# Need to vent about my almost 3 yo...NVC, CL, UP



## BushMama83 (Apr 19, 2012)

Hey Mamas...I'm coming back to this board to just try and work out some things I'm going through with my almost 3 year old DS. He is very rambunctious, and I feel like we've been going through this hitting/biting/kicking/throwing stuff around phase for some time now. I am so ready for him to move past this! 

I've just finished reading Non-Violet Communication and P.E.T., have given lots of thought to consensual living, unconditional parenting etc, and all of this makes so much sense to me. It is how I want to raise my kids, structure my family life etc. I don't know any other families in my small town who raise their kids this way. I see a lot of time outs, bribes, threats like "1...2...3" counts...methods that just aren't for me. So I don't know where else to go for support.

Lately I am just so tired of explaining AGAIN about how biting/hitting/kicking hurts people's bodies...how I value peace and the safety of everyone in our home...trying to show appropriate ways to play, especially with our dogs (at this point I'd rather just find a new home for the dogs. He terrorizes them with "love" and one of them no longer hesitates to nip at him). Some days I feel like I have zero control...while realizing control is an illusion and I can't control another person...I just feel like I'm in the center of a raging storm with no cover. I struggle with my temper, and it's not always a battle I win. It's like I'm talking to myself though. I'll finish expressing my own feelings and needs and he starts talking about dinosaurs! It's so frustrating! Some days I just throw my hands up, make sure the baby is safe, and let him run wild, I'm just so tired of hearing my own voice and useless words.

I keep telling myself this will pass. He won't be like this forever...I just feel so ineffective, so powerless, and so overwhelmed by this little person! I'm starting to think it's also a clash of personalities...I guess I'd expected my kids would be quiet and bookish like me. Ha!

Anyway, I guess that is all, thank you for reading and any encouragement or commiseration you might have. I'm pretty sure I made a similar post a few months ago, and it sure gives me a boost to know I'm not alone!


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

I'll be super honest and say that I think CL works for a toddler _as a philosophy_ but not in daily practice. Three is HARD. First, I suggest that you add one of Louise Bates Aimes (or another child development book) to your reading list. Sometimes the best knowledge about how to parent comes from a good understanding of our child's developmental stage and reasonable expectations. A three year old is entirely egocentric. That is where they are developmentally. The're not supposed to care about your feelings exactly. At least not in the way adults care about other people's feelings. Talking dinosaurs in the middle of your story is what thee year olds do. :love

The dogs... I don't have dogs. We have cats and our cats take care of themselves. If there was anyone or any animal around an aggressive toddler I think I would "just" (ha!) take a 100% supervision rule. It totally SUCKS but I do think that's the best course of action for this age. I am also going to have to admit that both of my kids were pretty mild mannered when it came to acting out physically but, when they did, I would go into "emergency mode" and watch like a hawk and prevent the unwanted behavior until they seemed to forget how interesting it was. I don't know if that would work for a child who had a super high interest in that.

I started reading about CL and all of that when my DC was about 3. Unlike you, I thought it was kind of nuts when I first heard about it. But it started to sink in and is a foundation of my parenting. But, it's never become more than a foundation - a set of goals - an ideal. When things work and we're in the groove we can pull it off. A lot of the time, though, we fall way short. And, that's OK. Another beauty of all this gentle parenting is that along the way we learn to be gentle with ourselves. :love


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

A parent who reacts to to hitting/kicking/biting by with explaining, face-time, attention is engaging in inadvertent conditional parenting. For some reason, parents who read the UP book come away with the message that praise is the only reinforcer. Praise is not the only reinforcer. Attention, explaining, facetime are reinforcers. You get more of what you pay attention to.

The timing is the issue. What you do immediately after an unwanted behavior is important. Face-time, explaining, attention immediately after an unwanted behavior conditions the kid to engage in more of that behavior.

It's OK to talk about how how biting/hitting/kicking hurts people's bodies and how you value peace and the safety of everyone in your home. Just don't do this as an immediate reaction to the unwanted behavior.

_Showing_ what you value is much, much more effective than talking about what you value. If you catch you DS being kind to the dog, even the tiniest act of kindness, react to that by showing him that you value kindness to the dog.

The most effective immediate response unwanted behavior is to ignore it (and take the baby or dog away to safety if need be). And, react to the opposite behavior by showing him what you value, expressing how much you value that behavior. If you consistently do this for two weeks you will see a big improvement. The kid's behavior might get worse for a day or two when you start ignoring, but it will be noticeably improved a few days later.


----------



## BushMama83 (Apr 19, 2012)

IdentityCrisisMama, I've read Lousie Bates Ames' book on two year olds...I think it's time to get the one on three year olds, though! Thanks for reminding me. I'm realizing rather quickly that CL doesn't work too well with toddlers...even though I keep reading "it works great at any age!" I've yet to see it in my home. Maybe I'm not consistent enough, maybe my kid just isn't there yet...I don't know. It's not working now! I can see it being wonderful when he's a bit older though. I definitely go into supervise mode...am in it most of the time. I look forward to the day where I can watch him play without feeling tense! I sometimes wonder if he senses that tension...is he fufilling my unspoken expectations? 

tadasmar...I understand what you're saying and I think it's good advice...but from a philospophical standpoint, doesn't ignoring a child who is acting out send a message that "I don't love you when you're being aggressive?" Though I guess it's not the same as a time out, but isn't it still manipulative, to dole out attention only when the child is behaving as we'd like them to? Philosophical musings aside, I'm going to try timing my discussions of how hitting hurts people differently. 

Our dog (a small dog...if she was larger I'm pretty sure we would have had to give her away by now) will not hesitate to nip him. She does it frequently now, and it really worries me. I feel like that should be a decent natural consequence, though. Do I really need to add my praise when he's being gentle and he doesn't get bitten? Shouldn't that be reward enough? I like the idea of natural consequences, and this seems like a situation where I don't need to add anything further. However, I do not like having a dog who bites little kids. In this respect, I feel like I'm failing as a parent and a pet owner. That's a whole other post, though.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

tadamsmar said:


> A parent who reacts to to hitting/kicking/biting by with explaining, face-time, attention is engaging in inadvertent conditional parenting. For some reason, parents who read the UP book come away with the message that praise is the only reinforcer. Praise is not the only reinforcer. Attention, explaining, facetime are reinforcers. You get more of what you pay attention to.
> 
> The timing is the issue. What you do immediately after an unwanted behavior is important. Face-time, explaining, attention immediately after an unwanted behavior conditions the kid to engage in more of that behavior.


I disagree with this. It's very behavioristic. Children are young humans who are acquiring language. If you "ignore" them in the way you're describing, it's a form of punishment. It's basically a form of time-out that people who like _Unconditional Parenting_ are trying to avoid. Removing your attention to not reinforce a bad behavior is--punishment.

Which might be fine for parents who find this method of withdrawing reinforcement effective to stop the behavior, and who don't mind punishments that are non-violent. I do not think it's consonant with Alfie Kohn's book, though.

I also disagree with this because I think all interactions with children at this age should involve some talking. This is when he's acquiring the habits of language acquisition.

When my son was three, he was not very rambunctious, but he did have a tendency to bite us when he got really excited. (He did not bite or in any way hurt the cat, because the cat we had back then wouldn't have tolerated that.) We did get up in the kid's face and very quietly tell him not to do the thing. I believe we used phrases like, "There's no biting," and "We use our teeth for eating food, not biting." That worked very well. It's probably not the ultimate best method, but it does have the advantage of demonstrating that parents can use their words. For other, less painful behaviors (!) we did much more talking than that.

It's not just the language acquisition issue. You want him to use words, so you use words. Be brief. Yes, three-year-olds are self-centered, but a phrase like, "In our family, we're gentle with animals," can be really effective, because you know that you're going to hear it back from him.

It's very difficult for a three-year-old to control himself. Whatever strategy you adopt, you will have to keep doing it, because he's not going to stop doing whatever it is after one iteration. (Even if you punish him!) He will outgrow being three.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

BushMama83 said:


> I look forward to the day where I can watch him play without feeling tense! I sometimes wonder if he senses that tension...is he fufilling my unspoken expectations?


This is HUGE, and tremendously complex and difficult to convey through words. There was a CL philosophy popular here many years ago called "Taking Children Seriously". I never quite gelled with the philosophy but a wonderful take-away I got from talking to people who embraced it was the idea of positive expectations. It has a lot to do with the head-space of the parent. It's also a bit metaphysical, I think, so hard to swallow if you're not into all of that.

I have found that (for whatever reason) my kids do tend to respond to my expectations so if I can go into things just magically knowing that they will do well, they just will. Likewise, if I enter a situation where I am anxious about their behavior (or safety) they seem to respond to that.

