[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I have 3 kids and have been teaching teenagers for 25 years.
Use negative reinforcement only as a last resort. You guys would be surprised how well teens remember when ‘Dad went off’ or ‘Mom went nuts!’.
I know this sounds like 60’s psychobabble, but punishment ALWAYS comes back to haunt you. If you use it repeatedly, you will create a child who lives in fear and who responds only to that and terror. Is that what you want in your children?
Its better to have children who respond to reason than to threats.
If you must, take away a favorite toy or a video game. And remember to PRAISE at every opportunity. You will like the results.
Headhunter [/quote]
OMFG I agree with Headhunter!
But he’s absolutely right. It’s not 60s psychobabble, our understanding of the principles of operant conditioning haven’t changed much at all since 70s, so what you learned in the 60s and 70s still holds true.
But I think you said negative reinforcement instead of punishment. An example of negative reinforcement is nagging the child unless it does something you want it to do.
Nagging/yelling when it does something you don’t want to do is positive punishment. Taking away a toy when it does something you don’t want it to do is negative punishment (also called punishment by omission). Praising when it does something you want it to is positive reinforcement.
[quote]apwsearch wrote:
pookie wrote:
At 11 months, he’s way to young to understand “forbidden” stuff.
I’d suggest “child proofing” the house instead. Don’t put books in places he can reach, otherwise, one day he’ll also discover the fun of pulling all the pages out. When toddlers start to, er, toddle I guess, it’s time to put yourself in their place and go around every room of the house and remove/rearrange stuff so that he can’t hurt himself nor damage fragile stuff.
You’ll have a lot more success adapting the house to him, rather than to try it the other way around.
Before they’re 2 years old, disciplining them doesn’t really accomplish much. They don’t really associate being in “time out” (or worse, being hit) with something they just did.
Great post. What a bunch of fucking nut jobs on fucking post. It makes my stomach turn to think of somebody slapping the hands of an 11 month old over what was described.
You kid is fucking 11 months old. They are just beginning to explore their environment and check stuff out. That’s why they are called toddlers.
Get off your lazy fucking ass and baby proof your house. Buy a gate or two to keep them within the baby proofed areas and let them go to town.
The kid should be able to go anywhere within your line of site and touch basically anything without repercussion.
If you don’t like him hitting your precious TV, how about turning the fucking thing off and paying attention to the kid?
[/quote]
Is this a paraphrase from the American Academy of Pediatrics. No kidding, 11 months is too young to comprehend cause and effect reasoning. That’s why they do the same thing over and over again. I agree, pay attention to them and let them go!!!
Wouldn’t telling your son “NO” all the time have the same effect of the boy who cried wolf? Like he would eventually just get used to it and it wouldn’t work well in a potentially dangerous situation?
I guess what I am trying to get at, is should there be a separate form of punishment when there is an especially dangerous occurence?
As an example: IF they are just being naughty then use a strong tone and a “no”. But if they are running toward the street or sticking a fork in the wall socket then a use a spanking? But always keep those two punishments separate from each other to make a distinguishment.
[quote]Chickenmcnug wrote:
Wouldn’t telling your son “NO” all the time have the same effect of the boy who cried wolf? Like he would eventually just get used to it and it wouldn’t work well in a potentially dangerous situation?[/quote]
No, because ignoring a “No” has consequences. The fact that they don’t want to find out what those consequences are keeps that “No” fresh and efficient.
I see a lot of parents who’ll repeat endlessly the same thing over and over to their brats, and when they’re ignored, they do nothing. That’s why they have discipline problems. If kids know they can get away with ignoring you, they will.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Chickenmcnug wrote:
Wouldn’t telling your son “NO” all the time have the same effect of the boy who cried wolf? Like he would eventually just get used to it and it wouldn’t work well in a potentially dangerous situation?
No, because ignoring a “No” has consequences. The fact that they don’t want to find out what those consequences are keeps that “No” fresh and efficient.
I see a lot of parents who’ll repeat endlessly the same thing over and over to their brats, and when they’re ignored, they do nothing. That’s why they have discipline problems. If kids know they can get away with ignoring you, they will.
