do your kids do as they're told when they're told to do it?

[thewomanwhothoughtshewasahat]

cos if they do I want to know your secret. probably like most parents I use a mix of the stick and carrot - which in our case usually comprises removing or adding beads to a pot, with beads adding up to treats. (ie the mn pasta jar but with beads) All well and good and it is pretty much guaranteed to get results. But I am fed up of it!!!!! I really cannot get dds to do anything without issuing a threat or a bribe and it's driving me up the wall. I really don;t want to have to count to 10 and take away or add beads for every single little thing. Has anyone found a less specific way of rewarding good behaviour which actually keeps them on their toes all (or at least most) of the time, as opposed to one where they only actually prick their ears up and do as they're told when they hear the word bead/pasta/star/sticker?

Franny - will be checking that book out. I have to admit I have always felt a little uncomfortable about the bribery aspect of what i do, and frustrated that it is sometimes the only way of getting dd to do what i want. But also see that as adults we pretty much live that way too - as Aggiepanther said, we get paid for going to work etc. But anyway, what you're saying sounds interesting. A 2 yr old though isn't going to comprehend that cleaning teeth will keep them healthy - i think that sort of explanation works for things like if you don't put your coat on we can't go to playgroup (assuming kid likes playgroup :)) Though that doesn't work if you HAVE to get to the shops! What I was saying earlier about giving them control (cos or hte most part it isa bout control for them) in some shape or form, choice of toothbrush, etc, may work, and that's not bribery..

I can't bring myself to use stickers/pasta jars/naughty steps/all that jazz. Partly because I think it's short-termist, soulless, clinical, does nothing to teach children the moral and ethical foundations of behaviour and is essentially rubbage. A robot could apply rules like that. Partly also because I balk at the idea of shelving my own instincts and original ideas in favour of the latest TV craze. I hate doing what everyone else is doing:)

I use a melee of measures with ds1 (3) including predicatable consequences, distraction where possible, humour where appropriate, clear explanations of what I want them to do and why, asking him why he thinks I want him to do what I've asked him to do, an icily calm voice (reserved for really foul behaviour), constant babbling about how much I love being with him because he is such a good and helpful and kind boy.... I have no idea whether it is any good in "media guru" terms, but we seem to be muddling through and he hasn't killed anyone yet. I think parenting is a creative and subtle, not entirely logic-driven process, like playing the violin . I get very annoyed when family and friends question a particular decision I have made - it would mean going into all the fine nuances of why I made that decision today when I made a different one yesterday. It's one of the reasons I tend to believe one primary carer is best for a small child (although I am not attacking those who don't agree):).

Fair point F&Z :)
Although I do think we have to reward good behaviour when our children are little and eventually the reward becomes doing the good thing itself (or simply pleasing mum and dad) ... I only had to use time out and sticker charts on my dd for a very brief time...when I needed that something extra. Just because you use them doesn't mean you will always have to.

I do agree with you a lot on parenting greensleeves

do you think it is upside of having a Mad Mother?

Yes

Bournville, yes we do as adults respond very predictably to stick and carrot techniques, our whole society is steeped in behaviourist theory ao that we never stop to question whether these methods actually have the effect we are hoping for. Yes, promising a reward gets the person to do the thing you want them to do. But (quite apart from the question of whether it is ethical to control another person's behaviour like this)it makes them less likely to enjoy that activity for its own sake in the future, even if it was previously something they liked doing. It also means that they go about the task in a more predictable, less thorough and less creative way.

\link{http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618001816/qid=1141132746/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-0548513-2519827\This is the book here.} It's quite revolutionary when you read what the studies show.

Greensleeves ..your parenting sounds excellent ..particularly 'clear explanations' ..I think too many children are just told to 'behave' but have no idea what this actually means.. you'll probably hate me for saying this, but your use of 'an icily calm voice (reserved for really foul behaviour), constant babbling about how much I love being with him because he is such a good and helpful and kind boy' sounds to me just like punishment and reward though ... so just along the same behavioural lines as star charts really

The difference, I think, is that my son is having a relationship with a human being, not a sheet of paper with symbols on it. Nobody is suggesting abolishing the notion that behaviour has consequences

I see your point greensleeves :) Have often thought that star charts etc often just give an opportunity for the parent to show they are pleased and that it is this that is the real reward

Yes I agree GS you are parenting according to your natural instincts not deliberately treating your children like behavioural monkeys (Aggie is right though, it is still carrot and stick [shock})

Well I think a certain amount of that is present in Nature, if your children's ability to feel empathy and understand others' feelings is to be developed. If I pinch someone, they express pain and probably anger, no? The key point is whether or not a child cares that that is the case, as well as whether he knows it. A child who has no feelings about upsetting others with his behaviour is a child with no understanding of cause and effect, and no stake in his own behaviour. In my opinion. It's a world away from sticking smiley faces on a chart and issuing sweets for tidying his toys away. Abolishing natural consequences is throwing the baby out with the bath water, and doing the child a disservice.

Who was suggesting 'abolishing natural consequences'? Did I miss something..haven't read the whole thread?

Greensleeves, you have just managed to articulate very concisely what i feel about parenting fads and parenting styles. cheers. .

I meant that I think parenting with no "carrot and stick" at all would have to entail abolishing "cause and effect", because it's just a less pejorative name for the same concept. I think there's a difference between the natural, spontaneous human reactions to behaviour (sad/cold voice when really upset, joyful when pleased, exuberant expressions of love etc) which a child needs to experience in order to understand how human beings function and what is the relationship between stimulus and reaction; and the false bribery/blackmail systems which abstract the natural parent-child relationship into charts, jars and rigidity and teach the child nothing about what his behaviour really means.

I was aiming more at Franny than you AP, but only in a VERY NICE way

i agree 100%

I think GS means that if you don't react naturally to your child's behaviour, your child will be shocked when someone does, and might not care as he/she has never experienced an honest reaction before, and won't know what to do.

t.mills?? Am I thick or have I missed summat?

Oh, TRAGO bloody Mills!!! Oh, it's a sh*thole and no mistake

"greensleeves that language is unacceptable. Please do not say things like that"

I'm expressing myself. Don't you thwart my natural urges, you fascist thugs!!!!

I do a rather good icily cold/calm voice. Scares my kids witless as I'm normally all bubbly and full of laughter.

Actually it scares my friends as well lol!

Fascinating thread and wnderfully helpful posting from Greensleeves...

Has anyone ever come across NVC as a communication technique? (non violent communication) It advocates 'connecting' with whatever in people drives them to behave a certain way and addressing both that force in them and whatever in you is responding to their behaviour. So that there is no absolute moral correctness in a parent's authority, any more than there is in a child's. One very clear example: the use of phrases like 'good girl' imply an absolute straight line of 'good-ness' that you are checking her against, whereas in fact your pleasure in your DD's behaviour is more subjective than that. The same applies of course to disobedient behaviour - no 'I am the boss just because I am the boss' tactics. You are supposed to try and acknowledge the fact that it is your need for order/ co-operation/ efficiency that is being disappointed, not some abstract notion of absolute parental power. And trust that the child has an innate desire to see that need satisfied.

I'm trying it out in a sampler course, though how far I can translate it into real life remains to be seen. I wouldn't have felt qualified to post anything about it, but reading what Greensleeves has written kind of endorses what I feel about discipline techniques, and having a shot at NVC is my attempt at formalising that.

Not sure if anyone will follow my garbled interpretation of it tho...

My child doesn't care if an untidy floor makes me unhappy, he wants to tip his toys out anyway. And he does.