What does Alfie Kohn actually tell you to do? (aviatrix, juule, ?)

[flack]

I got the Unconditional Parenting book.
TBH, I thought it was useless. It spent so long rubbishing most of what parents have been taught to do to get good behaviour (not that I'm convinced by his evidence, but anyway). Then he says something like "I'm not going to be prescriptive and tell parents what to do instead, they can figure it out for themselves"

So he doesn't offer any alternatives at all.

I peeked at the forums on his website and the people there seem just as clueless as me, really. Actually, quite scarey his devotees are, fumbling around for answers.

So Aviatrix or anyone else who is a fan, what does he suggest you do to inspire bolshy kids to behave? Does he give any tangible guidelines in one of his other books?

I was reading Ghosty's thread but didn't want to hijack it (I have a similarly uncooperative 7yo).

I felt the same after first reading it. That it didn't compare with something like "How to talk so kids will listen..." However, it's the one book that I've had in mind more over the past half year or more and I keep coming back to it and thinking about it.

I think in the end it's about changing the whole way you think about bringing up children and from there finding your own way of doing so without rewards or punishments. He does actually give a few very general pointers towards the end (e.g. "is it worth it in the long term?" "speak less, listen more" etc).

Sorry I can't talk more about it tonight but will get back to this thread tomorrow.

What's his definition of rewards and punishments? Does he count social reinforcers as rewards, or only material reinforcers?

Flack ... you could have hijacked ... I wouldn't have minded but this probably needed a thread of its own as it is specific ...

For some reason I keep reading 'Kofi Annan' in the title .... why is that I wonder? Do my parenting efforts require UN intervention maybe?

OK I've just read some stuff on his website.

First things first. Reinforcement doesn't have to be a reward. It is simply something that will make a certain behaviour more likely to happpen again. In DS1's case for example shouting very loudly and crossly at him is very reinforcing. He loves it, and will immediately do whatever it is you're shouting at him about again. So for exampke the time I found him climbing up to stand up and balance on the bannisters 3 stories up I had to bit my tongue very hard, choke go a bit purple and lift him down whilst looking terribly bored with the whole afffair. Any reaciton- even one that would normally be regarded as negative would have been very reinforcing for him.

So having looked at what he's written on his website (which isn't the same as reading a book granted). It looks to me as if he's still using reinforcement, he's just using it in a slightly different way than usual.

So for example from his website:

• Say what you saw. A simple, evaluation-free statement ("You put your shoes on by yourself" or even just "You did it") tells your child that you noticed. It also lets her take pride in what she did. In other cases, a more elaborate description may make sense. If your child draws a picture, you might provide feedback ? not judgment ? about what you noticed: "This mountain is huge!" "Boy, you sure used a lot of purple today!"

Well that's still reinforcement. You notice, the child ends up feeling good so she's more likely to repeat. It will only work oif the child is reinforced by that approach (wouldn't work on ds1 for example, might on ds2).

I do think that being aware of how you use reinforcement is sensible. I believe in using it carefully and fading it quickly, and not used properly (or used too much), yes, I agree it can be ineffective. Reinforcement and rewards are not the same thing though - not in the sense that he's given in his website. (maybe he expands more in the book).

I have given Alfie Kohn's views a lot of though recently and I have noticed how much people say 'that is good', 'good boy' etc and when you start noticing it, it does start to grate a bit so I consciously try and avoid too much of that myself. I think some of his views have a lot to recommend them BUT in the end he is no different really to any child psychologist type. He is advocating a certain way of treating children (unconditional love, no rewards/punishment etc) to get a long term goal (a self-motivated, fulfilled child).

In the end it is really no less manipulative than any other way as it has an end view of what sort of child you want and a way of behaving to get that result.

I do try and use some of his guidelines as I do have a lot of sympathy for his views but really struggle with daily small scenarios that make up daily life.

EG -

1 Ds won't go to bed at night. In this theory I should let him stay up until he is ready and my natural inclination is to do that so we did this for about two months but in the end we had a child so tired during the day that his concentration span was miniscule and his tantrum quota increasing rapidly. Since stepping in and insisting on an earlier bedtime I have a child who is happier, more content has a better concentration span. To achieve this we had to insist on ds going to bed earlier. We did not leave him to cry for ages but some crying was involved. We had to be firm and accept that ds would protest but in the long run he is a happier child for it. Even his childminder has commented on how much less manic and hyperactive he is since we have been firm about bedtime.

2 DS won't get dressed in the morning but we have to leave by a certain time otherwise I am late for work so I sometimes forcibly dress him. I could solve this by giving up work but I won't do that so ds has to fit in.

I think the problem with this model of parenting is it elevates the individual needs of a child above all others in a family and to do this is an imposssible task. When it comes down to it children (and adults) all have to learn to compromise and live with other people.

