# Am I the only one who wasn't thrilled with the book Unconditional Parenting?



## loveandkindness (Feb 1, 2005)

I agree with the principle of Unconditional Parenting, but I had a few problems with the book.

1) The whole praise issue. I've read the anti-praise research and I've read the pro-praise research. I think like anything else, each child is an individual and has individual needs. I believe giving praise and positive feedback is very natural to loving parents. Telling my 2-year-old that "kitty seems to be happy that you're petting him so gently" helps her realize that she has control of her actions (a big Alfie Kohn point) and that her actions affect others. From an adult perspective, before I became a mama I was in management at a large company. My staff responded to and appreciated praise -- and if adults need it, why wouldn't children?

2) I believe children NEED to learn to do things on other people's timetables sometimes. Kohn seems to think you should let your child set the pace and "wait it out" when they don't want to do what you need them to do. That may be fine for toddlers, but when a child goes to school they will need to follow the teacher's directions and cooperate with the rest of the class. I also believe children should understand that each person in the family is equally important and that we all take turns "getting what we want".

3) I felt kind of ripped-off after I bought the book. I usually only buy paperbacks but since everyone was raving about this book and it just came out, I splurged for the hardcover. It didn't seem like enough information to warrant a book -- it read more like a magazine article that had been padded out.

Overall I do believe in giving your children unconditional love, but along with the love comes guidance and encouragement, which I felt like Kohn was dismissing.


----------



## Momtwice (Nov 21, 2001)

Have your read the Faber and Mazlish books? I love them. In one of them they talk about how SPECIFIC praise is meaningful to kids and other people (like, the kitty is happy when you are gentle) but VAGUE, generalized praise makes kids and people uncomfortable (like, you are such a good girl, good job, etc.)

(I think it was a F and M book but sometimes all those parenting books are a blur in my head... :LOL )

I know what you mean about feeling ripped off...I haven't read Alfie yet but I was disappointed with the No Cry Sleep Solution after so many moms recommended it (although it was much gentler than many books and I totally respect anyone if it worked for you...it just wasn't right for me and dd.)

Maybe you could ebay it or trade it in at your used book store. Maybe a mom here will want to buy it!


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

I always find it so interesting how people can read the same book but take away such different things from it.









I understood Alfie Kohn to be saying that specific praise ( "kitty seems to be happy that you're petting him so gently") that doesn't make a judgment about a child's character ("you're such a good boy") is very good. I understood him to be saying that generic praise like saying "good job" (without elaboration) too frequently is what's problematic. Yes, he also talks about praise making a child focus on external motivation rather than developing intrinsic motivation-but he did (I think) make it clear that kids need feedback in order to learn, so "kitty seems to be so happy that you're petting him gently" is a very in line with what he was saying. And I also took him to mean that not all praise is bad, just that we can find better and more specific/helpful ways of phrasing ourselves-and that if an enthusiastic and genuine "good job!" does come out of our mouths it's okay.

I also took him to be saying not that you should _always_ do things on a child's timetable, but that it's better to pick your "battles"-that whenever _possible_ it's better to try to find a way to take things at your child's pace and with less coercion, but that sometimes it's just not possible and that's also a valuable thing for kids to learn.

Honestly, I thought he was saying a lot of the same things a lot of other books have said. It wasn't anything I hadn't heard before. For me, something about this book was just more accessible, and I really enjoyed it.

I think it's great that you're sharing what you didn't like about this book.I always feel awful when I only hear how great people think a book is, buy it, then really dislike it. At least when I hear both what some people liked and what some people didn't like, I have more information to base my decision on.


----------



## ETW (Feb 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
I understood Alfie Kohn to be saying that specific praise ( "kitty seems to be happy that you're petting him so gently") that doesn't make a judgment about a child's character ("you're such a good boy") is very good.

Hmm. As I said in the other thread, I haven't read the book, but I have read the article 5 Reasons to Stop Saying Good Job (http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/gj.htm) and it's one of the reasons I'm thinking I might not read the book. In it he gives examples like this:

_Every time they had heard "Good sharing!" or "I'm so proud of you for helping," they became a little less interested in sharing or helping._

which seem to me to fall into the good praise category, but are clearly not considered "good" by the article.


----------



## mommyofshmoo (Oct 25, 2004)

I think an important point that was made is that it's less important the words you're saying to a kid and more important the message they take home. I know that even my best intentioned praise sometimes distracts my dd from what she's doing and she looses interest.

My dd is SUPER sentsitive to being controlled or manipulated, so I can judge better sometimes if what I'm saying is manipulative sounding by her reaction than by my intention.

-That's one reason I thought the book was good.

The other thing is- if you are someone who really, really, really beleives that your kids need to learn to do what you say when you say it- this is not the book for you.

Simple as that.

Some people beleive they need to control their kids- some beleive that obedience is a valuable asset and being able to do things without argueing or questioning is important. If that's a core part of your value system- this books not for you.

I found that when it came down to real-life situation examples, I am even more laid back than the author. So this book struck home with me and helped me realize where I was going with discipline and hone what I'm trying to acheive.

To each thier own.

For the Record, I didn't like No Cry Sleep Solution either. But luckily I read enough at the store not to buy it.


----------



## mamamillie (Jul 22, 2003)

I haven't read this one yet, but definitely plan to asap. I recently read his "Punished by Rewards" and I wonder if you have read this one...you said you have read anti-praise research, so maybe you have. But if you haven't this is FULL of many many studies proving that praise is as detrimental as punishment and definitely does not read like a padded magazine article. I felt like Punished by Rewards was the most helpful parenting book I had read yet and it set me up for a MAJOR paradigm shift.

I can't wait to get Unconditional Parenting! LMK if you want to sell your copy!


----------



## loveandkindness (Feb 1, 2005)

Sorry -- edited to take out my response to another post. I apologize for being so easily defensive -- I guess my sleep deprivation is catching up with me.


----------



## wednesday (Apr 26, 2004)

I don't think mommyofshmoo was trying to slam you...

Anyway, I could also relate to those who said NCSS wasn't that helpful! :LOL


----------



## mommyofshmoo (Oct 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loveandkindness*

Okay, enough with the judgmental crap. I don't need to "control" my child and I don't expect her to be "obedient". I like to have a family life that runs smoothly and happily, and for the most part it does. No tantrums, no whining, no crying. Lots of laughing and playing and hugs. My 2-year-old knows that sometimes she can set the pace and make decisions, and she also knows that sometimes we "must" do some things. That is something she has grown up knowing and so it is never an issue. When I tell her we "must change dipey" or "must get in the car to go see Nana" she recognizes the word "must" and is happy to help make it happen.

Anyway, I'm not here to debate whether or not I'm a good parent, I just wanted to let others know that they may want to skim the book in the store before buying, instead of ordering online like I did.


I wasn't actually trying to be judgemental. Though I can see how it may have sounded that way.

There are some people on MDC who do value obedience for it's own sake and plenty for whom it's important to have a higher level of control that A.K. advocates. And that's OK. I was just stating that this book is not going to jive with everyone.

Sorry if you felt singled out- I didn't mean it that way.


----------



## lizamann (Dec 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ETW*
_Every time they had heard "Good sharing!" or "I'm so proud of you for helping," they became a little less interested in sharing or helping._

which seem to me to fall into the good praise category, but are clearly not considered "good" by the article.

I think the problem that AK has with "good sharing" is that it is a value judgement, and "I'm so proud of you for helping" implies that you're not proud at other times. I think a more AK-approved statement would be "Look how happy Johnny is that you shared with him!" This is an observation, with no judgements, that teaches the kid to value how his actions directly affect other people, the other person being Johnny, and not the parent.


----------



## insahmniak (Aug 16, 2003)

I would bet that there are TONS of parents out there who wouldn't be thrilled with Unconditional Parenting. And I can completely understand how many people won't accept its conclusions. It presents a very radical departure from where parenting norms currently stand. And what it asks of us can be very, very challenging.

I'm a parent who IS thrilled with the book, and maybe one of my posts about the book contributed to your purchase. While I'm not responsible for your decision or your disappointment, I would be very willing to buy it from you. (I am thinking of donating a copy to our local library.) PM me and I can PayPal you for it.

One caution...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loveandkindness*
I believe giving praise and positive feedback is very natural to loving parents.

...The line of logic "natural acts of loving parents = loving act" is quite a problematic one. I'm a loving parent. I'm a loving partner. I promise you. And yet, as a loving parent, and as a loving partner, it sometimes feels very, very natural for me to want to yell harsh words when I'm feeling impatient with these people. The loving act, IMO, is to REFRAIN from subjecting people I love to these "natural" acts. Something that feels very natural for me can feel quite "unloving" to the recipient. I guarantee it. And I'm no sadist.

I feel like I agree with a lot of what is written in Unconditional Parenting. And I can assure you that I frequently both feel and express UTTER DELIGHT with the people I love, including my daughter. It's simply not contingent upon what she does or doesn't do. It's unconditional. And, guess what?! Since I've read this book, "unconditional" is beginning to feel a whole lot more "natural."


----------



## Linda KS (Oct 30, 2004)

Disclaimer -- I haven't read this book yet, but I have read Punished by Rewards and several F and M books.

I general stick with positive feedback but sometimes I'm so overwelmed with something amazing my kids have done I can't HELP but praise! I totally agree with all the positive feedback stuff (esp about being specific), but it would be impossible to not occassionally let my kids know that what they kids knocked my socks off. None the less, the constant stream of praise of hear some some "positive parents" just seems absurd to me. I think there can be a happy balance. Praise shouldn't be about trying to control a child, but rather letting them know that we think that they are amazing people.

The thing about doing things on other people's schedule is also a balance issue for me. I have 2 kids and they are closely spaced. Neither of them can run the show and any attempt to allow them a great deal of power just causes them to fight. I tried non-coercise parenting for a while and it just made my kids unhappy. On one hand, I work hard to let them each have as much control over their own lives as possible, at the same time, they both have to do things they don't want to at times they would choose to do something else. I think this is part of getting older (my kids are 6 and 8) and learning how to function in a group.


----------



## jenmk (Apr 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ETW*
Hmm. As I said in the other thread, I haven't read the book, but I have read the article 5 Reasons to Stop Saying Good Job (http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/gj.htm) and it's one of the reasons I'm thinking I might not read the book. In it he gives examples like this:

_Every time they had heard "Good sharing!" or "I'm so proud of you for helping," they became a little less interested in sharing or helping._

which seem to me to fall into the good praise category, but are clearly not considered "good" by the article.


I've read that article you're referring to, as well as half of the book. The book goes more into detail than the article when addressing praise . . . of course, and describes more clearly and explicitly why it's better to describe than to judge when you praise, the OP's line "kitty seems to be happy when you're petting him so gently" describes what the child is doing. Much better than saying to the child, "Good job petting kitty" according to Kohn.

And I think his point is that we start saying "good job" and can't turn it off! I'm guilty of this, and am trying to not use it for meaningless things. When I'm just thrilled with something he's done, I praise wholeheartedly and with genuine excitement. For other things, I try to describe rather than throw out a generic "good job!"

And to the OP, I agree with sledg: my understanding of the book was that you praise children as you did in your example, and that you try to respect your kids' sense of time, but it can't always be like that. I thought the book expressed the same views that you expressed in your two points. I agree with you on those points. (As does, in my understanding, Kohn.)

So interesting to hear why some do not like the book. Thanks for starting this thread.

jen


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lizamann*
I think the problem that AK has with "good sharing" is that it is a value judgement, and "I'm so proud of you for helping" implies that you're not proud at other times. I think a more AK-approved statement would be "Look how happy Johnny is that you shared with him!" This is an observation, with no judgements, that teaches the kid to value how his actions directly affect other people, the other person being Johnny, and not the parent.

ITA.

I also find that, and AK says this in the book, if dc have come to expect praise, you should not withdraw it from one day to the next, but rather use a different kind of praise. Like, my dd has recently learnt to shower and put pajamas on by herself in the evening. (She is 4) I used to say "Good job" now I say "You showered and put pajamas on. That makes my life so much easier, you know, because I have to do so many things and I am on my own tonight".

