image of spilled juice in the child's mind. Similar deal with words like UNsafe, UNtidy, UNfriendly, etc.

On the other side of the coin, using "No" is best used for emergency situations. It is clear and easily understood. It gets attention. But overuse, as other posters have pointed out, can result in it being tuned out at best, and becoming an insult to self-esteem at worst. No I can't be trusted with that, No I'm not big enough, No that's not for me - NOTHING is for me!


----------



## mbravebird (May 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
If you say, "Juice is not for dribbling," you're basically taking your own personal preference and pretending it's a factual statement about the way the world is. WHY is juice not for dribbling? And even if it is not FOR dribbling, can't it be dribbled anyway?

I agree with this, you're right. I actually woke up from our nap today thinking this. But perhaps the example is a bit distracting. The example I thought of when I woke up was "People are not for hitting", which is something I actually use, unlike the juice statement. For us, that is a statement about the nature of people -- our vision of our nature, anyway.

So maybe there is an inherent teaching of preference in the "X is not for Y" formula -- I hadn't thought of it that way before, but I see your point. And it does seem more congruent to state my own preferences.

But I do think that de-personalizing our limits is really helpful for kids, allowing them to feel more included in the process of learning about limits. I've seen it help more than just my own child. And it can be more playful and relaxing to say. So... have to think more about it all.


----------



## marsupial*mama (May 13, 2006)

I'm sorry but what does it mean, "People are not for hitting?" What do you think your child understands when you day that?


----------



## Catrinel (Jul 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
I think "don't" is useful, and I use it. "X is not for Y" statements annoy me, and I never use them. If you say, "Juice is not for dribbling," you're basically taking your own personal preference and pretending it's a factual statement about the way the world is. WHY is juice not for dribbling? And even if it is not FOR dribbling, can't it be dribbled anyway? You haven't made it absolutely clear that you don't want the juice dribbled, or given any reason why it would be a problem to dribble it. I think it's much clearer and more honest to say, "Don't dribble your juice," and then explain why dribbling juice is a bad idea.

What an interesting and persuasive p.o.v.


----------



## charmander (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marsupial*mama*
I'm sorry but what does it mean, "People are not for hitting?" What do you think your child understands when you day that?









Maybe she meant "hands are not for hitting" ?


----------



## marsupial*mama (May 13, 2006)

But wouldn't it be more effective to say what hands ARE for? When you say the word 'hit' that is all the child can comprehend, whether there is a 'not' or a 'don't' in front of it is irrelevant to the unconscious mind.

How does a child visualise "not hitting". Do you understand what I'm getting at? When I say, "Don't think of a rainbow" how does your mind comprehend that sentence? Of course, you 'see' a rainbow in your mind. You can't _not_ see a rainbow. Psycholinguistically, "don't" does not exist. It is an intellectual linguistic concept. The mind cannot comprehend it as a pure communication.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
I think "don't" is useful, and I use it. "X is not for Y" statements annoy me, and I never use them. If you say, "Juice is not for dribbling," you're basically taking your own personal preference and pretending it's a factual statement about the way the world is. WHY is juice not for dribbling? And even if it is not FOR dribbling, can't it be dribbled anyway? You haven't made it absolutely clear that you don't want the juice dribbled, or given any reason why it would be a problem to dribble it. I think it's much clearer and more honest to say, "Don't dribble your juice," and then explain why dribbling juice is a bad idea.

Ok, this says something to me. I think it might be close to the way I'm thinking.

And yeah, when I say "don't" it's almost always in a pleasant way. I don't know how to describe what I mean. But I generally don't talk in a stern or harsh way to ds- it upsets him. Hmmm...stange, but I can't think of any situation where I've been frustrated or angry and used a "no" or "don't" phrase. The more frustrated I get, the more words I put in my sentences, so I'm sure the no's get drowned out. lol

I give explanations, so its not like he's not learning about the situation. The explanations are the REAL reasons why I don't want him to do something. "It gets the couch dirty, and its hard to clean up" Not stuff like "juice is not for dribbling" (not saying that its bad to say that, and no offense to anyone who uses explanations like that. But I try to be honest to what MY reasons are for things.)
And I do add positives, like today he had grapes that he dumped on the bed. I said "hey! don't dump grapes on the bed. Keep them in the bowl, or eat them. Or if you are done with them, you can put them in the sink. Or I'll put them in the sink, if you want." I imagine I said something about grapes being good food to eat, but I don't remember for sure. But, honestly, I don't want to say "grapes are for eating" because I don't care if he plays with them and squishes them, or whatever he wants to do. I only care about making a mess on my clean sheets. lol.
And juice- I don't care if he dribbles juice. I just don't want it dribbled on my carpet or furniture. If he wanted to dribble it in a bucket, he could dribble all night long if he wanted. So...

Interestingly enough, ds hardly uses the word "no" (he doesn't talk, but even in responding in nods or head shakes, he rarely uses "no"). He uses it being silly, or if we're asking him silly questions and playing, but it is rarely a real response to something we are asking him. He answers "yes" way more, and is actually beginning to say it. He's never said "no."

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marsupial*mama*
How does a child visualise "not hitting". Do you understand what I'm getting at? When I say, "Don't think of a rainbow" how does your mind comprehend that sentence? Of course, you 'see' a rainbow in your mind. You can't not see a rainbow. Psycholinguistically, "don't" does not exist. It is an intellectual linguistic concept. The mind cannot comprehend it as a pure communication.

I do totally agree with "no" being a hard concept, especially for little minds, to imagine. I've not had trouble with that though. Perhaps because I DO follow it with explanations and acceptable alternatives. Maybe by that point the "don't dribble the juice" is replaced by everything else I've said (and all that is using positive words and references).
I don't tell him to "not hit" (I know that wasn't directed at me, I'm just saying). I tell him I don't like to be hit, then I tell him better ways to express whatever impulse he was trying to express.

Hmmm. Perhaps instead of "don't do x" I could just skip right to "I don't want juice on my couch" or "I don't want grapes dumped on my bed." How do you all feel about that type of statement? Still not great, perhaps. But, at least it's taking the commanding out of it, and more of giving info on how I feel about the situation. Kinda like the *problem* is mine. And it's probably giving him more credit for the fact that he WANTS to do the socially acceptable thing.

Thanks all for the input. I love having you gals and your perspectives on stuff! Silly as it may seem to many people, I'll probably think about this some more, and see how it feels the next few days. lol

Keep the opinions coming!


