Trust
Sandra Dodd
Kelly Halldorson wrote a review of my book, and when she wrote to me
to tell me where it was, there was a question.
------------------
As, I was writing I realized something. You didn't do a segment on
"trust" did you? I've just looked through it...three times thinking I
must have missed something.
I was wondering why?
For me that is the absolute biggest *disagreement* I have with
unschooling philosophy...is that word. I don't like how it's used. I
think most people use it wrong....okay maybe not wrong...just not how
I think of it.
So, I generally gloss over that when I hear it and it made me
think...that's what I did when I came across it in your book
----------------------
I couldn't tell by that whether she meant she did find a section
after, or that there wasn't one.
Because I have the word file and so can search the book, I looked.
One section is called
Trust, Free Time, Compost.
That's on my site, too. http://sandradodd.com/substance
It's about trusting the process of natural learning.
Other places in The Big Book of Unschooling where "trust" is
mentioned, it's usually about the parents earning the children's
trust, and about deciding which sources the parents will consider to
be trustworthy.
page 130, section on humor:
"Smiles and laughter involve safety and trust. Those emotions are
good for families, for relationships, and for learning."
168, on eating in peace:
"A little bit of plain food in a peaceful room filled with trust and
love is better than the greatest food in the world choked down through
fearful tears."
191, judging interests:
"They will trust you as long and as far as you are trustworthy."
196, Becoming the Parent you Want to Be (the third paragraph)
"Change one thing. Smile one sweet smile. Say one kind thing.
"If that felt good, do it again. Rest. Watch. Listen. You're a
parent because of your child. Your child. You should be his parent,
or her parent. Not a generic parent, or a hypothetical parent. Be
your child's parent in each moment that you interact with her.
"Somehow you will need to experiment with trust and patience, in
little ways. If it feels good, if it seems to work, try to remember
what you did physically or cognitively to get to that place, so that
you can induce it in the future...."
Those are the ways I think about trust, so I asked Kelly this, and she
agreed to bring it here:
-=-Is there "unschooling philosophy"? Is there one way in which all
unschoolers use "trust"? I'm anxious to know why you wrote so much on
trust. If you don't like the way it's used (by whom??), why are you
wondering why I didn't have a section on it?
-=-I think we should talk about that on always learning.-=-
Sandra
to tell me where it was, there was a question.
------------------
As, I was writing I realized something. You didn't do a segment on
"trust" did you? I've just looked through it...three times thinking I
must have missed something.
I was wondering why?
For me that is the absolute biggest *disagreement* I have with
unschooling philosophy...is that word. I don't like how it's used. I
think most people use it wrong....okay maybe not wrong...just not how
I think of it.
So, I generally gloss over that when I hear it and it made me
think...that's what I did when I came across it in your book
----------------------
I couldn't tell by that whether she meant she did find a section
after, or that there wasn't one.
Because I have the word file and so can search the book, I looked.
One section is called
Trust, Free Time, Compost.
That's on my site, too. http://sandradodd.com/substance
It's about trusting the process of natural learning.
Other places in The Big Book of Unschooling where "trust" is
mentioned, it's usually about the parents earning the children's
trust, and about deciding which sources the parents will consider to
be trustworthy.
page 130, section on humor:
"Smiles and laughter involve safety and trust. Those emotions are
good for families, for relationships, and for learning."
168, on eating in peace:
"A little bit of plain food in a peaceful room filled with trust and
love is better than the greatest food in the world choked down through
fearful tears."
191, judging interests:
"They will trust you as long and as far as you are trustworthy."
196, Becoming the Parent you Want to Be (the third paragraph)
"Change one thing. Smile one sweet smile. Say one kind thing.
"If that felt good, do it again. Rest. Watch. Listen. You're a
parent because of your child. Your child. You should be his parent,
or her parent. Not a generic parent, or a hypothetical parent. Be
your child's parent in each moment that you interact with her.
"Somehow you will need to experiment with trust and patience, in
little ways. If it feels good, if it seems to work, try to remember
what you did physically or cognitively to get to that place, so that
you can induce it in the future...."
Those are the ways I think about trust, so I asked Kelly this, and she
agreed to bring it here:
-=-Is there "unschooling philosophy"? Is there one way in which all
unschoolers use "trust"? I'm anxious to know why you wrote so much on
trust. If you don't like the way it's used (by whom??), why are you
wondering why I didn't have a section on it?