Regarding the use of praise as behavior modification -- be mindful that not everyone has had success with that or feels it is appropriate or authentic for their family.

I don't have dogs but our cats will hiss and even scratch lightly if they don't like what my DC is doing. I absolutely think that is a reasonable natural consequence. A logical consequence would be (in the case of dogs) that the child has to leave the space - not the dog (IMO). "When you are not gentle with the dogs, you may not play with the dogs."

I do agree that with a dog taken to nipping and a toddler having trouble with gentleness, that an entire post just on that issue is probably a great idea. We even had a dog-trainer mom who used to post in GD. Does anyone remember who that was? She would be a great help...


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

CO, my three year old does pretty well with the "talk less" type philosophy. She will put her teeth on a member of the family maybe once/month. It seems to be an urge, maybe related to nursing. She isn't rough but I do worry that excessive attention to this would maybe reinforce the behavior. I do "ignore it" but I don't "ignore her", if that makes sense. I may say something if I feel it's warranted but I make it super subtle and then just try to give her the type of affection I think she's looking for when she does that. 

I absolutely DO feel this is mildly behaviorist. It feels calculated. But, it also seems like the best way to avoid a behavior that I worry will get worse and may end up needing a sort of discipline that I would feel even more conflicted about. 

Ah, the complexity. :love


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

BushMama83 said:


> Our dog (a small dog...if she was larger I'm pretty sure we would have had to give her away by now) will not hesitate to nip him. She does it frequently now, and it really worries me. I feel like that should be a decent natural consequence, though. Do I really need to add my praise when he's being gentle and he doesn't get bitten? Shouldn't that be reward enough? I like the idea of natural consequences, and this seems like a situation where I don't need to add anything further. However, I do not like having a dog who bites little kids. In this respect, I feel like I'm failing as a parent and a pet owner. That's a whole other post, though.


Sounds like the idea of that natural consequence worries you. But are you using that natural consequence to the extent that you are already willing to? If you are already doing it and it is not working, then not getting bitten is not reward enough according to the evidence that you are providing. (BTW, I am not meaning to encourage you to experiment more with letting the dog bite the kid. Like you, I think it might be too dangerous.)

But I was just using the dog thing as an example of one of his unwanted behaviors. Using natural consequences is a good idea in general.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

captain optimism said:


> Be brief. Yes, three-year-olds are self-centered, but a phrase like, "In our family, we're gentle with animals," can be really effective, because you know that you're going to hear it back from him.


I agree and I like the phrasing you gave.


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

captain optimism said:


> I disagree with this. It's very behavioristic. Children are young humans who are acquiring language. If you "ignore" them in the way you're describing, it's a form of punishment. It's basically a form of time-out that people who like _Unconditional Parenting_ are trying to avoid. Removing your attention to not reinforce a bad behavior is--punishment.


Do you give your kids face-time every waking second? How many hours per day are you punishing your own kids in this manner, giving them no face-time? Think about it, it's not punishment.


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

BushMama83 said:


> tadasmar...I understand what you're saying and I think it's good advice...but from a philospophical standpoint, doesn't ignoring a child who is acting out send a message that "I don't love you when you're being aggressive?" Though I guess it's not the same as a time out, but isn't it still manipulative, to dole out attention only when the child is behaving as we'd like them to? Philosophical musings aside, I'm going to try timing my discussions of how hitting hurts people differently.


I am sure you will find a way to express your unconditional love for your child without reinforcing his unwanted behavior.


----------



## BushMama83 (Apr 19, 2012)

IdentityCrisisMama said:


> Regarding the use of praise as behavior modification -- be mindful that not everyone has had success with that or feels it is appropriate or authentic for their family.
> 
> I don't have dogs but our cats will hiss and even scratch lightly if they don't like what my DC is doing. I absolutely think that is a reasonable natural consequence. A logical consequence would be (in the case of dogs) that the child has to leave the space - not the dog (IMO). "When you are not gentle with the dogs, you may not play with the dogs."
> 
> I do agree that with a dog taken to nipping and a toddler having trouble with gentleness, that an entire post just on that issue is probably a great idea. We even had a dog-trainer mom who used to post in GD. Does anyone remember who that was? She would be a great help...


In regards to praise as behaviour modification, I'm definitely not into that. I see in myself the long-term effects of this...I realize now that I am more motivated by getting praise or recognition for something than I am by the joy of learning something new or creating something (for example). I want my kids to be intrinsically motivated.

I do need to start removing DS from the space, rather than the dog. This is a tough one, though, because we basically live in a one room cabin with a loft sleeping space. Would you physically pick up the child and move them? I think I've read something about that in past threads about toddlers and dogs.

tadasmar, it is clear to me now that the natural consequences with the dog are not working. He shows no fear of the dog and actually seems to think it's a game.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

IdentityCrisisMama said:


> CO, my three year old does pretty well with the "talk less" type philosophy. She will put her teeth on a member of the family maybe once/month. It seems to be an urge, maybe related to nursing. She isn't rough but I do worry that excessive attention to this would maybe reinforce the behavior. I do "ignore it" but I don't "ignore her", if that makes sense. I may say something if I feel it's warranted but I make it super subtle and then just try to give her the type of affection I think she's looking for when she does that.
> 
> I absolutely DO feel this is mildly behaviorist. It feels calculated. But, it also seems like the best way to avoid a behavior that I worry will get worse and may end up needing a sort of discipline that I would feel even more conflicted about.
> 
> Ah, the complexity. :love


Hey, if it's not broken, don't fix it! I look at the two moms of three-year-olds I see regularly and I think, "Holy cow, that was a hard age," and also, "Wow, they learn a lot at that age!" If she seems to be learning the right thing from how you're managing the biting, that's what matters.

I'm not an absolutist about the behaviorism thing. I just disagree that ignoring bad behavior in an attempt to gain compliance is somehow part of the philosophy of _Unconditional Parenting_. I don't follow Alfie Kohn to the ends of the earth, but I do think that when someone actively deplores an idea, we shouldn't then attribute that idea to him.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

tadamsmar said:


> Do you give your kids face-time every waking second? How many hours per day are you punishing your own kids in this manner, giving them no face-time? Think about it, it's not punishment.


That is not what you described in your post. You didn't describe leaving the child to play by himself as part of an age-appropriate building of his inner resources. You said to stop reinforcing bad behavior by walking out of the room and ignoring the kid. The part I disagreed with was when you attributed this strategy to _Unconditional Parenting_. (Though I also don't like it for my own reasons, not Kohn's, as I said.)

Anyway, my kid is eleven, as you can see in my sig, so I'm at a different stage with him than the OP is with her three-year-old. Still, if I don't want him to do something, I say, out loud, "Don't do that," and then tell him why not. If I want him to do something, I ask him, either out loud or in writing, and tell him why. I wouldn't walk out of the room and give him the silent treatment if he did something I thought was wrong.

As far as in the in-the-face-intense-quiet-voice thing--in an emergency, I'd still use it. You just don't have those kinds of behavioral emergencies with an 11-year-old, so you know, it's pretty hypothetical. Part of the reason for the quiet voice is to give the child privacy and not humiliate him in front of other people.


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

captain optimism said:


> I disagree with this. It's very behavioristic. Children are young humans who are acquiring language. If you "ignore" them in the way you're describing, it's a form of punishment. It's basically a form of time-out that people who like _Unconditional Parenting_ are trying to avoid. Removing your attention to not reinforce a bad behavior is--punishment.
> 
> Which might be fine for parents who find this method of withdrawing reinforcement effective to stop the behavior, and who don't mind punishments that are non-violent. I do not think it's consonant with Alfie Kohn's book, though.
> 
> ...


The method does not require that you to not say something you intended to say. You just say it later. So, the kid gets the same amount of exposure to language.

The parent's behavior has a big impact on whether a three-year old can control himself.

I did not say it would work in one iteration.

Be careful about assuming that a kid will outgrow this or that. For instance, there are a lot of adults who became unhealthy picky eaters at age 3 and never outgrew it. And, if the parent persists in reinforcing a behavior with attention then it can keep going for years in some cases.


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

captain optimism said:


> I'm not an absolutist about the behaviorism thing. I just disagree that ignoring bad behavior in an attempt to gain compliance is somehow part of the philosophy of _Unconditional Parenting_. I don't follow Alfie Kohn to the ends of the earth, but I do think that when someone actively deplores an idea, we shouldn't then attribute that idea to him.


I did not say that ignoring bad behavior was part of UP. All I said was that UP seems to give parents the impression that praise is the only reinforcer.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

BushMama83 said:


> I do need to start removing DS from the space, rather than the dog. This is a tough one, though, because we basically live in a one room cabin with a loft sleeping space. Would you physically pick up the child and move them? I think I've read something about that in past threads about toddlers and dogs.