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Quote:

If I say, "Don't think of an elephant" what is the first thing to think of? It is not possible to think in negatives. The mind can only comprehend and imagine positives. By using 'don't' you are implanting an idea that you cannot negate. When parents use 'don't', they are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you tell a child, "Don't spill your juice" there is no alternative but to spill the juice. If your perceive that your child comprehends this message it is only because your facial expression and demeanor do not align with the verbal communication that has put the image of spilled juice in the child's mind. Similar deal with words like UNsafe, UNtidy, UNfriendly, etc.
m*m, NLP, yes??? Dh has mentioned many times that the subconscious is unable to "hear" don't statements. We laugh at ourselves when we say "Don't throw sand because we know it's like saying, Hey, THROW SAND!

In dangerous situations, I try and say "Stop" if appropriate rather than "don't," FWIW.

Over the past year, I've tried to be really conscious of negative phrases. It's quite challenging to phrase things in the positive if you've never been aware of the "not" thing







"We don't" seems to be fairly popular in the AP circles I've hung in.

Saying "We don't hit" after someone hits seems to offer contradictory information









I was actually just thinking about the "we don't" tonight. My 3.5 yo is going through a rough time w/expressing angry emotions. Ds1, trying to help ds2, said, "In our family we don't hit or call names." But, namecalling and hitting were exactly what ds2 had just done. I wonder if hearing that causes ds2 to have concerns about his place in the family???


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

I don't buy the idea that saying, "Don't do X" really has the effect of saying, "Do X." (Well, maybe for really little kids - under 2, say. When DD was that age, I think I was more likely to say, "Don't do that!" than "Don't throw sand!" so she'd focus on the "Don't" and not the "throw sand.") Of course, there's the possible problem of putting something into a kid's head that they never would have thought of otherwise - like, "Don't put beans up your nose." But if it's something the kid is already doing or about to do, I think "Don't do X" is fine.

I think saying, "Don't dribble juice on the floor" is more informative than saying something like "Drink your juice" or "Keep your juice in the cup," because the idea you really need to get across is that you don't want juice on the floor. That's useful information your kid can apply in the future. I mean, there are a million things she COULD do instead of dribbling on the floor that would be fine, but if you tell her to do one of those and she does, she still hasn't learned that the whole point is NOT to dribble on the floor.


----------



## marsupial*mama (May 13, 2006)

I'm not sharing my _opinion_ or my _theory_. My post addresses a _proved_ communication error that "don't" has no meaning to the unconscious mind. Everytime you use "don't" or "not" the conscious mind must correct the unconscious mind's interpretation of the communication. It's a recipe for miscommunication. It's incongruent, uneconomical and quite often ineffective.

10 points to the pp who identified this as NLP. While the argument does not _belong_ to NLP, research in psycholinguistic theory supports this position.

I use "Stop" a lot too. Although it can be tuned out just as easily as "No". Again, overuse is the enemy and 'fresh' communication, ie, first time applied, will have the best chance of getting a desired outcome.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marsupial*mama*
I'm not sharing my _opinion_ or my _theory_. My post addresses a _proved_ communication error that "don't" has no meaning to the unconscious mind. Everytime you use "don't" or "not" the conscious mind must correct the unconscious mind's interpretation of the communication.

So what?














We all have conscious minds that are perfectly capable of making the correction, and we do it almost instantaneously. I agree that if you want to stop your kid immediately from something dangerous, "Stop!" is better than, "Don't run into the street!" But for non-emergency communication about expectations, it's hard to beat "Don't hit people" or "Don't throw that ball in the house" for clarity.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

We really strive not to use negative phrases or words like *no* and *don't* though I am sure it slips out once in a while. We try to be very conscious of it. We try to offer information in generalities and then redirect to something she *can* do. For instance:

"People usually don't eat leaves, they are not food. We can look at it, or play with leaves but mama is afraid you may choke if you eat it" ...

Then I will engage her in honoring her impulse to explore the leaf without eating it. If it is an oral thing, I will say "here, you can chew this" and hand her something she can eat or chew on while we explore the leaf. (Leaves get tracked in our entry so this is an actual example







)

We pretty much handle most things like that. I provide information based on past experience, general social opinion, my limited knowledge of physics and cause and effect, as well as my personal opinion and/or feelings, fears.

For example: "Mirrors are glass and they can break if you stand on them. Would you like to look in the mirror?" Then engage her in looking in the mirror and playing in front of it... (we have a big mirror she likes to look in and occasionally will pull down and try to stand on)

People may think those explanations are long-winded and that small children don't understand or *get it* but I disagree. My daughter may not get the actual semantics but she understands tone, intent, logic and follow-through and seems to understand that my actions aren't arbitrary and that I always attempt to meet her need to explore.

I agree with the pp, in a dire situation of running into the street or something, I would probably say "stop!" or something just to get her attention, then explain why I said stop and help her explore safely (cross the street with me, etc)


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marsupial*mama*
I'm not sharing my _opinion_ or my _theory_. My post addresses a _proved_ communication error that "don't" has no meaning to the unconscious mind. Everytime you use "don't" or "not" the conscious mind must correct the unconscious mind's interpretation of the communication. It's a recipe for miscommunication. It's incongruent, uneconomical and quite often ineffective.

The mind thinks in action, and since there is no action for inaction words, they will hear the action word.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
So what?















We all have conscious minds that are perfectly capable of making the correction, and we do it almost instantaneously. I agree that if you want to stop your kid immediately from something dangerous, "Stop!" is better than, "Don't run into the street!" But for non-emergency communication about expectations, it's hard to beat "Don't hit people" or "Don't throw that ball in the house" for clarity.

I gently disagree. For clarity, I find it's more effective to explain what TO DO than not to do. YMMV


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
But for non-emergency communication about expectations, it's hard to beat "Don't hit people" or "Don't throw that ball in the house" for clarity.

I agree with that. I think that telling kids what to do with the ball is important, but there are soooo many things that you can do with a ball! Roll it, sit on it, bounce it, look at it, hehehe. How can I list all of them? So, there are bound to be some things you can do witha ball that I can't list. Perhaps he may think that "throw the ball" is one of those things I just didn't name? (although he is allowed to throw balls in the house). I agree that its being specific about what it is that I don't like at that moment. Even if I were to say "balls are for rolling" there are still a bunch of things that he could have come up with that aren't rolling it. I don't care what he does with it, as long as its not throwing it (in this example).

