Parental Discipline.
 

Ok, seeming as it became an offshoot of the Children's Rights thread--which was suppose to be about Children's Rights in reference to school rules that infringe upon freedom of speech, etcetera--I've decided to make this, putting all the previous arguements here so that they are easier to find/read. I neglected Just Jon's, because it was just backing up what tortured said mostly, but if I missed anything else tell me and I'll edit it in.

Because the thread title is not always specific enough. The first post talks only about children's rights when they pertain to school, not parents. Besides, parental discipline is more of a psychological, sociological, and parent's rights discussion than a child's rights one. If I saw my son playing with a gun I would wonder what I did to make such a stupid child. I would then slap myself for that, take the gun from him and explain to him WHY guns are dangerous. Playing with a gun isn't a morality or respect issue, it's a knowledge/lack-there-of issue. When you see a child making a mistake due to being uninformed, that's more your fault than it is theirs. If the child is well informed then they shouldn't be playing with a gun because they'd realize they have a good chance of dying.

And no... children do not have a developed source of morality, but you can give them one without hitting them. As I said children need love and acceptance. They don't want it. They don't kinda like it. They need it. Further, if they treat anyone BUT you with disrespect they will lose love and acceptance, not gain a sore bottom. To deal with disrespect you remove your love and acceptance until they treat you with respect once more.

Things not related to love and respect are handled in different ways. The gun, for instance, is handled with education on the dangers of guns. Also handled by shooting yourself in the foot for putting a gun where your child can get it and not having a trigger lock... at least until your child has had gun safety courses, gone shooting with you, and generally understands that guns aren't toys. On the other hand the theft could have been handled by forcing the child to go in and apologize to the store owner, admit that they stole, and then having double to triple the item's cost taken from their allowance, or, banning allowance, grounding them for a week or so. You haven't laid a hand on them, yet they've learned that stealing is wrong.

Furthermore, you speak of morality... and then say you need to learn consequences. Cause and effect is not morality. If the only thing keeping you from killing someone is the threat of going to jail, then you aren't a moral person. You should not be killing someone because killing is wrong. Consequences should never even be questioned when making 'moral' choices.

Not indifference. Ignoring. Have you ever used the silent treatment on your parents as a small child? Most children do. "Buy me that!" "No." The child then walks off and doesn't speak to the parents. Most parents cave within an hour or get angry and strike the child for being silent. Now, the child didn't DO anything to the parent, and caused nothing negative. They simply didn't allow the parent to feel their affection in any way. Why would this cause such stress to the parent as to make them cave into their children's demand or punish them? Think about it. Or just take some child psychology courses while you're in college.

That's NOT how you made it sound. With your mother sure... but with your father, not at all... you said you won't even question him. This shows slavery, not obedience. Seeing the full picture things look different.

He said 95% had been physically disciplined at all... the last bit was just an add on. There are better ways to counter act his statement.


Addendum: Sorry about the double post. 12000+ characters, and all.

For someone to claim that respect can be earned by being hit by someone, I have to think that somehow we're not speaking the same langauge. Using violence to condition people is not a productive way of nurturing a child, and for that matter, an adult. To just smack a child when they do something wrong teaches them no more about ethics than being beaten by a schoolyard bully for being a "sissy" or "nerd"; it merely teaches fear. Furthermore, a consciounce is not based on spankings. If you're child is kept in line by spankings, you can never trust them. Once they're out in the world all alone, there's not going to be anyone to smack them when they do something bad; they don't know to avoid hurting people, they know to avoid being caught.

If you want your child do grow up to be an intelligent, civil, and compassionate person, you should treat them as such. One of the best ways to deal with a total brat is to send them on a guilt trip. As Krylo said, a children needs the love of their parents, and if they see that they've hurt their parents by doing something bad, they'll regret at. Now, if you just flip out at a kid, chances are the kid's just going to get angry because they're being yelled at. But, if you can just act emmotionally hurt, you let the kids conscious (A very good thing to excercise in a kid) do all your work for you, and you'll probably see the toddler run back for a hug and say they're sorry.

Likewise, you can play with their pride. One of the greatest way to deal with a kid is to tell them how great they are while lecturing them. You say they possess all the qualities you want in them like intelligent, kindness, politeness, etc. and then finnish with "I never thought a good little child like you would ever X," That way, the child will learn to pride themselves on the very qualities you want them to develope, and see doing something bad as an injury to their pride.