Yes, I think so. I have a three year old right now so I can picture well what I think I would do. One of the things that "works" well if reserved for aggressive behavior is a sort of audible shock. Sometimes I wonder if super gentle parents aren't being a bit too passive about aggression and, therefor, sending sort of mixed messages. Although I am a fan of telling kids what we DO do, I'll be honest and say that in the case of aggression, I would probably be really "shocked" and get up fast and swoop the child up while saying, "We do NOT hit the dog." Another thing that I think has a lot of impact is if the child can see the caregiver check in with the receiver of aggression. Not in a forced apology way but to further drive home the point that what we are worried about is someone/some animal getting hurt.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

tadamsmar said:


> I did not say that ignoring bad behavior was part of UP. All I said was that UP seems to give parents the impression that praise is the only reinforcer.


That was not my take-away from UP at all. It has been years since I read it but my main take way on the subject of praise is that it is processed similarly to criticism. Just as rewards are processed similarly to punishment. Both of these things seem to be very true and transparent for my kids.


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

Bushmama my boy is just over two and I've been going through similar things. We tried to go camping and he kept running into the road and laughing thinking it was hilarious and no matter how many times I explains to him about getting hit by a car he still did it thinking it was funny. Then yesterday dh wanted to BBQ (I don't normally eat that as a vegetarian and for health reasons, so it has been like a decade since the last), and ds kept running up and touching the lid that would soon be very hot and no matter how much I explained to him about getting hurt he wouldn't listen. 

For me I don't want to use more aggressive forms of behaviour control like time outs or 1-2-3 but I think I'm going to start doing more planned ignoring. With the running into the road that would mean explaining it to him once and when he did it again carrying him back without saying a word. Same with the BBQ lid. Yes it's manipulative but holy crap the things he does (or wants to do) scare me and it's too stressful to just embrace an ineffectual method for the next couple of years and watching him repeatedly put himself in harms way. I'm going to try more planned ignoring!


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

BushMama83 said:


> ...but isn't it still manipulative, to dole out attention only when the child is behaving as we'd like them to?


Here is Alfie Kohn himself recommending doling out non-evaluative attention in response to a child behaving as we'd like them to:



> And what can we say when kids just do something impressive? Consider three possible responses:
> 
> * Say nothing. Some people insist a helpful act must be "reinforced" because, secretly or unconsciously, they believe it was a fluke. If children are basically evil, then they have to be given an artificial reason for being nice (namely, to get a verbal reward). But if that cynicism is unfounded - and a lot of research suggests that it is - then praise may not be necessary.
> 
> ...


Just as asking questions about drawing "is likely to nourish interest in drawing", asking questions about any behavior that makes a good impression on you is likely to nourish interest in that behavior.

So, use "say what you saw" or ask questions.

Doing this as a reaction to the positive opposite of an unwanted behavior will boost the effect of planned ignoring of the unwanted behavior. The unwanted behavior tends to go away more quickly and there tends to be less testing.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Yes, AK is pretty great, I think! In addition to the above quote, I am also reminded to acknowledge whatever fun or learning experience we observe in our kids when they do things. I think acknowledging that it's SUPER fun to run into the road with mama chasing behind can go a long way to finding a consensual solution to the problem. Likewise, the dog. Maybe there is some need for rough-and-tumble play that can be addressed in a different way.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Bushmama84 - what are you doing for yourself? do you get a break? do you treat yourself? do you get to do things YOU want to do - without your child. i am asking this of you as an adult - not as a mama. what do you do for YOURSELF.

what you need to do is take care of yourself. there really is no other way out. the best thing for your son is you getting some space between him and you. sounds horrible, but so true. you have to find some space to recuperate. i hope you have someone to give you some breathing time. even if it means a couple of hours on the weekend as the other parent steps in.

secondly you really need to read up on what is expected behaviour. the bates book should be a big help there. you'll be surprised how ill informed we usually are about what is age appropriate behaviour. 

did you just read NVC or did you attend a class with a teacher adn practise it? it is VERY VERY hard to pick that up on ones own without the workbook and without a teacher. it sounds easy to do but it is NOT. let me tell you i have practised it with teachers and groups for YEARS and its only now that i am truly getting it. so dont expect to practise it perfectly without help.

how much do you follow the golden rules? enough excercise, make sure there's always enough food and they are not hungry and enough rest.

3 is hard. somedays you'll succeed but mostly you'll fail. that's just life with a 3 year old.

remember as a parent your job is to repeat. repeat. repeat. repeat. they'll get some by the time they turn 9/10, they'll get some more in their teens but really they wont get it till they become parents themselves. they'll understand then. i really didnt understand parenting or appreciate my parents till i became one myself. also action is important. does he know what gentle means? he might think he is being gentle when he doesnt really know it.

in our playgroup there was a little girl who had sensory issues adn didnt know how to give simple hugs. she'd give these tight bear hugs that'd throw people on the floor. she was uber strong so she'd even get some of us adults. we all worked on her to show her what gentle was ... and you know after many years ... she did get it. 

find out what tickles your child. most days you'll succeed. but 3 is about things not working. what worked for us was pantomime. bombastic actions. joking. being silly. but i had a stubborn one. if SHE Didnt want to get dressed nothing worked. 3 was also the age of being independent. 3 was the age of me putting my heart in my mouth and allowing dd to do something challenging even though it might mean a huge mess for me to clean. 3 was the age of imaginary play. dd wouldnt take commands from mom. but hey if i was the dinosaur, or a cloud or a storm, she'd happily listen to her. 3 is about trying all these different ways to work - and discovering some work, some dont, what worked yesterday does not work today AND today is a day when nothing works.

the greatest thing i took from NVC was that everything i said was not a command. even today taht's true. dd has the choice of saying no. but there were moments when it was a command and i made sure dd knew. i started on that since dd was 2. so she'd get into the habit of hearing it and understanding the choices. 

but really the best parent is a happy parent. i know it sounds cliched but its so true.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

meemee said:


> the greatest thing i took from NVC was that everything i said was not a command. even today taht's true. dd has the choice of saying no. but there were moments when it was a command and i made sure dd knew. i started on that since dd was 2. so she'd get into the habit of hearing it and understanding the choices.


This is so interesting to me, Meemee, because I just participated in a big thread about feedback. This really clicked for me. Over praise (even super detailed feedback), I do prefer to just be very direct if what I am asking is specific and/or does not have any options.

I have a teen now and there are often calls that I feel I have to make that are very much open to different ways of thinking about things. I don't believe it's beneficial to be falsely confident or consistent for the sake of it BUT I do think it's important as a parent to take a "I'm the one you've got and I'm doing the best I can" stance.

It's a pretty nice place to be as a parent but, OP, I was not there when my first was 3. This is the hard work you're doing now but in some ways it's easier. There is no grey in whether your 3 year old should hit the dog.

Don't get me wrong - I think the age of 3-5 was the hardest so far but on your side you do have that you can be 100% confident in what you are asking for matters of aggression. Perhaps you have another area in life where you can model consensual living?

I do think that when we have a good arrangement after employing the principals of CL (meaning that rather than everyone compromising you end up with everyone getting what they need/want and sometimes even more!) that it would be good to point that out. "You wanted an icecream and I needed to get some work done - so we realized that a playdate at the park while I read was the perfect solution. I'm so happy we figured this out!".


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

IdentityCrisisMama said:


> I do think that when we have a good arrangement after employing the principals of CL (meaning that rather than everyone compromising you end up with everyone getting what they need/want and sometimes even more!) that it would be good to point that out. "


I think this is the biggest value of CL (and things similar - I don't actually practice anything specific). Your kids see you modeling these creative problem solving techniques. They also see you value their needs/wants AND (and!) your needs/wants. Eventually you will have a teen who says, "Hey, mom, I notice you've been driving me around a lot over the last couple of days. Is that ok with you? Is there anything I can do to help make that easier for you?" :love


----------



## BushMama83 (Apr 19, 2012)

meemee, I am pretty bad with self-care, but getting better. I get out once a week for dinner wth my girlfriends, but the baby won't take a bottle so I've always got a little one with me. DH is very flexible at work. If I'm having a rough day, I send him a message and if he's able to get away, he can be home within an hour. However, we live on the other side of the country from our family. I know that I've got some mental/emotional issues of my own that I am trying to work through. This definitely makes it extra challenging.

I've only read the NVC book. It *does* seem very hard to get the hang of it on my own. I'd love to attend a workshop but I've never seen one advertised in my area. I didn't know there was a workbook, maybe I'll pick that up.

I do understand that this is all developmentally normal for my child. I'm not expecting a perfectly behaved 3 yo...I was at my wit's end when I made the original post. I say my husband is flexible at his job (he owns his own business) but I am still alone with our kids 75% of the time. On top of that we live 40 km out of town. I think not seeing other people most days also really gets to me.