And not jumping on the bed with shoes. How would I even phrase that positively? Hmmm...Telling him what he can do with shoes on wouldn't be relevant, because he really just wants to jump on the bed. I guess I could say "if you jump on the bed with shoes, the bed will get dirty" but then, I don't think he cares much about that. lol. But if he knew that *I* cared about it, it would affect his choice. Maybe I could add "I want the bed to stay clean". hmmm... Maybe "jump on the bed barefoot"
And there are times I give him info like the "if...then.." that I don't expect him to stop. I'm just giving him info, and letting him make his own choice. Like "when you play in the plants, dirt gets all over the floor and we have to clean it up." If, then statements don't seem like they ought to be commands at all, or said with the expectation that dc will change their actions. I dunno.

But then I do totally agree that "don't" is not as easily recognized as positive phrases. That's why, when people post saying that their dc is not listening to them, I suggest positive phrasings. You can't just tell someone to NOT think of a pink elephant









And I don't know that the reason he responds well is because of my physical actions. I didn't make any. But I could be because its something that he alread KNOWS and my making any statement about shoes on the bed reminds him that its not something that I like him to do. And he's more than happy to get his shoes off, and continue with his jumping.

Perhaps it would do us good for me to focus on trying to find positive ways to say exactly what I mean, and if we can't to just use the don't and follow it up with positives.


----------



## marsupial*mama (May 13, 2006)

All I'm saying Daffodil is that your son understands your intention _despite_ your verbal communication. Conditioning is a fascinating process.









Deva wrote:

Quote:

And not jumping on the bed with shoes. How would I even phrase that positively?
If you're otherwise OK with jumping on the bed how about "Please take your shoes off"? If you're not, how about, "Shoes off the bed please" or "Take your jumping shoes outside" or "Shoes are dirty and beds need to be clean for sleeping on" or "Sit down and bounce on your bottom please."







Whatever is your desired outcome is what you should communicate. No more, no less. Once you have compliance you can launch into your reasoning but you need to use easily processed chunks of information with young children. Give pauses for comprehension - Blues Clues style.









There have been times when I have used "don't" to positive effect. It only works with a toddler who is in a contrary mood. Times when my cranky toddlers have fought sleep at night ("Don't want to go to bed, I'm not tired") I've ALWAYS had them asleep in minutes by saying, "Don't go to sleep, you're not tired" mantra finished with a "And when you _are_ tired you can go to sleep whenever you want."


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

I personally have no problem saying don't. I do find that putting a simple please in front of the don't turns it into a request rather than a demand. And giving info on why you don't want something done is only reasonable. And giving suggestions on what else to do when they want to fulfill your request but aren't sure how they can still get to do what they want to as well is helpful. *And if there is a way to phrase your request without don't GREAT too!*
When it comes to physical harm I don't recall putting a please on it. 'I don't like to be hit' seems more appropriate than 'Please don't hit me', it is more than a request situation IMO.
As for no I generally use it when I'm asked a question







. I know it comes in handy during everyday conversation occasionally too. I'm sure it has come out here and there in a NO! type way but I honestly don't recall when.


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

I say 'I prefer' and 'I'd rather' quite a bit too. And sometimes when I'm feeling a lil silly/desperate I might even exclaim 'I wish'


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marsupial*mama*
If you're otherwise OK with jumping on the bed how about "Please take your shoes off"? If you're not, how about, "Shoes off the bed please"









Thanks for that. I guess if you think about it in the right way, you can come up with a positive way to rephrase most (all?) negatives.
Yeah, I can say "let's take your shoes off before you jump on the bed." that conveys exactly what I'm trying to say









Hmmm... perhaps I'll make it a personal challenge to try to not use those negatives for a day. Just for fun, to see if I can be creative enough to find positives to replace them with.


----------



## Shell_Ell (Jun 13, 2005)

I'm having issues with DH and "No" right now. DS is getting into things that are at his level- he's just curious and isn't doing it to be "naughty". He's only 8.5 months old. But anytime I'm doing something else and he gets into things, I hear DH shout "Riley NO!" from across the room, rather than going and getting him and diverting his attention elsewhere. It takes way more work, but I'd rather not associate "No" with so many things. IMO, "NO!" (in the shouting sense) ought to be reserved for situations that could hurt him. Like if he were able to touch something hot or put something dangerous in his mouth (it happens, even with babyproofing) That way he knows that it's really wrong, and not just something that we want to take him away from. I think at this age that's all he thinks is going on.


----------



## marsupial*mama (May 13, 2006)

Miss R&K wrote

Quote:

When it comes to physical harm I don't recall putting a please on it. 'I don't like to be hit' seems more appropriate than 'Please don't hit me', it is more than a request situation IMO. <snip>

I say 'I prefer' and 'I'd rather' quite a bit too. And sometimes when I'm feeling a lil silly/desperate I might even exclaim 'I wish'.
Without being argumentative, I'll just point out that this is a totally subjective mode of communication and it doesn't convey any additional meaning just because it's polite. I'm Australian, and I find the American culture a little overly concerned with 'polite' behaviour in children to the detriment of their development (and personal relationships, but that's another topic altogether!) Saying Please, Thank you and Sorry are meaningless contrivances to a child. They will learn polite language when they are developmentally able to discern the necessity for polite conduct in their social interactions. Once we understand that it is impossible to 'teach' and only possible to 'learn' (from models in our environment) a whole world of potential opens up for our children's ability to make sense of their environment. Be become models for our children to emulate (_do as I do_ )rather than instructors who take every opportunity to implant our own quirky perspective of the world into our children (_do as I say_). I prefer, I rather, I wish - are like lace on a pair of panties. Very nice to look at but they don't change the function one bit.









Back on topic, both 'I don't like to be hit' and 'Please don't hit me' miss the mark in terms of giving a child the desired message. Both sentences reinforce the hitting behaviour in _anyone's_ unconscious understanding of the spoken word - not just a child. More effective is to tell the child, "Please keep your hands to yourself", or "Please touch me gently" or "Gentle hands!" or more congruent than all of these, "Ouch, you hurt me!:cry" is about as authentic a communication as you can get.

Put yourself inside the mind of a child. Imagine you are Marcelle Marceau (mime artist) when you communicate with your toddler. If he needed any words to complete his communication, what would they be? Those are the only words you need. Everything else is unnecessary and gets in the way of being understood.

No offence to anyone I've quoted. As an Aussie I'm finding the culture of the MDC forum a little different to where I've come from. I love a juicy debate and this is all intellectual discussion to me. In no way is this or any other post intended to be critical of parents' individual styles of communication. I'm a bit rough around the edges.


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cheery*
i avoid negatives of all forms. often if-then statements prove effective. if you spill juice the roaches will move in, etc

LOL! That sounds like it might be an inviting proposition to some kids.