-=-I think we should talk about that on always learning.-=-
Sandra
Jenny Cyphers
***Is there "unschooling philosophy"? Is there one way in which all
unschoolers use "trust"?***
The following is my understanding of trust and how it's applied in real life... via a story:
A new friend of Chamille's stayed the night at our house the other night. She hadn't planned on it. Her phone died and she doesn't have any of her phone numbers memorized to call from another phone. John took our only working car to do some late night work about 10 or so miles away. Chamille and her friend didn't know that John was going to do that and they had assumed that he'd give her a ride home. By the time they realized their predicament, it was after 10 pm. This girl doesn't live in walking distance from our house, she lives about 5 or 6 miles away.
We were talking about how her mom was going to handle the situation. The girl thought it likely that her mom might not even know that she was gone. She was a little worried about it, but mostly didn't care. I don't know this girl's parents at all and I probably won't ever meet them since this girl is moving back to Hawaii in about a week, to spend the summer there.
I said that if it were Chamille, I'd be worried and that I couldn't imagine not knowing where she was in the middle of the night, but that I would try my best to assume positive intent and trust that she was ok. Chamille responded by saying that she couldn't imagine not finding a way to let me know where she is, even if she couldn't get home late at night for whatever reason. She went on to say that she wouldn't want me to worry and that she knew that I would be relieved and understanding about her predicament. So even if all attempts to reach me failed, she knew that I'd still be understanding and sympathetic to her situation that she found herself in.
That's mutual trust. I trust that she'll do the best she can and she trusts me to be calm and considerate. Her friend figured that at any time she DID show up, she'd be in trouble with her mom, even if she showed up at 1 am, IF her mom even noticed that she wasn't at home.
Her turns out her mom did notice. She noticed when it was time to wake her daughter up to go to school the next morning. There's that trust too, a kid should be able to trust that their parents are looking out for them. Not the whole watching and waiting by the front door to make sure they made curfew, but generally being aware and connected to your child.
That's how unschooling is a bit different. Chamille trusts that her parents are there for her, she trusts that we trust her. We aren't out to prove her untrustworthy, like a parent waiting to make sure that their child makes curfew, but that we trust our kids to make the best decisions they can in any given moment and know that people make mistakes.
We've been doing that since each of our kids were small and making small choices, so that it naturally evolved to big kids making bigger choices. Our kids aren't afraid to tell us things, they don't hide mistakes, they don't need to lie and cover up. That helps us trust them more and it helps them trust us more because they know we are reliable to be kind and considerate.
How that relates to unschooling: If learning happens through the living, the more peaceful that is, the more learning can happen. Trusting each other is way more peaceful than the alternative. And more than that, if our kids trust us, they are much more likely to accept what we say and listen to us. If our relationship was adversarial through a general distrust, we likely wouldn't have those great conversations that our unschooling life is sprinkled with, those ones that just happen and lead to great learning moments.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
unschoolers use "trust"?***
The following is my understanding of trust and how it's applied in real life... via a story:
A new friend of Chamille's stayed the night at our house the other night. She hadn't planned on it. Her phone died and she doesn't have any of her phone numbers memorized to call from another phone. John took our only working car to do some late night work about 10 or so miles away. Chamille and her friend didn't know that John was going to do that and they had assumed that he'd give her a ride home. By the time they realized their predicament, it was after 10 pm. This girl doesn't live in walking distance from our house, she lives about 5 or 6 miles away.
We were talking about how her mom was going to handle the situation. The girl thought it likely that her mom might not even know that she was gone. She was a little worried about it, but mostly didn't care. I don't know this girl's parents at all and I probably won't ever meet them since this girl is moving back to Hawaii in about a week, to spend the summer there.
I said that if it were Chamille, I'd be worried and that I couldn't imagine not knowing where she was in the middle of the night, but that I would try my best to assume positive intent and trust that she was ok. Chamille responded by saying that she couldn't imagine not finding a way to let me know where she is, even if she couldn't get home late at night for whatever reason. She went on to say that she wouldn't want me to worry and that she knew that I would be relieved and understanding about her predicament. So even if all attempts to reach me failed, she knew that I'd still be understanding and sympathetic to her situation that she found herself in.