I would also add that the main idea from the book is that praise should be sincere and not manipulative. Like if you really like something your dc has done, absolutely tell her! But there is a difference between that and trying to use praise to influence the future behaviour of your dc. I mean, honestly, I would like for my dd to continue to shower and put pajamas on because it does make my life a ton easier. So, instead of using praise to that effect, I just honestly tell her. This also, BTW, gives her liberty, when DH is there and I have more time to ask me to help her shower, if that should please her....(but it seems it does not).

Anyway, for me, the book manifesto of anti-behaviouralism justifies a book. The idea that the end goal of parenting is not just better behaviour is in my view a pretty revolutionary one. People would not buy that idea after 4 pages. It does need and deserve a book. Of course, many people may not buy that idea after the whole 200 pages, and that's fine, not every one has the same parenting style, however, the book is worth reading in its entirety to understand this idea which is a complex one, and then rejecting it if it does not suit you.

Mommy to dd1 4-years-old







and dd2 2-years-old


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Linda KS*
I have 2 kids and they are closely spaced. Neither of them can run the show and any attempt to allow them a great deal of power just causes them to fight. I tried non-coercise parenting for a while and it just made my kids unhappy. On one hand, I work hard to let them each have as much control over their own lives as possible, at the same time, they both have to do things they don't want to at times they would choose to do something else. I think this is part of getting older (my kids are 6 and 8) and learning how to function in a group.

I also have two closely spaced kids, younger than yours. I agree it is a real challenge to get them to do things that they do not want to do. How does that function in your house? BTW Alfie Kohn has a lot on that too...


----------



## Linda KS (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gaialice*
I also have two closely spaced kids, younger than yours. I agree it is a real challenge to get them to do things that they do not want to do. How does that function in your house? BTW Alfie Kohn has a lot on that too...

Some things that help:

1. keep the number of things that they have to do as short as possible. things like brushing teeth and wearing seat belts matter, but 90% of the stuff I see other parents getting into power struggles with their kids really don't matter. The trend in parenting is to pressure very young children to do all sorts of things, and I think that is what Kohn is talking about it.

2. don't ask questions. Although it might seem harmless to ask kids if where they want to go to eat, or if they would rather go swimming or go ride bikes, little questions like this cause my kids to fight. Things go much smoother here if the grown ups have a plan and we just tell the children what it is. It is obvious what they like and don't like, and this isn't about forcing them into something, it is just about keeping the 2 of them from having a power struggle, or worse, mommy or daddy having to decide who gets their way.

Here is an article that I found very helpful when my kids where younger:
http://www.continuum-concept.org/rea...InControl.html


----------



## mamadonna (Sep 22, 2004)

I am just starting to read Kohn's book and have been following this thread today. I just read a passage that fits really well with the discussion going on in this thread (p. 37):

Quote:

I should emphasize again that there are no absolutes in human behavior. Whether positive reinforcement has a detrimental effect (and, if so, how detrimental) may vary depending on several factors. It matters _how_ it's done: the way praise is phrased, the tone of voice that's used, whether it's given in private or in front of others. It matters _to whom_ it's done: The child's age and temperament count, as do other variables. And it matters _why_ it's done: what kinds of things children are praised for doing and what your purpose is for praising--or, rather, what the child believes your purpose is. There's a difference between congratulating kids for acting in a way that merely makes _your_ life easier (for example, eating neatly) and congratulating them for doing something that's genuinely impressive. There's a difference between expressing pleasure in response to mindless obedience (for example, when a child follows one of your rules) and expressing pleasure in response to a really thoughtful question.
Of course nothing in life, or parenting, has easy or pat answers...


----------



## Meli65 (Apr 29, 2002)

Hmm. I took this book out of the library based on a recommendation of a friend of a friend but I am really resisting reading it. I feel that as the AP parent of a high-needs child I am already bending over backwards to set up his world in a way that suits him -- picking battles, making sure he has lots of stimulation every day (he is a classic extrovert) and basically denying my own needs in order to meet his. After 3-1/2 years of this, I am exhausted!

I'd like to make my life as a parent a little bit easier, and would also like to raise a pleasant child who recognizes the needs of others. Ds is very kind-hearted, so we must have done something right.

I already worry that I am not "AP-enough" and feel like this book will just make me feel worse. Any thoughts?


----------



## luv my 2 sweeties (Aug 30, 2003)

I haven't read the book yet, but I heard Alfie Kohn on the Diane Rheim (sp?) Show on NPR a few days ago talking about it. I was excited to hear the topic, because like mamamillie, I was blown away by Punished by Rewards. I wasn't a praise freak before that or anything, but it caused me to change some behaviors, and shifted my thinking in a number of ways, especially as a homeschooling parent.

Nevertheless, I was a little turned off by the way Kohn came off on the show. He seemed rather dismissive of some real problems parents and teachers have. As much as I liked Punished by Rewards, it *did* leave me feeling a little "damned if I do, damned if I don't" in the parenting department. In that book, he seemed to suggest that satisfying parental needs for control at certain times (which he aknowledges is sometimes necessary) nearly always come at the expense of children -- that we should just be aware of that when we decide that we *must* exert control. I guess I just don't agree that it has to be so adversarial -- that I have to sublimate my needs and wants _whenever possible_ for my child. Of course I must do this often, but everyone in the family deserves to be accomodated in their desires at least some of the time, and that includes me.

BUT, Kohn said in P by R that it was *not* a parenting book, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt that there may be ways to pull off this kind of parenting in a way that is good for everyone. I won't say that Unconditional Parenting fails to offer a path that I would be comfortable with because I haven't read it. Perhaps it does. But my sense from the radio show was that he remains long on theory and short on specific strategies for the trenches. In my experience, that equals guilt and confusion for me. I still don't know _what to do when..._, but now I feel worse about the way I *do* manage to handle it.







On the radio, when faced with a direct question of "what would you do..." he tended to lauch into reasons to avoid punishment. If he gave specific suggestions, they tended to be kinda lame, IMO. Hopefully, he gives many more substantive specifics in the book. I still want to read it, or at least look it over, but I have lower expectations for it than I did.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meli65*

I already worry that I am not "AP-enough" and feel like this book will just make me feel worse. Any thoughts?


He acknowledges that parenting is hard. He's on your side. It's worth the read.


----------



## brewgirl (Sep 22, 2004)

You're definitely AP enough!







My feeling from the book was that he's saying EVERYONE in the family deserves respect and to have their needs met. I came away from it realizing that I didn't HAVE to control everything my dd does and that we should all get our needs met some of the time. I took his emphasis on letting go of control as a signal that he was/is really trying to show a radical alternative to current mainstream parenting practices. And coming from a family who exercises a ton of control, it was nice to see someone reaffirming my instincts (ie, it's okay to acknowledge dd's opinions and preferences)

I was also disappointed my his NPR interview. Both with him and Diane. I felt like she missed a major point of the book, ie every child and situation is unique and using blanket "if x do y" approaches fails to respect the individuality of all involved. I felt like he didn't do a very good job of getting his message across. This book doesn't tell you what to do if you kids won't sleep or throw food on the floor. There aren't any formulas or charts involved. Instead it asks you to work with your child to find a solution that is mutally acceptable most of the time. Even if you reject this approach, it can be useful to use some of the time or as another parenting tool.

Great discussion!


----------



## Ex Libris (Jan 31, 2004)

I'm reading the book right now and by-and-large I'm enjoying it. I, too, was a little hesitant to buy it after hearing him talk to Diane (he was totally dismissive of a teacher who called in to ask about a particularly difficult child in her class--even Diane, who's usually pretty mild-mannered, sounded irritated and pointed out that he was avoiding the question). But even so, I bought the book anyway.

Coming from a very controlling, authoritarian family, I needed to hear what he has to say. I don't want to repeat the kind of childhood I had, but I didn't have any other models to follow. This book is giving me a good start toward being the kind of parent I wish I'd had. I find myself wanting specific situational advice, but I appreciate his resistance to provide it since different children and circumstances require different responses. So I'll have to become better at finding my own style. But I figure it's a growing and learning process for us all--I know I'll make mistakes, but I hope that we as a family grow closer and more trusting along the way as we work together through each issue.

Just wondering . . . did it seem to anyone else like Kohn makes "Mommy" the scapegoat in his book? Everytime he's got a negative example, it's always something "mom" did or said. That, coupled with the fact that the "right" way of doing things is coming from a man/dad (Kohn himself), was particularly irritating.


----------



## fourgrtkidos (Jan 6, 2004)

I am only a little way into the book and have not noticed yet that he blames mom! I will look out for it.

I am enjoying this book so far. I am looking forward to discussing it.


----------



## mommyofshmoo (Oct 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momandmore2*
Just wondering . . . did it seem to anyone else like Kohn makes "Mommy" the scapegoat in his book? Everytime he's got a negative example, it's always something "mom" did or said. That, coupled with the fact that the "right" way of doing things is coming from a man/dad (Kohn himself), was particularly irritating.

Hmmm...

I didn't notice that, and I read it through twice.

I think maybe it came off that way because a lot of toddler examples involve mothers mainly because mothers often spend more time with young kids. Also the experiments showing the negative effects of control all involved moms, not dads- but he was quoting research there and it's not his fault if the researchers used moms rather than dads.

I thought he said lots of things about good moms.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

I didn't notice the mom thing, but maybe that's because we've only got moms in our house, so if a parent screws up...yup, it's mom!

Not that we have ever screwed up....









I totally loved the book. Finished it last night. Gave me so much to lean on and think through.


----------



## Benji'sMom (Sep 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meli65*
Hmm. I took this book out of the library based on a recommendation of a friend of a friend but I am really resisting reading it. I feel that as the AP parent of a high-needs child I am already bending over backwards to set up his world in a way that suits him -- picking battles, making sure he has lots of stimulation every day (he is a classic extrovert) and basically denying my own needs in order to meet his. After 3-1/2 years of this, I am exhausted!

I'd like to make my life as a parent a little bit easier, and would also like to raise a pleasant child who recognizes the needs of others. Ds is very kind-hearted, so we must have done something right.

I already worry that I am not "AP-enough" and feel like this book will just make me feel worse. Any thoughts?

I think I'm never going to read another parenting book again. Like you said, doing you own thing and caring about your child's needs works pretty well without having to worry about what _else_ you should be doing. I never read parenting books when DS was an infant, why do I need them for a toddler? I should have more confidence in myself.


----------



## Linda KS (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend*
I didn't notice the mom thing, but maybe that's because we've only got moms in our house, so if a parent screws up...yup, it's mom!

:LOL














:LOL


----------



## seedling (Sep 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *luv my 2 sweeties*
But my sense from the radio show was that he remains long on theory and short on specific strategies for the trenches. In my experience, that equals guilt and confusion for me. I still don't know _what to do when..._, but now I feel worse about the way I *do* manage to handle it.









I'm only about a third of the way thru this book so far but this hits the nail on the head for how I'm feeling about it. I have a IRL friend who has read the majority of it and says it has refreshed her whole approach to parenting. So I'm sticking with it. But I have to say, I feel like I'm trying so dang hard at this whole parenting thing and want desperately to do the right thing for my kids and so far, this book has been a hard pill to swallow. I am sure I will have to re-read it at least twice to fully digest the points he is trying to put forth.

But you know, I *REALLY* need the specifics. I need to know what *IS* okay to do when my kids make me so mad I could spit nails. I mean, I fully acknowledge that walking away from them in the heat of the moment is more about me keeping my cool than about doling out punishment. So to hear that this is not okay, that this tells them I love them conditionally? It's HARD. It's very HARD. I mean, here I am feeling like I'm doing an okay job of controlling my own feelings and not unleashing them upon my children, and then I read that my method for doing this is detrimental to their emotional health. So what do I do instead? You know?

