Who else thinks unconditional parenting is a load of twaddle?

[Pheebe]

OK, now I have your attention ... Firstly I don't...necessarily...but have heard it talked about lots and have looked into it a little and have some 'questions'

How do you make it work in a real life family setting where things just have to get done? How do you make sure your kids make appropriate choices (seems to me you just hope for the best)? How do you avoid your kids growing up as selfish, self centered, spoilt? How do kids brought up this way deal with the rigid control systems of, for example, the school setting. Can the make the transition/separation between home and the outside world?

Hoping for a positive and useful discussion here not a tit for tat criticism of different parenting approaches.

Personally, having thought about how I parent it seems to the a mix of 'unconditional' (which I think would be better described as uncontrolling or some such) and so called 'sugar coated control' (which I think would be better described as directive??)

Anyway over to you...if anyones interested

.....when in fact they haven't give in it a long enough trial.

The only book I've ever read that makes utter sense is the Pram to Primary course guide by Teri Quinn.

Idon't think you need any other, except the one I am about to write

'What do people think of Kohn's assertion that time outs etc. can be read by the child as a withdrawal of love?'

LB,it'sa`load of unsubstantiated shit that'swhat. Who says? Where is the scientific proof? There aint none.

It is withdrawal of attention. Love does not equate to full time absolute attention. All children realise this at about the same rate they begin to recognise themselves as separate beings to their mothers. The less egocentric and more independent they become the more they must appreciate this, surely?

If this were the case then children would feel un(parentally)loved when in their own beds, when at school...essentially any time when one to one interaction is not present.

"it'sa`load of unsubstantiated shit that'swhat. Who says? Where is the scientific proof? There aint none."

Perhaps there can't be in any strict empirical sense. Any experiment that could "proove" this would involve mad ethical stuff.

In light of this, the question is in what sense is it impossible to believe that some kids would NOT regard a time out as a withdrawal of love? I personally don't need an experiment, or a dossier of scientifically rigorous evidence before I will believe this. In certain circumstances, when practiced and enforced by certain parents, on certain kinds of kids - I can all too easily believe it.

AK is not saying this happens all the time in all cases, is he?

So no - I myself would not dismiss this as unsubstantiated shit. We don't need to bust out the white lab coats and skinner boxes before we can recognise a realistic proposition - or do we? But then, I don't regard myself as a scientist.

I think my DD does see it that way, tbh.

But as I said, my DS doesn't.

Perhaps it's an age thing, he's older, but maybe it's a personality thing.

Liz,as a behaviourist, I reject all mentalistic models and assumptions.
Parsimony.

A behaviourist does not deny their existence but as nothing can be proved, better to discount until they can.

And i must say, it has been a hugely liberating experience.

They're not really assumptions though. Just because there isn't scientific evidence for a proposition doesn't make it false, still less realistic - not even in the context of human behaviour. Or, pithily, an assumption could coincide with fact. In any case, to say that some kids will experience TO-ing as a withdrawal of love is eminently realistic. The questions for me are with what frequency this will occur - and under what conditions. Also what effects such experience will produce.

I cannot think, right now, of an adequate set of experiments that could yield robust evidence for this - without screwing the subjects up.

Without scientific evidence I aint buying it.

How is that not the same as saying TO-ing is never experienced as a withdrawal of love? In some cases it HAS to be. Kids are weird. They think all kinds of things. It's nuts not to imagine that at times they'll experience any form of punishment in this way, particularly if they're already struggling with other stuff happening in their lives.

Love transcends petty occurences such as TO if it is real love. I was confident my parents loved me however horrid they were to me, whether intentional or not.

I agree with moondog. I don't think that reading all sorts of theories are a good idea, I go with what comes naturally.
I was absolutely secure in my parent's love. As a parent you have to be unpopular and have boundries. If they feel secure and loved I don't think you need anything else.
You are a parent-not a best friend.

Behaviourism appeals to me because it has no truck with psych-dynamic twaddle like this that just leaves people feeling confused and guilty. It releases you from constant running commentary of inner doubt and confusion.

"It releases you from constant running commentary of inner doubt and confusion."

I don't think I'll ever be free of inner doubt. Even as a child I'd go to bed questioning whether I had said the right thing etc during the day. Parenting adds to this as there is more at stake than just my life.

I don't believe that in practise it is possible to live up to the parenting ideal outlined in Alfie Kohn's book and I was almost laughing out loud at the idea of going into DCs schools to convince the teachers to rethink their approach to discipline. I would probably be labelled a crazy foreigner (if I'm not already!)

However, I am comfortable with many of ideas raised in the book and things are running smoothly since I realised it was ok to let the children have more control. (Not the parenting model I experienced)

I wasn't always confident my parents loved me. I don't remember being a toddler but I do remember being a teenager and when I opposed them I doubted their approval and acceptance.

Well me neither Inner but am a bit nearer my goal.
Behaviouris is not about controlling people either, it is about making reinofrcers avaialble to them.

its a big pile of dog wank

I am reading this thread with interest as I am not sure I buy into the UP malarky, but am willing to be convinced.

TBH I find myself agreeing with moondog, which I don't recall doing very often! I too have an MSC in Psychology (Cognitie Neuroscience) and I think that makes me fall in the "punishment"/reward camp.

UP just sounds really hard IMO and I don't think I would have the energy to devote to it.

custy! 'Tis me mate, iykwim!

"Behaviouris is not about controlling people either"
Didn't mean to imply it was, I don't know enough about it to criticise it. I just wanted to explain what appealed to me about Alfie Kohn's book. It's more than just the control thing. That was just an example.

lol Bumper.Beaviourism a bit suspicious of all that cog-neuro stuff too which is challenging for me as basis of so much SALT (of which I am one.)

Other, I have had AK by my bed for months as part of recommended coursework reading. Can't face it.

So you haven't actually read any of his work?
Not that I know enough about this field to carry on a debate with two psychologists. As someone said earlier, it is what feels the right way to you as a parent that is most important.

I think we've lost the OP along the way. Are you lurking Pheebe?