Your reply has really made me think about my own well-being in all of this. There is so much to balance!


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

bushmama our circumstances were different but i know what you mean about being alone with your kids. 

i was a single mom with a father who visited once in a while. 

but i only had one. 

i was ever grateful to my mother and mother in law both miles and miles and oceans away. i learnt self care from them. everyday they would ask - what did you do for youself today. no dont tell me what you did for your child or with your child - but what you did just for yourself. it took me a while to understand what selfcare meant. sometimes it was a midnight shower, sometimes just sitting down with a glass of cold water - just little things - taking pleasure in life around you, in the little thing that did not involve your child. mind you i loved my daughter and enjoyed every minute with her. but i also enjoyed waiting to see the hummingbird make it to the hibiscus flower every morning at 7:30. the wise women helped me keep me my needs in focus too.


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

captain optimism said:


> If you "ignore" them in the way you're describing, it's a form of punishment.





BushMama83 said:


> ...but isn't it still manipulative, to dole out attention only when the child is behaving as we'd like them to?


Is there really a parenting philosophy that leads parents to believe that ignoring unwanted behavior is punishment while ignoring wanted behavior is not punishment? Is there really a parenting philosophy that leads parents to believe that reacting with attention to wanted behavior is manipulative while reacting with attention to unwanted behavior is not, in effect, just as manipulative?

There are plenty of scientific research findings showing _that parents get more of what they pay attention to_. This principle was by discovered in the early 1960's by scientists using experiments that showed a caregiver could ramp up and down specific behaviors in two weeks by a factor of 40-fold by just redirecting their attention (not praise, just attention). But I think it's likely some mothers discovered it before that.

How can a parenting philosophy be a good idea if it leads to 40 times more unwanted behavior and 40 time less wanted behavior?


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Seeing both sides (I DO think that using attention to influence behavior is manipulative), I think that maybe what we have is that Tadasmar is, perhaps, more upfront with the ways in which parents adapt their interaction with their kids with the intent to manage behavior. I think that comes off (initially) to CL folks and lots of GD folks as behaviorist, which I think many of us like to avoid where possible. 

I think that is because behaviorist approaches often "ignore" the whole picture. What are we trying to do here? Manage a single behavior? No, right? Ultimately we want our kids to understand how to physically interact with the dog in a way that makes the dog feel safe and loved and creates a life-long bond between the boy and his dog. 

I think Tadasmar is trying to caution us to not inadvertently create a situation where we are adding value to behavior that we don't want to see. Right? I mean, it's frustrating enough that our kids are experimenting with things like hitting the dog. We sometimes struggle to understand what they are getting out of that sort of behavior. I do agree that we should take caution to not add a whole other layer of complexity to behaviors like this by reacting in ways that our kids may find confusing, interesting, or entertaining. They are learning about he world, afterall. 

My DH is not the world's most natural disciplinarian so I have seen situations in our own home where he or my 12 year old have added a layer if interest (or even pleasure) onto unwanted behaviors. This is actually how I have interpreted "playful parenting" oftentimes and why I don't love that philosophy. 

ALL of that said, I think that really thoughtful parents are probably not in the demographic of parents who are unintentionally giving heaps of negative attention. And, hopefully not parents who are not giving enough attention during the rest of the time. I have ABSOLUTELY seen that dynamic (and it is frustrating to witness) but I wonder if the OP is really struggling with this. I'm guessing not. :love


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

tadamsmar said:


> Is there really a parenting philosophy that leads parents to believe that ignoring unwanted behavior is punishment while ignoring wanted behavior is not punishment? Is there really a parenting philosophy that leads parents to believe that paying attention to wanted behavior is manipulative while paying attention to unwanted behavior is not, in effect, just as manipulative?
> 
> There are plenty of scientific research findings showing _that parents get more of what they pay attention to_. This principle was by discovered in the early 1960's by scientists using experiments that showed a caregiver could ramp up and down specific behaviors in two weeks by a factor of 40-fold by just redirecting their attention (not praise, just attention). But I think it's likely some mothers discovered it before that.
> 
> How can a parenting philosophy be a good idea if it leads to 40 times more unwanted behavior and 40 time less wanted behavior?


Yes, there is a parenting philosophy that says not to manipulate the child's behavior with reward and punishment. It is the one espoused by Alfie Kohn in his book _Unconditional Parenting_. Kohn goes into detail about his objection to time-outs and withdrawing attention.

You are not required to like Alfie Kohn's philosophy, but it is not intellectually honest to pretend that it is consonant with his philosophy to deal with the child abusing the dogs by picking up the dog and flouncing out of the room without saying anything.

I know you think that Kohn is doing something behaviorist by telling the parent to praise specific things about a child's behavior rather than saying "Good job!" Perhaps you're right, but if he is, it's an inconsistency in his argument which overall is against manipulating behavior and against time-outs and the withdrawal of attention.

The research on which I based my parenting when my son was three was the Hart and Risley research into language acquisition. It is summarized on this webpage.

It did not lead to 40 times more unwanted behavior. Anyway, how do you quantify how many times more unwanted behavior you get in one kid? When he's THREE? Geez. That seems like a fallacious argument.

Anyway, I personally did say something in the moment after the biting happened and it worked well for me. Explicit teaching around behavior has always been an effective strategy for my son. I've never yet found it to backfire in the way you're saying it can, by reinforcing the behavior through negative attention. That hasn't been an issue for us, as far as I can tell. I always assume that my son wants to learn what I have to teach him, and that's how he acts with me.

When he was three, I made sure that this teaching about behavior came in the context of a calming routine that met his needs for food and sleep and play as much as possible. It taught me a lot about myself and what I need to maximize my own learning and good behavior. One parenting book that is good for the overlap of teaching ethical values and dealing with toddler and pre-school stuff is _Becoming the Parent You Want to Be_.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

IdentityCrisisMama said:


> I think that is because behaviorist approaches often "ignore" the whole picture. What are we trying to do here? Manage a single behavior? No, right? Ultimately we want our kids to understand how to physically interact with the dog in a way that makes the dog feel safe and loved and creates a life-long bond between the boy and his dog.
> 
> I think Tadasmar is trying to caution us to not inadvertently create a situation where we are adding value to behavior that we don't want to see. Right?


But to me, this is basically the same thing is worrying that you are rewarding bad behavior if you give a kid a hug to end a tantrum. The child is not a puppy. You don't train him by reinforcing good behavior and ignoring (or otherwise punishing) bad behavior. You teach children using words and examples.

For all I know, I have stupid stereotypes of puppies, too, so forgive me if I don't know enough about dog training to make this comparison! Obviously the OP knows about puppies.

Even very young children learn from what you say to them. Some of what is happening here is instruction. In fact, the OP _does_ know about puppies. She can teach what she knows to her son.

(But this was the model that helped me the most. YMMV. i was raised with hitting, yelling and reactivity and I really feared autopiloting into the same pattern. Remembering that I was teaching something--a value, a piece of information about the world, a skill--helped me keep my cool.)


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

captain optimism said:


> One parenting book that is good for the overlap of teaching ethical values and dealing with toddler and pre-school stuff is _Becoming the Parent You Want to Be_.


Oh, I LOVED that book and even took a parenting course by one of the authors (Janice Kaiser)! She was wonderful.

I agree with you on a lot of the above. I found myself curious to know how much attention the kids in the 1960's study were getting. Ideally, I think kids should just be getting all sorts of attention, conversation, interaction, working together, and etc. so that whether we give or withdraw attention for a behavior has less impact on their need for attention.

As it happens my 3 year old often benefits from talking about other things (once I know she knows understands the reasons for expectations).

I think the reasons we see BOTH of these approaches work is because kids receiving adequate attention are less likely to be behaving in a way that is driven by the desire for attention. Just a theory!


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

IdentityCrisisMama said:


> Seeing both sides (I DO think that using attention to influence behavior is manipulative), I think that maybe what we have is that Tadasmar is, perhaps, more upfront with the ways in which parents adapt their interaction with their kids with the intent to manage behavior. I think that comes off (initially) to CL folks and lots of GD folks as behaviorist, which I think many of us like to avoid where possible.
> 
> I think that is because behaviorist approaches often "ignore" the whole picture. What are we trying to do here? Manage a single behavior? No, right? Ultimately we want our kids to understand how to physically interact with the dog in a way that makes the dog feel safe and loved and creates a life-long bond between the boy and his dog.


I don't think behaviorism is always bad. Behavior mod often happens naturally and/or unintentionally. Behavior mod can be overused. It amounts to "doing to" instead of "working with" the kid (as AK says) and exclusive use of "working with" approaches is preferred when they are sufficient. But I think "working with" approaches are not always enough, particular with younger kids, with certain difficult kids, and in situations where the parents ramped up unwanted behavior to a high level via unintentional behavior mod.