I know, I need to finish the book and re-read it and let it sink in. But I'm having a hard time with it.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I have read most of Punished by Rewards and to tell you the truth at first I hated it. Just so much full of theory that didnt jive in any way with my experience. But it has been sitting in the bathroom and I have thumbed through it more and towards the back where he quotes the research he does make several qualifying statements like how sometimes genuine praise IS a good idea and parents shouldnt' avoid it altogether. I even think he said that sometimes a well thought out consequence like time out is necessary. But these things shouldnt be the primary tools in a parents reportoire.
So I think I will read it cover to cover now and not just throw it down when I get ticked. . . Because he really doesnt mean it to be as black and white as it sounds in the beginning.
I have also read just about all the articles on his website. I think the man has excellent ideas on education. I find that I disagree a great deal on his ideas on parenting and I am not really motivated to read Unconditional Parenting.
For example. I do not believe timeout to be a "withdrawal of love". Or that it makes kids feel that it is unfair and makes them angry. I never felt this way and my children never responded this way themselves.
I think this may be true for some. I dont deny it. But he states things that he has observed asa being true for some as if they are true for all and that just drives me nuts when it is stated as fact.
And as to the PP who stated that if you think obedience is important for its own sake this type of idea is unlikely to appeal to you.
I agree but i wanted to point out that there is a middle ground.
IT isnt "my children must always obey right away" or "we dont have the concept of obedience or disobedience in our home". In my home I do expect a reasonable amount of obedience within a reasonable time frame. Things are always open for negotiation, and there is always a reason why. So obedience is important but never for its own sake but for the sake of expediency and family harmony etc. . ..
Anyway, Alfie Kohn is worth reading because he has a lot of interesting ideas but he kinda should be taken with a grain of salt.
Joline


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jenmk*
For other things, I try to describe rather than throw out a generic "good job!"

I'm interested in this part, as I tend to use "good job" in one particular way, more often than not. I tend to use it when dd is showing me that she can do something she's proud to have accomplished (figuring out how something works, example). She'll tell me what she did and then show me, and I usually reply with "good job". I don't really know what else I'd say. Repeating back what she just told me seems....patronizing or something.

This is interesting, as I haven't read much of what you're all talking about. I've come across other references to overpraising, but I've never read much about it.


----------



## Leatherette (Mar 4, 2003)

I think Alfie Kohn is a bit full of himself and kind of a one trick pony. That said, I think that his basic message is a good one for adults to hear. I found both "Punished by Rewards" and "Unconditional Parenting" to be longwinded, repetitive, and a little condescending.

I was so excited about "Punished by Rewards", because I was a special education teacher (wasn't yet a parent) who couldn't stand the overuse of "reward systems" I was seeing. That book helped me take my teaching to the next level, and helped me realize why these "rewards" I was seeing children get made me feel queasy.

But as a parent, I have been much less impressed with what "Unconditional Parenting" had to offer. Which does not mean that I don't agree with his basic philosophies.

L.


----------



## brewgirl (Sep 22, 2004)

I think that anyone who starts reading this book with the expectation it will tell them what to do will be disappointed. Personally, I think it falls more into the category of a parenting philosophy book. Kohn questions several parenting practices, many of which are the accepted norm (at least in all the places I've lived in the US). And right there is the value in reading this book (for me). I'm surrounded by people who value time out/punitive discipline/parental control/etc. I felt that UP gave me a different look at these practices and helped to spur a critical look at what my own personal parenting philosophy is based upon.

I also really appreciated that it wasn't another "if child does x, parent should/must do y". I think parental instinct is so undervalued and too many of us (myself included) look to perfect strangers who know nothing about our lives and children to tell us what to do. Because really, there isn't any one size fits all answer. Ultimately, we as parents need to sift through all the data and figure out what works for us.

The biggest idea I took away from this book was that it's how my children interpret my actions that matters, not what my intentions are. This point has really given me a lot to think about and was a good reminder that kids (little ones especially) aren't tuned in to the multiple levels of thinking and feelings that may be behind my actions.

So, I say, like with any book, it really depends on where you are in the parenting journey and what you're looking for.


----------



## Starflower (Sep 25, 2004)

I am currently reading this book - about halfway through it - and so far I am really enjoying it. I would agree that it's more of a parenting philosophy book than a how-to book, but that doesn't bother me. So far I don't feel like I've read anything new, but I do appreciate that he seems able to articulate much of what I've been thinking and feeling for a long time.

I have also been surprised at how much this book has helped me to understand that my parents really did have good intentions. They always told me that they raised me and my brother to question things and be independent, but their actions succeeded in undermining most of this. If we did question things and express our opinions we were put into our place. So in some ways, they were able to ignite the spark (are rather not completely suppress it) but we learned not to speak our minds.

Thanks to several years of therapy, (I put off having a child until my 30s because of my upbrining), I am at peace with most pieces of my childhood. But it's been fascinating to understand that some of the things my parents did actually probably were done with the best of intentions. So even if I don't get much out of this book concerning my own parenting (though I already have at least by feeling supported in my own ideas & philosophies) I definitely find it worth the read as it is helping me to better understand my own parents and continue healing our relationship.

I'll try to check-in to this thread again after I finish the book.


----------



## Attila the Honey (Mar 15, 2003)

UP is one of those books that really changed me, and how I look at things. It didn't make parenting harder, if anything it made it _easier_ because it enabled me to give up many battles I felt were important before (for reasons I don't understand). I think more than anything he asks us to focus on the long term and treat children with the respect we'd give an adult, which should be second nature for everyone but sadly isn't.

When I was reading it I would tell dh about it and he'd be very resistant. Finally he agreed to read it and it had the same impact on him. One day my dd was jumping off her little picnic table onto the grass and I said, "No, no!" and dh gently said, "Is there a reason she can't do that, or are you just asserting your authority? She's jumped off higher things and onto harder surfaces, and I don't think she will likely get hurt..." and he was right! That's when I knew he was in with me.









I will admit I wasn't 100% convinced that time-out = love withdrawal until I watched "Supernanny". UGH. That show really illustrates everything AK is talking about, doesn't it? The cold lack of respect, not to mention the focus solely on behavior, is horrible to me.


----------



## Quillian (Mar 1, 2003)

I really enjoyed UP and should re read it. I found it inspired me to do what already rang true to me. Not that at times it isn't very much a struggle but it reaffirmed my beliefs.
And I can understand those disapointed by the NCSS-a wasteful read for me although I understand it was and is very helpful for many others.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I have read most of the thread but might be repeating a few things.

First, the praise you say is not the kind of praise he's talking about being bad. Saying, "good sitting!" "Good eating!" "Good singing!" etc. is more what he means. Kids hear an endless stream of this and it really doesn't mean anything and can set them up to epect and need that kind of praise to respond to things. What you said, which is explaining to a child how what he/she does effects others (in this case a cat) as I recall is exactly what he says should be done.

Alfie Kohn is *not* a fan of the traditional school system, so my guess is he doesn't think kids should be conditioned to do well in it. He is a big fan of homeschooling.

I personally liked the book. It gave me a new perspective on some things. But I've felt that way with books before. It is disappointing to buy a book and not have it be what you hoped.


----------



## jacksmama (Sep 19, 2003)

Super great thread! Thanks for starting it. I haven't read any AK, but have been very curious. Everyone expressed themselves so well. Loved hearing all the different opinions.


----------



## bookwitch (Jun 30, 2005)

I haven't read the book yet, but I agree with your points. Children need GUIDANCE. They are children, they don't automatically know things like how to tell right from wrong or how to control themselves when they're upset, and it's up to us to teach them these things. We do them a great disservice if we don't.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I have to say this thread has been GREAT for me!
I had often wondered if I was the only one here who had serious doubts about some of the things AK has to say.
I mean. I like him OK. But I dont think he has all the answers, or that all of his ideas apply to all kids all the time.
Thanks for starting this thread.
Joline


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

I agree with much of PbR (which is really other people's research presented by Kohn), but found UP almost intolerable. Kohn has written a tome designed encourage parents to constantly question _every single thing_ they do -- all day all the time. He is also incredibly rigid and judgemental about anyone's parenting techniques other than his own. And what's up with most of the hypothetical examples being "mommy." Grrrr.

It must be wearying to be Alfie; living in a world in which children don't possess the least resiliance, always wondering if what he's said or done or if the expression on his face has scarred a child for life. I'm certainly not saying that our actions can't have unintended effects on our children, but rather that I'd like my kids to see me as a fully functioning adult with strengths and weaknesses just like everyone else. Reflect, apologize (and deal with the natural consequences), move on... just like I teach them. I greatly prefer the P.E.T. approach in which I get to have foibles and a bit of guilt free breathing space.


----------



## Monkeyfeet (Feb 5, 2005)

I thank the OP for starting this thread!

This book has made me very confused and apprehensive in what I say to dd. Yes, we have used the word "good" to dd. I have even used it in my AP playgroup and then I was nervous about how the mom's would respond! Of course they didn't.

I am LD in expressive language so I have a difficult time expressing myself and have always been very self conscious of this. I knew this book would not give specific things to say, but now I feel that I need them. I find myself not saying anything at all in certain situations because what I always thought was ok is now wrong! So I have a hard time retrieving words as it is, and now the words that come naturally and are easy for me to retrieve are wrong.

If anyone has a good book suggestion, I would be thankful!


----------



## Meli65 (Apr 29, 2002)

I liked "How to Talk So Kids Will Listen...."

Practical, respectful, and goal-oriented (the goal being a healthy, happy, functioning family).


----------



## jacksmama (Sep 19, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
I greatly prefer the P.E.T. approach in which I get to have foibles and a bit of guilt free breathing space.

NoHiddenFees: What's the P.E.T approach?

-Sandra


----------



## momsgotmilk4two (Sep 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jacksmama*
NoHiddenFees: What's the P.E.T approach?

-Sandra

How funny that PET got brought up today, my mom and I were just talking about this! It stands for Parent Effectiveness Training and has been around a long time since my mom used it on me







It is a lot like How to Talk so Kids will listen and listen so kids will talk. I was using some of those techniques today with my three and five year old, mainly the reflecting on their feelings and some of the granting them their wishes in fantasy and my mom said, "Oh are you doing PET?" So it seems like it has a lot of similarities.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

P.E.T is a goofy name. So goofy it took me about three years to get around to reading it. However, it and the Faber/Mazlish works based on Haim Ginott's work are, AFAIK, more or less the basis of all GD parenting works that follow.

P.E.T. breaks problems down into two groups: "your problems" and the "child's problems." Depending on who owns the problem, different responses are warranted. A passive (_edited to add_: oops I meant active) listening approach is recommended for the child's problems, while a "when you xxxxxx I feel xxxxx because xxxxx" approach is better for the parent's problems with the child.

Unlike Kohn, P.E.T. encourages parents to be honest with their children (and themselves) about their feelings. The author believe that trying to hide your negative feelings may do long term damage because kids pick up on stuff. This is where Kohn doesn't ring true for me. He's so worried about kids feeling judged by what parents say that he doesn't consider the consequences of kids sensing our unspoken disapproval. We can't help it, we are human. But we are also unique. Your triggers are not mine and even as individuals our limits can vary depending on such things as how much sleep we're getting, how much stress we're under and what kind of day we're having. With P.E.T. our negative feelings -- whether or not they are interpreted as disapproval -- are at least acknowledged and up for discussion. IMHO, the Kohns of the world seem to place a greater value on our children's range of feelings and emotional needs than the parents.


----------



## jacksmama (Sep 19, 2003)

Kari & Nohiddenfees:

Thanks for the answer. I've never heard of this, but it sounds interesting.

Kari you mentioned that your mom used it on you. How did you perceive that method, as a child?

Sandra


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
This is where Kohn doesn't ring true for me. He's so worried about kids feeling judged by what parents say that he doesn't consider the consequences of kids sensing our unspoken disapproval.









