4 ms·
You don't need obedience and rules to have good behaviour. The difference is the framing, not the outcome. The author is saying you shouldn't just say "Don't s
by Latty 9y ago
You don't need obedience and rules to have good behaviour.
The difference is the framing, not the outcome. The author is saying you shouldn't just say "Don't shout in the cinema." and expect them not to do it because you told them. You should say "Shouting in the cinema will ruin the film for other people." and expect them not to do it because they understand they are impacting others.
I see the kind of parenting being described all the time - the "because I said so" parent. I get that sometimes kids are unreasonable and won't take a reasoned argument, but many parents never try or give up forever, and that means the child isn't learning or understanding why they are doing or not doing things, just (at best) forming a habit that may or may not persist when the parent isn't there.
My parents taught me by explaining - treating me like a person with little experience, not an animal to be trained.
The point is, rules shouldn't be needed - they should be logical conclusions from the things you are teaching them. Yes, sometimes you have to step in (because they misunderstood something, or messed up the logic), but that's the exception, not the rule, and it's fixed by teaching, not demanding obedience. The parenting style that expects children never to question their parents is just astounding to me, how are they meant to learn?
- Terr_ 9y ago> I see the kind of parenting being described all the time - the "because I said so" parent. Wandering the topic a bit, I'm reminded of a book [0] which argues that sometimes "because that's what I want" is actually better and more-honest than making up a reason like "because that's what good little children do." So I'd like to propose a hierarchy of 1. Explain what practical or empathetic concern drives you to make the request, so they can learn to emulate your logic. 2. Ask them to do it because you desire it. 3. Explain with a "you should always" story that involves badness or guilt which isn't actually the logic you used to reach that decision. [0] "When I Say No, I Feel Guilty" by Manuel J. Smith
- Latty 9y ago"Because that's what I want" is a perfectly good reason - your children should absolutely be learning you are a person like them, and they should aim to help any person achieve what they want if it is reasonable for them to do so. It's not at all the same as "because I said so", which is a claim of authority. Of course, you also shouldn't just frame everything that way, otherwise they won't understand the reasons they should want to do things, and because if it is a "want", that should be weighed up against what other people want and how important it is to them, fairness, etc... which is probably a more complex problem than most.
- hrktb 9y agoI think the point is to try to be the most honest and clear that you can about the situation and consequences. With that you don’t need a hierarchy: 1 and 2 are the same, you just have shallower arguments in 2 3 is not an option IMO, it really should be 2: you can plainly say “I can’t explain, but that’s what I believe is right” and let the kid decide what they want to do. This helps if the kid doesn’t take your side: if you’re not happy with outcome, there was clear a warning, making an eventual punishment more fair; Or if they happen to be right, you don’t lose credibility as you were transparent about your standpoint and you can make it right to them.