Ren Allen

"What do you do when the situation calls for immediate intervention,
like when one is holding a stick with a burning ember on it and waving
it near the other, or when one is throwing rocks in the general
vicinity of the other (and hitting them, accidentally)?"

Intervene means to get INVOLVED immediately, not stand and talk.
When something needs immediate intervention, I move quickly towards
the person and STOP the activity that could lead to harm.

If someone is unwilling to move a hot stick away from people, I will
keep it until they can be safe with it. There's no punishment
involved, but there IS safety. I don't wait for someone to get burned
to DO something.

Usually, I find that Jalen is perfectly happy to continue the activity
in a different area or aimed in a different direction ("throw the
rocks that way, not towards Sierra") and that's fine. Sometimes he's
not and I let him know that the burning stick (recent true example)
will have to be put down or given to me if he won't keep it away from
faces.

Freedom does not include the right to harm other people. They really
don't want to anyhow...but a 5y.o. doesn't always think through the
consequences. He's 5. That's part of my job as a parent. His job is to
be fascinated with burning sticks.



Ren
learninginfreedom.com

Ken Cooper

> Freedom does not include the right to harm other people. They really
> don't want to anyhow...but a 5y.o. doesn't always think through the
> consequences. He's 5. That's part of my job as a parent. His job is to
> be fascinated with burning sticks.

Yes, that's my point exactly. But stepping in and physically removing the
dangerous implement is external enforcement (as are more subtle rewards such
as giving prizes for picking up rocks). I guess the question is how much
power do I wield, and how do I characterize the use of that power.

Ken

Sandra Dodd

On Apr 24, 2006, at 12:49 PM, Ken Cooper wrote:

>
> Yes, that's my point exactly. But stepping in and physically
> removing the
> dangerous implement is external enforcement (as are more subtle
> rewards such
> as giving prizes for picking up rocks).


Would you go to work if they stopped paying you?
Would you keep kissing your wife if she stopped kissing you back?

Nobody had to throw those rocks for stupid cheap prizes. It was one
of many things going on in and around the house that day.

If an adult was literally brandishing a flaming stick in your yard
and didn't pause when you gave him the SLIGHTEST dirty look, would
you hesitate to disarm him on the grounds that it was "external
enforcement"?
It's your house; it's your yard.

-=-I guess the question is how much
power do I wield, and how do I characterize the use of that power. -=-

You have the power to totally screw them up and make their lives a
living hell.
If you can see how you would do that, there's your list of things NOT
to do.

You have the power to create a rich, happy nest where they can't help
but learn.

http://sandradodd.com/help
Lots of ideas there.

Sandra

Ken Cooper

> Would you go to work if they stopped paying you?

Would I go to work if there were no other alternatives to getting paid, and
they cut my pay? Yes. My employer has no power over me if I have better or
equal alternatives.

> Would you keep kissing your wife if she stopped kissing you back?

I assume there's power symmetry in that relationship.

> Nobody had to throw those rocks for stupid cheap prizes. It was one
> of many things going on in and around the house that day.

You weren't forcing them to do something, but you wielded power by being
able to offer up the prizes. Incentives like getting ice cream on the way
home from the grocery store, etc. are still things I can offer that are
harder for my kids.

> If an adult was literally brandishing a flaming stick in your yard
> and didn't pause when you gave him the SLIGHTEST dirty look, would
> you hesitate to disarm him on the grounds that it was "external
> enforcement"?
> It's your house; it's your yard.

I'm not saying I think the judicious, sensitive use of power is wrong, just
calling it out as it exists. Reward, however subtle, is the flip side of
punishment.

Ken

Sandra Dodd

On Apr 24, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Ken Cooper wrote:

> I assume there's power symmetry in that relationship.

Can't you make allowances to make more symmetry in relationships with
children, though?

You can't expect them to know as much as you know, but you can help
them do things they can be proud of instead of being hands-off to the
point that they've done things they might not have wanted to do (like
hurt someone).

-=-Incentives like getting ice cream on the way
home from the grocery store, etc. are still things I can offer that are
harder for my kids.-=-

Harder for them than what?
Harder for them to offer you ice cream to get you to go to the
store? I didn't follow that.