This is my problem with Kohn too. I loved a lot of what he had to say in Punished by Rewards, and for the first couple of chapters of Unconditional Parenting I thought it was a great book (he does make some good points). But as I continued to read I began to feel that Kohn is nearly paranoid about how each and every little thing a parent says may be perceived by the child as manipulation, disapproval or withdrawal of love-not just concerned about it or mindful of it, but really obsessed by it. I found myself wondering if he has any spontaneous interactions with his children at all. This is where he lost me. To be so concerned, in the extreme way he seems to be, about how each little phrase we utter (even when we think what we're uttering is loving) might be damaging is overwhelming-and more importantly it _is_ potentially damaging for children to sense our unspoken disapproval. I love my children absolutely unconditionally, and I also disapprove of some of the things they do. That isn't wrong, it just is. And my kids will sense when I disapprove no matter how I phrase myself or what kind of body language I try to use to mask my irritation.

I agree that kids will perceive our true feelings no matter what, and honesty about our feelings (in a tactful, sensitive, age-appropriate manner) is so very helpful to children. There will always be times our children perceive us as disapproving or even as manipulating whether or not that's the truth-because they are individuals and perceive things in their own way. You can't control someone else's perceptions, you can only be honest and loving in your interactions with them and mindful of how your words and actions may affect them.

I think P.E.T. is a good alternative recommendation, and so is How to Talk so Your Kids Will Listen and Listen so Your Kids Will Talk. Non-Violent Communication by Rosenberg is also an excellent resource for loving, peaceful, empathetic, honest communication and I highly recommend it.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

I love the book.

I think it deals with a lot of issues that are hard to confront head-on since they are so ingrained in our society.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
I think it deals with a lot of issues that are hard to confront head-on since they are so ingrained in our society.

Yes, this is one great thing about this book. He did a good job of making me think about my children's experience of life, and about which things are important to teach my children and why, and of making me examine more deeply my own attitudes toward, expectations of, and treatment of my children. He does a great job of emphasizing the humanity of children and the respect children deserve but so often do not receive in our society.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I don't think he's obsessed or paranoid, I think he's just trying to get us to have a change in perspective. He wants us to see our actions from the viewpoint of the child, rather than just from our viewpoint. That's a big point for him - that things that we don't intend to be punishments might still be perceived as punishments by children and therefore would have any negative effects that punishments would have. He gives a lot of examples where that might come up but I don't think it's about examining every interaction so much as making that shift in perspective.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

While I agree that he is focused on identifying how children view things. I find that he often tells the reader how a child feels when x happens. Which really put me off the deep end.
I feel that I already do a pretty good job looking at things from my childrens perspective, and so when he says "your child is really thinking this" I think "you dont know my child? What makes you think you know better than I do how he feels?"
Now again I have not read this book and he may be more general as in "some children might feel this way" but I have read too many things where he said "almost all children think this" And it is these kinds of statements that I object to.
As an attached parent I am in a far better position to guage how my children feel about anything than this stranger making vast generalizations.
Joline


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
While I agree that he is focused on identifying how children view things. I find that he often tells the reader how a child feels when x happens. Which really put me off the deep end.
I feel that I already do a pretty good job looking at things from my childrens perspective, and so when he says "your child is really thinking this" I think "you dont know my child? What makes you think you know better than I do how he feels?"
Now again I have not read this book and he may be more general as in "some children might feel this way" but I have read too many things where he said "almost all children think this" And it is these kinds of statements that I object to.
As an attached parent I am in a far better position to guage how my children feel about anything than this stranger making vast generalizations.
Joline


Yet, i have seen many, many instances where even AP parents I know well see their child as being defiant or willful where I see the same behaviors as embarrassed or ashamed or scared. I don't think all AP families are that in tune to underlying 'feeings' or issues. Further, I've seen perfectly reasonable parents get crazy and react badly to very normal behaviors, or read certain intent to behaviors that are without intent.

But don't even get me started on parents who call themselves "AP" who , in a word, aren't.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Well sure, but even a parent who isnt in tuned all the time to every emotion has an advantage over a stranger who has never met the child.
I am not saying that parents always know, but how can he know better even than those in the best position to know.
Joline


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Well sure, but even a parent who isnt in tuned all the time to every emotion has an advantage over a stranger who has never met the child.
I am not saying that parents always know, but how can he know better even than those in the best position to know.
Joline

He just uses generalizations and either completely made-up examples or he uses examples involving his own children. I don't recall anywhere in the book where he second-guessed a specific parent about a specific child.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

As I said I have not read that particular book.
However I have read many statements form him under the line as "Most children experience time out as a withdrawal of love".
Most children?
If he meant his children he ought to have said that. If he said "some children" or "x child in this example,felt such and such" WEll I'd be ok with that too.
But between Punished by rewards and the online articles I have read that *all or most children* seem to react in ways or feel things in ways I have never witnessed or experienced in my own childhood or in my own children.
I think that his observations are likely very apt and true for some or maybe even many children. I think that some are probably very likely true for children of particular temperaments.
But the way he appears to state these things as universal truths about all children just doesnt ring true to me and reduces his credibility a great deal.
Joline


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Here's an example of what I've read:

from http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/to.htm

Quote:

Let me be clear that there is nothing objectionable about having a safe, comfortable place where a child can go to calm down or just be alone for a few minutes. That's a terrific idea -- so good, in fact, that adults can set a powerful example by taking some time by themselves to cool off when they feel angry. Children should be given this option, and when emotions are running high, they can be gently (and, if possible, privately) reminded that it exists. What Katz and Paley and the rest of us are talking about, though, is a situation where the child is ordered to leave the group, where, in the words of one fervent proponent (Ruth Charney), it is "a direction, not a negotiation." In practice, that means it's a punishment -- and for many children, a remarkably hurtful one.
That very clearly says "many children". I don't recall any "universal truths" in his book. Maybe we've read his stuff from different perspectives and we have reacted to them differently because of that? Or maybe I just have a bad memory . . .


----------



## CurlyTop (Jun 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
However I have read many statements form him under the line as "Most children experience time out as a withdrawal of love".
Most children?

Hi, I'm just reading this thread and want to ask.... do you think that some children don't experience time out as love withdrawal?

TIA for your honest feedback.







:

Cheers,
CurlyTop


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CurlyTop*
Hi, I'm just reading this thread and want to ask.... do you think that some children don't experience time out as love withdrawal?

I'm not Johub... but I was mostly disciplined with time out and lost privileges as a child, and I don't remember experiencing it as "love withdrawal" at all. I never, ever, ever doubted that my mother loved me. Ever. My mother was the reassuring bedrock of my childhood.

I can distinctly remember being four or five and having to sit on a chair in the middle of the kitchen floor until the oven timer went off. The negative aspects of time out, for me (and I'd say for my siblings as well), were that it was boring and it interrupted playtime. In the context of a loving family and a secure attachment, and administered in a way that didn't involve shaming, time out was not traumatic for me.

I think contextual factors are probably very important in how *most* punishments will affect a child: the overall parent-child relationship, the child's temperament, the parent's manner, the fairness (vs. capriciousness or harshness) of the situation, the particulars of the punishment.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5*
I'm not Johub... but I was mostly disciplined with time out and lost privileges as a child, and I don't remember experiencing it as "love withdrawal" at all. I never, ever, ever doubted that my mother loved me. Ever. My mother was the reassuring bedrock of my childhood.

I can distinctly remember being four or five and having to sit on a chair in the middle of the kitchen floor until the oven timer went off. The negative aspects of time out, for me (and I'd say for my siblings as well), were that it was boring and it interrupted playtime. In the context of a loving family and a secure attachment, and administered in a way that didn't involve shaming, time out was not traumatic for me.

I think contextual factors are probably very important in how *most* punishments will affect a child: the overall parent-child relationship, the child's temperament, the parent's manner, the fairness (vs. capriciousness or harshness) of the situation, the particulars of the punishment.

I was only breastfed two months, and never got sick. Didn't need an antibiotic until was like 13 when i had a horrible ear infection.

Doesn't mean not breastfeeding was actually good for me.

Kids can be punsihed and 'be fine', just as many formula kids are 'healthy'.

Other kids can get punished and be harmed, and some formula fed kids have compromised immune systems and get every sickness their entire lives.

Thing is, it's hard to tell which one you have.

Not only that, raising kids without punishment or shame is better is far more pleasant, and kids learn respect for indiviual needs.

I like not having to deal with deciding who is good and who is bad. Some of my kids are more 'prickly' than others, but even the prickly don't deserve to be shamed. I don't care what one calls 'timeouts'. If my children need space, I can be there with them. I can hold them or give them space without making it a punishment.

I can see that all of my children are trying to do the right thing, and that punishing them doesn't make any of us happier, smarter or better human beings.

Kids don't need timed punishments to grow well.

What might have happened if you had not been but in time out? Do you think you would be in prison today?

I realize what i am saying seems 'out there'. But in my 16 yrs of being a parent, i have seen that children want to do 'the right thing' and often feel sick when they think they have let their parents down. They experience shame when they feel they are not doing what is 'right'.

I am not about shame. My kids respond to my compassion. They are not perfect, but neither am I. And my partner? Way not perfect. :LOL

We cut each other slack.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CurlyTop*
Hi, I'm just reading this thread and want to ask.... do you think that some children don't experience time out as love withdrawal?

TIA for your honest feedback.







:

Cheers,
CurlyTop

Absolutely. In fact there are very few circumstances where I would see how a child might perceive it as this way.
For example if the parent is holding and showing love to the child at the time of the misbehavior and the parent pushes the child away and sends them to time out.
But in my experience children are not acting out during a time frame in which they are in a giving/receiving of love mode wiht their parent.
If for example my two sons are playing together entirely separate from me and one hits the other. I remove the hitter to time out. The only thing the hitting child is being withdrawn from is play and his brother, but not me. As he was not with me in the first place.
I read this idea and I pondered it. And I tried to see how it might be true. But it is just somethign that does not ring true with my experience. Not for me and my children, and their temperaments and the times when I use time out.
Different children react differently. I imagine that time out might be seen as a withddrawal of love by some highly sensitive temperaments as well as by small children with serious separation anxiety.
But that is certainly not all or most children.
Joline


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CurlyTop*
Hi, I'm just reading this thread and want to ask.... do you think that some children don't experience time out as love withdrawal?

TIA for your honest feedback.







:

Cheers,
CurlyTop

I think it's possible, but it's not worth it to me

I've never seen where punishments or 'timeouts' benefit anyone.

If one of my chrildren needs some quiet, some peace, I can offer that without negativiity being involved.


----------



## CurlyTop (Jun 18, 2003)

Thanks for answering without being defensive (I really do not want to offend!) The replies by Joline & Rivka have helped me figure out something for myself. I have been thinking about my adult friends who swear they never felt their parent's love withdrawing even when they were being punished. I can't deny that they are telling me the truth, these are my friends! OTOH, I felt badly about punishing my kids (including TO used as a punishment). What I think now is that TO isn't good for our relationship. On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being "Scars our Relationship", 5 being "No Effect" and 10 being "Enhances our Relationship", I think TO is a 5 or below. My main concern is to enhance our relationship so even if TO isn't perceived by my DKs as love withdrawal, it doesn't serve my goal.

Thanks for the chance to think this thru.

CurlyTop


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

There are plenty of GD authors that don't advocate time outs; Alfie Kohn's being against time outs and against punishment isn't where I disagree. Our relationships with our children are, like all human relationships, complex. Kohn would have us believe that they are as predictible as the single variate studies he references. Of the families that use time outs, are the parents yellers? Is there a culture of humiliation in the family? What else is going on? Which variables are controlled for? PbR is more convincing because there is solid research supporting most of his claims.