Faith


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

Without being argumentative, I'll just point out that this is a totally subjective mode of communication and it doesn't convey any additional meaning just because it's polite.
Actually I find there is a big, humongous, stupendous difference between a request and a demand. And it is more in the way it is said than the words themselves. My children AND I find it easier to fulfill a request than a demand. I PREFER to say things in a *please* way!

Quote:

I'm Australian, and I find the American culture a little overly concerned with 'polite' behaviour in children
Well I assure you your opinion of Americans in this instance does not apply to me.







I in no way said I was or am concerned with 'polite' behavior in my children.

Quote:

Be become models for our children to emulate (do as I do )rather than instructors who take every opportunity to implant our own quirky perspective of the world into our children (do as I say)
Who's to say what I do is any less my own quirky perspective than what I say, kwim? And I am not telling my children to do as I say when I'm making a request of them. I am making a request NOT a demand. I do not expect them to do as I say just because I say something. I do expect them to care about my requests, not in a I expect this or else way, but in an I expect this because this seems like what will happen way. Make sense? I care about their requests and they care about mine. None of us are perfect but we love each other so much!!!!!!!! We have our tense moments just like everyone else but as a whole we listen to and respect each other.

Quote:

Back on topic, both 'I don't like to be hit' and 'Please don't hit me' miss the mark in terms of giving a child the desired message. Both sentences reinforce the hitting behaviour in anyone's unconscious understanding of the spoken word - not just a child. More effective is to tell the child, "Please keep your hands to yourself", or "Please touch me gently" or "Gentle hands!" or more congruent than all of these, "Ouch, you hurt me!:cry" is about as authentic a communication as you can get.
I respectfully disagree. Was that too politely American?





















I understand what you are saying. Like I said if you can in that moment say something without a don't GREAT. *BUT* I don't buy that every time I say don't I'm reinforcing whatever I'm saying don't to. My children (4 and 6) have no problem understanding and using the word don't. I don't think the meaning behind all my words is unhinged because of one word. When I say 'I don't like to be hit.' its ludicrous to me to believe that 'I like to be hit' is what filters through, kwim? AND I would not ever leave it at just that. I talk about other ways to express anger or frustration and talk about what is going on with the children and help brainstorm possible solutions. I just don't see the problem with this approach. Did I say don't too many times in this post, maybe I should worry about rephrasing it so my meaning is better conveyed?





















No seriously I totally agree with phrasing things without don't, I just don't think using don't is in any way harmful, misunderstood, misconstrued, or unconstructive in my home.

Quote:

No offence to anyone I've quoted. As an Aussie I'm finding the culture of the MDC forum a little different to where I've come from. I love a juicy debate and this is all intellectual discussion to me. In no way is this or any other post intended to be critical of parents' individual styles of communication. I'm a bit rough around the edges.
No offense taken or meant







.


----------



## marsupial*mama (May 13, 2006)

Quote:

there is a big, humongous, stupendous difference between a request and a demand.
Is there a big, humongous, stupendous difference between your expectations of an outcome from that communication? Perhaps you need to explain this to me further.









I see we are discussing two different approaches to communicating. One is how it makes the communicator and the receiver of communication _feel_ and the other is whether that communication is as clear as can possibly be.

But as I see it, having unclear communication does impact on a child's feelings, even at the age of four and six (my older two are this age too). If a child understands what is spoken first time every time the result is a confidence in hearing and using the spoken word to express him/herself with authenticity. All this pussy-footing around with genteel turns of phrase will come to them later quite naturally an in context with the language of their culture and their peers.

And 'what I do' will always be more authentic communication (ie, because it's unconscious) than 'what I say' (because it's intellectual/conscious) and any disparity between those modes of communication will always be perceived by our children's 'blank slates'.









Anyhoo, I suspect I've driven this thread a little off topic....


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

Is there a big, humongous, stupendous difference between your expectations of an outcome from that communication? Perhaps you need to explain this to me further.
Since you asked







, yes there is for *me*. If I am making a demand I am concentrating only on what I don't want to be done. If I am making a request I am asking with an open mind for my wants/ needs in the situation to be respected. This can be met in any number of agreeable ways, not just by STOPPING the action in and of itself. So yes my expectations when I'm being DEMANDING and when I am REQUESTING is different as well as the receiving person's feelings and perception of the words(more than likely). Requests are taken and intended much differently than demands IMO. That's all I was saying.

Quote:

But as I see it, having unclear communication does impact on a child's feelings, even at the age of four and six (my older two are this age too). If a child understands what is spoken first time every time the result is a confidence in hearing and using the spoken word to express him/herself with authenticity. All this pussy-footing around with genteel turns of phrase will come to them later quite naturally an in context with the language of their culture and their peers.






















Well that's one way to put it! By the way my kids(of their own volition) 'pussy-foot' around as you put it. They make at least as many requests as they do demands and say please/ thank you too when they want to. And as I said IMHO when I say 'Please don't stomp the food into the carpet' followed by 'Let's pick the food up off the floor' and reasons why I don't want food stomped into the carpet is not unclear in any way. My children have shown they are quite capable of understanding my every word AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. What would you suggest I say in that instance? I suppose I could have JUST said, 'Let's pick the food up off the floor' and pick it up(which I would have been doing in the other example anyway) but is that making it clear I don't want food stomped into the carpet? Does that make it clear why we are picking up the food? Would it be more likely to happen again if I left out the don't part? I dunno. Give me some more ideas.
And IMO there is nothing unauthentic about stating personal preferences. I would think quite the opposite is true. How would someone know the true me if they have no idea what I do and don't like? Just because I'm stating something doesn't mean I am imposing it. My children have no problem sharing with me what they do and don't like either.

Quote:

And 'what I do' will always be more authentic communication (ie, because it's unconscious) than 'what I say' (because it's intellectual/conscious) and any disparity between those modes of communication will always be perceived by our children's 'blank slates'.
Sorry I think this one flew in curly ques over my head





















. Are you saying that when are children do something we don't like we should react physically but not talk to them about it? That a children reading our physical cues of dislike/discomfort/whatever is more clear then if we actually tell them what we are thinking/feeling at that moment? That turning our thoughts into words makes us unauthentic? I'm confused.


----------



## marsupial*mama (May 13, 2006)

Miss R&K, you miss my point entirely. It may not be your fault though - I'm typing on the fly and I'm not taking the time required to explain myself fully. It's a hard concept to explain succinctly.

