How soon is too soon for discipline?

[springbabydays]

For example, placing baby in the playpen when ignoring the word 'no'. He understands 'no'. He is 15 months and gets upset if I put him in the playpen but is he too young to make the connection? I don't want to be a meanie if it's not helping him learn. I do other things like distraction when I have the energy, but sometimes I need to remove him from a situation.

distraction is the way to go at that age. he will not make the connection. that is not to say you can't remove him, or put him in his play pen for a minute for his safety while you do essential stuff. what are you saying no to? what is he doing you want him to stop?

Mostly playing with doors, electric plug sockets and the standard lamp. Pretty much everything else has been removed from our lounge to reduce the amount of things he can tinker with! But I said to dp, we need to let him explore 'naughty' things so that we can start to instil some sort of discipline at some point. If you just remove stuff altogether, he'll never have the chance to recognise what he should and shouldn't do.

The playpen is fine if he's in there a while he'll start to enjoy himself, it's just the initial placing him in there he doesn't like.

he is too young to understand not to touch things you don't want him to. when he is closer to 3 you can teach him things can hurt him or that things belong to other people. those are concepts he simply cannot understand yet so remove and distract.

So you want to set him up to fail so you can discipline him.

How about not and when he is old enough to understand then he will get it. Distraction is best at this age. You will not create a demon child if you don't use "discipline" or time out at this age.

At that age I would remove from the situation but not punish

So if they were going for the sockets I would move them away saying 'no that will give you an ow' and then get them playing with another toy.

Both of mine learnt pretty quickly and I never needed to baby proof much. Took a lot of effort though!

You'll know when your child understands their behaviour and is being purposefully naughty. There's no point disciplining them before that point.

Do you mean punishment?

If so I don't think that there is ever a need. I don't punish.

No not punishment, just trying to convey a message to him without spoken language. I've never done this before so no idea when babies start to cotton on to this sort of thing.

Thank you for the feedback.

What had he done?

You want to convey a message without spoken language? He's a toddler - he's young and his natural inclination is to explore. Distract!

I despise "discipline". You just tell and show them what you expect. Most kids respond very well to that. Set and inflexible ideas such as "discipline" are a sure fire way to resentful relationships IMO.

Agree that distraction is your friend right now. I too have a 15mo DS2 who is the biggest rascal known to man.

I found it easier to work out the right reaction when I read that children (up till about five really) have very poor impulse control. Like QT said, their brains process the information that they shouldn't do something and they can't help do it anyway. They are programmed to do it.

My nearly four year old does now have some impulse control - although not all the time. We now use time out although distraction still works to avoid escalation and move things away from meltdowns....but at 15mo, distraction was the best method.

I know he's not being naughty and I have no intention of punishing him. Just wondered when he would start to understand boundaries etc with something like the naughty step concept. Clearly 15 months is too soon.

As I said in my op, I don't want to upset him for no reason. I love his curiosity and don't want him to stop enjoying his explorations.

Thanks again.

What Nicki said and to add, that discipline is learned and not something to teach by punishment.

Do you teach a child how to get up in the morning and be ready for school.
Do you help and support them or punish them if they are late and not ready.

Actually now you've explained it that way qt and ruby it makes a lot more sense.

When mine touched something they shouldn't I just stuck to "No" and move away. If they returned straight to it, I might stick in a playpen/cot with a No.

I would try not to give too much attention, but might well try giving them a novel toy (a favourite or one from the bottom of the play basket or even something new like a wooden spoon).

Naughty step didn't really do much for us. My tricky too, just wouldn't stay - and so it would lead to more attention. My easy one, woulkd stop on the first No.
(BTW now the easy one is the trickiest of the three.)

