No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems • Hacker News Board

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#91

Post by Klinky » Sun, Dec 04, 2016, 11:09 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #77

Klinky wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting 4-year-old children are emotionally mature enough to properly express their displeasure with something in a productive manner? Maybe some are, but others are very hair triggered with their emotions and interpret not getting their way as if they were being murdered. Perhaps working around these fatal emotion exceptions is better than running into them every day, at least until the child's brain has…

> Perhaps working around these fatal emotion exceptions is better than running into them every day, at least until the child's brain has had time for a few major revisions. Perhaps. Parenting is complicated. But we shouldn't pretend it's not a trick, and that we aren't doing something the child may rightfully resent. > In your second paragraph, are you suggesting... No. > If the person has a negative reaction to it,…

If the goal of the parent is "get child to grandmas, so I can go to work to continue to take care of this child", while the child's goal is "I want to continue to watch cartoons in this very spot and not move, and I'll have a tantrum if I am told to move due to poor impulse/emotional controls in my under-developed brain, unless I am 'tricked'", then who's goals are more important? If the child resents such a "trick" later in life, then the child is still showing traits of emotional immaturity, and a lack of understanding on how the world operates.

Also don't put honesty on too high a pedestal. Being honest about every single thing can have very damaging effects and negative consequences. Having no social tact so you can ride an honesty high horse is not necessarily superior to little white lies and/or trickery.

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#92

Post by gohrt » Sun, Dec 04, 2016, 11:09 PM UTC

marcell wrote: post #62

Quoting the article: > "Sarah, put on the green coat or the red sweater. We're going to go out, okay?" Choice among humans increases the likelihood of compliance. And choice isn't important, it's the appearance of choice that's important. I've gotten this exact advice from so many articles and pop psych pieces. Maybe they are written by non-parents or their children are much easier, but it never works for me. My 4 ye…

If some tips work and some tips don't, then nurture matters, but it is correlated to nature.

If nurture didn't matter, tips would be totally irrelevant.

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#93

Post by SapphireSun » Sun, Dec 04, 2016, 11:09 PM UTC

llukas wrote: post #75

SiVal wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Punishment might make you feel better, but it won’t change the kid’s behavior. This claim (from the article) is nonsense. I've changed the behavior of my kids countless times with punishment. I realize that the attitude I am supposed to take is that when someone with Ivy League credentials espouses a currently fashionable theory that my own observations contradict, I am supposed to believe the theory and not my own l…

Punishment always changes behavior only when you're looking/enforcing. You'll never know if you police kid enough. Is that your goal?

Similar to what I've been reading about in a book about democracy. Rules that are regarded as legitimate barely require enforcement, people will follow them of their own volition. Rules that don't have legitimacy are actively resisted.

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#94

Post by gohrt » Sun, Dec 04, 2016, 11:10 PM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #82

wyager wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How else are you supposed to indicate that you're rephrasing something someone else said? It's generally pretty clear when something is an actual quote, and putting the quote in italics makes it very clear that it was not actually said.

Something like this, perhaps: For the teens, the psychologist's advice is literally: Well, maybe don't be such a bitch in the first place, Mom.

"literally"?

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#95

Post by mikeash » Sun, Dec 04, 2016, 11:11 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #54

pappyo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any cognitive advantage that is abused will be seen as manipulative, absolutely. The way to make "the illusion of choice" work is to be selective about it. You start out by giving the 4 year old the illusion of choice (the jacket or the sweater), but what you're really doing is coaching the child to make appropriate decisions. After a few times, you won't have to give the child the choice anymore, because they will k…

You're justifying it as being in the child's (or employee's) interest, but you're not actually denying the transgression. Lying becomes less worse when you lie for someone else's benefit but (1) that doesn't make it not lying, (2) the other person can still rightfully resent it, (3) you generally shouldn't trust yourself to only lie in another's interest. Regarding the last one: I often see normal, reasonably good pa…

What's the lie? They have a choice, which you present. There isn't some third option you're hiding, and the choice presented isn't false.

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#96

Post by wyager » Sun, Dec 04, 2016, 11:11 PM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #82

wyager wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How else are you supposed to indicate that you're rephrasing something someone else said? It's generally pretty clear when something is an actual quote, and putting the quote in italics makes it very clear that it was not actually said.

Something like this, perhaps: For the teens, the psychologist's advice is literally: Well, maybe don't be such a bitch in the first place, Mom.

While readable, it's roughly as unpleasant to read as not indicating that it's a rephrasing at all.

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#97

Post by coldtea » Sun, Dec 04, 2016, 11:12 PM UTC

andrewfromx wrote: post #79

WWLink wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the impression most of the people on this site are workaholics.

sure, musk has 5 kids! how much time does he get with them vs. work I wonder.

When you have that kind of money you have 10 babysitters, nannies, assistants, cooks, cleaners, drivers etc. And you can get a day off almost whenever you want too.

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#98

Post by gohrt » Sun, Dec 04, 2016, 11:15 PM UTC

nitwit005 wrote: post #73

This sort of thing needs a part 2: "What to do when you child sees through your tricks". I'm not joking about that one. It will happen. Even pets figure out some training techniques, causing them to stop being effective.

Ideally, at that point the child is smart enough that you can reason with them, and at that point your "tricks" (aka civilized behavior) has made enough of a molding effect on their personality and relationship with you.

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#99

Post by JamesHurburgh » Sun, Dec 04, 2016, 11:15 PM UTC

I couldn't read more than a paragraph of this article it's so ridiculous. The idea that positive reinforcement is a radical idea? Ridiculous. The idea that you can ignore destructive behaviour until it goes away? Ridiculous.

It's about addressing the situation. As a parent the best thing is when I get to positively reinforce my child's behaviour, because it means I've seen them do something wonderful. (Helping a sibling, taking initiative, etc.) But if I didn't stop them when they are throwing toys at their little brother or sister then we've got bigger problems.

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#100

Post by jessriedel » Sun, Dec 04, 2016, 11:15 PM UTC

yarou wrote: post #84

jessriedel wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're using a cognitive advantage to distract them from expressing displeasure about something they reasonably don't like. Just because the toddler doesn't have a say over whether you're leaving the house doesn't mean you're not tricking him. If two people are dating, the boyfriend is well within his rights to unilaterally break off the relationship. But if he broached the issue with his girlfriend by saying "Would…

The assumption implicit in your argument is that the relationship is equal (as in the case of a boyfriend/girlfriend). I'm not sure that same assumption holds for a parent and a child, as much as the media tells you otherwise.

The point of the example was merely to rebut the idea that a parent's prerogative to choose destination doesn't mean there's no transgression. Finding some way that it differs from the parent-child relationship isn't relevant unless you explain why the asymmetry would imply there was no transgression.