In point form (just because it's efficient and I don't have much time)

* What we *think* we are communicating is not always what we actually communicate - nor what others understand.
* How we *feel* about what we communicate is irrelevant - ie, polite language serves no functional purpose. You can be polite using tone of voice alone.
* In terms of communication, a request and a demand are *one and the same* and your expectations of compliance are no different whether it's a request or a demand in plain or flowery language. You expect action, am I right?
* 95% of our communication is unconscious facial expression, posture, gesture and mood. If our words are incongruent with that majority communication, they won't be acknowledged. You lose rapport.
* Using "don't" communicates a concept that cannot exist. It creates an internal/unconscious conflict in the listener - fleeting, for sure - but in a pre-linguistic toddler or baby, that conflict can short circuit the communication and result in confusion. Something most parents interpret as behaviour that requires disciplining.
*There is everything right about your *"Let's do ... "* expression. I also like to say, *"Show me how you ..."* and questions like *"What happens when you ...?"* as substitutes for using "don't" expressions because they engage the child in a context that is not dependent on obedience and that gives them a *choice* about their own modes of conduct. Much more empowering = builds self esteem.

Um ... I'm sure there is more I could add but that's it in a nutshell I think.

There was a poster who got snubbed in the middle of this discussion - I'm so sorry! I hope she gains something useful from our back and forth. It has been a most intriguing conversation for me and the first time I've actually become engaged in any one discussion topic here on MDC beyond a single post so thank you for that.

I shouldn't be here - better go!


----------



## katallen (Jan 4, 2005)

I think that it is not wrong to say "no" or "don't", but it is better to give alternatives and try to redirect to what you can do with something instead. Like "Don't hit, you may stomp your feet if you are angry or use your words", or "stop dribbling your juice, I don't like to clean up a mess." I think that clear directions are very important instead of just one word or calling their name in a warning tone. I have noticed that when I give clear instructions and am open to some negotiation on most issues my dd (3 1/2 yo) is more likely to listen to cooperate and we have less battles.


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

AH-HAH! Yes I see what you are getting at here. I totally understand that how I expect a person to perceive my words because of my own meaning CAN be different than how they actually perceive it. This does happen occasionally, usually when one of us is tired, hungry, out of sorts etc when communication is somewhat out of touch already. I fully believe by reading my childrens' own cues that they GET me most of the time. See when I am requesting it is a certain set of feelings and I'm sure corresponding facial expressions and body language. I get the point that just the word please in and of itself isn't what makes it easier for my children to respond willingly to my requests, it is my whole demeanor.
And as for expecting action, hmmmmm. Tough question really. Yes and no and no and yes. I don't expect my children to do as I say(rare I know) EXCEPT in the way that I know them and I know barring hunger, off mood, tiredness, etc. they want to do the socially acceptable thing most of the time. UNLESS it is coming as a cost to them, in which case my kids speak up(you'll have to trust me on this one







) and this is where choices come into play. They know I am more than willing to help them find a choice where they can get to do what they want without damaging or hurting(which is most likely when I will intervene). When it comes to me saying I prefer or I'd rather I do not expect them to comply. I am telling them my preference and they make their own choice. Am I making sense in this?
From what I'm hearing in your post you believe the miscommunication occurs with don't in a baby or young toddler? Is that correct? If this is the case why would I avoid it with an older child? I just don't think I am being unclear to my children at all.

Quote:

*There is everything right about your "Let's do ... " expression. I also like to say, "Show me how you ..." and questions like "What happens when you ...?" as substitutes for using "don't" expressions because they engage the child in a context that is not dependent on obedience and that gives them a choice about their own modes of conduct. Much more empowering = builds self esteem.
See I'm not getting how 'Let's do..' 'Show me how you..' What happens when you..' implies any more choice honestly. They sound like a set of commands, not choices. So the child can choose to obey and do as you say or disobey and not do as you say, much the same as mine can choose to obey and not do what I said not to do or not obey and do what I said not to do. Whew, sorry for being so convoluted there. I just couldn't think of a better way to put that.

Quote:

There was a poster who got snubbed in the middle of this discussion - I'm so sorry! I hope she gains something useful from our back and forth.
Oh sorry! Didn't realize someone was being snubbed! Well I have definitely gained most of my useful tidbits in other peoples back and forths so I'll second that hope.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marsupial*mama*
*There is everything right about your *"Let's do ... "* expression. I also like to say, *"Show me how you ..."* and questions like *"What happens when you ...?"* as substitutes for using "don't" expressions because they engage the child in a context that is not dependent on obedience and that gives them a *choice* about their own modes of conduct. Much more empowering = builds self esteem.

I've been following this discussion with great interest. MarsupialMama it seems you have a wealth of info and I'm grateful for your sharing of it.

I wonder if you would be willing to elaborate on this more? I like the responses (above) given as examples. It seems to me they engage the child in exploring the outcomes of his/her behavior. And also are used as redirection ("_Instead of jumping on the bed with your shoes on,_ *show me how you* jump in bare feet! Can you still jump as high?") (Where the part in italics is not said aloud, necessarily). Have I gotten the use of your examples correct?

If so, I can see how these statements might end up providing the child with additional information, possibly enabling him to make better choices in the future, but I don't see how they they ultimately give him a choice about his own mode of conduct, because if, after exploring jumping in his bare feet he prefers to put his shoes back on and jump, that behavior would not be allowed to continue, and additional conversation would take place until he finally makes the right choice. Except its not really a choice because intervention (of some sort or another) would continue until he stopped jumping on the bed with his shoes on. He would not be really allowed to choose to jump with his shoes on. He might be able to delay not jumping with his shoes on, but will not be allowed to continue to choose it forever, is that not right?


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

I'm not sure I believe that "don't" doesn't exist. Animals communicate "don't do THAT" to each other quite effectively. Don't/stop is probably the most common animal communication, referencing an action taking place or about to take place. Disapproval of another's action is a very basic animal experience.

When my lowly cat jumps onto the bed and the higher status cat flicks his ears, he is communicating very clearly "don't do that" and the lowly cat quickly leaves.

Given that tone of voice and body posture are far more important than the words we use, "don't" is just as effective as fancier ways of speaking. When I say "Don't do that" my tone makes it clear that I want the immediate behavior to stop.

I'd like to see the scientific studies that have proven what Marsupial Mom is claiming.

Additionally, in our house there is a huge difference between requests and commands. Most of the time I make requests, that state my preference. I hope for cooperation, but I do not expect compliance. When I make a request, I am being genuine. If dd chooses not to honor my request, she has that right.