Mine know they can’t, so they don’t.
[/quote]
I see this all the time with my sister and her kids. It’s hard not to say something, but I feel it’s not really my place. Sometimes I give hints, like “You’re going to let him get away with that?” or “Don’t you think you should at least change the tone of your voice once you said no more than twice, and maybe do something after he ignores you more than three times?”
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
It will develop into tears when they dont get the toy, or candy they want. And the cuteness/love makes it hard to say no and that you will not tolerate that behavior.[/quote]
I don’t understand this. I don’t have kids of my own but due to my mom’s medical problems I was the fulltime caregiver for my three youngest brothers. I was 16 and they were 4, 2, and newborn when I basically started being more of a mommy than a sister.
It’s all about consistency, like some other people have said. Certain behaviors aren’t tolerated no matter what. You aren’t showing love for your child when you allow them to get away with bad behaviors or spoiled demands. Especially when they can do it one day and can’t the next. You just end up confusing them.
You aren’t showing love when you allow them to misbehave or manipulate you to get what they want.
Don’t get me wrong, I loved buying special foods and toys or going to movies or whatever as a treat, but we did it when mommy (me) said so, not when they threw a fit on the grocery store floor.
Your kids will be much happier when they know their boundaries. You’ll be happier and less stressed when they understand what is and isn’t acceptable.
I love watching Supernanny because it just illustrates all the pitfalls of “loving” your kids instead of disciplining them.
And to get back on topic, like some others said, 11 months is too young to understand a timeout. If you can say to your kid, “do you understand that you need to sit here because you hit the TV and that’s not right?” and your kid can say “yes daddy, I won’t hit the TV anymore.” then they’re old enough.
Refocus your son’s attention to a game where he can hit or throw or just burn off some energy.
I see a lot of parents who’ll repeat endlessly the same thing over and over to their brats, and when they’re ignored, they do nothing. That’s why they have discipline problems. If kids know they can get away with ignoring you, they will.
[/quote]
Got a first-hand dose of this last week. A couple my wife and I are friends with (well, he’s my friend, and the wives get along very well) were over for dinner the other night with their 3-year-old daughter in tow. The kid was turned around in her chair the entire time and refused to eat anything because she wanted the cherry off of the Boston cream pie her parents had brought over. Her mother’s conversation with her went like this:
“Turn around in your seat”
“OK, I guess we need a trip to the bathroom, then”
(parents know this sound)
“Well, then, turn around in your seat”
Threat repeated, kid whines, and around and around we go.
I don’t know what happens in the bathroom, maybe just a stern talking-to, but even that isn’t carried out! The scary part is, the mom works at a daycare and not too long ago ran her own licensed, legitimate one out of her house!
I’m really glad this thread was started, as my little one (yes, the one that looks like Benny Hill) is 4 months old now, and I’ll be facing these issues very soon. Until then I am closely observing what does and does not work in real life observations whenever possible.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Chickenmcnug wrote:
Wouldn’t telling your son “NO” all the time have the same effect of the boy who cried wolf? Like he would eventually just get used to it and it wouldn’t work well in a potentially dangerous situation?
No, because ignoring a “No” has consequences. The fact that they don’t want to find out what those consequences are keeps that “No” fresh and efficient.
I see a lot of parents who’ll repeat endlessly the same thing over and over to their brats, and when they’re ignored, they do nothing. That’s why they have discipline problems. If kids know they can get away with ignoring you, they will.
Mine know they can’t, so they don’t.
[/quote]
I agree, you do have to draw the line somewhere and hold that line. In my short experience as a dad, I’ve noticed it sure doesn’t take long for kids to learn that if you don’t hold your ground they can have their way with you. A well timed slap on the hand or swat on the ass can go along way to prevent general braty behaviour.
No, because ignoring a “No” has consequences. The fact that they don’t want to find out what those consequences are keeps that “No” fresh and efficient.
I see a lot of parents who’ll repeat endlessly the same thing over and over to their brats, and when they’re ignored, they do nothing. That’s why they have discipline problems. If kids know they can get away with ignoring you, they will.