The main issue I suppose is how much we as parents abuse our authority and tbh as imperfect people we all abuse it sometimes - we just need to keep that abuse of power as little as possible by always being aware of it.

not sure if this is pure Alfie Kohn, but I largely support the no punishments/rewards philosophy.

Applying this to parenting, discipline is not something you do to children to make them behave in a certain manner - this means the time out, smacking, removal of privileges and reward systems like star charts and bribes are out. The problem with punishments and rewards is that they distract from the intrinsic value of a particular action (eg not hitting sibling) and focuses the child on what is in it for them (rewarsd) or how much it would hurt them to do it (punishments), eventually leading them to be devious in not getting caught or not doing something if there is no reward.

For me, what this means in practice is that I give dd (3) as much choice as possible whether or not to do/not do something. So if I tell her she must go to bed, she is allowed to protest. I explain in terms she can understand why she needs to go to bed or add a little humour or encouragement (eg she can bring a toy in with her). If she still refuses, I have to make a decision how non-negotiable bedtime is. If not, I let it pass and allow her to stay up longer. If non-negotiable, then I will exert parental authority by physically carrying her up to bed and lying in bed next to her until she drops off. Repeat the next day, until she gets the message. Usually it is just a phase.

The essential thing is usually only 20% of things are non-negotiable. 80% is usually subject to compromise. Or is something I refused initially only because it was inconvenient for me eg because it would cause a mess. And you have to accept that sometimes, your words will fall on deaf ears.

It is a long term strategy. The best discipline tool in your arsenal is a rock solid relationship between yourself and your child. A child might for various reasons refuse to comply with a request, but if the relationship is there (have faith!), no child will wilfully choose to be in a parents' bad books forever. By not abusing our child's inherent dependence on us as their parents (in the form of arbitrary punishments and rewards) and spending time with them, taking care of them, valuing them as individuals, our children will come round of their own accord.

You only need to tell them the desired behaviour. In time, they will internalise it because you are their role model. hth

oh that's interesting lazycow. It puts me in mind of when children (and adults) are able to make voluntary decisions. As part of ds1's autism he has OCD. From Jan-Aug last year our family calendar was stuck on january as every time I tried to turn over ds1 went ballistic. I have no idea why. If I took it down to write something in it he would scream and scream and hit his head against the wall until it went back up.

I really had no idea what to do about it. So I consulted with Donna Williams- who is autistic herself. She taught me something really useful (about a lot of his behavioural issues). She said that with things like this he wasn't acting voluntarily at all- he was ebing controlled by the calendar. He wasn't choosing to have the calendar up he was forced to. She told me to rip it up in front of him whislt directing anger at the calendar "naughty calendar controlling ds1" etc etc I was too scared to rip it up, but I did the naughty callendar routine, took it down, put it in a box, and he was absolutely fine with it. Didn't even murmur. her point being (and this is the relavant bit to your son ont going to bed I think) that unless someone can make a truly voluntary (and I guess considered) choice then you have to make some choices for them.

Been pondering the stuff I read on his website yesterday as well. Then whilst sorting out some stuff this morning found this a pyramid aproach to education: lesson plans for young children. This was developed by Andy bondy who is a pure behaviourist, ABA at that. Under a section headed Powerful Reinforcement Systems he says "We emphasize using reinforcers for completing actions that are as natural to situation as possible. For example a natural consequence for poutting on sneakers is getting to run around outside. ........ For example while Pheobe is running around inside.... we say 'Phoebe lets go outside" then when {Phoebe starts to head for the door, we would then say "Oh we need our sneakers on to go outside". In this manner, when Phoebe does lace her sneakers, her reward is going outside (rather than some arbitary reward such as a piece of candy). Of course we must also note........ that many activities will require rewards whilst the skill is being accomplished".

I guess that's what I find weird about his website. He doesn't seem to understand how reinforcement is used in well run behavioural programs (and there's nothing unusual about the pymarid approach, it's straight down the middle ABA tbh).

For Alfie Kohn to say "What these shows are peddling is behaviorism. The point isn?t to raise a child; it?s to reinforce or extinguish discrete behaviors ? which is sufficient if you believe, along with the late B.F. Skinner and his surviving minions, that there?s nothing to us other than those behaviors." just suggests to me that he doesn't even understand how Skinner's minions work.

I must dash - work to do - but I just wanted to say how pleased I am that somebody has started a thread on Alfie Kohn. I've recently read "Unconditional Parenting" and "How To Talk". I think that they are linked; Kohn is by turns begrudging and then snide about How To Talk whilst the authors of How To Talk cite Kohn as a key influence. For me what links them is the sense of 'working with' rather than 'doing to' a child, trying to engage with the child so that the desired behaviour comes not from rewards or punishments but from an internal motiviation borne of the child understanding of the situation, empathy, role models etc..