In UP, Alfie Kohn isn't just saying that punishment isn't an effective discipline tool (like P.E.T., Anthony Wolf, Myna Shure, and many more regularly discussed here); he goes much further in stating that almost any means by which may may even _express_ disapproval to your child has the potential to scar them for life. Granted, very young children can easily conflate approval and love and one should tread very carefully in those formative years. However, I suspect that most children feeling securly grounded in a loving relationship will not, when a bit older, feel the foundations cracking should a parent express disapproval at a choice they made. Children are going to sense it anyway and no matter how super-duper a parent you are, you are going to give off disapproval vibes. The difference is, it it spoken or unspoken? Are you being honest with your child? Isn't it important in a child's development to learn that they can do something they know you disapprove of and you'll still love them and support them? That's unconditional parenting to me. The key is whether or not you are using disapproval as a method of control (i.e. the child knows that, "I don't like the idea of...." really means "don't do that") or whether they still have the choice to do it. Disapproval shouldn't be a tool to set limits, if you are a family that sets limits and if a child interprets it that way, it's up to the parent to make it clear that they really do have a choice.


----------



## luv my 2 sweeties (Aug 30, 2003)

NoHiddenFees -- I was with you right up to the end. Your last point about disapproval brought up this question for me. (I'm throwing it out to anyone though): How do we communicate the difference between disapproval of the *person* (damaging) and disapproval of the *action* (normal and unavoidable)? I *want* my children to learn that I can disapprove of their actions -- even strongly disapprove -- and still love them at the same time. I want them to know that if they are angry with me, they can slam doors, yell, etc. and I will not doubt that they still love me. (I will let them know later that I don't like being yelled at though.) Point is, if I never show disapproval -- even in a respectful way -- how are they to funtion in, say, a marriage when they grow up? No doubt it would be too much of a spouse to ask that they never show disapproval! I would like my kids to grow up knowing that even when we disappoint the ones we love, we still have their love. And *also* that it is important to try and do our best to be kind, honest, etc. Otherwise, love not withstanding, folks won't care to be around us much, kwim? Of course you have to temper the message to the age -- little children need more slack than older ones. I'm not advocating holding small children to the same standard their future spouse might.

BTW, does Kohn really advocate never showing disapproval? I've not yet read UP, although I've heard him on a couple of different talk shows plugging the book. (I loved Punished by Rewards -- that book changed my parenting a lot.) If so, I agree totally that this is unrealistic and sends the wrong message.


----------



## luv my 2 sweeties (Aug 30, 2003)

I think how children experience time out, or yelling, or loss of privleges, or any other method of discipline depends on several factors. Paramount is the existing relationship with the parent, as other pp's have mentioned. But the personality of the child matters a great deal as well. I have a book called The Five Love Languages of Children. It's kind of gimmicky, but I think it has a lot of truth in it. The authors' thesis is that children (and all people) have a preferred expression of love -- it may be "words of affirmation", quality time, gifts, "acts of service", or physical touch. Everyone likes all of these things, and we should do all of them for our children, but the primary love language is the one that makes the child *feel* most loved. You can hug a "words of affirmation" child all day, and he won't feel as loved as he will if you say "You're such a great kid -- I love you" just once. Conversely, you can tell a "physical touch" child that you love them often, but without hugs it's "just talk" to them.

The important point for purposes of this discussion is that we not only feel love most accutely in our primary love language -- _we also feel rejection most accutely in that language_. So time-out will feel much worse to a "quality time" kid than it will to a "pysical touch" kid, especially if the time-out is followed up by a big hug, kwim? All of this may just argue for less punishment across the board







, but I'm responding only to the question of how kids experience punishments like time out and how damaging they are as a consequence.

A related aside: We tend to treat others as we would like to be treated and refrain from treating others as we would *not* want to be treated. This is a good rule of thumb, but may not be adequate if we are speaking "acts of service" language to a child (or spouse) who craves "quality time".


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
I was only breastfed two months, and never got sick. Didn't need an antibiotic until was like 13 when i had a horrible ear infection.

Doesn't mean not breastfeeding was actually good for me.

Kids can be punsihed and 'be fine', just as many formula kids are 'healthy'.

Other kids can get punished and be harmed, and some formula fed kids have compromised immune systems and get every sickness their entire lives.

UUMom, I don't know why you thought I needed this prolonged lecture. I was answering a question: are there children who don't experience time out as love withdrawal? And yes, there are, because I was one of them. I wasn't preaching the wild successfulness of time out or saying that time out is never harmful or even saying that I intend to use time out myself. My post wasn't about advocacy, it was about providing an example *when one was specifically requested.*

And I hope the formula-feeding analogy is just a random example you pulled up, and that you weren't aware that I'm having to formula-feed my daughter. Because if you *were* aware, then that was mean.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5*
UUMom, I don't know why you thought I needed this prolonged lecture. I was answering a question: are there children who don't experience time out as love withdrawal? And yes, there are, because I was one of them. I wasn't preaching the wild successfulness of time out or saying that time out is never harmful or even saying that I intend to use time out myself. My post wasn't about advocacy, it was about providing an example *when one was specifically requested.*

And I hope the formula-feeding analogy is just a random example you pulled up, and that you weren't aware that I'm having to formula-feed my daughter. Because if you *were* aware, then that was mean.

Honestly-- i have no idea who you are, or whether you formula feed or not. I adopted a child, so i formula fed, too. although, who feeds what is niether here not there is this discussion. we all know formula is not bbreastmilk. that's the point.

it's an online discussion, which can seem like 'lecturing' , i suupose. It depends on one's frame of mind as they are reading.

At any rate, my thoughts weren't completey directed at you, but towatds all the folks particpating in this thread.

I also get that AK 's ideas are not easy for our western culture to digest. AK threads always get people going, and it's not always pretty. His ideas are very challenging and are ogten hard to accept.

It's not personal--it's an exchange of ideas. Take from it what you will.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *luv my 2 sweeties*
How do we communicate the difference between disapproval of the *person* (damaging) and disapproval of the *action* (normal and unavoidable)?

I think that if you are building a loving and trusting relationship with your kids, disapproval of an action is less likely to feel like disapproval of the person to them. If you have built a foundation of love, if you are willing to look at things from your child's point of view, willing to understand why they do what they do and willing to assume that your child's intent is usually good (as opposed to a willful desire to be bad, to misbehave, to cause trouble), and you are willing to tell your child you understand and speak calmly to them about their actions then your kids are likely to understand that you love them no matter what.

"You seem to be feeling very angry." "Yes!" "I think that you felt so angry that you felt like hitting your brother." "Yeah! He grabbed my toy!" "It feels bad when people grab our things. Well, it's okay to feel angry and it's okay that you felt like hitting but you may not hit. Hitting hurts. You can use your words to ask me for help." Big hug.

To a toddler: "No hitting." (calm firm voice) "I'll help you" Big hug or pick up and carry somewhere else.

To child who won't stop hitting or is throwing a screaming tantrum and talking isn't helping: "I'll be right here to help you when you're feeling better." or "I don't like it when people scream at me. I can't talk with you while you're screaming. I'll talk with you as soon as you're not screaming." Stay close and available.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoHiddenFees*
he goes much further in stating that almost any means by which may may even express disapproval to your child has the potential to scar them for life. Granted, very young children can easily conflate approval and love and one should tread very carefully in those formative years. However, I suspect that _most children feeling securly grounded in a loving relationship will not, when a bit older, feel the foundations cracking should a parent express disapproval at a choice they made_. Children are going to sense it anyway and no matter how super-duper a parent you are, you are going to give off disapproval vibes. The difference is, it it spoken or unspoken? Are you being honest with your child? Isn't it important in a child's development to learn that they can do something they know you disapprove of and you'll still love them and support them? That's unconditional parenting to me. The key is whether or not you are using disapproval as a method of control (i.e. the child knows that, "I don't like the idea of...." really means "don't do that") or whether they still have the choice to do it. Disapproval shouldn't be a tool to set limits, if you are a family that sets limits and if a child interprets it that way, it's up to the parent to make it clear that they really do have a choice.


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

A bit late, but want to add that Kohn argues that time-out IS love withdrawal. He links its emergence to a study on birds (or some other critter) that talked about "time out from positive reinforcement." In the case of applying this to children, it is not so much a case of not being able to continue playing, though this too is often involved, but the most important thing that the child is being deprived of is pleasant, loving interactions with the parent. Thus the message: if you act in this way, you are not worthy of my love. I will shun you if you don't do as I say.

So... children who do not feel this as love withdrawal are not feeling it for what it is. I would think that most children want the possibility of positive interaction with their parent(s) to be open at all times and would be upset by having this shut off when the parent was otherwise accessible (i.e. not out of the house). Perhaps some are more concerned about boredom or lost play time, but I find it hard to believe that any attached (or poorly attached for that matter) child would not be bothered by the fact that (e.g.) though she is nearby, mom is currently and deliberately out of bounds for a hug, some comforting words, or whatever. So, while the prevailing sentiment might have been "OMGOSH this is SO boring!!!" I find it hard to believe that it would not also overlap with sentiments (even fleeting ones) of being rejected or upset or downright angry about the fact that one wants to talk (or whatever) with mom now but she has deemed herself off limits.


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *luv my 2 sweeties*
How do we communicate the difference between disapproval of the *person* (damaging) and disapproval of the *action* (normal and unavoidable)?

Part of it is being in tune with yourself and learning how to tease out the actual cause of your disapproving feelings and identifying triggers. Then we can deal honestly with our children about our feelings. Part of loving them is repeatedly showing them that we support them and are there when they need help, no matter why or how. This is why I think it's crucial to voice disapproval rather than have the child take what they will from what they pick up. What does a disapproving look or a disapproving stance mean to a child? Would they have the courage to come to you for help if they've assumed the worst? You don't know unless you're talking about it.

For example, a parent might be particularly disapproving of their child's bullying of a friend, as opposed to being relatively detatched in the face of this parenting challenge. Perhaps this disapproval stems from the parent having been bullied as a child. Having identified the source to the best of their ability, the parent can then say (allowing for age appropriateness), "You probably have noticed that I disapprove of some of your interactions with xxxx. I think it's bullying. I feel very uncomfortable and can't hide it when I see you treating your friend that way because when I was a child I was bullied by my best friend and often felt angry and worthless and frustrated because of it. I never told her. Now, your friend isn't me and I don't know how your friend feels, but maybe you could ask her."

But how far can we separate approval of the person and the action? Certainly at five and probably fifteen we can bring about a certain level of detachment, but I certainly won't approve of my children's characters should they grow up to be a Tom DeLay or and Andrew Weiderhorn (local financier who essentially bilked a bunch of retirees out of their pensions through risky and illegal investement methods). I hope I would be a strong enough person to still be there should they need me though.

Quote:

BTW, does Kohn really advocate never showing disapproval?
Not exactly, but he leaves next to no avenues open to expressing it and he explicitly and repeatedly equates a child feeling disapproval with feeling a withdrawal of love, the latter typically characterized as having lasting effects on the psyche of the child.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal*
So... children who do not feel this as love withdrawal are not feeling it for what it is. I would think that most children want the possibility of positive interaction with their parent(s) to be open at all times and would be upset by having this shut off when the parent was otherwise accessible (i.e. not out of the house). Perhaps some are more concerned about boredom or lost play time, but I find it hard to believe that any attached (or poorly attached for that matter) child would not be bothered by the fact that (e.g.) though she is nearby, mom is currently and deliberately out of bounds for a hug, some comforting words, or whatever. So, while the prevailing sentiment might have been "OMGOSH this is SO boring!!!" I find it hard to believe that it would not also overlap with sentiments (even fleeting ones) of being rejected or upset or downright angry about the fact that one wants to talk (or whatever) with mom now but she has deemed herself off limits.

You say "what it is" but how do you know?
Seriously. My ds gets time out but I dont give him the silent treatment during it. There is no break in our interaction. In fact there have been many times when I kneeled right at his feet and talked to him during his time out.
I suppose "what it is" depends on the family.
In addition, isnt it Alfie Kohn himself who states that it isnt what the parents intention is that matters but the how the child experiences it.
So if how the child experiences it is the most important, how can it be perceived that he is "not feeling it for what it is".
What it Is IS how they are feeling it.
In fact I think that the most likely scenario here is that many of us who use "time out" are not really doing "time out from reinforcement" but perhaps "time out from play" or "time out from this toy" "time out from dinner" or whatever.
Basically the assumption above is that the idea that children MUST FEEL a withdrawal of love is so absolutely true that any exceptions must therefore be wrong rather than proof that the premise is faulty.
If experience tells us that an idea is not true for us, then is our experience wrong or is the idea wrong?