> I think Tadasmar is trying to caution us to not inadvertently create a situation where we are adding value to behavior that we don't want to see. Right? I mean, it's frustrating enough that our kids are experimenting with things like hitting the dog. We sometimes struggle to understand what they are getting out of that sort of behavior. I do agree that we should take caution to not add a whole other layer of complexity to behaviors like this by reacting in ways that our kids may find confusing, interesting, or entertaining. They are learning about he world, afterall.
> 
> My DH is not the world's most natural disciplinarian so I have seen situations in our own home where he or my 12 year old have added a layer if interest (or even pleasure) onto unwanted behaviors. This is actually how I have interpreted "playful parenting" oftentimes and why I don't love that philosophy.


Yes, I that is what I am trying to do.



> ALL of that said, I think that really thoughtful parents are probably not in the demographic of parents who are unintentionally giving heaps of negative attention. And, hopefully not parents who are not giving enough attention during the rest of the time. I have ABSOLUTELY seen that dynamic (and it is frustrating to witness) but I wonder if the OP is really struggling with this. I'm guessing not. :love


There are a good many OPs here where parents say they are doing things that seem to amount reacting to unwanted behavior by giving it attention and are frustrated by the results. This is not necessarily the demographic, it's just a subset that are having a hard time and looking for help.

It's always hard to be sure what root problem is when responding to a post here. The OP did say that she was going to shift some of her interventions to somewhat reduce attention as a reaction to unwanted behavior. Fortunately, one can expect this method cause a noticeable improvement less than two weeks. If you don't see improvement, you either need to debug your method or you have shown that attention is not a cause.


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

captain optimism said:


> I know you think that Kohn is doing something behaviorist by telling the parent to praise specific things about a child's behavior rather than saying "Good job!" Perhaps you're right, but if he is, it's an inconsistency in his argument which overall is against manipulating behavior and against time-outs and the withdrawal of attention.


It's not an inconsistency in his argument. He's just not as extreme as you think he is. Not only does Kohn advocate non-evaluative attention, he says evaluations are appropriate especially for toddlers and preschoolers. Here's Kohn saying it:



> To be sure, there are times when our evaluations are appropriate and our guidance is necessary -- especially with toddlers and preschoolers.


http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/gj.htm

He seems extreme because he is extremely against those who push behaviorism in situations where working with the kid to find a solution will suffice.


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

captain optimism said:


> The research on which I based my parenting when my son was three was the Hart and Risley research into language acquisition. It is summarized on this webpage.
> 
> It did not lead to 40 times more unwanted behavior. Anyway, how do you quantify how many times more unwanted behavior you get in one kid? When he's THREE? Geez. That seems like a fallacious argument.


Speak of the Devil, Hart is the first author on the paper that showed that attention leads to 40 times more unwanted behavior:

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&UID=1965-04540-001

Here's a more detailed description of the study:



> In a study done many years ago, psychologist Betty Hart, Ph.D., and her colleagues at the University of Washington, studied the effects of attention on Bill, a 4-year-old "crybaby" enrolled in a morning preschool. Each morning Bill had between five and 10 crying spells: He cried when he fell, bumped his head or if another child took away a toy. Each time Bill cried a teacher went to him to offer comfort. Hart and her colleagues reasoned that this adult attention, though intended to reassure and comfort Bill, might actually be the reason for all his crying.
> 
> To test their hypothesis, the researchers asked the teachers to try a new strategy. Now when Bill cried, the teachers glanced at him to be sure he was not injured but did not go to him, speak to him or look at him. If he happened to cry when a teacher was nearby, she turned her back or walked away. Teachers paid special attention to Bill only when he suffered a mishap without crying. If he fell, for example, and went about his business without a whimper, a teacher would go to him and compliment him on his grown-up behavior. The result of this new approach: In five days the frequency of Bill's crying spells fell from an average of about seven per morning to almost zero.
> 
> To be certain that Bill's change in behavior was because of the new strategy, Hart and colleagues asked the teachers to once again pay attention to Bill when he cried. Bill returned to crying several times a day. When the teachers again ignored the crying and attended to Bill only when he acted maturely, the crying spells dropped sharply. Hart and her coworkers repeated this experiment with another "crybaby," Alan, and got nearly identical results.


http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200109/why-our-kids-are-out-control


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

We were posting at the same time so I didn't see this...



captain optimism said:


> But to me, this is basically the same thing is worrying that you are rewarding bad behavior if you give a kid a hug to end a tantrum.


I think it really depends on intent. I have definitely done things that on the outside seemed "wrong" or insensitive but they were things that I felt my kid needed in the moment. Both of my kids, for instance, went through a phase where they needed to cry for a release. Sometimes they would "use me" to get there. They would ask for increasingly more ridiculous things until I eventually said "no", at which point they would let go and cry. In a situation like this, I am giving my child what they need - and are really telling me in the best way they can what they need.

When my younger child puts her mouth on me - she is telling me that she needs some strong physical interaction. She doesn't need to bite but she needs some nice snuggles and 100% attention. I don't need to tell her not to bite but I DO need to hear what she is asking for.

When she asks for the third time to go to the kitchen -- I don't need to tell her that she's bored. (I think that's too complex for her anyway). I need to find something more interesting for her to do.

If Tadasmar is saying that we need to address our kid's reasons for their actions over using our words to repeat what has undoubtedly been said many times already, I totally agree - this is a good suggestion for a kid who has been told time and again about something but still has trouble.

I have no doubt that there are kids who really thrive on lots of discussion. I think my kids were more physical. I haven't looked at your link yet but I will. My kids both have STRONG verbal skills and we talk all day but in terms of direction, being physical (showing, moving, doing with) was always the stronger message for them.

*When verbal instruction worked well (and this resonates with something Tadismar was saying) is in the evenings. I do sometimes revisit challenges (and positive things!) in the night before bed - free from emotion and stress.

Off to read the rest of the thread... and back much later today. :grin:


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

tadamsmar said:


> I don't think behaviorism is always bad. Behavior mod often happens naturally and/or unintentionally. Behavior mod can be overused. It amounts to "doing to" instead of "working with" the kid (as AK says) and exclusive use of "working with" approaches is preferred when they are sufficient. But I think "working with" approaches are not always enough, particular with younger kids, with certain difficult kids, and in situations where the parents ramped up unwanted behavior to a high level via intentional behavior mod.


You mean here _un_intentional behavior mod, right?

Obviously, there are always times when flexibility is good. I think what I've been objecting to here is your insistence that stating the rule is providing unintentional reinforcement. No matter how you slice it, the OP can't allow the child to hit the dogs. (Or the one dog to bite the child!) So there's going to be some negative attention on this situation no matter what. The question is really, when and how to talk to the child about his behavior to get the behavior to stop. What will calm him down, and what will have the best long term impact on how he treats animals?

That Hart crybaby study you cite had filtered its way into my childhood. I found it with Google; it was first published in 1964. So yeah, that was "some years back" as your article describes it. Fifty years. It's a study of two children and their "operant crying." Two children? Seriously? Can I just publish what I've been doing at home with my one child and call it a study?

At least the Hart and Risley study about language acquisition was from the 1990s and included 42 children. At least I didn't realize Betty Hart was responsible for the idea that comforting a crying child would make him a crybaby. It would have undercut my belief in the vocabulary study to know that.

That operant crying study is the reason that parents of kids in my generation were reluctant to calm their crying children. I definitely heard parents discuss this as a concept.

I chose to parent differently than my mother did. I chose to trust myself to understand my kid's behavior, and I trusted my kid to be honest about what he needed from me. It has worked really well.

Of course, my kid isn't three anymore.

A very recent article on using reinforcement and conditioning on the NPR website points out the aspect of this stuff that I did try to do, which is the part about creating the conditions for the desired behavior.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

captain optimism said:


> Two children? Seriously?


It is crazy. That's part of why I take a lot of the behavior/learning theory stuff with a grain of salt. Piaget, anyone? 
:grin:


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

"How can a parenting philosophy be a good idea if it leads to 40 times more unwanted behavior and 40 time less wanted behavior?"

^ is very funny!

I think all parenting involves some manipulation and that threes nothing wrong with wanting to influence behaviour. I know a couple who are extremely permissive and they don't believe in private property and I have to say I feel bad for their children. The poor young girl had this favourite bottle that she liked to play with and my ds showed a lot of interest in it when we went there and the parent a were like "take anything you want" and the poor little girl was so upset. Obviously I didn't let ds take it home because I have other valued I want to teach him. This is a bit ot except I don't think there is that much difference between wanting to teach our children things we value and re-direction, it's all directed towards us trying to influence what they do, which isn't a bad thing.