When I make a command, which is rare, I expect it to be respected or I step in to make sure the thing in question happens. There is no choice, because I have determined the course of action.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

I usually say "please don't [whatever]," but I sometimes try to rephrase it as a positive if I can do so without changing the meaning. But I will use the negative when the request is specifically to refrain from doing something in particular rather than to do something else instead. Or I will use an either-or statement like "please either take off your shoes or get off the funiture."

But honestly, I don't mean this as a criticism, but a lot of gd language strikes me as being a bit dishonest. At our house we're very upfront about requests and expectations, so trying to make a request without actually saying what the request is seems sort of like witholding information.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marsupial*mama*
* In terms of communication, a request and a demand are *one and the same* and your expectations of compliance are no different whether it's a request or a demand in plain or flowery language. You expect action, am I right?

If you are referring to the difference between "I'd prefer" and "don't do x" (or whatever request vs. demand), I think there is a big difference between my expectations (and I'm pretty sure that Ms. R and K is the same way







). A lot of the time when I say "I'd prefer" or "I'd rather" my ds is pretty much free to continue what he's doing. It's a way for me to communicate my feelings on the subject, just so he's aware.
Although, sometimes I do use it to "flower up" my demand, because I find such stuff humorous, and it lightens my mood. Kinda like when I say "Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated." It makes me







So, in that case, you are right. It won't change the expectation. But there are times when it does have a different meaning than a demand (and my ds "gets" it, I'm sure because of my tone of voice and non verbal communications)


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Katallen- Ita, that "don't" as a stand-alone demand is all but useless. Possibly even worse than useless. lol. I'm pretty sure that if you don't add a positive "acceptable alternative" and an explanation, it would NOT be a useful word









Quote:


Originally Posted by *marsupial*mama*
*There is everything right about your "Let's do ... " expression. I also like to say, "Show me how you ..." and questions like "What happens when you ...?" as substitutes for using "don't" expressions because they engage the child in a context that is not dependent on obedience and that gives them a choice about their own modes of conduct. Much more empowering = builds self esteem.

Ok, first of all, I swear I'm not picking on you







I am LOVING your posts in this thread! You have a lot of info that I find really interesting, and I'm going to try to include some of your phrases instead of "don't" phrases.
But...what if I don't care what he does instead? And how do those phrases tell him specifically what I don't want to be done? So lets say he's throwing something hard (he's allowed to throw soft stuff, and not hard stuff). I'd say "Don't throw hard stuff. It could hit someone or something and hurt them. You can throw a soft block, if you want. Or you can build with these hard blocks." Sometimes he has another idea of an acceptable alternative. HE may choose to throw a pillow, or to drop his hard blocks from up high into the basket. kwim? But whatever he decides is ok, as long as he's not throwing hard stuff.
Saying "Let's do" or "Show me how" seem like the intention is to lead in one direction. Can they be open ended, while still excluding the ONE thing that is NOT an acceptable alternative? (that's an honest question. I'm obviously not thinking in this mode- you have some great ideas!) I'm guessing "Let's do something besides throwing hard blocks" is just the same as saying "Don't throw blocks."
And, how does it convey to him that the only thing I care about is that he NOT throw hard blocks. I don't care what he does instead. I'll give some alternatives, but really its open ended. Iow, how does he "get" that what I mean is that throwing hard blocks is unacceptable (I guess I could say that, but that just sounds harsh! but then, that would be a negative too, right?) instead of getting that when he throws blocks, I tend to redirect it? And that throwing hard blocks, in and of itself, is an ok thing to do. I dunno, does that make sense?

Like I said, I'm open to learning here! And it seems that you are a good teacher








I do agree with Brigianna that some gd language seems dishonest or something. I'm totally open to using positives instead of negatives, if it can convey what I actually mean. Like "Take off your shoes before you jump on the bed." THAT is an excellent example of a positive (that I would have never thought of without you, marsupial mom) that says exactly what I mean. I'm sure there are more, and I'm just not used to this way of thinking.

It's kinda like before I went anti-punishment. It was hard to imagine what I'd do *instead* of punishing. But now, I can't imagine what in the world punishment would work for.


----------



## quelindo (May 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marsupial*mama*
Once we understand that it is impossible to 'teach' and only possible to 'learn' (from models in our environment) a whole world of potential opens up for our children's ability to make sense of their environment. Be become models for our children to emulate (_do as I do_ )rather than instructors who take every opportunity to implant our own quirky perspective of the world into our children (_do as I say_).


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

This is a fascinating thread!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
But...what if I don't care what he does instead? And how do those phrases tell him specifically what I don't want to be done? So lets say he's throwing something hard (he's allowed to throw soft stuff, and not hard stuff). I'd say "Don't throw hard stuff. It could hit someone or something and hurt them. You can throw a soft block, if you want. Or you can build with these hard blocks." Sometimes he has another idea of an acceptable alternative. HE may choose to throw a pillow, or to drop his hard blocks from up high into the basket. kwim? But whatever he decides is ok, as long as he's not throwing hard stuff.

Iow, how does he "get" that what I mean is that throwing hard blocks is unacceptable (I guess I could say that, but that just sounds harsh! but then, that would be a negative too, right?) instead of getting that when he throws blocks, I tend to redirect it? And that throwing hard blocks, in and of itself, is an ok thing to do. I dunno, does that make sense?

I know this question is directed at someone else, but I wanted to share my thoughts. How about saying "Throwing hard blocks can hurt someone or break something. I want everyone to be safe. Dropping the hard blocks like this (demonstrate) is safer than throwing them. If you want to throw something, throw something that is softer"?

I'm thinking that for just about every "don't" I can think of, there's a way to say it without actually saying don't. "Don't hit" can be "Hitting hurts. I want you to touch people gently." KWIM? "Don't come near" could be "stay away."

I think I'm rambling now.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
I'm thinking that for just about every "don't" I can think of, there's a way to say it without actually saying don't.

Well, yeah, but why bother? I know some of you are saying kids understand you better when you tell them what TO do instead of what not to do, but - I've said it before and I'll say it again - I just don't buy that (except for really little toddlers.) I understand people when they say "don't." My DD clearly understands me when I say "don't." Other people posting to this thread have said their kids understand it. Maybe it's true that our minds have to do some extra bit of work to make sense of a "don't" statement, but if so, that work certainly seems to happen so quickly that it's irrelevant.

Now, the OP has a kid who's not quite 2. So, for her, coming up with an alternative to "don't" might make sense. (Though my kid could understand sentences with "don't" at that age.) Does everyone else who thinks "don't" is a problem have really young toddlers, or do you actually believe even older kids get confused when you tell them what NOT to do?