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Great points Joline.

I wonder if it counts as time-out if you are sitting next to your child and talking with her or him? I know many AP anti-time-outers (in the usual sense of the term) do separate their child from problematic situations for some down time, which they spend with their child, or let the child spend by her- or himself (though the child is not forced to do this).

From my understanding of how time-out is meant to be carried out (according to Supernanny, which I assume to be a mainstream interpretation of how to do it), one is to plop one's child on a "nauty chair" or in whatever space has been chosen for the punishment, and to not offer any positive interaction with the child at all. She advocates looking the child in the eye, saying, "You've been very naughty! You are sitting here because you threw your blocks and I asked you not to. Someone might get hurt when we throw blocks around the house" (I'm not sure she offers the child an explanation, though). Anyway, this is followed by removing oneself from the situation (or, e.g., busying oneself doing dishes or engaging in some other activity). It is not a time for cuddles or love. That would be rewarding the child for bad behaviour, and thus reinforcing it, on her take. There are many cases of children crying out for their mom (or whoever) to come to them, and the children are left to cry because they are being punished.

If it were only "you can't play with x anymore," why would the child be confined to a particular small space, and why would this be combined with the typical advice to not offer any "positive reinforcement" during the punishment? Were that the sole intent, the child could engage in some other activity.

Whatever the case, yes, some children may experience it differently than others and this can make it far more harmful to some children and less so to others. It is not always easy to tell which child it will be most harmful to, and as I suggested earlier, I do think that even those children who typically take it as boring, but not so much as a deprivation of love, are apt to also feel it as the latter.

In my own childhood, I did not take what was happening as neglect or emotional abuse, though I can now see that both applied. If you asked me, I'd say that my mom definitely didn't mean it when she called me an idiot and that it didn't bother me a whole lot (that's just how we talk in our family). Similarly, if asked why we never touch, I'd just say this was normal for our family and it was weird to always be clawing at each other, as some more intimate families did. Likewise with telling each other "I love you," I normalized that too, saying that we knew it to be true and that we showed our love in other ways (by buying gifts!) and that I appreciated these just as much. I agreed with these statements as a child, or at least pretended to believe in them (even to myself). This doesn't mean that I was saved from the negative effects of (minor) neglect and (minor) emotional abuse. That is akin to saying that a child who fends well and is not afraid to be left alone is not harmed by this and does not feel abandoned or unimportant because of it. Being left alone may be more harmful to some kids than to others, but it isn't a very good thing to do to any of them.

I think there are far worse things than a relatively gently applied time out, but the power issues that occur during these make me uncomfortable and I feel a sense of shame for the child. Aside from love-withdrawal, there are also the more basic problems with punishment itself, which are additional reasons that make me disagree with the time out approach.


----------



## pixiexto (Mar 6, 2003)

Wow, I'm really surprised by how many people drew had this reaction to UP -that Kohn leaves no room for disapproval, that we have to do things around a child's timetable all the time, that we cannot have genuine interactions.

I found UP to be highly impacting, and in a very positive way. I think that it does promote a very new philosophy of the treatment of others, and one that need not be limited solely to parenting. I am still able to share my feelings with my daughter, but I am more mindful of how I "react" in situations when I feel frustrated. These are my feelings, and even if they are linked to her behavior I need to own them.

As far as timeouts not causing children to feel love withdrawal, I'm not sure that personal anecdotes are sufficient proof to me that "some" children are fine. Are we the best judges if we are, in fact, "fine"? Not meaning to target anyone in particular, and I do not exclude myself from this question. Also, what comes to mind immediately, is that I am hoping to far exceed "fine" for my daughters, as I'm sure we all are. While not providing specific techniques, it does still leave me feeling inspired and somehow able to parent from my gut with more positivity.

Very interesting discussion.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiexto*
As far as timeouts not causing children to feel love withdrawal, I'm not sure that personal anecdotes are sufficient proof to me that "some" children are fine.

FTR, I haven't read UP yet. It's on my list, but I have mixed feelings about the Kohn I have read so far.

At any rate, I am curious if he offers something other than anecdotal evidence that children who are disciplined via time-outs *aren't* fine. And does he differentiate between time outs where children are isolated and those where they are simply removed from particular activities? There are so many different variations of "time out" out there, that I think the term would need to be defined before it is either accepted or dismissed.


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee*
FTR, I haven't read UP yet. It's on my list, but I have mixed feelings about the Kohn I have read so far.

At any rate, I am curious if he offers something other than anecdotal evidence that children who are disciplined via time-outs *aren't* fine. And does he differentiate between time outs where children are isolated and those where they are simply removed from particular activities? There are so many different variations of "time out" out there, that I think the term would need to be defined before it is either accepted or dismissed.

he does not.

parents who wholeheartedly believe in spanking, are rarely convinced by the ample evidence that children who are spanked are 'not fine'.

so even if he did offer research and studies, would it make a big difference to the general public?

i think the best 'anekdotal' evidence is imagining yourself in the same situation -- i bet many would feel 'fine' if your dh gave them a silent treatment, while explaining all the logical reasons he did not want to talk to them. but even those who might feel fine, will likely feel resentful, even if they would be otherwise ready to see their 'guilt' and accept it, and even apologize. time outs, no matter of the degree, do not contribute to the closeness of the relationship.


----------



## pixiexto (Mar 6, 2003)

I've got a horrible case of Mama-brain, so I'm sorry that I'm not able to remember with accuracy which points were backed up by which research (as cited in the footnotes section) but my experience has been that this is not new information and, as the PP mentions, to me it just makes good sense.

I try to come at parenting in a way that treats our daughters with the same dignity that I would treat anyone, or the way that I would wish to be treated.

My Mother used withdrawal of positive attention & the silent treatment as a consequences when I was a child - I don't think she meant for it to feel like love withdrawal, but this is how it felt. Are my practices biased by this? Perhaps... regardless, I am not comfortable with using time-outs. Removal from activities, in my view, I would only use if someone's safety was being jeopardized, and this to me is not within the same class of "applied consequence" that I see time-outs as fitting into.

So I guess, for me at least, there does not need to be a definition. I see them as rather equal - at least in their effect if not their intention.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annabanana*
he does not.

parents who wholeheartedly believe in spanking, are rarely convinced by the ample evidence that children who are spanked are 'not fine'.

so even if he did offer research and studies, would it make a big difference to the general public?

i think the best 'anekdotal' evidence is imagining yourself in the same situation -- i bet many would feel 'fine' if your dh gave them a silent treatment, while explaining all the logical reasons he did not want to talk to them. but even those who might feel fine, will likely feel resentful, even if they would be otherwise ready to see their 'guilt' and accept it, and even apologize. time outs, no matter of the degree, do not contribute to the closeness of the relationship.

Well, it just seems odd for someone to criticize anecdotal evidence if they don't have anything other than anecdotal evidence to offer.









Is the "general public" swayed by research? I dunno. But plenty of individuals are....

And as PPs have mentioned, there are all sorts of different responses to behaviors that might fall under the category "time out." Not all are "the silent treament." That's why I think a definition is useful, and I was curious what Kohn's was.


----------



## pixiexto (Mar 6, 2003)

I feel it is not odd. I find the book compelling; I find claims of "I'm fine" or "My child is fine" uncompelling.

I suppose part of the difference I see is that I am not trying to sway anyone to my point of view, but expressing genuine surprise that so many are unconvinced that time-out's are not a GD response. I can't say with certainty that Kohn either did or did not provide specific examples of research to defend his claim - I did read the book, but as I posted before my memory is not in it's finest form lately.

Perhaps I am heading off topic in this particular thread...


----------



## fly-mom (May 23, 2005)

bumping for mamaofthree


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee*
At any rate, I am curious if he offers something other than anecdotal evidence that children who are disciplined via time-outs *aren't* fine.

Yes, and he cites the studies. IIRC they all deal with young children and isolation type time outs.

Quote:

And does he differentiate between time outs where children are isolated and those where they are simply removed from particular activities?
No, but I'm not sure he conflates them either. It's hard to tell because he doesn't address the issue at all.


----------



## mama ganoush (Jul 8, 2004)

going to say right off the bat that i haven't read complete book. excerpts here and there, and articles written by him.

my problem with this book has to do with parenting books in general. What does this man who has never met my child really have to tell me about raising my child?? The only expert on my child is me.

It saddens me to see so many smart mamas ignoring their own strengths and instincts in favor of doing everything 'by the book'-no matter what the book is. why are so many of us so willing to give our power to some man who wrote a book??

also, and this is obviously just my opinion, but i could name a hundred problems with the world right off the bat, and not one of them would be that children are told "good job" when they tie their shoes. I find the whole notion pretty silly. And it becomes yet one more bone that moms (and i say moms cause it is usually the moms reading the books) are being told to heap upon the mama guilt pile by some supposed 'expert'.

i really don't think that some study on birds, for example, has one darn thing to do with how i should parent my particular child. it is just something for the 'experts' to write books to sell and contribute to the moms aren't good enough culture that is so rampant in our society.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

:








Oh, mama g, I think I love you!!!









It's so true. All these "experts", all these books.
I know it doesn't all always come naturally and quickly, especially when you weren't raised gently but want to parent gently. Books can give you ideas, things to think about. They have their place.
But really, I finally learned the most about parenting and made the biggest changes by putting down the books and taking the time to really listen to my own self and to really listen to my child. When I realized I actually could be trusted not to totally screw up my kids. When I realized no one else knew my kids better than me (and dh).


----------



## pixiexto (Mar 6, 2003)

mama ganoush, I agree with you in most part about parenting books, and yet I *do* like UP a lot. I am not keen at all on what I call "how-to" parenting books; for the most part, I find them to be manipulative and contrived, not to mention preachy.

I suppose I look at UP as more a how I hope to treat other human beings book - more of a philosophical book than a tactic book, if that makes sense. I found myself not doubting myself, but instead feeling inspired.

I dunno, is it just me?


----------



## Venice Mamacita (Dec 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiexto*
I suppose I look at UP as more a how I hope to treat other human beings book - more of a philosophical book than a tactic book, if that makes sense. I found myself not doubting myself, but instead feeling inspired.

I dunno, is it just me?

















: I'm with you on this, pixiexto, that was my response to UP exactly.

This book was a real paradigm shift for me. I'm a shrink who specializes in working with children & adolescents, and I wish ALL my patients' parents would read it (I recommend it all the time)! Truly. AK is absolutely correct regarding his research and discussion of the evolution of Behaviorism and its influence on modern parenting.

The trouble is, we prefer a sheep mentality in our culture. We like control and our ability to create the outcomes we want, but we don't like to take responsibility when things go awry. And we really don't like to think for ourselves. So it's no surprise to me that most parenting books are about child training, as AK discusses.

I don't want my son to be a sheep, and although it may make my job as his mother more difficult, I hope he will question EVERYTHING -- including his father & me.

As I said, the book was a paradigm shift for me, and has changed the way I interact in ALL my relationships, not just the one with my son. If you take nothing else away from it, I hope it's that *the motivation for behavior is just as important -- if not more so -- as the behavior itself.*


----------



## sadie_sabot (Dec 17, 2002)

I am certainly the expert on my child, but I don't parent her in a vaccuum. My approach to parenting is constantly and daily affected by what I encounter in the world (from unsolicited advice to seeing how other parents parent), just as it is by how it works with my duaghter and what I learn from our interactions with each other. My own experiences from being parented also figure heavily into what I will do if I don't think and reflect on my parenting.

I don't thihnk UP even tries to offer tips on "how to parent." It has no useful tips or tricks. (*I like "How to become the parent you want to be" for that kind of stuff. I found it to be much more of a book about shifting opur paradigms, challenging our unchallenged assumptions, and what not.

Very worthwhile reading in my experience.