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

captain optimism said:


> Obviously, there are always times when flexibility is good. I think what I've been objecting to here is your insistence that stating the rule is providing unintentional reinforcement. No matter how you slice it, the OP can't allow the child to hit the dogs. (Or the one dog to bite the child!) So there's going to be some negative attention on this situation no matter what. The question is really, when and how to talk to the child about his behavior to get the behavior to stop. What will calm him down, and what will have the best long term impact on how he treats animals?


The mother can separate them while minimizing attention.

Stating the rule as an immediate response can provide unintentional reinforcement. Stating the rule later cannot provide unintentional reinforcement.

When her toddler whined, my stepson's wife always immediately turned toward the DD and said "Use your words" (stated the rule in other words). The DD is 5 now and still whining when her Mom is around. We watched her and her little brother for a few days recently while the parents went on vacation. The DD did not even try whining for the whole time she was with us. She started whining within minutes after her parents return. Her mom immediately looked toward her and said "No whining" (stated the rule in other words). DD did a little pout with her face and then her mom went over and hugged her. One could not improve on this as a way to reinforce whining. From what I have seen, I'd say this "kid breaks the rule, mom gives kid attention, mom states the rule" pattern of reinforced practice of whining has been going on consistently for 3 years straight from around age 2 till age 5.

Her dad sometime threatens time-out for whining. Do you know what threatening time-out is? Threatening time-out is...time-in! It's the opposite of time-out and it tends to have the the opposite effect.


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

captain optimism said:


> You mean here _un_intentional behavior mod, right?


Yes that that last use at the end should have been "unintentional behavior mod"


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

captain optimism said:


> ...which is the part about creating the conditions for the desired behavior.


This is great phrasing!


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Watching my three year old with the cat today, I thought of a less "behavior management" solution. OP, have you considered involving your child in the care and feeding of the dog? Being on water duty, helping to fill the food bowls. Perhaps giving a daily treat?


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

captain optimism said:


> That Hart crybaby study you cite had filtered its way into my childhood. I found it with Google; it was first published in 1964. So yeah, that was "some years back" as your article describes it. Fifty years. It's a study of two children and their "operant crying." Two children? Seriously? Can I just publish what I've been doing at home with my one child and call it a study?


It's a single subject reversal study. The group that Hart was in did several studies using redirection of attention to solve problems: a kid who isolated herself, a kid who was regressing to crawling, motor skills development. Risley also did some of this research. Back then, the prevailing view was that Freudian methods were needed and they did not work well, so it was amazing when Hart and Risely and others could solve these problems in less than two weeks. The group save one defiant kid from blindness by getting him to wear required glasses. Today, the methods are currently in widespread use by tens of thousands of behavior analysts. Redirection of attention is a component of all parent training courses that score highest in modern evidence-based rankings.

Hart and Risley certainly do not support chatting up a kid as a reaction to their bad behavior.



captain optimism said:


> Avery recent article on using reinforcement and conditioning on the NPR website points out the aspect of this stuff that I did try to do, which is the part about creating the conditions for the desired behavior.


That's on the work of Alan Kazdin, Head of the Yale Conduct Center. His advocates redirection of attention (including planned ignoring):



> All of the following tips are based on this simple principle: Attention to bad behavior increases bad behavior (yelling, lecturing, scolding, spanking and punishing are all forms of negative attention), while attention to good behavior increases good behavior.


http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/10-tips-parents-defiant-children/story?id=8549664



> ...when it comes to changing behavior, the rage-ball and the patient explainer are startlingly close neighbors on the ineffective end of the spectrum.


http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2008/04/tiny_tyrants.html

You are right that planned ignoring can be considered punishment:

http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_cooper_appliedbeh_2/73/18707/4788996.cw/index.html

I think you are a good mother, and clearly methods that don't include planned ignoring have worked to your satisfaction. I commend you for using some positive reinforcement methods even though many parenting gurus who are popular here reject such methods.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Tadasmar, do you work in the field? I can't really tell if your links are from searching for research related to the topic/debate or if your perspective of the available research is coming from a well-rounded knowledge of the field. 

I have taken several child development courses and find the subject interesting but can't tease out the current trends - mostly because it's been so long since I've taken a class. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that a trend towards the value of the behaviorist approach was happening. Do you know? Regardless, a long view of the field can inform us that these are trends and are likely to shift.

These shifting trends and new studies and etc. are very interesting, for sure. I love this stuff. But, we must remember that these are limited in their application to raising our kids. Sure, we find things that fit with who we want to be and how we want to parent and the things that click with the needs of our kids. 

But the current research or the trends in these related field seem to me to be pretty theoretical and more like an evolving body of study rather than a prescription for how to parent. 

And on a complete aside, I think the word "ignore" may be a source of the confusion here. I haven't read all the links posted yet but I am wondering if this word is used in any of the research?


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

captain optimism, I noticed that in a thread on picky eating you said:



> Or maybe my kid is just too easy. He doesn't like everything, but through the magic of just not freaking out about it, I am managing to feed him a healthful diet.


That's basically the idea, attention (even negative attention) with lots of emotion is particularly effective at reinforcing behavior (including picky eating). Muting one's response helps.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Another thought on theories and studies -- what I most appreciate about CD theories is what they can tell us about what is going on at a deep level with our kids. What can the theory of conservation tell us about why a toddler may freak out about a broken cookie? What can object permanence tell us about why a child may develop separation anxiety? 

To me, a study that shows that kids do more of X behavior when Y happens does not, to me, offer the insight of *WHY* a child is responding in this way. That is the meat, IMO. 

What we may be able to take away is that from the behavior study linked above is that children desire interaction from their caregivers in such a profound way that they are willing to behave in such a way to provoke ANY sort of interaction from their caregiver. If that is a good theory (I think it is) - that is GREAT information. It tells us that our kids may need A LOT more interaction than what they get in our culture. We can then take that foundation and apply it easily to whatever type of parenting that resonates with us. 

For CO, that may mean lots and lots of conversation. And that will "work" because it is the attention the child is craving - NOT the behavior. I may decide that my DC and I need to do a lot of projects together. That is what I like to do and it is what feels good to both me and my kids. The OP may decide that the best way apply this theory is to interact with both her toddler and the dog on a more frequent basis. Again, the child is getting their needs met based on the foundations established by theories and research. 

It's too simple to say you do X and then you get Y. We need to know why this is in order to make any real (and authentic!) use of the research being discussed. 

Does that make sense?


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Here is an example from just now... 

DC was learning to use a glue stick today. As she shifted focus to just the glue stick (how it swiveled up and down) she started to realize how similar it to chapstick. So, she naturally decided to put it all over her lips. Then she asked me if she could put it on her cheeks. I explained (this was new info so it did need to be said) that glue was for paper. I acknowledged that she had become interested in smearing stuff on her face so I asked her to find the lid to the glue and offered her the chance to go upstairs and put makeup on (a rare treat). Easy peasy. 

ETA: Another bonus of CL is that kids aren't in a mindset of fighting for their needs/wants. DC and I went upstairs to clean the glue and she ended up so engrossed in that process that I got a shower, time to pick and outfit (something I choose to not normally make time for) and we had some amusing conversations about how fuzz sticks to glue. I didn't even end up needing to do the makeup part. If we were going to be together for the day I would probably have reminded her (out of respect) but she's going to aunties and I'll pass on that this time. 

This is CL in toddlerhood, IME. Find out what the value is that the child is getting. If it's attention (and perhaps it often is) I do we need to address that. If it's something else, I don't really think all the debate over attention is that useful.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

captain optimism said:


> A very recent article on using reinforcement and conditioning on the NPR website points out the aspect of this stuff that I did try to do, which is the part about creating the conditions for the desired behavior.


Nice article...

Here are my two favorite quotes:

"In other words, we can try to change our own environments to trigger and reinforce the right behaviors, work on making those behaviors routine, and change the way we construe situations - if not the situations themselves - to change the way we feel and the way we act. For instance, construing a toddler's misbehavior as deliberate provocation will likely elicit a different emotional response (and different parental behavior) from construing the same misdeed as the little tyke's exploration of her social world - an experiment in figuring out how you work."

And:

"After all, unconstructive self-judgment is itself a form of punishment and not a very effective one. Instead, I'm trying to create circumstances for better parenting, and to pat myself on the back when I pull it off. I can't control how much I'm judged by others. But I can begin to change how much I judge myself."


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

I don't work in the field. I was taught the power of redirecting attention when I was working at a university day care in college. I used it with my own kids and it worked well. Later when my first step-kid was starting a family I noticed that the lavished attention on unwanted behavior and thought "this will turn out badly". The kid eventually had to be put in day-care because his mom could not handle his tantrums.

