# Natural consequences FAIL.



## Crunchie (Jan 9, 2007)

So, I consider myself a pretty down-to-earth, common sense kind of parent (usually). My son is 3-years old, and I like to explain to him the natural consequences of his actions when he's doing something I need him to stop doing. Don't ride your bike too fast & with no helmet because you might get hurt. Don't leave the refrigerator door open because it's wasteful. If you hit (kick, bite, etc.) people or animals it hurts them, and that's not ok. If you bash your toy car with a hammer, you're going to break it and then you won't have it anymore, which is sad. Etc., etc., etc.

Well, this just doesn't work with my son. Ever. Never has. He was very verbal from a very young age, and while I try not to get too preachy/lecture him/go into long, complicated explanations, he is--and has been for a long time--perfectly capable of understanding, for example, that if he breaks a toy to pieces he's lost the toy. If he is destroying a toy and I tell him to stop because he's going to break it and then, sadly, the toy will be gone--he tells me "fine, I don't want the toy. Throw it away when it's all broken." If I tell him to stop climbing on the counter because I don't want him to fall and get hurt, he asks what will happen if he falls (or, depending on his mood, just tell me he wants to get hurt). I explain he could scrape himself or hurt his head or even break a bone. He will then continue the line of questioning..."and then what will I have to do if I break a bone?" I'll explain that we'd then have to go to the hospital and have a doctor "fix" it, and that breaking a bone hurts a lot. He'll then tell me he'll keep climbing on the counter, because he wants to go to the hospital and see the doctor.









These types of conversations happen several times a day. DS usually questions me down to the last detail, if he can, and almost always arrives at the conclusion that he'll just keep doing what he's doing, thankyouverymuch, 'cause he just doesn't care about (or prefers) the consequence(s) of his action. The end result usually escalates into unpleasantness for both of us. If he can't stop breaking something when I ask him to & explain the consequence of what he's doing, I simply take the toy away. If he's climbing the counter and won't stop, I physically stop him. The usually results in an explosive tantrum. I try to explain that I can't let him break things--or himself!--but to no avail.

I'm gonna go insane.









I don't want to yell and threaten, and I find myself doing just that more and more. I understand that at his age, he's quite definitely still in the self-centered stage, and he hasn't developed empathy--so he really might not care about the consequence of hurting someone else. I'm not concerned about having to work on modeling being kind to others 'till he develops his own sense of it. But I would think that losing a favorite toy, hurting himself, not getting to do something fun, etc., _would_ be a natural consequence that he does care about! What gives!?

If the natural consequence isn't enough to deter him, and I don't want to threaten, scream, or punish punitively, just what the heck am I supposed to do? Oh, and if he's set on something enough to argue the details, re-direction isn't gonna phase him. We try that all. the. time. Put that one down as another technique that the kidlet never fell for.









Any suggestions would be greatly welcomed. I want to give my child the tools to eventually be able to control his impulses and make good decisions, but I feel more & more like we're spiraling into some sort of awful cycle of yelling and controlling behavior.


----------



## gcgirl (Apr 3, 2007)

3 is still young to GET it. DS1 is almost 3, and while he is VERY verbal, it doesn't mean he gets cause and effect. I can't "talk him down"; I still have to physically remove him from the open refrigerator, pushing his little brother, climbing on the counter, etc...

Give it time.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

3 year olds can't developmentally see that far ahead. They have to EXPERIENCE the natural consequences to get it. If it's something like wearing a coat, going outside for 2 minutes in 10 degree weather (yes, I let my dd do that) gets the point across. Dd also experienced the natural consequence of riding her bike shirtless. I probably should have stepped in there. I DO step in for riding a bike without shoes and wearing a helmet. (simply not allowed).

I would suggest a completely different tactic: Instead of telling him why he shouldn't do something, do two things:
1) Tell him what he should do. "Keep your feet on the floor. If you want something from the cupboard, let's get the stepstool."
2) If he asks 'why'? (Keep your feet on the floor. why?) Ask him "what do you think could happen if you stand on the counter?" Instead of TELLING him, help him think through the consequences by asking leading questions.

I'd also be a little firmer up front. If he's misusing a toy so that it will break, say "Please be gentle with that toy." "Oops, looks like you can't be gentle with that toy, I'll have to keep it safe." And take the toy and give it a toy time out. "Please get down from the counter." If he doesn't, "it looks like you need me to help you down. Next time, I want you to get down yourself."

Sometimes I find that less explanation and more action makes all of us happier.


----------



## mama2cal&darby (Jun 13, 2008)

I agree with the pps. At this age he just can't understand what the consequences feel like if you are telling him what they would be. Using *natural consequences* as a discipline technique means allowing a child to experience the natural consequence of their actions. Obviously, you can't allow him to experience them in many of the circumstances you find yourself in, I would also talk less and act more at this stage.