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

:







:







:


----------



## sadie_sabot (Dec 17, 2002)

Venice, we cross posted, and I am in agreement with you for sure.


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mama ganoush*
i could name a hundred problems with the world right off the bat, and not one of them would be that children are told "good job" when they tie their shoes. I find the whole notion pretty silly.

well, yes and no.

saying 'good job' is not just 'saying good job'. it is a certain way to relate to your child, thus constructing a certain relationship pattern with your child and with others around you.

saying 'good job' (the way AK talks about it -- a general praise for everything a child does) means that you (not 'you' in particular, the general 'you') do not pay attention to the particulars of your child's achievement. it means that you are not very mindful and aware, and are somewhat congnitively lazy.

it means that you are making your child dependent on this praise, thus reducing his chances to be internally motivated to help himself and others.

it means that you are reducing the child's self esteem, by making him dependent on other's to know his or her worth.

i could name a hundred problems with the world that stem from the fact that people depend on others to know their self-worth, do not have confidence in themselves, and are generally mindless praise junkies who are not motivated internally, but only by external motivators.


----------



## sadie_sabot (Dec 17, 2002)

yah, I mean, think of the playground...oh, good sliding! good swinging! good walking! good breathing! it's freakin' ridiculous! It feels tome like people are tyring to have positive interacvtions with their kids wihtout having to you know, touble themselves to pay attention or converse with their kids. Good falling! good crying!

I feel a lot more engaged when I say "oh, wow, you did that by yourself," and I am still conveying appreciation, you know? Also, I see my dd stay interested longer when I say, "wow, tell me about this painting," than when I say "good painting!"

Mama G, I think the book might not be what you think it is.


----------



## sagira (Mar 8, 2003)

Whatever you read, whatever you hear, whatever you feel.. always put the relationship between you and your child first.

Nothing else matters.


----------



## pixiexto (Mar 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sadie_sabot*
yah, I mean, think of the playground...oh, good sliding! good swinging! good walking! good breathing! it's freakin' ridiculous! It feels tome like people are tyring to have positive interacvtions with their kids wihtout having to you know, touble themselves to pay attention or converse with their kids. Good falling! good crying!


Oh my, but did you hit it on the head. This is just how I feel about praise - like it is EASIER to just hand out "good this", "good that" then to mindfully interact. I laugh, remembering a friend who would say "good clapping!!!" with enormous enthusiasm whenever her little girl clapped. It was amazing.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sadie_sabot*
I don't think UP even tries to offer tips on "how to parent." It has no useful tips or tricks. (*I like "How to become the parent you want to be" for that kind of stuff. I found it to be much more of a book about shifting opur paradigms, challenging our unchallenged assumptions, and what not.

Tremendously well said.

It's not, in my view, a book of parenting techniques. It is an invitation to shift your World view and how you relate with others.


----------



## mama ganoush (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annabanana*
well, yes and no.

saying 'good job' is not just 'saying good job'. it is a certain way to relate to your child, thus constructing a certain relationship pattern with your child and with others around you.

saying 'good job' (the way AK talks about it -- a general praise for everything a child does) means that you (not 'you' in particular, the general 'you') do not pay attention to the particulars of your child's achievement. it means that you are not very mindful and aware, and are somewhat congnitively lazy.

it means that you are making your child dependent on this praise, thus reducing his chances to be internally motivated to help himself and others.

it means that you are reducing the child's self esteem, by making him dependent on other's to know his or her worth.



well, see, all that is stated as fact, when i don't believe it is. that's one analysis of praise, but it isn't empirical fact.


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mama ganoush*
well, see, all that is stated as fact, when i don't believe it is. that's one analysis of praise, but it isn't empirical fact.

there are countless studies, well controlled and executed, that support this. check the last 20 years or of psychological research.

the opposing point of view (yours?) is deeply rooted in behaviorism, and while behaviorism was revolutionary in its time, it is, mostly a historical curiosity nowadays. sure, it has its applications -- mostly in training severely handicapped individuals. most of its assumptions and principles have been developed based on lab rat research. not to offend the rats, they are highly intelligent, but no one asked them if they were happy running mazes for food pellets, and escaping electric shocks.

so what is your analysis of praise, out of curiosity?


----------



## mama ganoush (Jul 8, 2004)

i'm not really here to debate the scientific merit of praise-this was a thread for people who don't think this is the greatest book ever, and i used it as a platform for my general feeling that that there is no book that is thre greatest book ever for my child unless it was written by me.

as for my personal feelings on praise, i don't praise my daughter for every little thing from waking up in the morning to using the bathroom. but i was raised with next to no compliments or positive attention, and i think that is far more harmful than being told 'good job' by a loving parent. i happen to not use good job all that much, but not because some book told me not to. it's just never been one of my phrases.

i believe it is possible, and i'm not sure how to phrase this that won't ruffle feathers, to overthink parenting. to get so bogged down with worry over every tiny detail, that it can be paralyzing. and i think books like this, however well intentioned, add to that. I cringe whenever i pick up a parenting magazine that feeds parents quotes of the exact words they are 'supposed' to use with their children. Like mothers-cause again it is usually mothers reading the stuff-now can't even be trusted to use the right words to praise their child's coloring. i feel the constant second guessing that so many moms do is disempowering, and i think there is an entire industry getting rich off of feeding this anxiety.


----------



## pixiexto (Mar 6, 2003)

mama ganoush, I also do not wish to debate & appreciate that everyone has the opportunity to share their p.o.v. Sometimes threads develop into a bit of a different direction, kwim?

The one thing that really stuck out in your post is that you mention "worrying over every tiny detail". I think this general idea comes up again and again, that if the spirit of UP is taken in then it means that we must second guess and worry over all of our parenting behaviors. In my own experience, the impact of UP has been completely *opposite*. It has opened a window for me - - not that it's message was completely alien to me, but it somehow tied it all up in a way that really shifted my view.

I wonder, is this the general consensus among those who disliked the book, that it causes worry or anxiety in parenting?

(btw, for what it's worth, I am enjoying this discussion and not meaning to cram "my truth" down anyone else's throat)


----------



## sadie_sabot (Dec 17, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiexto*
mama ganoush, I also do not wish to debate & appreciate that everyone has the opportunity to share their p.o.v. Sometimes threads develop into a bit of a different direction, kwim?

The one thing that really stuck out in your post is that you mention "worrying over every tiny detail". I think this general idea comes up again and again, that if the spirit of UP is taken in then it means that we must second guess and worry over all of our parenting behaviors. In my own experience, the impact of UP has been completely *opposite*. It has opened a window for me - - not that it's message was completely alien to me, but it somehow tied it all up in a way that really shifted my view.

Yah.

I am not inclined to argue with folks who read the book and weren't into it. But it's really a mischaracterization to say it's about overthinking every little thing, etc.

For me, the most important thing about this book is how it challenges the widely accepted assumptions of behaviorism, which I think permeate every level of our society. I'd love top see some of the principles of UP applied much more braodly, like, say, to norms of employer/employee relationships and what not.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

I don't think mama g was saying that UP specifically is all about overthinking parenting. I think mama g was saying that _in general_ it's possible to overthink parenting and that _in general_ all these parenting books really add to the anxiety and overthinking-and it's an industry built on telling parents (especially mothers) that they aren't wise enough to raise a child and need an expert to tell them how, an industry built on influencing parents to listen not to their children and themselves but to experts who know nothing about their own personal circumstances. I think she was saying that there is no one true, greatest book to tell her how to best raise her child-that she can only find the best way to raise her child within herself and her child and their relationship. I think she was saying that in general mothers can and should trust themselves and their children rather than looking so much to experts to tell them what to do-especially the intelligent, wise, loving mamas here.

I think she has a good point.

As far as UP goes, I think Kohn has some great ideas that our society really could stand to think about. I would love to see behaviorism lose it's hold on our culture. But I think Kohn is one of those who overthinks parenting, though maybe it's just his writing style. I don't think that's a mischaracterization, I think it's how I perceived it and interpreted it. Others will disagree, because they perceived and interpreted it differently. That is one of the amazing things about people, they all think and perceive in different ways. It's very interesting to share with each other our different points of view and our different understandings of the same material.


----------



## sadie_sabot (Dec 17, 2002)

something has been bothering me...it's connected to this thread although not directly about the OP, so I apologize if anyone thinks this is inappropriate.

mama g said,

Quote:

The only expert on my child is me.
and I feel the same way...none of the authors of any aprenting books have met my kid, or know my family, or know all the things that have happened in her life so far, and so on.

But I think it is porblematic to assert that this is widely the case and that parenting books aremore trouble than help because of it. I am thinking about people who are not good parents, for one reason or another. people who suffered terrible parenting themseklves and haven't learned how to do it differently. People who are not able to control their own anger and frustration, people who lack insight into toher people, whatever it is...I think that actuyally more people should get some exposure to some very basic parenting stuff of the just slightly more ap than mainstream variety, a lot less children would end up hurt.

Does that make any sense? I am not in any way trying to comment on anyone's parenting or connection to their kid, but to point out that what is true for some of us is far from true for other people.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Interesting. I think I know what you mean, but I see the problem slightly differently.

I think parents are the only experts on their own children the vast majority of the time, but often other things get in the way of their parenting compassionately or well. (I will insert the disclaimer here that I am very, very reluctant to judge whether someone else is a good parent or a bad parent.) For example, many people do not listen to those deep inner voices that tell them that something they're doing is hurtful to their child because the cultural voices/norms overwhelm those voices (how many moms let their babies cio because they believe they have to, and hate every moment of it?). Or their own preoccupations with other stressful events prevent them from really being in touch with either their children or themselves. Or because they're too busy taking in all the advice from friends and family and pediatricians and the media to listen to their own knowledge of their children and what their children need. Or, or, or.... And that someone didn't have a good role model for parenting doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't the expert on their own child, but maybe that they don't have the skills to use their knowledge of their child to parent effectively. YK?

It's a complicated problem. If there is one thing I've learned since becoming a parent, it's that it's impossible to make a blanket statement without soon discovering that there are exceptions to what you've said. I think most reasonably loving parents do have the knowledge and compassion they need to raise kids, but it gets clouded sometimes. And yes, all those books do can in handy-the books can give you ideas, new ways of looking at things. In other words, they can make you think. This is good. I think what is not good is when people take parenting books less as a catalyst for looking at parenting a new way, and more as a strict how-to guide (which is how many of them present themselves). The reason I don't think this is good is that when books present a "how-to" formula, it's very rarely a one-size fits all formula that can work for everyone. I also think it's problematic when parents automatically assume that some expert always has the answer, rather than listening to their child. I guess I see parenting books as a double-edged sword, offering good ideas sometimes and sometimes really helping a parent improve their relationship with their kids, but also often getting in the way of parents listening to their own kids.

Maybe if our society in general trusted children to learn and grow and believed in their basic goodness, we wouldn't have so many experts telling us how to change them. And maybe parents would not only be more confident, but also more patient and less in need of people to tell us how to handle our children.

Hmmmm. I have been mulling over UP for months, and I can't honestly say that I feel completely one way or another about it. Perhaps that's because sometimes I see it in the "how-to" light even though it's clearly not a "how-to" book-that's not coming out right but it's as close as I can get. Maybe I've been seeing his discussions and questioning of praise and expressions of disapproval as advice (don't praise, don't express disapproval) rather than as simply a way of provoking thought, of forcing people to look at the parent-child relationship in new ways. I may go re-read again, and think about this some more.


----------



## mama ganoush (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sadie_sabot*
I am thinking about people who are not good parents, for one reason or another. people who suffered terrible parenting themseklves and haven't learned how to do it differently. People who are not able to control their own anger and frustration, people who lack insight into toher people, whatever it is...I think that actuyally more people should get some exposure to some very basic parenting stuff of the just slightly more ap than mainstream variety, a lot less children would end up hurt.


i totally agree with this-but ime, it isn't these parents who are buying these books.