His mom seemed to read all the parenting books and I was surprised that she did not do better. I started looking for parenting books and popular articles about redirecting attention in the late 1990's and they seemed to be few and far between. Since she seemed to use ideas from books, I thought if I could give her a book or article it might help. Maybe I am a bad researcher, but I took me years to find a few parenting books that covered the subject and so I did a lot of research.

Concerning trends. When a government or foundation these days tries to find parenting methods to support and takes an evidence-based approach, they end up supporting methods with some component of behaviorism. There are government and foundation supported programs in the US and Europe of this sort, more so in the more socialist countries I think. So there is a trend in that direction. Obamacare includes a home visiting program (MIECHV) that includes an evidenced-based parent training component. But I am not sure about trends outside of that. PET dates back to the 1960s and it was quite popular back then, so I am not sure there is a current trend toward PET/CL/UP type methods.

There has been a battle of behaviorism vs PET/attachment/UP for decades. Not sure what the trend is. Note that PET type programs reject behaviorism. But the methods that include behaviorism don't reject PET methods but they may not emphasize them enough.

One ironic thing in the US. There a good many parenting courses for the poor and all are evidence-based and have a component of behaviorism. Parents who are remanded to take a parenting course by a judge in the US will get such a course. But the likelihood of a middle-class parents without legal trouble finding this type of course or book seems to be relatively low.

I don't think the term "ignore" is shunned in the scientific literature, they might use "witholding reinforcement" or "extinction". I use the term redirection of attention: pay more attention to wanted behavior and less to unwanted, not just ignoring. The best way is to first pay more attention to wanted behavior and later pay less to unwanted. You don't want to overall reduce the amount of attention that the kid gets. Sometimes subtle ignoring is recommended, so subtle that the kid does not seem to notice it, but the behavior changes anyway.

One of the problems is that most parents think change happens slowly because they have not using been the most powerful methods. When I suggest something, they don't understand that it will work in two weeks, there is not a lot of ignoring involved.

Of course, AK criticism is correct that this is "doing to" the kid rather than "working with" the kid. In some of the methods with behavioral components, there is too little emphasis on the fact you should prefer to use the "working with" approach and always be trying to transition away from "doing to" and toward "working with".


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

One mistake a made relative to the root cause of behavior. I tried to motivate my DD with money for good grades and threats of taking away privileges for bad grades.

But she had difficulties anyway, and the way things turned out, what she really needed was certain types of skills training, not more motivation. At least, skills training seemed to solve the problem.

Also, the threats caused her to deceive us about grades, which complicated matters. (One of the problems with punishment is that it encourages sneakiness.)

And a reward on the interval of a grading period is considered to be a lousy motivator even by experts who are not anti-rewards.(And there's the idea that rewards undermine intrinsic motivation.)


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

You certainly seem to speak with a lot of authority on the subject. I feel like there is a lot more room for broader ways to think about this, and certainly many, many more schools of thought to factor. I also parented in two different countries so I can say that I think your perspective on behaviorism in the US and Europe may be a bit off (or too much of a generalization on the similarities of European culture of child rearing). Also, having taken a PET program I don't think your assessment of "rejecting behaviorism" is accurate. I think it is far more nuanced than that.

ETA: One other thing that occurs to me is that your reading has not been applied in practice as a parent. I think that can really help give a deeper understanding of the limitations of this as well as the more nuanced ways that it can/should be applied in a family. 

Wouldn't you say?


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

tadamsmar said:


> One mistake a made relative to the root cause of behavior.


One umbrella theory that we haven't really touched on (and one that fits with toddlerhood) is the whole AP thing. I think meeting needs and identifying underlying causes for behavior are strong elements of AP. One of the problems with behaviorism (and rewards, and punishments and all forms of behavior management) is that much of it should be avoided by addressing more basic needs - even if that need is for attention.


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

IdentityCrisisMama said:


> . Also, having taken a PET program I don't think your assessment of "rejecting behaviorism" is accurate. I think it is far more nuanced than that.


Interesting that behaviorism gets a nuanced treatment in PET classes these days. I read the PET book and saw nothing but total unqualified rejection of behaviorism. UP is less of a rejection because AK includes some qualifying statements.

Maybe the modern courses have deviated from the book. The book was written in 1970. I have a recent Kindle edition but maybe the book is not up-to-date relative to the course.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

tadamsmar said:


> Interesting that behaviorism gets a nuanced treatment in PET classes these days.


It could come down to how much of a spectrum we think behaviorism is. I've been parenting with the idea of CL for a while and what that has showed me is that a lot of this stuff is very nuanced.


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

IdentityCrisisMama said:


> ETA: One other thing that occurs to me is that your reading has not been applied in practice as a parent. I think that can really help give a deeper understanding of the limitations of this as well as the more nuanced ways that it can/should be applied in a family.
> 
> Wouldn't you say?


My training in the day care was before I became a parent. So I
used directed attention (planned ignoring, positive reinforcement with attention) at lot in my parenting. But I had no reading on behaviorism as it related to parenting then. And I knew less about behaviorism then than I do now. I also had no exposure to PET or anything like that.

The first book on using behaviorism in parenting was _Living with Children_ and the 1st edition must have been just after 1968, but I did not know about till maybe 2008.

Of course "time-out" (or some deformed version of it) had escaped the lab and propagated all around early on. I never even tried to use it or learn about. Redirecting attention was sufficient and my kids never did anything aggressive or hurtful that could not be ignored.

I married into a family with a 2 year-old in the early 1980's (plus two older kids) and I had another in 1984.

The second book on behaviorism in parenting was _The Power of Positive Parenting_, published in 1994. But I did know about it till years later.

There was not much for parents to read in the area of behaviorism when we were raising our kids. Even today, there are only about 3 other books that I know of.

We use our reading with my grandchildren. I have a rep for being good with kids. But we only care for them a few days at a time.


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

Here's something fairly recent from the PET people on behaviorism:

http://www.gordontraining.com/free-parenting-articles/the-idea-of-rewards/

Do you see any nuance?


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

In that tiny article? No, I guess not. Is your last post an attempt to dig deep into PET? I'm happy to do that on another thread. A quick browse though PET and PET in Action remind me how very current and progressive these books are still today! 

That does not mean that I don't think this is nuanced. I think that if you, unlike me and the OP, have not tried to parent consensually with a toddler, then you don't know that things can get a bit fuzzy. I can say that where a book or article may be able to gloss over the hard stuff, a workshop or class is not. 

I took that workshop with Janice Kaiser and remember her saying, "Hey, in some families yelling is an authentic way to communicate."

ETA: (The chapter on "Value Collisions" may be of particular interest to those wanting to dig into those grey, complicated areas).


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

deleted


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

tadamsmar said:


> One mistake a made relative to the root cause of behavior. I tried to motivate my DD with money for good grades and threats of taking away privileges for bad grades.
> 
> But she had difficulties anyway, and the way things turned out, what she really needed was certain types of skills training, not more motivation. At least, skills training seemed to solve the problem.
> 
> ...


This is what I didn't like about using forms of reinforcement with younger children, too. I think it undermines their intrinsic motivations. Plus, we know for sure that all three-year-olds lack information and skills for living in society, because they're very new people. Trying to teach skills and information first makes sense.

But I think it is true that I did use some aspects of reinforcement when my son was three. We both tended to try to repeat routines that gave us both pleasure. You can't beat a trip to the public library with a playground session and a nice snack on the special tables outside the library. In fact, you can't beat an annoyingly long wait at the parking department when you have a picture book with you.

If he shows that he likes something by acting pleasant and pleased, you do it again. Or maybe that's him reinforcing MY good behavior.

Anyway, if I were the OP and I knew a lot about dogs, I would start a campaign to make my three-year-old a dog EXPERT. I would make myself the authority and him the apprentice, and then I would brag like a fool to anyone who would listen when he learned difficult concepts in dog handling. Because I'm a weirdo! That's how I handled toilet training. We had several months of diaper changes with the kid asking me to tell him the story of poop, and me naming all the parts of the digestive tract.

And then, one day, he decided to use the toilet! I still don't know how that worked when everything else failed, but it did.


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

IdentityCrisisMama said:


> Another thought on theories and studies -- what I most appreciate about CD theories is what they can tell us about what is going on at a deep level with our kids. What can the theory of conservation tell us about why a toddler may freak out about a broken cookie? What can object permanence tell us about why a child may develop separation anxiety?
> 
> To me, a study that shows that kids do more of X behavior when Y happens does not, to me, offer the insight of *WHY* a child is responding in this way. That is the meat, IMO.
> 
> ...


Not sure if it is possible to satiate the desire for attention. There is evidence that it involves the dopamine response and may be kind of addictive. Dog trainers think dogs become bigger attention-seekers if they get more attention, but I don't know if that carries over to kids.