-=-I'm not saying I think the judicious, sensitive use of power is
wrong, just
calling it out as it exists. Reward, however subtle, is the flip side of
punishment.-=-

If punishment is a bad, hurtful thing, then the flipside of that
should be a good thing.

I know the arguments against rewards *in schools* and in operant
conditioning.
Those kinds of rewards (M&Ms for a baby who goes in the potty) aren't
the same as negotiating everyday situations so that all involved get
some benefit.

Sandra

Ken Cooper

> Can't you make allowances to make more symmetry in relationships with
> children, though?

Yes, and I think this is a central goal. My point is really that the
asymmetry is there, and can't be denied.

> You can't expect them to know as much as you know, but you can help
> them do things they can be proud of instead of being hands-off to the
> point that they've done things they might not have wanted to do (like
> hurt someone).

Totally agree. My error is more in the other direction.

> Harder for them than what?
> Harder for them to offer you ice cream to get you to go to the
> store? I didn't follow that.

The former. It's harder for them to offer you an ice cream cone, since they
don't have the means (monetary, transportation, etc.).

> I know the arguments against rewards *in schools* and in operant
> conditioning. Those kinds of rewards (M&Ms for a baby who goes in the
> potty) aren't the same as negotiating everyday situations so that all
> involved get some benefit.

Aren't you sending a message, though? Mom holds the wallet, and can make our
lives wonderful if she so pleases? I would definitely prefer this to Mom can
make your life a living hell, but it still isn't symmetrical.

Ken

Sandra Dodd

On Apr 24, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Ken Cooper wrote:

> > Can't you make allowances to make more symmetry in relationships
> with
> > children, though?
>
> Yes, and I think this is a central goal. My point is really that the
> asymmetry is there, and can't be denied.


Handicap yourself.

There's a game called The A-MAZE-ing Labyrinth. Each player has a
pile of cards (things to find), and the way to play with different
ages is to make the piles unequal. Inequality makes it fair. <g>
Young players only have a few cards.

I've been with my husband for 27 years. Six "in sin", 21 "real."

Around year five or so he said in deep frustration one day that it
wasn't really fair that we could only use words in discussions,
because with words I always won. If physical altercations were legal
and accepted, then he could win sometimes. But he had learned very
young, being a big strong guy, not to use that tool in everyday life
at all.

I started consciously trying to do the same thing in discussions. If
I saw that he was flustered or fishing for a word, I would wait,
instead of winning just because I could. He was right. I was taking
advantage of him, without having realized it and without having
intended to. I'm really glad we had that conversation. Otherwise
I'd have no stories about 27 years, and my kids would have divorce
and stepparent stories, and school stories no doubt.

Anyway...
A friend of mine married someone who was pretty, and sweet, and...
sweet and pretty.

I was one of the first ones he told when he was going to ask her. I
told him the story (he knows both Keith and me very well) and told
him that because he could both physically and verbally best her every
time, easily, he needed to decide early on that he wouldn't do it.

I was given a simple but valuable gift when Kirby was a baby. A La
Leche League leader told me that I should be his partner, and not his
adversary.

That's all.

If one person on a team is strong and powerful, that's good for the
team.

-=-> Harder for them than what?
> Harder for them to offer you ice cream to get you to go to the
> store? I didn't follow that.
The former. It's harder for them to offer you an ice cream cone,
since they
don't have the means (monetary, transportation, etc.).-=-

The team model should help with that too. They shouldn't need to
bribe you to do what's best for the combination of them and you.

-=-> I know the arguments against rewards *in schools* and in operant
> conditioning. Those kinds of rewards (M&Ms for a baby who goes in the
> potty) aren't the same as negotiating everyday situations so that all
> involved get some benefit.
-=-Aren't you sending a message, though? Mom holds the wallet, and
can make our
lives wonderful if she so pleases? I would definitely prefer this to
Mom can
make your life a living hell, but it still isn't symmetrical.-=-


How could it be made "symmetrical"?

What advantages might come if it were more even?