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Thanks Sledg! That really helps me direct my thoughts. Kinda gives me some ways to phrase things positively.
So, "dripping juice on the couch makes a mess. I want it to stay clean. Here, you can drip the juice in this bucket if you want."
Hmmm...ok, I can follow this type of thinking. It's making a lot more sense as I think about it. lol

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
Now, the OP has a kid who's not quite 2. So, for her, coming up with an alternative to "don't" might make sense. (Though my kid could understand sentences with "don't" at that age.) Does everyone else who thinks "don't" is a problem have really young toddlers, or do you actually believe even older kids get confused when you tell them what NOT to do?

My ds understands "don't" quite well, and it doesn't ever result in power struggles, or in him repeating what I'm telling him to not do. I think my reasoning for following a "don't" with telling him what to do instead, is that I think the impulse still needs to be expressed. Stopping doing something takes a lot of work! So, I give him a way to express that impulse, or to get rid of that energy, that is agreeable to both of us. kwim?
I know he can understand "don't" but I don't know that he has the impulse control to just stop, and not do something else. I'm sure as he gets older, he'll be more able to come up with the "something else" on his own. But for now, I help him out with it.

I guess the reason I'm asking isn't that what I'm doing isn't working for us. I just read here a lot that people try to refrain from saying "don't" and I was wondering the reasons for trying to not say it at all (as opposed to following it up with a positive). I can see how refraining from "don't" if you can think of a positive way to say exactly what you mean, is a good thing to do.
I guess I still don't see, though, how "don't" can be damaging. So I don't imagine I'll stress too much about it if I say it. But it will be a good mind exercise to try to phrase as many things positively as I can


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
My ds understands "don't" quite well, and it doesn't ever result in power struggles, or in him repeating what I'm telling him to not do. I think my reasoning for following a "don't" with telling him what to do instead, is that I think the impulse still needs to be expressed. Stopping doing something takes a lot of work! So, I give him a way to express that impulse, or to get rid of that energy, that is agreeable to both of us. kwim?

Oh, sure, that makes sense. I do the same thing if I want my DD to stop doing something she really wants to do - suggest an alternative.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
Well, yeah, but why bother?

Well, I bother not because I think "don't" is damaging but because I think it's just a bit more clear. Kids, I think, want to learn what *to do* and if I can phrase it that way (what I want them *to do* and why) then I think it's at least a little bit easier (more clear) for them to understand. It's not that I think they absolutely cannot understand a "don't" phrase. I just happen to have come to think of a "do/because" phrase as more clear. And maybe that's because personally *I* find it much more clear to be told what someone wants me *to* do than for them to tell me what they *don't* want me to do (unless, of course, as deva said they follow it up with a "do" request-and if you're going to follow a "don't" with a "do" why not just skip the "don't" and go straight to "do...because..."?).

eta that I also think people tend to receive a "do/because" request a little bit better than a "don't" request. I'd certainly rather hear someone say to me "do/because" instead of "don't." It's just a little more positive, feels less like criticism. KWIM?


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
eta that I also think people tend to receive a "do/because" request a little bit better than a "don't" request. I'd certainly rather hear someone say to me "do/because" instead of "don't." It's just a little more positive, feels less like criticism. KWIM?

Good point. I find this to be true with anyone, not just my kids.


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Lots to think about here. I am really enjoying this thread. If I thought I was saying 'please don't do x' frequently I guess I might be more interested in not saying it. As it is it just doesn't come out to them any more often does it does to dp. And I don't say it any more to them than they do to me.

Quote:

eta that I also think people tend to receive a "do/because" request a little bit better than a "don't" request. I'd certainly rather hear someone say to me "do/because" instead of "don't." It's just a little more positive, feels less like criticism. KWIM?
Yes. I agree that telling someone not to do something in a demanding way versus telling someone to do something in an undemanding, the undemanding way would be taken better. Yet if I am requesting someone not do something in an undemanding way versus telling soemone to do something in a demanding way which would be taken better?
I say 'Will you x or y/because' too of course. I do think just 'do/because' sounds more like a command. Not that I'm saying it will neccessarily be taken as one, just that if I am meaning to make a request IMO asking the person is important so they can make the choice to honor the request. I feel asking 'Will you' will clearly demonstrate to them a sense of choice in the matter though. I'm not cutting on do/because by the way, I say it too, just in an undemanding way(unless of course I'm being unreasonable or grouchy and I'll be sorry once I realize it and apologize for that







)
I do say 'Let's x or y' as well. My kids know they have the choice whether they move their body to do something with me or not. I think this is more because in the past when they have said 'hey wait a minute I don't wanna' I have honored that by doing whatever it was by myself. Or if I really felt I needed their help and it was important to me I would express that, but the choice would still be theirs. In other words I'm not forcing them to do it, I'm not punishing them for not doing it, etc.

Quote:

Once we understand that it is impossible to 'teach' and only possible to 'learn' (from models in our environment) a whole world of potential opens up for our children's ability to make sense of their environment. Be become models for our children to emulate (do as I do )rather than instructors who take every opportunity to implant our own quirky perspective of the world into our children (do as I say).
Sorry if this is OT, hope I'm not bothering anybody(if so let me know). I totally agree with being aware of the behavior you are modeling for your children and of being aware of whether or not it coincides with the model you wish to be. However I honestly don't EXPECT my children to 'do as I do' anymore than I EXPECT them to 'do as I say' because I feel that 'what I do' is just as much 'my own quirky perspective' as 'what I say' is. Does that make sense.
For example purposes only:
Say I am a vegan because I believe it the right thing to do, should I expect my children to become vegan AND think it is the right thing to do? Say I believe the tv is the devil and I don't watch it, should I expect my children to not watch any tv and believe it is the devil? Say I believe in God as an Almighty, All Powerful figure in life, should I expect my children to believe that? I guess what I'm getting at is in 'do as I say' and 'do as I do' either way I am imposing my own set of beliefs and my own perspective on how things out to be. NOW IF I am just modeling the behavior without the 'do as I do' and my children are deciding whether or not to emulate my behavior of their own volition than it is not something I have imposed on them. I really don't want my children to feel as though they MUST(to gain my love or acceptance or goodwill) 'do as I do' or 'do as I say'.


----------



## ShelFish (May 27, 2006)

I think avoiding negatives is a good rule of thumb, but I've never devoted myself to it. I've certainly tried to limit my use of negative instructions, and my job as a Montessori preschool teacher has reinforced this. We use positive phrasing (walking feet! rocks belong on the ground! whisper voices!), but there is the occasional child who just DOES NOT respond to this and *needs* to hear a clear instruction (NO throwing rocks).