That's mutual trust. I trust that she'll do the best she can and she trusts me to be calm and considerate. Her friend figured that at any time she DID show up, she'd be in trouble with her mom, even if she showed up at 1 am, IF her mom even noticed that she wasn't at home.
Her turns out her mom did notice. She noticed when it was time to wake her daughter up to go to school the next morning. There's that trust too, a kid should be able to trust that their parents are looking out for them. Not the whole watching and waiting by the front door to make sure they made curfew, but generally being aware and connected to your child.
That's how unschooling is a bit different. Chamille trusts that her parents are there for her, she trusts that we trust her. We aren't out to prove her untrustworthy, like a parent waiting to make sure that their child makes curfew, but that we trust our kids to make the best decisions they can in any given moment and know that people make mistakes.
We've been doing that since each of our kids were small and making small choices, so that it naturally evolved to big kids making bigger choices. Our kids aren't afraid to tell us things, they don't hide mistakes, they don't need to lie and cover up. That helps us trust them more and it helps them trust us more because they know we are reliable to be kind and considerate.
How that relates to unschooling: If learning happens through the living, the more peaceful that is, the more learning can happen. Trusting each other is way more peaceful than the alternative. And more than that, if our kids trust us, they are much more likely to accept what we say and listen to us. If our relationship was adversarial through a general distrust, we likely wouldn't have those great conversations that our unschooling life is sprinkled with, those ones that just happen and lead to great learning moments.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kelly Halldorson
==>I couldn't tell by that whether she meant she did find a section
after, or that there wasn't one.<==
That's the whole clarity of writing thing. I wrote that last sentence wrong. I didn't even know what I meant. : )
==>That's on my site, too. http://sandradodd.com/substance
It's about trusting the process of natural learning.<==
This is where I think most unschoolers get confused or maybe not. I'm curious what others think.
Here is one John Holt quote:
"To trust children we must first learn to trust ourselves...and most of us were taught as children that we could not be trusted." -John Holt
There are others and really a many mentions of "trusting children" in the words of John Holt.
http://tinyurl.com/3y5ehyv
John Holt seems to mean blanket trust of children.
==>Other places in The Big Book of Unschooling where "trust" is
mentioned, it's usually about the parents earning the children's
trust, and about deciding which sources the parents will consider to
be trustworthy.<==
It's about the parents earning the children's trust in specific areas too. These examples don't bother me at all. I'm in agreement with all of them...because of the context. And it's not a general blanket trust.
-=-Is there "unschooling philosophy"? Is there one way in which all
unschoolers use "trust"? I'm anxious to know why you wrote so much on
trust. If you don't like the way it's used (by whom??), why are you
wondering why I didn't have a section on it?
Here is what I wrote back to Sandra with a little bit of expansion....
I was *informed* early on by my local folks that the core of unschooling is about trust, more specifically "trusting your children" -- this always pissed me off. It implies (the way folks said it to me) that if you don't unschool then you don't trust your kids. Period. I'm not a fan of absolutes. I think everything has a perspective.
I eventually just learned to get over it and find a different word that worked for me. And somewhat tune-out that word...
I generally don't like the way people use the word trust. Because often times there is this assumption that you are a bad person if you don't "trust" someone. I don't think trust is that all inclusive. I actually think some unschoolers use that word to make themselves sound/feel *better* than everyone else in the world.
Here is an example that has nothing to do with unschooling but everything to do with the word trust. I recently spoke with a woman who's husband cheated on her. She has decided to stay with him. She says she is miserable, can't trust him SO they can't have a good relationship.
I replied to her this...paraphrased a bit.
"I don't think you need blanket trust to have a good relationship. I think it's more important to live in reality. He's not trustworthy, in that way. I think you work your life around that limitation. If he evolves, if things change...okay but in the meantime don't focus on needing to trust him. Don't beat either yourself or him up about it. Accept it's an issue/limitation and work around it. I don't expect my husband to trust me to fix the brakes on the car. I've pretty much proven that I'm not real good at that stuff. If I demanded he trust me and I didn't have him check up on my work. I might inadvertently kill the family."