----------



## sadie_sabot (Dec 17, 2002)

yah mama g, that's true.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Hope you don't mind me jumping in, but I just wanted to say that I think sledg spoke some words of wisdom there. I agree 100% that people should get more exposure to different parenting skills, but, like you said, most people are learning their parenting from magazines, books, and people that are, at the end of the day, motivated by profit. Hell, probably even Alfie Kohn wants to make some money. And Parenting magazine, which I subscribe to,







: is like Cosmopolitan for mothers, all about setting you up by telling you what you're doing wrong and how you're lacking, and then "helping" you with a handy-dandy list of answers, which are somehow usually a round number. Because there really are only 10 different ways to teach your baby to sleep.

I think Mamaganoush is right, mothers shouldn't overthink every detail, but it's also hard to know what to do, and to rely on instinct, especially if you're deviating greatly from how you were parented, because the information about doing it differently is so questionable. I've had people say to me, "Oh yeah, we're getting ready to Ferberize, you have to Ferberize." Like the pp said, they never even thought about it, that's just what you do. Even AP moms are like that, I've noticed. They're making themselves miserable because they have to "whatever" and it just doesn't work for their child. And I definitely am not blaming any mom for this, I do it too. It's so hard not to, because it's hard to know what else to do. There's no cultural wisdom to draw on, no elders to go and discuss it with. Most of the time when I call my mom to ask her advice, she gives me an answer that I want to laugh at. And when my granny was alive and I talked to her about parenting, it was like we had grown up on different planets.

Whoo! Sorry for the rant!


----------



## NoHiddenFees (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
As far as UP goes, I think Kohn has some great ideas that our society really could stand to think about. I would love to see behaviorism lose it's hold on our culture. But I think Kohn is one of those who overthinks parenting, though maybe it's just his writing style. I don't think that's a mischaracterization, I think it's how I perceived it and interpreted it.

That's one of my problems with UP. We don't use time outs or punishment nor indeed most of the things Kohn recommends against, yet I am still turned off by this book. I recently finished _Hold on to Your Kids_. It covers much of the same territory, but it deals with parenting from the inside and the nurturing of the parents relationship with their children. _Hold on to Your Kids_ is about parenting from the heart and it spoke to me deeply. Kohn comes off to me as advocating parenting with the head (this study says this is bad, that study says that is bad.. don't do this or that) and about analyzing what's on the surface... reactive rather than intuitive. He further strikes me as someone who is very rigid in his beliefs and stands on his principles alone, never willing to admit that his generalizations don't apply to all people and situations.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

Okay I finally got through this thread, and I haven't read the book yet (it's been sitting on my nightstand for awhile now) but I read some articles he wrote and a couple points confused me.

I've always felt uncomfortable saying anything along the lines of "ooh that makes kitty so happy when you pet him gently" because I thought you weren't supposed to make them feel responsible for someone else's happiness. Saying "it makes me sad when you hit me" makes me feel manipulative way more than saying "I'm proud of you for being so gentle."

He also said something along the lines of, why would you praise something to encourage repeats of that behavior, because it's like you have no faith in them in ever repeating it. Well, sometimes my son does accomplish something that is quite impressive for his age, or for him, and if he manages to sit quietly and play through a half hour wait at the pediatrician's office, I'm impressed and wouldn't mind if he repeated it.

I don't know, what I'm getting from this thread is that he has some good points about looking at how much we praise and why we do it. But I think there's merit to the idea that you can feel like you can't do anything right. I'm guessing the people out there who are shouting out "GOOD SHARING!" if the kid throws a morsel of food at the dog are not the parents reading this book. Instead it's probably the parents who are careful to offer specific and attentive praise, and then they get to worry that there's something wrong with that, too.

Without having read much of him yet, I'm going to also boldly add that I think so many writers of parenting books have some really good ideas, and then package them up in a book and make the points more of a giant exaggerated theory (i.e. praise= bad). Maybe he doesn't. I'll definietly check him out still. I'm just wary these days. I imagine I'll be partly defensive, partly stuimulated, and partly annoyed.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

bumpety bump bump.
No one wants to comment on the whole "that makes him happy" idea as manipulative? Does Kohn get more into that? Maybe I'm misunderstanding him from just reading a short article.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Yeah I always thoght it was a double standard too.
We are supposed to encourage empathy rather than guilt.
"See how hitting your brother makes him angry and sad. Doesnt it hurt to be hit? What do you think you can do to make him feel better."
Is the kind of comment we are encouraged to make rather than "hitting is not nice"
But we are discouraged from saying "hitting me makes me angry" because it makes them responsible for our feelings.
Like it is ok to say they are responsible for some peoples feelings but parents feeligns dont count.
Either the things we do affect the feelings of others or they dont. It is just contrived and manipulative to do it one way for some situations but not for others. Especially when it is true. 'it makes me angry when you pull my hair" is just as legitimate as "it makes the cat angry when you pull his tail"

joline


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hazelnut*
bumpety bump bump.
No one wants to comment on the whole "that makes him happy" idea as manipulative? Does Kohn get more into that? Maybe I'm misunderstanding him from just reading a short article.

this is interesting. where is the line between showing how we impact others, and making us 'responsible' for how others feel.

when dd willingly shares with her baby brother, i say 'look how happy he is, smiling, playing with the toy'.

if she pushes him, i say 'look how sad he is. he is crying. his head hurts.'

i am kind of thinking as i am writing.

yes, this does imply that 'she made him happy' or 'she made him sad'. well, this is true. he is reacting to her actions, she had an impact on him.

is she responsible for his feelings? hm, somewhat i guess (fact). she contributed to his feelings.

i guess this is the truth -- we do impact on how others feel. but how to make sure she does not feel OVERLY responsible? or guilty? i don't know.

i do not feel this is manipulative per se. maybe it is just in the wording, but i feel there is a difference between you MADE him sad, and he is sad, though the actual distintion in terms of behaviours is not clear.

i still prefer pointiting out how her actions affect others, rather than giving her praise in terms of 'good girl'. i feel it is LESS manipulative.

when you praise directly, you have a goal -- repeat of the behaviour, mainly. otherwise you would not praise -- you want something from that child. it is more disconnected from the act of sharing, for example. you share, you get 'a cookie'. what is the relation? but if you share and you see someone happy, it is directly connected to your behaviour.

with the direct praise you are even more so made responsible for others' feelings. you share, your mom seems ecstatic, but there is no connection to the behaviour. so the connection is between your action and the praise, not between your action and the direct result of your action.

ah, not sure if this makes any sense. i will post it anyway. curious what others have to comment.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:

when you praise directly, you have a goal -- repeat of the behaviour, mainly. otherwise you would not praise
THis is absolutely uneqivocally untrue.
Praise is an expression of delight. Perhaps some do contrive praise to fulfill another purpose, but that is like saying the purpose of smiling is to get somebody to smile back.
Maybe some people do that. But some people just smile because they are happy.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote: "The only expert on my child is me."

***I believe Alfie Kohn's point is that this is an erroneous belief. The only expert on any child is *himself*. The book's premise is the child's own perception of their parenting is what is relevant, not the parent's intent. Therefore, his "how to" advice is to celebrate your child's own expertise about himself by listening to him and honoring his autonomy without subjugating it to behavior modification toward the parent's intended goals.

That "mama doesn't know best". This paradigm shift does challenge the conventional "wisdom", even on MDC.

Pat

_Edited not to attribute quote to any one person._


----------



## sadie_sabot (Dec 17, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
The only expert on any child is *himself*. The book's premise is the child's own perception of their parenting is what is relevant, not the parent's intent. Therefore, his "how to" advice is to celebrate your child's own expertise about himself by listening to him and honoring his autonomy without subjugating it to behavior modification toward the parent's intended goals.

Pat

Oh, well said, well said.


----------



## Venice Mamacita (Dec 24, 2003)

:


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

Hhmm, that's interesting Anna. I don't really have anything interesting to say except that I can kind of see his point more now. I do disagree on the same point Johub did- I think I often praise just because I'm proud of him, or because I think it feels good to hear deserved praise and I want him to feel good about himself. That's where I think maybe the criticism of overpraising maybe shouldn't be extended to any genuine praise from a well-meaning, attentive parent. But I can see how it probably often gets reduced to pure manipulation, especially when people are bent on treating kids a little too much like little soldiers. I don't always think encouraging behavior through praise is inherently wrong at times either, but I'm thinking about what you said. I think the feelings thing can be overdone as well, but I suppose it's also beneficial at times, especially when positive (i.e. see how happy he is now).
Johub, sometimes I think it sounds contrived because it is a little too contrived. I seek suggestions, but at the same time I dislike when any parenting advice person is extremely specific about what is OK and what is not acceptable.


----------



## pixiexto (Mar 6, 2003)

Maybe my memory is off , but I just can't remember coming away from any of the chapters with the message that, as parents, we are not to tell a child how their behavior influences us.

I don't see a problem with telling my child (or anyone, for that matter) how their behavior impacts me. I am not assigning fixed traits (you are bad) or even attributing malintent if I say "When you hit me, it hurts and I feel angry" . Instead, I am teaching my child a valuable lesson - that we affect others through our actions.

Is this the same as saying "when you share your special doll with your sister, she is smiling! She seems to feel happy!" ? Yes, similar. Again, I am not assigning fixed traits (i.e. you are good, you are worthy because you share), I am showing her what may not be clear to her at this age - that she affects others.

Hmm... I'm not sure I'm making much sense tonight, but this is my little stream of consciousness


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hazelnut*
Johub, sometimes I think it sounds contrived because it is a little too contrived. I seek suggestions, but at the same time I dislike when any parenting advice person is extremely specific about what is OK and what is not acceptable.

Yes but it is every so much easier to set ourselves the standard to be emotionally honest with our children and not to misuse love, affection and praise to get what we want.
Saying you should not praise a child (because some use praise to manipulate their children) is equivalent to saying that you should not show affection to your child because some use displays of affection to manipulate their children.
If you are emotionally honest and speak from the heart you arent going to go wrong. If you stop yourself from saying what comes naturally and joyfully because somebody once wrote a book that it was bad to say those things, THAT is what is contrived.

Joline


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

Maybe I sound like I'm all over the place, but i agree with you, and that was one thing I was trying to say, though probably didn't do well. I think Kohn might have some good points, but is possibly taking it a bit far and making people who are probably using less manipulative, genuine praise doubt themselves. I'm starting to see how some praise is manipulative, but I don't think praise is bad when it's not doled out by the megaton load. I like it mixed up with the genuine attentive observations he talks about (which comes naturally to me, and I'm no expert, so I don't think it's a terribly revolutionary idea on his part.)

Again, I'm only going from articles I read and just discussing the ideas in general here, and not exactly the merit of the book itself.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Yes but it is every so much easier to set ourselves the standard to be emotionally honest with our children and not to misuse love, affection and praise to get what we want.

Jumping in again.

Just wanted to say I totally agree with this. I think we should give children more credit. They can sort through the BS, at 2.5 my dd already senses false praise, and it just pushes her the other way. But she knows when we mean it.

Also, we all agree you should avoid negative statements, like, "Throwing that food on the floor was very naughty," right? Because they might internalize it, right? They'll think, "What I did was naughty, I must be naughty, I'm worthless."

Well, why doesn't this work the other way? For example, "You did a good job of cleaning up that milk you spilled."

What does the child think?

"My mom only loves me because I can clean up milk."

or maybe...

"I'm good at cleaning things up. I can solve problems when I make a mistake. I'm capable."

I might be convoluting things a bit for the sake of argument here, but I just don't think anyone's going to be any worse off if you just said, "Good job!" in reference to the cleaning of the milk. Your child can read between the lines, they know what you're referring to.


----------



## AntoninBeGonin (Jun 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
I might be convoluting things a bit for the sake of argument here, but I just don't think anyone's going to be any worse off if you just said, "Good job!" in reference to the cleaning of the milk. Your child can read between the lines, they know what you're referring to.

I agree 100%.

Good job, Sarah! I always enjoy your posts.









~Nay


----------