----------



## ssh (Aug 12, 2007)

I also tell my DD why an action is dangerous or even just a bad idea. If she tries to do it anyway, I physically stop her and say "I can't let you xyz, it's dangerous". She usually listens pretty well now at almost 5. Your DS may still be developing impulse control.


----------



## Adasmommy (Feb 26, 2005)

The problem with natural consequences is that if you're willing to experience them, there's no reason to desist in an action. Like when I stay up late watching a movie and am tired the next day. My choice.

So, if he wants to break his toy, I'd let him. Maybe tell him that you won't be buying him toys if he breaks them (because it's expensive). If he's going to break someone else's toy it will have to be taken away and I'd hand him his own toy to break.

As far as breaking a bone, obviously, don't let him! Tell him it's important to take care of our bodies, and it's your job to take care of his until he can do it. So you won't be letting him on the counter. But we can do this totally fun thing instead . . .

You could also mention that if he broke a bone, he wouldn't be able to run, ride his bike, play at the park, go swimming this summer...whatever would apply.

Good luck with your handful!


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Part of the problem is that you're trying to use natural consequences for things where the natural consequence is real problem for the whole family.

I'd switch to logical consequences.

For instance, he can't keep off the counters and keep you from worrying that he'll fall and break his arm? Then the consequence is that he doesn't get to go in the kitchen by himself so you don't have to worry.

If you have to tell him about the natural consequence, it won't help matters. It needs to be something where you can just step aside and let it happen. Which means it can't be serious things like getting hit by a car and such.

Re: the toy, I'd hand him a broom and dust pan.


----------



## waiting2bemommy (Dec 2, 2007)

I have a very verbal advanced almost 3 yr old, and I agree with the others that many times the consequences really are not real to them until they experience it. with the whole bike riding scenario, I finally told my ds that if he fell down and got hurt and had to go in the ambulance (which he said he wanted to ride in the ambulance so was going to continue to ride in the street without permission) that he would bleed and bleed and have to lay down for a loong long time and maybe have a surgery where the doctor would cut him with a knife to see his insides, and mommies are not allowed to go in there so he would be by himself.

then I started grounding him for the whole day every time he ignored the rule. zero warnings. I see you head for the street, you go in the house for the rest of the day.

Graphic and hardcore, I know, but now he finally stopped ignoring me and has become very conscientious about staying away from the street.

also on the line of natural consequences, ds deliberately threw my phone into his kiddie pool after I asked him not to. The consequence? I took a bunch of his toys to the consignment store and sold them to get money to buy a new phone. I felt awful about it but I truly did not have any money at all for a new phone (about $25) and I figured it was natural consequence. He has never again been rough with my phone or anything else of mine.

the down side of natural consequences is that if you actually let them play out, sometimes they are even more uncomfortable or unpleasant than just time out or a pop on the hand would be. But the lessons really stick.

I give a warning or two about natural consequences and then that is it. Unless it is going to result in serious, unrecoverable bodily injury, I don't step in. My ds is like me....he is from the school of hard knocks. He only learns the hard way.









In the toy scenario, I would let him destroy the toys (all of our toys come from thrift stores anyway) If it was soemthing I spent a lot for, I would just put it uo in my closet and say "I like to play with that toy too so I'm saving it for myself since I don't want you to break it" then when he runs out of toys, he will have to entertain himself another way. I'm not going to buy any new toys anytime soon.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I found with ds1 that I was causing stress for both of us by expecting HIM to make the "right" decision. Even though I wasn't _making_ him do something (ie using force, threats, etc), I was making him choose to do it (I was upset if he didn't).

It seems like your ds is hearing your explanations as you giving him an option. Don't make it an option. I'm a huge fan of giving explanations, but at your ds's age, it's more of an informational thing. I always said something like "You can't break your toy" _insert explanation_.

With ds1, some things had logical type consequences- you wear your helmet, or you don't ride your bike. I was fine with either choice. You wear sunscreen, or you don't spend the day at the beach.


----------



## Minxie (Apr 15, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LynnS6* 
I'd also be a little firmer up front. If he's misusing a toy so that it will break, say "Please be gentle with that toy." "Oops, looks like you can't be gentle with that toy, I'll have to keep it safe." And take the toy and give it a toy time out. "Please get down from the counter." If he doesn't, "it looks like you need me to help you down. Next time, I want you to get down yourself."

Sometimes I find that less explanation and more action makes all of us happier.


----------



## Tjej (Jan 22, 2009)

Yeah, natural consequences are the kind you don't even explain - they just naturally happen.