All of which is fine until its 9.50am you have an appointment at the doctors at 10am and DD2 refuses to get into her car seat......

Very well summarised by LC. I also find non-specific general praise grating now. AK says it?s ultimately useless and even counterproductive. E.g. a couple of weeks ago my DD (18 months) spilled some water. I gave her a teatowel to mop it up. When she finished I said ?Well done?. Now, what does she learn from that? That mummy is pleased, but nothing much more useful than that. I could have said ?You spilt the water then mopped it up [describing]. This means we won?t slip on it and fall [useful info for the future, a reason why we do what we do].? Or something similar ?We won?t get our socks wet now.? It made me think afterwards.

Blueshoes - you gave a good example there. However, I would see the situation you describe in which you physically remove the child and take her to bed as a form of punishment, even if it?s a long time in coming and very soft. As for ?You only need to tell them the desired behaviour. In time, they will internalise it because you are their role model.? I think AK makes the point that what we shouldn?t want to do is have children who comply with our requests even when we?re not there because they?ve internalised what we want of them so much that they self-censor themselves. Totally agree with the rest of your post, especially with how it IS an unequal relationship between child and parent and we should never abuse the power and always asks ourselves if the relationship with the child is worth jeopardising for a particular reason or request.

JJ ? interesting distinction there (or maybe not?) between reinforcers and rewards. I wonder if AK goes into more detail about this in his other book that deals specifically with rewards. OH, I don?t think he?d like to be called ?another child psychologist?, he tries to describe his theory not as in the middle between coercive and permissive but a totally different way of thinking. Like Blair?s Third Way or something. 

?Kohn is by turns begrudging and then snide about How To Talk? did you think so? I didn?t get that at all. I can?t remember him referring to that book at all.

A decent behavioural program always works with the child anyway. The first point made in any course is that a refinforcer will only work if it is reinforcing to the child. So again I'm left wondering what they're moaning about with behavioural programs. Are they complaining about badly run ones (fair enough), or are they saying that a child shouldn't be directed at all? I would imagine it would be hard to grow up thinking anything other than assuming the world revolved around you if you never gave any directiion at all.

Again there's a parallel in SN. The Son-Rise program involves entering a child's world, they lead, you follow. Whatever they are doing and you join them. You never say no (even I think if they smear feaces on the wall, although I suspect you might redirect- I'm not entirely sure what the approach is to challenging behaviours such as that though). The son-rise program does teach lots of goood things, and I think can give some good results, espeially in terms of building relationships. I don't think its good at actual teaching though. I use elements of it. but I would never only use it (because actually ds1's relationship skills are qquite well developed- he now needs directing to learn anything).

?Kohn is by turns begrudging and then snide about How To Talk? did you think so? I didn?t get that at all. I can?t remember him referring to that book at all."

Hi Christina, he doesn't actually mention the book by name but it is pretty clear from the way he talks about the use of diagrams, active listening and I think a reference in one of his footnotes that that is the one he means!

haha christina, the physical removal is just my adaptation for RL . There will inevitably be situations where I have to be firm as a parent. Modern life and schedules are so not conducive to completely free range parenting.

Blueshoes - I know, I know, RL is different. Even AK does things that his wife has to ask him "Now, what would Alfie have done?"

JJ2 - It?s not about not giving direction, I think. It?s about limiting the direction you give and doing it in a non-controlling or coercive way. In the example of a child wanting to cross the road, depending on age, you just know you have to hold their hand. You need to ask yourself ?is it worth it long-term potentially damaging my relationship with my child over this?? in this particular situation the answer is ?yes?, so you hold hands, get over it, move on. That?s my take on it.

Excellent parallel with the Son-Rise programme. It?s another way of thinking about your child, entering their world, building trust.

Apropos of redirection ? isn?t that also manipulative and so disrespectful of children? (BTW this is not being judgmental, I?ve done it too, just for conversation.)

I don?t know anything much about behavioural stuff, this was the first time I realised there?s such a difference of opinion amongst psychologists. Quite why they shouldn?t be divided like any other profession, I don?t know?

Issysmum - I hadn't got that bit, i'm still a novice at the theory side of parenting and wouldn't have known in which category to class the "How to talk..." book. For practical advice, though, i find that one quite unbeatable. (I'm sure AK wouldn't mind as he's against competition too.)