But the most important think you should do is educate your child. Let's admit it, the schools are shit these days and certainly no substitute for a parent. A good parent needs to explain EVERYTHING about how the world works and why it works it works that way.

I've always held the opinion that the environment we form for children must be one where the traits we want to encourage are the traits that prosper -- this may seem fundamentally simple, but many people miss too easily the simple logic that whichever traits survive and thrive will... well, survive and thrive. Again, this may seem simple, and many people will just take my meaning to be that we should smack around whichever children lie and steal, but that's far from the case; if all we do is smack around the bad children, we'll be promoting children who are very good at avoiding apprehension when they do bad things; if we give children candy when they have tantrums, we're promoting tantrums because they, at least in the child's eyes, generate free candy. What we learn and do in one day echoes into the next.

I think it's also important to excercise moderation in most all parenting techniques -- if you ignore your kid every time they do something sassy, it will become less effective over time. And of course siblings change around the rules to their own advantage. If you establish a "No hitting" rule, sibling A will constantly nag and tease sibling B until sibling B hits them to shut them up, at which point sibling A notifies the parent that sibling B broke the rules and should be in big trouble. Sibling rivalry isn't necessarily a given, but it should be prepared for regardless.

It's not just a matter of teaching right/wrong or where one's place is, or how to ask for a meal at a fast-food resturaunt without getting choked up, or the "miracle of life," It's a matter of teaching the kid to learn these things for him/herself as well. Finding a way to do that is so much easier than parenting the whole way through.

Something I don't think enough people try is kids need to be taught objectivity and sarcasm. These are very dense concepts that generally don't kick in until adolescence. You do this early, and you get a head-start.

And like I said in the other thread, it's not just control, but a balance of control and reward, and just have them figure out how to parent themselves along that line later on.

I'm always the one with the simple view.. Lol..

Very small children don't understand what "No, don't do that" means. They need to be trained, and a little spank is fine for communication. It translates to "Stop that." From what I remember clearly at that age, I often disregarded whatever people said because words held no value to me. A spank did, so it made me listen, and value words more.

Personally, as soon as the child is old enough (I don't know... 8? 9?) I'd switch to sitting in the corner or whatever is necessary. I don't see spanking as a use of violence for dominance, just as a means of communication.

I don't remember being young enough that I couldn't undertand right from wrong while still being allowed into a situation where I could do something stupid. If a toddler whose really young doesn't understand to not use the stairs, you put one of those bar thingies across so they don't use them. Simple as that.

As for using a spanking to say "Stop that", it seems to me that the kid usually takes it more like, "I'm a big stupid evil grown up and I'm hurting you because I'm mean!" You're most likely going to wind up with that interpretation especially when the kid is too dumb young to be able to consider the feelings of others or know not to do something that can seriously hurt them.

My father never needed to hit to scare the shit out of me. He was a 200 and something pound body builder type with a "psycho flip out" temper. I have yet to see a action move villain waving around a gun who was a fraction as scary as seeing my red faced father screaming, "FUCK FUCK FUCK!"

Oh sure, that got me to do as I was told. I kept good grades, stayed out of fights, did as I was told, got out of bed like the Germans were raiding when I was told to, and so on and so fourth, but it hasn't been worth it. Now we have a completely loveless relationships. When I see him, I avoid eye contact and just try to move on as quickly as possible. Honestly, I only remember hiding in my room while he screamed at my brother for refusing to get out of bed, or smoking, or drinking, or breaking something (And funny how all this screaming and possibly being smacked up never got my brother to stop any of this.) I've just plain been traumatised by him. That's no way for a kid to grow up. Just recently my brother crashed the truck so after screaming a bunch of obscenities and stomping around my dad goes out to tour the damage, and as my mother tells him to bring a pad of paper and pen to write down the insurance info, he grabs a broom and screams "I'm fucking bringing this" and in one strike with one arm, he smashes it in half across the stairway banister and starts going on about how he'll beat my brother half to death and that we should call the cops. So now I'm afraid to drive to.

Ya, it's not fun being scared.

In an age of such interactive media, Parents are no longer the only source of acceptance and love. A television for example. Their favorite movie hero or video game star. If they need acceptance and love, and you aren't giving it until they apologize or do something against their will, they're going to find other sources of acceptance and love that require less effort to obtain.