You have every right as a parent and person with way more life experience to make choices on your son's behalf that keep him safe. Tell him what to do (keep feet on floor, stay on sidewalk, etc.). Help him do the right thing. Feel free to explain WHY we do it (we stay on the sidewalk so we are safe from cars), but don't give him the choice of doing it or not. Many things in life are choices. Some are not. You have every right to draw that line.

Tjej


----------



## Crunchie (Jan 9, 2007)

Thank you so much everyone! The replies have been very helpful.

I realize that my son might not always "get" cause and effect--I am guilty of assuming things of him that are developmentally not appropriate sometimes, so it is good to have the reminder that he is only 3 and these things will take time! He can and does explain cause and effect to me sometimes, so in the moment I might be expecting too much. Last night, for example, he was playing with a small pumpkin that I had put on the counter. I started to tell him to be careful with it (not wanting it to fall from the counter to the tile floor and smash), when he told me "I'll be careful. I don't want it to fall and break, I want to eat it in a pie!" So sometimes he does get it, but I need to step back and realize that he doesn't always _really_ get it.

Also, I was lumping natural consequences in with logical consequences in my mind when I wrote my post. I guess I am not thinking through the fact that natural consequences should be experienced. Again, it helps to hear that sometimes he just needs to experience them, and that an explanation (at his age) isn't always going to be appropriate. I definitely do give logical consequences. A lot ("if you don't wear your helmet you aren't riding your bike" or "if you are going to break that toy, I'm going to have to put it away for awhile" would be common examples). And often I don't bother to explain, at least not up front, and do just tell him that he can't do x or y or z. There are plenty of times that I don't give him an option--it's just that you can't do that because it's unsafe, hurtful, whatever. But I see where my trying to explain the natural consequences gives him an option. And that isn't usually my intention, at least not in these situations!

Of course, I do try to give him plenty of reasonable options throughout the day, but that's a whole different thing. And now that I've written it down and gotten some good feedback, I realize that my offering up a "if you do x, then y will happen" _does_ give him the choice to go ahead and keep doing x, because y just isn't that big of a deal in his little mind. It also opens up the topic for argument, which isn't usually where I want to go with it. I don't mind at all drawing lines and telling him no. Honestly, I've arrived at this point because I think I do that too much, or at least do that in a way that is not gentle. But maybe what I need to do is take it back a step & keep it more simple for awhile.


----------



## LionessMom (Mar 12, 2008)

after my 3yo breaks stuff or hurts herself i always asks her if she learned a lesson. sometimes she has an answer, somtimes i have to give her the answer.


----------



## tbone_kneegrabber (Oct 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *waiting2bemommy* 

also on the line of natural consequences, ds deliberately threw my phone into his kiddie pool after I asked him not to. The consequence? I took a bunch of his toys to the consignment store and sold them to get money to buy a new phone. I felt awful about it but I truly did not have any money at all for a new phone (about $25) and I figured it was natural consequence. He has never again been rough with my phone or anything else of mine.
.

I just want to point out that is not a natural consequence. It is a logical consequence. The "natural" consequence is that the phone is broken, and mama is mad/angry/upset etc.

I think it was a legitimate consequence, I just want to point out for this thread (this was just an easy example) that you don't *do* ANYTHING for a natural consequence. It just happens. No coat = cold, natural. No coat=stay inside, logical/imposed. smash toy=toy broken, natural. smash toy=toy removed, logical/imposed.

The other issue (especially with 3 yos and natural consequences) is that the consequence doesn't always happen. If you climb on the counter you *could* fall and get hurt, but there's no guarantee that will happen. If you ride your bike without a helmet you *might* get hurt, but you might not.

Ds will do something, I'll explain the natural consequence, "If you drop that glass on the ground it will break" he drops the glass, it doesn't break, he responds "I dropped it and it didn't break!!!" And I say, "well it could have, give it me!" which is not really working out that great.

Logical/imposed consequences are for when the natural consequence is terrible, or only a possibility (might get hurt, could break etc), or to teach some skill or lesson (break my phone on purpose, I'll sell your toys to replace it).

And 3 yo's freak out when consequences are imposed, they are little hormonal teenagers trapped in toddler bodies, with expressive language skills compared to older kids, with little to no logic and no impulse control.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Crunchie* 
Thank you so much everyone! The replies have been very helpful.

I realize that my son might not always "get" cause and effect--I am guilty of assuming things of him that are developmentally not appropriate sometimes, so it is good to have the reminder that he is only 3 and these things will take time!

I've got verbal kids too, and it's hard. They sound like they're older than they are, and so when they act their age, I'm sometimes stunned.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Crunchie* 
But I see where my trying to explain the natural consequences gives him an option. And that isn't usually my intention, at least not in these situations!