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Quote:

I guess I still don't see, though, how "don't" can be damaging.
I don't think anyone is stating that "don't" is damaging







For me, phrasing things in a positive way just feels less like I'm demanding and/or managing, but perhaps this is based solely on mypersonal experience. Phrasing statements inthe positive seems to be more effective for my communication w/my little ones. But, certainly, there are lots of situations where "don't ____" works best


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I don't think don't is neccessarily damaging per se. I just don't think it is the most effective way of communication. I suppose I relate to my own daughter how I would like to be related to and how almost everyone I've ever known likes to be related to.

Even in the adult world, imagine you are walking down a sidewalk and someone says:

"hey don't walk there!!" Okay, it wouldn't exactly ruin your day but you may think 'why'? or, 'but I want to walk there', or 'whatever, he's not gonna tell me where to walk', or any number of things -- maybe even, 'okay, I won't walk there'. I don't care for demands and most people I know don't either... I wouldn't think my child would. I would be much more receptive to something like "Ma'am we are doing some work here and it could be dangerous...I'd feel you'd be safer on the other side of the street." (or whatever) rather than a "no" or "don't". Even if it wasn't a request and for some reason a demand, I would still be more receptive to "We aren't letting people walk here today because of some construction and it isn't safe" ...

I just feel like that is how I want to relate to my child, and feel that she is much more receptive when I do.


----------



## pianojazzgirl (Apr 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
eta that I also think people tend to receive a "do/because" request a little bit better than a "don't" request. I'd certainly rather hear someone say to me "do/because" instead of "don't." It's just a little more positive, feels less like criticism. KWIM?

ITA. It popped into my head as I read this that when we communicate with other adults don't we always try to phrase things in this way. Instead of saying "don't put your coffee cup there", you'd probably say "oh, would you please put your coffee cup on that table instead?" and then go on to explain: "it might damage the finish". (or something like that, lol.) So why on earth wouldn't we try to be just as courteous with our kids?


----------



## marsupial*mama (May 13, 2006)

I don't think saying 'don't is harmful either - but it can be somewhat disempowering.

BellinghamCrunchie wrote:

Quote:

I can see how these statements might end up providing the child with additional information, possibly enabling him to make better choices in the future, but I don't see how they they ultimately give him a choice about his own mode of conduct, because if, after exploring jumping in his bare feet he prefers to put his shoes back on and jump, that behavior would not be allowed to continue, and additional conversation would take place until he finally makes the right choice. Except its not really a choice because intervention (of some sort or another) would continue until he stopped jumping on the bed with his shoes on.
Sure, if you use "Let's do ..." or "Show me how you ..." but if you say, "Your shoes are dirty. What happens when you jump on the bed with dirty shoes?" you are providing a choice are you not? Let's not forget that kids do have an inherent sense of logic. Few kids would wish to have a dirty bed. But even if they did, and continued to jump on the bed in their shoes, you then have a situation of natural consequences, "Well, if you're going to jump on the bed in your shoes I'll have to show you how to wash and dry your sheets!"

Personally, I don't tolerate jumping on the bed at all.







So I'd be sending them outside to jump on the trampoline.

Dechen wrote:

Quote:

I'm not sure I believe that "don't" doesn't exist. Animals communicate "don't do THAT" to each other quite effectively. Don't/stop is probably the most common animal communication, referencing an action taking place or about to take place. Disapproval of another's action is a very basic animal experience.
How do you know the animal isn't saying 'Stay away!'...?









You know, there are many other _human_ languages that also find negatives a source of confusion. When I lived in Japan we often encountered confusion over the answer to a negative question. In English we might ask, "You don't like it?" and get the answer, "No" (ie, No, I don't like it) but in Japanese (and many other languages too) if you ask "You don't like it?" you'll get the answer, "Yes", (ie, Yes, I don't like it).























There is literally TONS of research on this issue - google disciplines like psycholinguistics, behaviour modification, hypnosis, neurolinguistic programming ... The concept of avoiding negative language to achieve compliance has been around since Eriksonian hypnosis in the 1950s. A lot of research was done using cards with stars and plus signs. Here is a pithy link I found that helps describe it in just a few pars (scroll down for responses to the question).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...41a8b2698afbe4

Deva33mommy wrote:

Quote:

But...what if I don't care what he does instead? And how do those phrases tell him specifically what I don't want to be done?
Thing is, the idea of what you don't want to be done doesn't exist in the child's mind until you state it. So by saying "Don't ..." you immediately make the behavior conscious for the child and therefore, reinforce it. Before identifying that behavior you have a better chance of obtaining your desired alternative behavior than if you first state the negative, "Don't ..." and then follow with the positive that you _do_ want. Even if you don't care what he does instead, the communication is more authentic when you provide an alternative. So the _most effective_ way to express it would be to state the alternative behavior _first_ and _then_ use the "don't..." statement _if you absolutely think you must._ Personally, I don't think there are many situations where you absolutely have to say, "Don't do it." to get results. It's always easier and more effective to say, "Do something else."

So using your example of throwing the hard blocks, I'd just say, "Go and throw a ball outside if you need to throw something."

Quote:

Saying "Let's do" or "Show me how" seem like the intention is to lead in one direction. Can they be open ended, while still excluding the ONE thing that is NOT an acceptable alternative?
No, I don't think they can. They serve different purposes. "Let's do..." would be when you'll do something together wouldn't it? And "Show me how... (you do the behavior I wish you to do)" is exactly as you stated. Unless perhaps you said, "Let's do _something else_" or "Show me how you do _something else_" but if you're going to make it open ended, you risk non-compliance. And there will be times when that's OK and times when it's not, I guess. So you choose your terms.









Quote:

And, how does it convey to him that the only thing I care about is that he NOT throw hard blocks. I don't care what he does instead.
Ah, but you do care don't you! What if he stops throwing blocks to do something worse than throwing blocks. _That_ is why you provide a desirable alternative (ie, redirect). Even if you think you don't really care what it is.









I'm glad this thread is still moving. Language and how we use it is immensely fascinating to me and I've done some study in this field which I guess is kind of obvious. There are many layers to communication and it's never as straightforward as it appears. People who speak more than one language will attest to the different 'ways of thinking' that using other languages invoke. When we are truly in command of our message, we are more effective communicators. That's all I'm trying to get at when I debate this topic. It's not like using words like "Don't" is harmful and to be avoided at all costs. It's more that avoiding using negative opens us up to a much more clear and specific and congruent ways of communicating - which means less miscommunication - which makes us all happier in the long term.


----------