Blanket trust does not exist. I have not met a single parent of a toddler that "trusted" her child to walk across the street alone. There are limitations that can be developmental, environmental, biological, personal etc. You do your children no favors if trust them without taking those factors into consideration.
Trusting in the process of natural learning, trusting that your kids know best what interests them...that's where trust comes into play, I think.
Peace,
Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
after, or that there wasn't one.<==
That's the whole clarity of writing thing. I wrote that last sentence wrong. I didn't even know what I meant. : )
==>That's on my site, too. http://sandradodd.com/substance
It's about trusting the process of natural learning.<==
This is where I think most unschoolers get confused or maybe not. I'm curious what others think.
Here is one John Holt quote:
"To trust children we must first learn to trust ourselves...and most of us were taught as children that we could not be trusted." -John Holt
There are others and really a many mentions of "trusting children" in the words of John Holt.
http://tinyurl.com/3y5ehyv
John Holt seems to mean blanket trust of children.
==>Other places in The Big Book of Unschooling where "trust" is
mentioned, it's usually about the parents earning the children's
trust, and about deciding which sources the parents will consider to
be trustworthy.<==
It's about the parents earning the children's trust in specific areas too. These examples don't bother me at all. I'm in agreement with all of them...because of the context. And it's not a general blanket trust.
-=-Is there "unschooling philosophy"? Is there one way in which all
unschoolers use "trust"? I'm anxious to know why you wrote so much on
trust. If you don't like the way it's used (by whom??), why are you
wondering why I didn't have a section on it?
Here is what I wrote back to Sandra with a little bit of expansion....
I was *informed* early on by my local folks that the core of unschooling is about trust, more specifically "trusting your children" -- this always pissed me off. It implies (the way folks said it to me) that if you don't unschool then you don't trust your kids. Period. I'm not a fan of absolutes. I think everything has a perspective.
I eventually just learned to get over it and find a different word that worked for me. And somewhat tune-out that word...
I generally don't like the way people use the word trust. Because often times there is this assumption that you are a bad person if you don't "trust" someone. I don't think trust is that all inclusive. I actually think some unschoolers use that word to make themselves sound/feel *better* than everyone else in the world.
Here is an example that has nothing to do with unschooling but everything to do with the word trust. I recently spoke with a woman who's husband cheated on her. She has decided to stay with him. She says she is miserable, can't trust him SO they can't have a good relationship.
I replied to her this...paraphrased a bit.
"I don't think you need blanket trust to have a good relationship. I think it's more important to live in reality. He's not trustworthy, in that way. I think you work your life around that limitation. If he evolves, if things change...okay but in the meantime don't focus on needing to trust him. Don't beat either yourself or him up about it. Accept it's an issue/limitation and work around it. I don't expect my husband to trust me to fix the brakes on the car. I've pretty much proven that I'm not real good at that stuff. If I demanded he trust me and I didn't have him check up on my work. I might inadvertently kill the family."
Blanket trust does not exist. I have not met a single parent of a toddler that "trusted" her child to walk across the street alone. There are limitations that can be developmental, environmental, biological, personal etc. You do your children no favors if trust them without taking those factors into consideration.
Trusting in the process of natural learning, trusting that your kids know best what interests them...that's where trust comes into play, I think.
Peace,
Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bob Collier
--- In [email protected], "Kelly Halldorson" <kelly@...> wrote:
It's different from either/or and having a spectrum of possibilities. More like allowing situations to expand until I get to the hazy edges and need to weigh up pros and cons.
Bob
>"Maximum" is a qualifier I've found useful. Maximum freedom. Maximum control over one's own life. Maximum trust.
>
> Blanket trust does not exist. I have not met a single parent of a toddler that "trusted" her child to walk across the street alone. There are limitations that can be developmental, environmental, biological, personal etc. You do your children no favors if trust them without taking those factors into consideration.
>
>
It's different from either/or and having a spectrum of possibilities. More like allowing situations to expand until I get to the hazy edges and need to weigh up pros and cons.
Bob
k
Kelly, I agree with a lot that you say about trust.
Yet there's a couple of wayw that NOT trusting children's intentions
(despite apparent as well as actual lack of skill) can mess with
unschooling. For, I'd say, most parents.