Yes, that's because you understand both the direct meaning (if you do x, the toy will break = description) and the indirect one (if you do x and the toy will break = STOP DOING X). Preschoolers often only interpret the direct speech act. "Oh, mom's describing for me what will happen. Interesting."


----------



## VroomieMama (Oct 9, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LynnS6* 
3 year olds can't developmentally see that far ahead. They have to EXPERIENCE the natural consequences to get it. If it's something like wearing a coat, going outside for 2 minutes in 10 degree weather (yes, I let my dd do that) gets the point across. Dd also experienced the natural consequence of riding her bike shirtless. I probably should have stepped in there. I DO step in for riding a bike without shoes and wearing a helmet. (simply not allowed).

*I would suggest a completely different tactic: Instead of telling him why he shouldn't do something, do two things:
1) Tell him what he should do. "Keep your feet on the floor. If you want something from the cupboard, let's get the stepstool."
2) If he asks 'why'? (Keep your feet on the floor. why?) Ask him "what do you think could happen if you stand on the counter?" Instead of TELLING him, help him think through the consequences by asking leading questions.

I'd also be a little firmer up front. If he's misusing a toy so that it will break, say "Please be gentle with that toy." "Oops, looks like you can't be gentle with that toy, I'll have to keep it safe." And take the toy and give it a toy time out. "Please get down from the counter." If he doesn't, "it looks like you need me to help you down. Next time, I want you to get down yourself."*

Sometimes I find that less explanation and more action makes all of us happier.


----------



## VroomieMama (Oct 9, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tbone_kneegrabber* 
I just want to point out that is not a natural consequence. It is a logical consequence. The "natural" consequence is that the phone is broken, and mama is mad/angry/upset etc.

*I think it was a legitimate consequence, I just want to point out for this thread (this was just an easy example) that you don't *do* ANYTHING for a natural consequence. It just happens. No coat = cold, natural. No coat=stay inside, logical/imposed. smash toy=toy broken, natural. smash toy=toy removed, logical/imposed.*

The other issue (especially with 3 yos and natural consequences) is that the consequence doesn't always happen. If you climb on the counter you *could* fall and get hurt, but there's no guarantee that will happen. If you ride your bike without a helmet you *might* get hurt, but you might not.

Ds will do something, I'll explain the natural consequence, "If you drop that glass on the ground it will break" he drops the glass, it doesn't break, he responds "I dropped it and it didn't break!!!" And I say, "well it could have, give it me!" which is not really working out that great.

Logical/imposed consequences are for when the natural consequence is terrible, or only a possibility (might get hurt, could break etc), or to teach some skill or lesson (break my phone on purpose, I'll sell your toys to replace it).

And 3 yo's freak out when consequences are imposed, they are little hormonal teenagers trapped in toddler bodies, with expressive language skills compared to older kids, with little to no logic and no impulse control.

Thank you.. I'm still learning and trying to understand the difference between the natural and logical consequence.
















*Question:*
My toddlers are fascinated with climbing over the sofa's arm to the recliner but there is a small end table in between and I'm always afraid that they'd fall in between and hurt their head or worse. Or they'd climb on a cooler that I use to store children books (prefer it than using shelves to store books) and the cooler is there to "block" them from playing with electric fire place door on the bottom of the floor. I've always had to put them in the play yard without any toys in it immediately after when I ask them to get off for the 3rd time. Is this one of the logical consequence approach? What would you have done if you're faced in this situation?


----------



## Minxie (Apr 15, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Crunchie* 
I definitely do give logical consequences. A lot ("if you don't wear your helmet you aren't riding your bike" or "if you are going to break that toy, I'm going to have to put it away for awhile" would be common examples). And often I don't bother to explain, at least not up front, and do just tell him that he can't do x or y or z.

I mean this kindly so please interpret tone that way.







Were it me, I might try to phrase these statements in a less negative way.

For example:

"You must wear your helmet to ride your bike." "If you want to wear your helmet, you are welcome to ride your bicycle." It just eliminates the "don't"s which often seem to be all they hear!









"I'll be glad to put away that toy until you are able to control your body." (or play with it properly, or be careful, etc.)


----------



## VroomieMama (Oct 9, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Minxie* 
I mean this kindly so please interpret tone that way.







Were it me, I might try to phrase these statements in a less negative way.

For example:

"You must wear your helmet to ride your bike." "If you want to wear your helmet, you are welcome to ride your bicycle." It just eliminates the "don't"s which often seem to be all they hear!









"I'll be glad to put away that toy until you are able to control your body." (or play with it properly, or be careful, etc.)


