|Re: Kids Do Work
Kane
<Chris...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>I posted the start of this thread on the wrong news group.
>I am now aware that it might be more of interest here. Not much was
said
>before this one so...
>
>"dejablues" <deja...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:bquco3$26okf8$1...@ID-172312.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> Burning up an occupied dollhouse and gazing upon roadkill?
>> Uh................
>
>An image is worth a thousand words.
>Especially to a young child for whom language itself is a novelty.
>
>Say you have a little toddler who runs to the car, straight across
the road
>when it's time to go...
>What will make her/him stop and think next time ?
>
>1: "How many-spank- times-spank- have I told-spank-you-spank... not
>to -spank- run out-spank- in the road-spank-"
>
>2: The mental image of a squashed animal on the side of the road with
the
>words "That can happen to children too if they run out in the road"
>
>3: Reader's suggestion here...?
>
>Take your pick, but everyday, for someone going "Uh...." at road kill
it is
>their dead child they are looking at.
>Some things we can't afford to let them learn the hard way!
You haven't heard what the Embry study revealed, have you?
Let me explain.
1- If your child is so young they cannot be trusted NOT to run into
traffic, they are too young to be supervised without contact...that is
you should have a hold of them or have adequate barriers in the way.
2- Children that are raised by a parent that support and encourages
the child as they explore, tend to look to the parent in new
situations...and even in the old ones, still.
Hence they are faaaar less likely to run toward traffic.
3- Children, even toddler's, to the suprize of Dr Dennis Embry who
thought punishment models would be effective, were seen to attempt
traffic entries MORE when punished, and LESS when given instruction on
where to play to be safe.
http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html
The study, the very first one of its kind, and so far not refuted by
any other studies, is about 25 years old.
He has a whole web site on how this principle works in other things as
well, where he apparently continued to look at the learning models
that are proven to work.
http://www.paxis.org/Default.htm
Humans simply don't work well on a punishment model.
It's been shown again and again. First of all it's way too hard to
sort out the distracting experience of violence tied to a learning
situation, and secondly it can have dangerous side effects...just as
he found...MORE attempts to do the proscribed behavior.
Even adults show strong tendencies such as this.
Of course if all they have known is externally applied
sanctions...through the device of punishment....they come to believe
in them as an adult and are somewhat immune to appeals to conscience
and ethics.
Ever noticed?
Kane
ChrisScaife
No I hadn't.
I never really got any further than reading Steve Biddulph's book "The
secret to Happy Children".
>
> Let me explain.
Thanks :-)
>
> 1- If your child is so young they cannot be trusted NOT to run into
> traffic, they are too young to be supervised without contact...that is
> you should have a hold of them or have adequate barriers in the way.
Totally agree, actually that was about the only other thing that I had
written in that thread:
It's the parents job to keep them safe (the kids job is to explore).
>
> 2- Children that are raised by a parent that support and encourages
> the child as they explore, tend to look to the parent in new
> situations...and even in the old ones, still.
>
> Hence they are faaaar less likely to run toward traffic.
Yep. I can see that.
It won't harm to try to get the child to understand about danger though as
soon as you think he/she can.
Sometimes you could have your hands full or in a moment of distraction just
not be prepared.
>
> 3- Children, even toddler's, to the suprize of Dr Dennis Embry who
> thought punishment models would be effective, were seen to attempt
> traffic entries MORE when punished, and LESS when given instruction on
> where to play to be safe.
That's interesting. I had expected the hitting to be very ineffective but
not actually counter productive!
>
> http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html
>
> The study, the very first one of its kind, and so far not refuted by
> any other studies, is about 25 years old.
>
> He has a whole web site on how this principle works in other things as
> well, where he apparently continued to look at the learning models
> that are proven to work.
>
> http://www.paxis.org/Default.htm
>
> Humans simply don't work well on a punishment model.
Well said Kane!
We definitely have a duty to try to convince others of this.
I would be hesitant in trying to force these views on them though.
It's a bit like that circumcision post. To me it seems a very barbaric
practice.
I feel justified in asking them not to do it.
I wouldn't presume to trying to forbid them from doing it.
OTOH there are limits to what a civilised society can tollerate hence the
need for child protection and no doubt there will be gray areas.
It is in those gray areas that perhaps the accused should be given the
benefit of any doubt.
I still believe in the principle "innocent until proven guilty".
> Of course if all they have known is externally applied
> sanctions...through the device of punishment....they come to believe
> in them as an adult and are somewhat immune to appeals to conscience
> and ethics.
>
> Ever noticed?
Yes,
DS hit back at his mum.
He gave her a black eye.
He was about 6 years old then.
I had to tell him off for being violent.
He told me how much her hitting him hurt and said "What did you expect me to
do? Say - thank you very much that was just what I needed?"
I looked at his bruises and thought: "Wow this kid is right. Well done son!"
But I do not want him to grow up to be a wife/child beater, so I told him
that all the violence had to stop.
Did I do right ?