4 ms·

It's not "tricking", unless you're letting your toddler dictate whether you should leave the house. Toddlers don't have a choice over that; instead, you're givi

by bmy78 10y ago

It's not "tricking", unless you're letting your toddler dictate whether you should leave the house. Toddlers don't have a choice over that; instead, you're giving the toddler a choice appropriate to their level. That helps build their cognitive abilities and takes the focus away from whether they want to leave the house (a choice they shouldn't make), to whether they want the sweater or coat (a choice reasonable for them).

jessriedel 10y ago
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 you rather be just friends or simply not see each other any more?" in order to distract her from the breakup, she would rightfully be resentful. (That example is extreme to illustrate the point, but the idea is the same.)
- mhluongo 10y ago
  It's clearly not a fair comparison. At some point you need to introduce an age of determination or at least a grade to have a reasonable conversation about the ethics of parenting. Parents are required to do all sorts of things in their kids' best interest that wouldn't otherwise be reasonable / appropriate.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    The point of the example was not that it was a perfect analogy, it was merely to rebut the idea that a parent's prerogative to choose destination doesn't mean there's no transgression. I already addressed the child's-interest defense in another comment. Yes, there are of course cases where parents transgressions may be justified (and required) in order to help the child, but we shouldn't pretend there is no transgression, in particular because we should always try to secure the good outcome for the child without the transgression.
- Klinky 10y ago
  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 had time for a few major revisions. In your second paragraph, are you suggesting there is no such thing as an amicable breakup? One where exes can still be friends? The "I don't have romantic feelings for you, but would like to remain friends" tactic is quite popular. Obviously the recipient of that message will interpret it in a variety of ways depending on their investment in the relationship. If the person has a negative reaction to it, they likely wouldn't have responded any better to "I am leaving you, goodbye" either.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    > 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, they likely wouldn't have responded any better to "I am leaving you, goodbye" either. The point of being honest is not necessarily because it secures the best response.
    - Klinky 10y ago
      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.
- yarou 10y ago
  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.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    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.
    - Klinky 10y ago
      Children learn their own forms of manipulative behavior at an early age(e.g. cry to get attention or what you want), but with less logical understanding of their own wants/needs. Put children on the same level, and hold the child to the same moral standard you're trying to hold parents to and they fail completely at it. It's not a matter of the parent manipulating the innocent child, but rather the parent diverting around the child's own manipulative behaviors. Perhaps no one should be manipulative ever, but go ahead and try explaining that to someone with the cognitive and emotional maturity of a 4 year old. In an adult-adult relationship, the two parties should be equals, with similar cognitive and emotional maturity. They should treat each other as such. This isn't always the case. Even loving seemingly healthy relationships may involve some form of manipulative behavior on both sides. Transgressions occur all the time, in all relationships, you have you to use judgement to figure out which ones get a pass, and which ones don't.
- manarth 10y ago
  > 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 you rather be just friends or simply not see each other any more?" > in order to distract her from the breakup, she would rightfully be resentful. That's a tricky one, because, as you say, he can unilaterally break off the relationship. By providing options going forward, most people would see that as looking for the most positive way to move on. Who would resent that? Unless he deliberately did that to distract from the breakup…but even then, it doesn't exactly seem all that negative. Having made the decision to break off the relationship, providing options to deal with that and offer positive ways forward doesn't seem all that bad. For me, I'm struggling to see how the example fits. Sure, she may be upset at the breakup of the relationship, but providing options for responding to that seems more positive than negative. I don't disagree with the principle, but the example: a relationship is based on mutual consent, and withdrawal of that consent isn't a trick or unacceptable.
- geon 10y ago
  You are comparing a 4 yo to an 18(?) yo. Should a 4 yo be allowed to live alone? Drive a car? Date? It is about choice and responsibillity on a suitable level for the maturity of the child. And a parent-child relationship is very different from an adult-adult relationship either way. Your commen makes absolutely no sense.

by bmy78 10y ago

jessriedel 10y ago

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 you rather be just friends or simply not see each other any more?" in order to distract her from the breakup, she would rightfully be resentful. (That example is extreme to illustrate the point, but the idea is the same.)

mhluongo 10y ago
It's clearly not a fair comparison. At some point you need to introduce an age of determination or at least a grade to have a reasonable conversation about the ethics of parenting. Parents are required to do all sorts of things in their kids' best interest that wouldn't otherwise be reasonable / appropriate.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  The point of the example was not that it was a perfect analogy, it was merely to rebut the idea that a parent's prerogative to choose destination doesn't mean there's no transgression. I already addressed the child's-interest defense in another comment. Yes, there are of course cases where parents transgressions may be justified (and required) in order to help the child, but we shouldn't pretend there is no transgression, in particular because we should always try to secure the good outcome for the child without the transgression.
Klinky 10y ago
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 had time for a few major revisions. In your second paragraph, are you suggesting there is no such thing as an amicable breakup? One where exes can still be friends? The "I don't have romantic feelings for you, but would like to remain friends" tactic is quite popular. Obviously the recipient of that message will interpret it in a variety of ways depending on their investment in the relationship. If the person has a negative reaction to it, they likely wouldn't have responded any better to "I am leaving you, goodbye" either.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  > 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, they likely wouldn't have responded any better to "I am leaving you, goodbye" either. The point of being honest is not necessarily because it secures the best response.
  - Klinky 10y ago
    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.
yarou 10y ago
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.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  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.
  - Klinky 10y ago
    Children learn their own forms of manipulative behavior at an early age(e.g. cry to get attention or what you want), but with less logical understanding of their own wants/needs. Put children on the same level, and hold the child to the same moral standard you're trying to hold parents to and they fail completely at it. It's not a matter of the parent manipulating the innocent child, but rather the parent diverting around the child's own manipulative behaviors. Perhaps no one should be manipulative ever, but go ahead and try explaining that to someone with the cognitive and emotional maturity of a 4 year old. In an adult-adult relationship, the two parties should be equals, with similar cognitive and emotional maturity. They should treat each other as such. This isn't always the case. Even loving seemingly healthy relationships may involve some form of manipulative behavior on both sides. Transgressions occur all the time, in all relationships, you have you to use judgement to figure out which ones get a pass, and which ones don't.
manarth 10y ago
> 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 you rather be just friends or simply not see each other any more?" > in order to distract her from the breakup, she would rightfully be resentful. That's a tricky one, because, as you say, he can unilaterally break off the relationship. By providing options going forward, most people would see that as looking for the most positive way to move on. Who would resent that? Unless he deliberately did that to distract from the breakup…but even then, it doesn't exactly seem all that negative. Having made the decision to break off the relationship, providing options to deal with that and offer positive ways forward doesn't seem all that bad. For me, I'm struggling to see how the example fits. Sure, she may be upset at the breakup of the relationship, but providing options for responding to that seems more positive than negative. I don't disagree with the principle, but the example: a relationship is based on mutual consent, and withdrawal of that consent isn't a trick or unacceptable.
geon 10y ago
You are comparing a 4 yo to an 18(?) yo. Should a 4 yo be allowed to live alone? Drive a car? Date? It is about choice and responsibillity on a suitable level for the maturity of the child. And a parent-child relationship is very different from an adult-adult relationship either way. Your commen makes absolutely no sense.