Yeah I have heard that its better to avoid negative comment like "NO" or "Don't"


----------



## Minxie (Apr 15, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *VroomieMama* 
*Question:*
My toddlers are fascinated with climbing over the sofa's arm to the recliner but there is a small end table in between and I'm always afraid that they'd fall in between and hurt their head or worse. Or they'd climb on a cooler that I use to store children books (prefer it than using shelves to store books) and the cooler is there to "block" them from playing with electric fire place door on the bottom of the floor. I've always had to put them in the play yard without any toys in it immediately after when I ask them to get off for the 3rd time. Is this one of the logical consequence approach? What would you have done if you're faced in this situation?

What motivates them? Is it the climbing? Is there a toy they're after? Why are they doing it? If it's climbing, can you provide a safe place for them to climb? Or create a special place for them nearby, like a secret fort or play corner?

Were it me and my DS:

"You are welcome in the living room when you can control your body." and then I will escort him to his room. It's not a time-out; he can play in his room or he can control himself in the living room. He determines when he is ready to follow the rules and act in a civilized manner. ("Mom, I'm ready to be civilized now!!!!")

I mention "control your body" and "your choices" a lot to him so that he learns he is responsible for his decisions. ALWAYS, ALWAYS in a loving (but firm), empathetic tone; sarcasm will NOT work.


----------



## LilyLiberty (Mar 26, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Minxie* 
I mean this kindly so please interpret tone that way.







Were it me, I might try to phrase these statements in a less negative way.

For example:

"You must wear your helmet to ride your bike." "If you want to wear your helmet, you are welcome to ride your bicycle." It just eliminates the "don't"s which often seem to be all they hear!









"I'll be glad to put away that toy until you are able to control your body." (or play with it properly, or be careful, etc.)

How do you remember to do this? I don't have kids but I nanny and I'm always trying to remember to do this but I find myself saying, "No" and "Don't" a lot more often than I'd like. This is something I'd like to master before I have my own kids, you know, so that I won't have any problems (har har har







)


----------



## lunarlady (Jan 4, 2010)

I like to pair consequences with limited choices. So if DD climbs on the counter I say: whoops, we are not allowed on the counter, remember? Do you want to get down yourself or should I help you? Smashing a toy: toys cost money, remember? Let's not ruin the toy. Do you want to treat the toy nice or should we give the toy to a child with no toys? Note that each has something DD can do by herself, and something I will help with. Since she is super independent, she almost always goes for the solo answer although both are something I'm happy with.


----------



## Crunchie (Jan 9, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Minxie* 
I mean this kindly so please interpret tone that way.







Were it me, I might try to phrase these statements in a less negative way.

For example:

"You must wear your helmet to ride your bike." "If you want to wear your helmet, you are welcome to ride your bicycle." It just eliminates the "don't"s which often seem to be all they hear!









"I'll be glad to put away that toy until you are able to control your body." (or play with it properly, or be careful, etc.)

Note kindly taken!







This is exactly what I need to hear. This falls into the category of "things I know I should do but fly out the window during the actual event." I need these types of reminders! Thank you. This part of what I meant in my original post about falling into a cycle of negative & controlling behavior. I am too quick to just yell "no!" Now, I think there is a time and place to yell no, but I'm doing it waaaayyy too much. I need to get to a place where I can draw those lines & tell kiddo what to do in, like you said, a less negative way. It's not fun for either of us if I'm just telling him "you can't do that" all day.







And that's kind of what I feel like I'm doing, so I try to explain consequences, and...well, you already know the story.


----------



## nd_deadhead (Sep 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LilyLiberty* 
How do you remember to do this? I don't have kids but I nanny and I'm always trying to remember to do this but I find myself saying, "No" and "Don't" a lot more often than I'd like. This is something I'd like to master before I have my own kids, you know, so that I won't have any problems (har har har







)

It takes practice!!

Saying No and Don't are a habit, and habits are hard to change.

I am convinced that a toddler simply doesn't get "Don't". Or, even if they do, they can't think of an alternative. For example, you say "Don't jump on the bed", and the last words they hear are "... Jump on the bed". If you say "jump on the floor" or "Sit on the bed" or Tummy on the bed" or whatever, it tells them what TO do.

My 2.5-yr-old twins were gardening with my Mom, and playing with earthworms. My Dad (bless his heart) told them "Don't eat the worm!" It never occured to either one of them to eat the worm, until my Dad brought it up. I could see the wheels turning in their little heads: "... eat the worm... eat the worm... Grandpa sad eat the worm". A few minutes later, back in the garden, my Mom started laughing - she saw one spit a worm out of his mouth; the other had dirt all around his mouth.

Or this: DON'T think about a chimpanzee wearing a pink riding a tricycle. Quick! What are you thinking about?

Changing negative statements to positive definitely takes practice. Just repeat to yourself, over and over, "What do I want them TO do?" Feet on the floor, sit on your bottom, hands on your head, or That's just to look at (to keep them from touching something), pet gently, feet first down the stairs.