A good thing to do is try to note when they are "naughty". If first thing in the morning, maybe you can prevent it by just getting out earlier, whatever the house is like. Some behaviour can be prevented by getting out by 9 am.
If its before lunch, maybe they're hungry? can you have a snack closer to lunch, or even move lunch a bit earlier?
Or is it near nap time, maybe they need to wind down?
Or is it when you feel exhausted? Then try to rest when they do, and prepare to distract them later - play dough in the high chair, while you cook. And so on.

No! Never do the No! thing! It creates a lot of tension in a child, in anyone for that matter.

Learn to speak their language, use body language to direct them to something different or distract them.

Ooops! or Ouch! or Oh dear! or Hot! or Can I have that? are OK as they are communicating a response.

No just makes them nervous.

unrealhousewife - can you explain to me why the word "No" can be harmful to a 15 month old, when a word like "Ouch" is not? How can they have a psychological reaction to a word unless it is used in a distressing context? Or is it the "N" sound?
Would using "jo" have the same effect (no in afrikaans).

I sort of understand what unreal is saying (I think!) I try not to overuse the word 'no' anyway as it's so negative and doesn't explain anything. It also loses meaning if used over and over.

A friend of mine's lo says it all the time and it's not very nice to hear it from a toddler (assume she's heard it a lot to be doing that).

The option 'can I have that' is tried and tested here, and very successful!

I'm not worried by any of ds' behaviour btw, I think perhaps my choice of word 'discipline' was a bad one. He's a lovely baby pfb

Yes but unreal came out with one of those statements you read in books, but if you think about they just don't hold water.

I think it is far more crucial to: limit what you really forbid (I used "maybe" far more, as it gave me a chance to change my mind); try to understand how children think, so why they want to touch the Christma decorations; and to keep things in perspective, will this still be a problem when they are 18.

Actually "No" was often used by me to bring them up short, to shock them. But it can also be used playfully, I think small children learn more by tone of voice.
Also some children really do not get body language, and some people never do.

I think it depends on whether the behaviour is what I would consider to be "naughty" or normal exploring behaviour. My DS2 went through a hitting / pushing phase starting around 15m, and I would deal with that much more firmly than showing an interest in plug sockets etc.

I think some people are confusing rational understanding (which comes later) with conditioned response. All creatures, from woodlice upwards, have behavioural responses which means that they will repeat an action which brings something positive, and will be less likely to repeat an action which brings nothing, or something negative. You see it in babies as they wean - preferring to eat food that tastes nice for example, and they are much younger than 15 months. You even see it in horrific cases like those children's home babies in the old days who had stopped bothering to cry because no one came. Our babies cry because it gets them what they need, so a positive outcome. Those babies were ignored. No positive reinforcement = over time, the behaviour dies out. So sad.

Another example is where you teach a bf baby not to bite by putting them down and stopping the feed at that point. Biting brings a negative consequence (no more food for a little while) so they become less likely to do it. I taught my son not to hit the dog/me/throw things etc in a similar way. If he went to do it, I said 'no' loudly which made him stop and look at me. If he did it again, I removed him from the dog and gave her lots of cuddles while ignoring him for a minute or two. So hitting the dog meant he got less attention (negative/no positive reinforcement). Not hitting the dog when I said 'no' got him attention (cuddles, praise so a good thing) and thus that action became repeated more often. When he gets older and can rationalize, he'll start to question the house rules, and then things will become more interesting!

Repeating the word no is unnecessary. It creates tension in the child and doesn't differentiate between a naughty action and one that is accidental or a consequence of exploring, it doesn't help the child learn anything. It's a useful tool to train a dog with, but not a child.

Look at Dan Siegel's brainstorm lecture on youtube.

Discipline is not about punishment - and it is not about being hard or rigid.
Discipline means having rules and boundaries and being consistent and you start that from when a child starts to interact.

There is nothing wrong with using the word 'No' whilst at the same time directing a very young child away from something. You don't have to say 'No' in a harsh voice or to shout - Just a firm 'No'
As a child grows then you do need to add a reason to the 'no' but to start with - I think a 'No' is quite sufficient.