Now i'm no psycology major, but i actually paid attention in my ethics class. Development of morals and ethics operates on a tier based system. 6 tiers in all, and for the life of me i can't remember them to a tee. what i do remember, is that the first tier of morals has to do with cause and effect. A child learns that disobeying his parents and sticking his finger in a light socket will get him shocked. He learns that bad things happen when you do what you aren't supposed to do. They typically grow out of this by the end of the toddler years. Remember that children don't actually become self-aware until a few years after they're born. Ever wonder why you don't have any memories before you were 4 or so?

Hear me out people, there are improper ways of negative reinforcement and there are proper ways of it. Same with positive reinforcement. You can buy your kid every toy he begs for with the mindset "that just means he'll love me more for all the good things i'm doing for him" A kid who has only known excessive amounts of positive reinforcement is probably going to grow up to be a spoiled individual who can't understand the concept that there are long term consequences to your actions.

negative reinforcement isn't solely physical punishment. Come down to the barracks and ask a few freshmen if they think yelling is positive reinforcement. Being forceful with the kid is what im advocating as necessity.

only if A) you do so excessively and/or without the proper balance of positive reinforcement or B) the child doesn't know what he's being punished for.

Devon lake, your story is sad indeed, that is an example of negative reinforcement taken to the extreme. My dad was a strict disciplinarian, yet I am extremely close to him. In fact, among my friends, the ones with the best relationships with their parents were the parents that were hard but fair.

once again, excessively bad negative reinforcemnt. Violence shouldn't be used as a crutch. The difference between a good father that disciplines his children and a bully is that the father disciplines them for reasons that are within their control, and not conforming to these controls could result in potential injury. A bully beats up smaller kids because he wants to feel in control of something, he wants to dominate something smaller than him. Any father that disciplines his children for the sake of domination has serious issues.

...You really think a TV offers love?

I'm not even going to START with all the things wrong with that.



Before the toddler years they don't develop morals anyway. As you said, they aren't even self-aware. Training them is like training a dog... you don't have to do it to be a bad parent... just don't let them run around getting themselves hurt and you'll be fine.

It's during the toddler years that discipline actually starts to make a difference later in their lives, and you know... ignoring a child, or grounding them, or even just a lecture is a 'bad thing', but it's a 'bad thing' that's far more comprehensive than smacking them. It also leaves a longer lasting impression in most cases... and always leaves SOME, where many children can be beaten and not learn anything except how not to get caught. Devon's brother is a good example of this... I as a younger child was too.



I think you missed my point. I was saying that the silent treatment, which is what I'm saying parents should use, works for kids against parents. It works. It's been done by shrinks, and it's been done by most five year olds. It's efficiency is damn terrifying. In later years a stereotypical jewish mother (not to say all jewish mothers do it, or only jewish mothers... just that they have a rep. for it) is a very good example of a spin-off on the silent treatment with their guilt trips. You make a child feel bad about what they've done MORALLY, not PHYSICALLY. This just makes sense to me.

...Do they know the definitions of them?

Also, negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement have to do with whether you do something before someone does what you want or after. I can't remember which is which... but an example of one would be anything mentioned here so far, whether reward or punishment. An example of the other would be the man who trained his dogs to drool at the ring of a bell. He rang a bell then fed them for a certain period of time, and eventually his dogs would drool automatically at the ringing of the bell because they'd associated the noise with food.

Just for your and their information... I'd look up which is which so I could say whether yelling was positive reinforcement... but I'm lazy.

And... I'm saying you don't HAVE to be forceful. You can attain the same results by punishing them with guilt/removal of things that they desperately need... like the affection of a parent/by connecting it with an attack on their pride, etc. etc.

I'm not going to back up TTO, exactly, but parents don't have a monopoly in the love department. There's the obvious alternative source of gangs. Television, drugs, sports, computer games, all those kinds of things seem more like escape to me. Drugs and gangs frequently have the "added bonus" of being a sort of passive aggressive rebellion.

I dunno about ignoring children at a very young age. I guess it depends on if we're talking about babies or toddlers. I don't expect it would be effective (or especially responsible) with infants. Used sparingly and convincingly with toddlers, I think it could do quite well.

As far as I recall, punishment is negative reinforcement and rewards are positive reinforcement. Pavlov's dogs and Skinner's pidgeons are both excellent examples of rewards in action, although a goodly number of people are uncomfortable using that sort of testing as evidence in child-rearing discussions.