You'll be amazed how well it works - which is incentive to keep trying to think of new phrases. And thinking up alterantives in advance is a big help - next time Junior stands on a chair, I'll tell him to sit on his bottom".

Good luck!


----------



## waiting2bemommy (Dec 2, 2007)

This is all such excellent advice. I'm follwing this thread closely now, because ds and I go back and forth all.day.long. sometimes I feel like I'm in the UN or something with all the negotiating.

I have had wonderful success with the above technique of phrasing what I DO want (ds, please put your feet on the floor.) It's just like a pp said it all goes out the window int he heat of the moment.


----------



## Minxie (Apr 15, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nd_deadhead* 
It takes practice!!

Saying No and Don't are a habit, and habits are hard to change.

I am convinced that a toddler simply doesn't get "Don't". Or, even if they do, they can't think of an alternative. For example, you say "Don't jump on the bed", and the last words they hear are "... Jump on the bed". If you say "jump on the floor" or "Sit on the bed" or Tummy on the bed" or whatever, it tells them what TO do.

My 2.5-yr-old twins were gardening with my Mom, and playing with earthworms. My Dad (bless his heart) told them "Don't eat the worm!" It never occured to either one of them to eat the worm, until my Dad brought it up. I could see the wheels turning in their little heads: "... eat the worm... eat the worm... Grandpa sad eat the worm". A few minutes later, back in the garden, my Mom started laughing - she saw one spit a worm out of his mouth; the other had dirt all around his mouth.

Or this: DON'T think about a chimpanzee wearing a pink riding a tricycle. Quick! What are you thinking about?

Changing negative statements to positive definitely takes practice. Just repeat to yourself, over and over, "What do I want them TO do?" Feet on the floor, sit on your bottom, hands on your head, or That's just to look at (to keep them from touching something), pet gently, feet first down the stairs.

You'll be amazed how well it works - which is incentive to keep trying to think of new phrases. And thinking up alterantives in advance is a big help - next time Junior stands on a chair, I'll tell him to sit on his bottom".

Good luck!

I could not put this better! Simply put: Don't EAT THE WORM!!!


----------



## Minxie (Apr 15, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Crunchie* 
Note kindly taken!







This is exactly what I need to hear. This falls into the category of "things I know I should do but fly out the window during the actual event." I need these types of reminders! Thank you. This part of what I meant in my original post about falling into a cycle of negative & controlling behavior. I am too quick to just yell "no!" Now, I think there is a time and place to yell no, but I'm doing it waaaayyy too much. I need to get to a place where I can draw those lines & tell kiddo what to do in, like you said, a less negative way. It's not fun for either of us if I'm just telling him "you can't do that" all day.








And that's kind of what I feel like I'm doing, so I try to explain consequences, and...well, you already know the story.










I make it a practice to say yes as much as possible. I just find something to which I can say yes.









For instance:

"Mom, can I have some ice cream for dessert?"

"Yes, you may after dinner."

"Mom, can I ride my bike?"

"Sure, after you take out the trash (pick up your toys, dance like a monkey, whatever...







)."

I try to only say No when there is danger involved and even then, I try to use the word STOP! instead. When DS runs ahead, I look ahead and say,

"Stop at the Stop sign."
"Stay on the sidewalk."
"Wait for me, please!"


----------



## blizzard_babe (Feb 14, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gcgirl* 
3 is still young to GET it. DS1 is almost 3, and while he is VERY verbal, it doesn't mean he gets cause and effect. I can't "talk him down"; I still have to physically remove him from the open refrigerator, pushing his little brother, climbing on the counter, etc...

Give it time.

Thank you for this. DS is very verbal for his age (2.5 y/o), and "advanced" in a lot of ways. But then, behaviorally... ugh. So often I have to literally drag DS out of the fridge and then stand there blocking the door, or stuff like that. I know he can understand all the words I'm saying when I foolishly attempt to reason with him, but still... nada. I need to remember that emotionally, he's 2.5 years old.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I have a slightly different take on the "don't" thing. I use a "don't" phrase if that's the most direct way of telling ds what I want, but I always follow with one or two positive options.

If I don't want him to throw food on the floor, then that's the most direct way to say it. I could say "keep the food on the tray" but, really, that's not the only acceptable thing he could do- he could eat the food, he could put the food on the table, he could put it in my hand, whatever. As long as it's NOT on the floor. So I say "Don't put food on the floor. If you don't want it, you can put it on the table or in my hand." That way the last thing he hears is what he CAN do.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

I use "needs to" a lot.

Just from today:
"The rock "needs to" stay on the ground. Here's an acorn you can throw at the tree."

"We "need to" be careful with sticks. You can hit a tree with the stick. Where's a tree?"