I don't know how Son-Rise would deal with things like weeing/pooing on the floor or smearing. I do know that the adult doesn't join them in that though! I suspect they might do something like find something to pour or smear instead (eg water tray and water, paints, playdough) which is what I meant by redirection. I don't really see how that would be disrespectful. I have no idea whether they do use that appproach though. Perhaps they treat it as a means to communicate, no idea. I think allowing a child to freely smear feaces on the wall would be pretty disrespectful of them to be honest! Whenever ds1 has done it I've cared far more about him being covered in it than the walls!

A behavioural approach would I guess involve giving no response to the behaviour. In fact I asked a behaviourist about this last week (weeing in bed on purpose) and he suggested practicing moving from the bed to the toilet during the day, or alternatively providing a portapotty camping toilet in the room. Then looking at what was causing the continued behaviour (in this case I think he likes it because of the type of bedding we use), so then I have the choice of changing his bedding so its far more uncomfortable for him to wee in the bed (which also means I get woken up at 4am to change the sheets, and then we're up for the day), he'd probably stop doing it within days, or leave it as it is now and just wash sheets every day. There's something about him waking up every morning soaked in wee that I feel isn't caring or right or respectful though. I'm leaning towards gathering the energy to take the extinction approach (remove the reinforcing comfy bed linen and let him get flooded).

JJ2 - ?A behavioural approach would I guess involve giving no response to the behaviour.? Yes, AK mentions something like this. That when children ?misbehave? we say they only want attention and then don?t give it, as if somehow wanting attention was something bad. Like saying you only want to go out with your friends because you need companionship, nothing wrong with that.

I totally take your point about redirection being, in certain circumstances at least, the better and more respectful option towards children.

It's not about atention its about reinforcement. If he wets his bed and I shout "oh no you've wet your bed on purpose again" (and he is doing it on purpose) stamp stamp fling fling slam the door, then he thinks "wow great reaction" lets see if I can do the same again tomorrow. The key is reaction not attention. He's not wetting the bed to get attention- he's wetting the bed because he likes the feel of it in the sheets we currently use. So not giving a reaction is nothing to do with attention, it's to do with not rewarding him inadvertently for wetting the bed, by making it nice and comfy AND exciting.

This is what I mean about the stuff I have read slagging off a completely oversimiplified version of behaviourism. A version of behaviourism that I don't even recognise (and a behavioural approach is by far the main one we use with ds1).

I have no idea what Kohn's appproach to this would be (maybe someone does)- to leave ds1 to wallow in a wet bed as he enjoys it and its his choice I guess. But if I took that approach with ds1 then he would be unable to dress himself, would not be toilet trained, would still be smearing poo on the walls, would not be able to feed himself at all and would not be able to play at all. None of which respects him as a person in my view. He has every right to learn to be as independent as he can- just like any other child.

TBH I don't have much concern with the approach (in that like anything I think it will suit some children, and not others). I would however be concerned that being over permissive is neglectful, but not having read the book will accept that that's not what he's saying.

My main gripe really is the stuff he's written about behaviourism. If I choose to use a behavioural technique wwiith ds2 ort ds3 I do it with as much thought as I would with ds1- so giving a lot of consideration to reinforcers, to what the ultimate aim is and of course fading reinforcement as soon as the skill is mastered (whether that be using the toilet or not messing around at the tea table- 2 things I have ued behavioural techniques for with ds2). DS2 probably would respond quite well to elements of Kohn's method- as he has a very strong desire to be accepted by the group he's in and is very conventional. Couldn't see it working with ds3 really, and impossible with ds1 I assume. TBH I'm quite suspicious of any one size will fit all philosophy. Went to a great course last week that uses various philosophies (including ABA/VB and Son-Rise) too draw up individual programs to suit and individual child.

Actually Kohn is even more snippy towards something called P.E.T. (a parenting movement in the USA that has been reborn recently). Kohn both quotes the man (to support something he else has to say) who made P.E.T. up and then elsewhere derides its main techinque which is a kind of parrot speak to the child.

That said, I find P.E.T. irritating. I found How to Talk at least gives a practical toolset.

I was thinking that a while back I had to take DD on a long daytrip to a town far away to run many errands. I kept her on acceptable behaviour with the promise of a hot chocolate at the end of the day. We had a really nice day out but I needed that reward in the frame to keep her from driving me batty, a few times. She's not a badly behaved girl, but maybe I'm not a patient enough parent to manage without rewards as an option.

You guys must be reading more into that book than I did. I didn't see the refernce to PET either!

AK admits that behaviourism works - he just has concerns that it works long-term AFAI can see.

Oh I haven't read the posters on his website. I'm just going by his articles on there. It was him that was rubbishing behaviourism (actually what he was doing was equating behaviourism with supernanny which is just ridiculous). I would read the book btw - I just woudn't pay full price for it! (But then I need to buy my ABLLS protocol and guide which is $60 odd plus postage from the States and is nothing like supernanny!)