Some kids react badly to a decline in the amount of attention they get, so keeping it at least steady over time is good, but hard to do when a new baby arrives without additional support. Therefore trying to give them more attention in an attempt to satiate it might backfire. You have perhaps now have to keep it at a higher level to prevent problems.

My advice is a change of mindset.

Old mindset: attention getting is a problem. how can we make it go away?

New mindset: attention getting is normal, the real problem is that I as a parent direct my behavior-getting attention too much toward unwanted behavior rather than wanted behavior.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

tadamsmar said:


> My advice is a change of mindset.
> 
> Old mindset: attention getting is a problem. how can we make it go away?
> 
> New mindset: attention getting is normal, the real problem is that I as a parent direct my behavior-getting attention too much toward unwanted behavior rather than wanted behavior.


I think a change of mindset is great advice!

I know that you are very focused on the research and advantages of modifying behavior through attention, whether that be praise in the short term, or ignoring, or in the concern over giving too much negative attention.

I think it's GREAT advice for a parent who is really caught in a negative cycle related to criticism and correction.

I do not agree with giving that advice as a panacea. I think it is good advice to address that singular problem, which I agree exists, but I think giving it without knowing that attention seeking is a root problem gives an impression that praise or ignoring can solve other problems, which I do not think that it can.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

captain optimism said:


> If he shows that he likes something by acting pleasant and pleased, you do it again. Or maybe that's him reinforcing MY good behavior.


This dynamic is the single most powerful natural consequence that drives behavior in our home, IMO. When people are happy and pleasant, other people want to do things with and for them. I try very hard to be on my children's side no matter what, but they know that I'm generally more enthusiastic and efficient when they are cooperative.

There was a thread a while ago that talked about this and a very interesting (and philosophical) parent cautioned that there is potential for that reality to warp into control/manipulation/behavior modification. I think that's a good point but I am still going to embrace the reality that we all prefer to have a good time. ;-)

OP, if you can find a way to make it more enjoyable and interesting for your child to be nice to the dog, you have a GREAT enforcer.

I think that parents who are worried about coercion can sometimes "see" this in places that other people just pass off as "life". And, that can feel very complicated (and nuanced) to a parent who is aware and concerned about the power they have over the lives of their children.

My vote is to have CL in your heart and let the realities of the world work in your favor. :grin:


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

I don't think it's a panacea or cure-all either.

In the OP, BushMama83 said she is explaining again and again. Explaining involves giving a lot of attention and face-time. If the explaining is done as a reaction to the behavior (if the timing is right) then it could be acting as a reinforcer.

On the other hand, pestering the dog seems to be intrinsically rewarding to the kid. So, attention is certainly not the only reinforcer, in that case. It's a good idea to encourage acceptable ways for her son to enjoy interactions with the dog. I was getting my 2 and 5 year old grand-kids involved in training my dog with treats just a week ago. I think captain optimism had a good suggestion.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

tadamsmar said:


> I don't think it's a panacea or cure-all either.


:thumb


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

@tadamsmar - if your children are grown and you don't work in the area why are you so well versed in this? Is it to influence your grandchildren's parents or guide their parenting? I'm confused.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

tadamsmar said:


> Not sure if it is possible to satiate the desire for attention. There is evidence that it involves the dopamine response and may be kind of addictive.


I would be interested to talk more about this theory on another thread and I know that all our fellow parents on this thread are probably pretty well-read on child development but I question how highly regarded this sentiment is in the field.

Everything I have read about child development indicates to me that a high need for attention in young children and toddlers is perfectly developmental and that it is entirely possible to meet that need.

Greater than the tendency for parents to enforce negative behavior with attention, are parents and caregivers in our ever disconnected world who have trouble finding the time to give children the attention they truly need.

I have a toddler and I can tell you that it is entirely possible to satiate her need for attention. In fact, it's pretty easy (when we are in sync) and I think you often find that children who are satiated end up very independent and who play quite well on their own.

So, while I agree with some of what you have advised, I think the solution to some of the very behavior problems you are seeing may well be MORE attention. In fact, it may well be some of those quality moments you have with your grandkids that are creating the more significant positive effect.


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

Viola P said:


> @tadamsmar - if your children are grown and you don't work in the area why are you so well versed in this? Is it to influence your grandchildren's parents or guide their parenting? I'm confused.


I tried to answer that in this post:

http://www.mothering.com/forum/36-g...-my-almost-3-yo-nvc-cl-up-2.html#post17728002

The original goal was to influence my grandchildren's parents, but now I am really just interested in the situation with all these conflicting philosophies and all the problems parents have and things they do.

These days, I don't have any real expectation of to influence my grandchildren's parents or guide their parenting. I think it's pretty much impossible to do that to any significant extent. It's a lot easier to influence someone asking for help on a forum like this, and perhaps help them.

I think the rule is that if a parent does not ask for help, you probably can't help them.

I have some influence on the two I raised from birth or a young age (perhaps because parents tend to parent like their own parents), but one of them can't really influence his spouse, not sure about the other since their kid just turned 1, to early to tell, he might be good at it anyway.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

tadamsmar said:


> It's a lot easier to influence someone asking for help on a forum like this, and perhaps help them.


I have been posting her for like 12 years now.  I think members who come back to parenting and share their stories here are wonderfully generous and valuable. I do think there can be a bit of tension if giving advice from outside of the "trenches" though.

The thing is, is that we forget things. I will probably never again in my life be able to 100% sympathize with a sleep deprived parent of an infant. Or the pain of breastfeeding through after pains. I remember it, sure, but not quite in the same way as someone in it, obviously.

Also, those of us posting to offer support are also often posting for support ourselves. So,while I may feel like I have all the answers to the OP's question on this thread (I don't but in case I come off that way), I have posted in this form MANY times to get help for something I was struggling with.

I know you shared your story about how bribery didn't work well with your child, which was appreciated by me. As was your voice for being mindful about rewarding unwanted behavior (I actually read this same advice on a Natural Child article, which I find generally pretty progressive and "AP"/GD).

My point is not to make you feel unwelcome but, rather to point out that if you are not here to learn but, rather give advice, please be aware that praise and withholding feedback, although fitting with GD (IMO), are both on the rather conservative end of the GD spectrum. I believe that if you were actually parenting right now (not grand parenting, which is miles different - and I have VERY involved parents), I think that some of the limitations of this type of discipline would be apparent in more than just a theoretical way.


----------



## tadamsmar (Mar 26, 2014)

IdentityCrisisMama said:


> I know you shared your story about how bribery didn't work well with your child, which was appreciated by me. As was your voice for being mindful about rewarding unwanted behavior (I actually read this same advice on a Natural Child article, which I find generally pretty progressive and "AP"/GD).


There are at least two types of rewarding:

1. Making a tit for tat offer in advance "If you do this then I will do that", and then following through. I was trying to use this to get better grades.

2. Catching them being good. There is no offer, the parent just makes it a routine part of the kid's environment. The reward can be subtle and the kid might not even consciously think of it as a reward or payoff.

Same distinction holds between planned ignoring vs. using logical consequences where explain the the consequences in advance or threats.

Kazdin recommends use of tit for tat (point charts) as one option if there is a need to get a behavior going. If the behavior is already happening you can just use "catching them being good" to encourage it. He recommends using social reinforcement along with tangible rewards (point charts) at all times, and then fading out the point charts. I think lots of parents who use Kazdin overlook the limited role of point charts. The get all hung up in the point charts. Kind of like the way some parents overuse time-out. Parenting methods are very prone to "technology transfer" failures, it's a big problem.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

I do believe that the correction of the colloquial vs. legal use of the term bribery is unnecessary - I'm sure all of us understand this distinction. If you would like to start a thread about your reading and philosophical take on those things, I would be happy to join you. Out of respect for the original topic, which I am aware of my big part in taking off track, I will focus on the OP in future post on this thread.


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

IdentityCrisisMama said:


> I have been posting her for like 12 years now.  I think members who come back to parenting and share their stories here are wonderfully generous and valuable. I do think there can be a bit of tension if giving advice from the trenches.


I agree that people who have btdt can be great sources of information.
I also agree that it can be annoying to get advice from outside the trenches. I personally have two overbearing inlaws who give advice based on information they got in the 70s. It's like they're frozen in time ad they refuse to educate themselves on current advice, just trying all the time to get us to parent like its 1979 pushing soothers, early weening, whatever. It has gotten better but it's still highly annoying! Especially when they didn't have student loans, didn't have to have both parents working full time with *two* small babies, things were just different back then, and they do a lot of hypothesizing "if I was in your shoes i imagine I would..." Like I say it has become way better but mostly because we keep our distance. These forums are the perfect place to give solicited advice though!


----------