Since she's two, I'm saying this stuff while standing right by her, ready to physically help her conform to my expectations of safety. That is, she doesn't actually have a real choice whether to throw the rock or whether to swing her stick at the other kid's stick.

As for the "lots of options" thing, I'll start with what I think is dd's motivation. "the food is for you, the doggy has other food" "food stays on the table, we can dump blocks later" "are you all done eating?"


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
I use "needs to" a lot.

Just from today:
"The rock "needs to" stay on the ground. Here's an acorn you can throw at the tree."

"We "need to" be careful with sticks. You can hit a tree with the stick. Where's a tree?"


ooh, that's good! Direct AND positive! I'm going to start using that


----------



## LilyLiberty (Mar 26, 2009)

This is great advice! And as Minxie said, "Don't eat the worm!"

This technique is definitely getting filed under that heading in my brain









It's actually great timing that I've been following this thread now, just from today I was able to use, "If you'd want to stay at the art table then you're welcome to use the paints, if not we can find something else to do." I felt like I gave myself a mental gold star for that one!


----------



## rabbitmum (Jan 25, 2007)

I think it sounds like your son is enjoying the discussion. He doesn't necessarily mean that he wants to fall down, go to the hospital, break his tiy, etc. He just wants to see where the conversation goes. Beyond a certain point I wouldn't enter into a discussion with a three-year-old. I would just lift him down in a cheerful way, or put the toy away in a matter-of-fact way.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DevaMajka* 
ooh, that's good! Direct AND positive! I'm going to start using that



















Mind you, "NO!!!!" also has it's place, but I try to save it for when I want dd to freeze in place while I sort out what needs to happen next.

It tends to be "NO!!!!....okay now, CAREFULLY hand me the cup. Stand right there, stay stay stay, wait wait--SLIPPERY!....now step onto this towel to dry your feet, want to help wipe up the water? Yes, the water did spill." (Just to clarify, the need to stand still is because otherwise she'll start dancing in the "puddle" and will then (every single time I haven't stopped her) fall down and be both soaked and sad.)


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LynnS6* 
3 year olds can't developmentally see that far ahead. They have to EXPERIENCE the natural consequences to get it. If it's something like wearing a coat, going outside for 2 minutes in 10 degree weather (yes, I let my dd do that) gets the point across.

My dad tried that once (slightly warmer weather). I walked along happily for several blocks with him periodically asking if I was cold and reminding me I had a coat available. A little old lady comes up "don't you need a coat on honey?" and I cheerfully said "yes! where's my coat, Daddy?"

It was so traumatic for him that he just reminded me of that story when he stopped for a visit yesterday. And I immediately thought of this thread.


----------



## Riverdog (Jan 8, 2007)

IME, three year olds (kids in general, actually) want to explore their boundaries. That includes what their bodies are capable of and what a toy looks like when it is smashed.

If you a terribly worried about him climbing on the counter, stand behind him. Then if he slips, you can catch him. He gets to discover what it's like to climb on the counter safely, and you won't be driving him to the hospital for a broken bone because he tried to climb it when you weren't around so he wouldn't be in trouble. Arbitrary limits often have the unfortunate consequence of creating deceit and sneakiness. And to really stir it up, how often do you think he would fall off the counter when climbing? One time out of ten? How many times do you think he would he actually be seriously injured beyond a bruise? Do you treat playgrounds that way? Kids fall off playgrounds all the time, and the vast majority are uninjured.

If he wants to smash toys, go to the thrift store and buy a bag of old McDonald's Happy Meal toys. Then if he starts to ruin a good toy, give him a junky one and a hammer and tell him to have at 'er in the driveway. I guess my point is, there are ways to say yes to these supposedly 'dangerous' or 'destructive' behaviours that are acceptable. I would try to meet his desires when you can.


----------



## mston (Aug 28, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nd_deadhead* 

My 2.5-yr-old twins were gardening with my Mom, and playing with earthworms. My Dad (bless his heart) told them "Don't eat the worm!" It never occured to either one of them to eat the worm, until my Dad brought it up. I could see the wheels turning in their little heads: "... eat the worm... eat the worm... Grandpa sad eat the worm". A few minutes later, back in the garden, my Mom started laughing - she saw one spit a worm out of his mouth; the other had dirt all around his mouth.

Or this: DON'T think about a chimpanzee wearing a pink riding a tricycle. Quick! What are you thinking about?


I always think of this Kids in the Hall skit:


----------



## Hykue (Sep 3, 2010)

I'm not a mother yet, but I'm a big believer in preparation, so I like to read these threads. This is a great thread, and furthermore, I'm completely pleased that you posted the Kids in the Hall skit. I just mentioned this skit to my DH the other day, and all I got was a strange look . . . I'm glad someone else thought of it in reference to this thread.