-=-Aren't you sending a message, though? Mom holds the wallet, and
can make our
lives wonderful if she so pleases?-=-

This is so odd a thought I don't know what direction to go.
I have ALWAYS desired to make their lives wonderful from before they
were born. They know that.

Every one of my kids has turned down offers of cash and purchase in
the past couple of weeks. Marty and Holly, separately, turned down
the offer of a cellphone. Kirby has had one for a while. I just
lately needed to get one, and offered each of them an add-on phone on
the account. Both thought of it and said they didn't think they
needed one right now. Both (separately) have turned down offers of
eating out. And I'm guessing some readers might be picturing a
hostile refusal, a reactionary kind of "screw you" or "never mind,"
but really it was very gentle and an honest lack of desire to eat
out. They wanted to stay home. (Well in Holly's case we were out,
but she wanted to come home and eat here instead.)

When I was a kid I took every scrap of money, attention and outing I
could get. I was needy, as attention went, and as material goods
went. My kids aren't. But even when Kirby was little and his toys
mostly came from garage sales or were homemade, he wasn't needy. It
all has to do with giving them as much of YOU as they want.

http://sandradodd.com/respect

That says it better.

Sandra

Pamela Sorooshian

On Apr 24, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Ken Cooper wrote:

> Yes, that's my point exactly. But stepping in and physically
> removing the
> dangerous implement is external enforcement (as are more subtle
> rewards such
> as giving prizes for picking up rocks). I guess the question is how
> much
> power do I wield, and how do I characterize the use of that power.

You wield the power you have to yield to keep the kids safe.

Characterize it as keeping them safe. How's that?

If wielding power is your best choice, then so be it. Sometimes just
a word will work - so say, "Stick!" instead of grabbing the stick. If
you don't have time for that - if the burning stick is heading toward
the other child's face, grab the stick, of course.

The point is to think of other options, if at all possible.

You'll get better at other options if you make a list of alternative
responses and always consider at least one of those along with the
use of power that otherwise seems required.

-pam

Unschooling shirts, cups, bumper stickers, bags...
Live Love Learn
UNSCHOOL!
<http://www.cafepress.com/livelovelearn>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Pamela Sorooshian

On Apr 24, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Ken Cooper wrote:

> My point is really that the asymmetry is there, and can't be denied.

If that's your point, it is kind of lame, especially since nobody has
denied it.

-pam

Unschooling shirts, cups, bumper stickers, bags...
Live Love Learn
UNSCHOOL!
<http://www.cafepress.com/livelovelearn>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ken Cooper

> If that's your point, it is kind of lame, especially since nobody has
> denied it.

Ah, c'mon. Tell me how you really feel. <g>

My bigger query has been answered pretty well I think. Got muddied by many
interesting side trips, and probably generated more bandwidth than
necessary, but still, good stuff. Much food for thought.

Ken

Gold Standard

>>You'll get better at other options if you make a list of alternative
>>responses and always consider at least one of those along with the
>>use of power that otherwise seems required.<<

I know this is a couple days' back, but that's where I am in reading right
now <g>.

I wanted to add that in listing alternative options, if you automatically
say "yes" (at least in your head) to whatever the child is doing or wanting,
it can help you navigate through the "how" it can work

So switching the "no" to "yes" can look like:

"Yes, you can have the hot-ended stick, and here's how that can work..."
show him where it can be pointed, show how it draws on the concrete, look at
the glowing patterns it makes as it waves in the dark...continue with what
the child is interested with the stick in a safe way.

First saying "yes" keeps things moving, flowing, living. The automatic no is
a jolting stop to that flow.

And safety indeed comes first, as long as it is a REAL safety issue, not one
that we were brainwashed with growing up ("a child should never hold a
hot-ended stick"). There are many safe ways a child can do that.

Jacki

-

Gold Standard

>>First saying "yes" keeps things moving, flowing, living. The automatic no
is
>>a jolting stop to that flow.<<

And when "no" is used only when it is really needed, then it is a necessary
stop to the flow, and it won't damage the relationship or the possibility
for a new flow.

Jacki