----------



## Adasmommy (Feb 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Riverdog* 
IME, three year olds (kids in general, actually) want to explore their boundaries. That includes what their bodies are capable of and what a toy looks like when it is smashed.

If you a terribly worried about him climbing on the counter, stand behind him. Then if he slips, you can catch him. He gets to discover what it's like to climb on the counter safely, and you won't be driving him to the hospital for a broken bone because he tried to climb it when you weren't around so he wouldn't be in trouble. Arbitrary limits often have the unfortunate consequence of creating deceit and sneakiness. And to really stir it up, how often do you think he would fall off the counter when climbing? One time out of ten? How many times do you think he would he actually be seriously injured beyond a bruise? Do you treat playgrounds that way? Kids fall off playgrounds all the time, and the vast majority are uninjured.

If he wants to smash toys, go to the thrift store and buy a bag of old McDonald's Happy Meal toys. Then if he starts to ruin a good toy, give him a junky one and a hammer and tell him to have at 'er in the driveway. I guess my point is, there are ways to say yes to these supposedly 'dangerous' or 'destructive' behaviours that are acceptable. I would try to meet his desires when you can.

YES! I think you're very wise!


----------



## reezley (May 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *blizzard_babe* 
Thank you for this. DS is very verbal for his age (2.5 y/o), and "advanced" in a lot of ways. But then, behaviorally... ugh. So often I have to literally drag DS out of the fridge and then stand there blocking the door, or stuff like that. I know he can understand all the words I'm saying when I foolishly attempt to reason with him, but still... nada. I need to remember that emotionally, he's 2.5 years old.

When ds2 was that age we put on a childproof refridgerator door latch (little plastic gizmo that sticks to the door) because I was sick of guarding the fridge like that! It worked, he stopped trying to open it.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *blizzard_babe* 
So often I have to literally drag DS out of the fridge and then stand there blocking the door, or stuff like that.

Ds1 did that, but at a younger age (we moved when he was 2yo, and it was at our old house). By that point, though, he had fantastic receptive language, and was pretty good at cooperating and "following rules."

What I finally did that worked:
I had just read about CL, and about TCC so I thought I'd give it a try. I changed my frame of mind to believe that he knew that the fridge door needed to be shut, and that he would shut it when he was done in the fridge. So I let him look in the fridge as long as he wanted to one day. It was really hard for me to let him have the fridge open, but in all honesty, it wasn't that long (I'm thinking 10 minutes or less, IIrc). He must have fulfilled whatever desire/curiosity he had, because the fridge was never the same battle since.

I think having that desire unfullfilled led to it being super important.

Anyway, I'm sure that not everyone would be willing to try this, but I thought I'd share something that worked for us.


----------



## tracysroberts (Dec 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *VroomieMama* 
Thank you.. I'm still learning and trying to understand the difference between the natural and logical consequence.
















*Question:*
My toddlers are fascinated with climbing over the sofa's arm to the recliner but there is a small end table in between and I'm always afraid that they'd fall in between and hurt their head or worse. Or they'd climb on a cooler that I use to store children books (prefer it than using shelves to store books) and the cooler is there to "block" them from playing with electric fire place door on the bottom of the floor. I've always had to put them in the play yard without any toys in it immediately after when I ask them to get off for the 3rd time. Is this one of the logical consequence approach? What would you have done if you're faced in this situation?

Give them things to climb, lots of them! One thing everyone seems to be forgetting in all of these comments is that children have a need underlying their actions ALWAYS. He wants to climb or hammer or whatever, use active listening if you dont immediately know what they want, but then give them what they want in a way that you both feel comfortable while realizing that sometimes as mothers we are gonna be nervous when our children test the limits of their bodies.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tracysroberts* 
children have a need underlying their actions ALWAYS. He wants to climb or hammer or whatever, use active listening if you dont immediately know what they want, but then give them what they want in a way that you both feel comfortable











I read about this in Becoming the Parent You Want to Be years ago. They call it honoring the impulse and redirecting in a way that honors the impulse. The impulse behind what they are doing is legitimate, they just need to learn how to fullfill it in a socially acceptable way.


----------



## VroomieMama (Oct 9, 2008)

I'm confused. I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting. Can you please expand more on "active listening" because its the term that I've never seen before.

So, I should just allow my children climb on whatever they want to climb? I'm just scared that they'd end up having their skull open and end up taking them to ER then they end up dead. It feels like they're being neglected if I just let them climb wherever they want to.

I just feel that it makes more sense for them to climb if there are padded areas around the places where they climb but I don't have it. Also, I think it'd also make sense if they climb outside when they are a little bit older and has better concept of what is safe or not.


----------