Many parents will only extend trust once a child has proven themselves
to be able to do what they're trying to do, but if the child isn't
given the chance to do things in a protective environment, the risk of
danger or making mistakes or getting discouraged or sneaking to do
forbidden things when parents can't see increases. My parents didn't
trust me (especially my dad who got a lot of rough treatment in
childhood) and both told me I was irresponsible but they gave me
little opportunity to prove myself. This was scary for me and I still
lack confidence in some areas that I've NEVER tried but wanted to
--was *eager* to-- when I was younger.
Music is one of those. My parents didn't think I could do music so
they didn't encourage it and said I couldn't carry a tune in a bucket
(which is true because I can't hear well) but I wanted to enjoy music
in my own way and wasn't given much chance to. It was great years
later when a friend who played very well handed me her guitar after a
while and said "Here, you play" and I didn't have to even tell her I
wanted to try! I didn't even know I wanted to at that point. My friend
just caught a glimpse and went with it. Nice.
Trusting children (or anyone) need not be an all or nothing deal. I
trust Karl a lot and help him to succeed in his goals by going
alongside until he and I feel confident with him doing things on his
own when he wants to. Until then, I trust his intention to do well, or
I assume positive intention as Jeff Sabo recently put it in his blog,
and simply go with. One benefit of that is Karl trusts me to be in his
corner, pulling for him, when he wants to try something. Whether he
can do it yet, or not.
When parents mistake unschooling as an all-at-once, cut and dried kind
of deal, there's the flip side of what I experienced. Many parents may
not realize how scary it is for their kids to be on their own with the
things they wanted to do before they're ready. Just because the
parents were bursting for freedom doesn't mean that what their kids
want to do comes easy for a young person. It doesn't mean they don't
want their parents to help. Maybe the parents never realized or have
forgotten that things adults consider to be easy are more complex for
probably most children. This apparent "trust" means their kids have a
very conventional upbringing after all. They can call it unschooling
tho. ;) Whatever.
An example are kids whose parents won't talk much about sex and their
kids are forced to deal with that area of their lives without their
parents as a source of info. See how that's conventional in terms of
how trust is laid out in parent/child relationships? Everything's
groovy until something goes wrong.
The people that have a hard time with trusting because they've been
burned by the people in their lives, have a hard time with trusting
anyone, including their own children. And this turns up in unconscious
ways. All of this is why most if not all parents NEED to hear that
Holtian message of "trust your children" if they're going to do
nurture the relationships within the family and build the kind of
rapport that makes unschooling succeed.
~Katherine
Yet there's a couple of wayw that NOT trusting children's intentions
(despite apparent as well as actual lack of skill) can mess with
unschooling. For, I'd say, most parents.
Many parents will only extend trust once a child has proven themselves
to be able to do what they're trying to do, but if the child isn't
given the chance to do things in a protective environment, the risk of
danger or making mistakes or getting discouraged or sneaking to do
forbidden things when parents can't see increases. My parents didn't
trust me (especially my dad who got a lot of rough treatment in
childhood) and both told me I was irresponsible but they gave me
little opportunity to prove myself. This was scary for me and I still
lack confidence in some areas that I've NEVER tried but wanted to
--was *eager* to-- when I was younger.
Music is one of those. My parents didn't think I could do music so
they didn't encourage it and said I couldn't carry a tune in a bucket
(which is true because I can't hear well) but I wanted to enjoy music
in my own way and wasn't given much chance to. It was great years
later when a friend who played very well handed me her guitar after a
while and said "Here, you play" and I didn't have to even tell her I
wanted to try! I didn't even know I wanted to at that point. My friend
just caught a glimpse and went with it. Nice.
Trusting children (or anyone) need not be an all or nothing deal. I
trust Karl a lot and help him to succeed in his goals by going
alongside until he and I feel confident with him doing things on his
own when he wants to. Until then, I trust his intention to do well, or
I assume positive intention as Jeff Sabo recently put it in his blog,
and simply go with. One benefit of that is Karl trusts me to be in his
corner, pulling for him, when he wants to try something. Whether he
can do it yet, or not.
When parents mistake unschooling as an all-at-once, cut and dried kind
of deal, there's the flip side of what I experienced. Many parents may
not realize how scary it is for their kids to be on their own with the
things they wanted to do before they're ready. Just because the
parents were bursting for freedom doesn't mean that what their kids
want to do comes easy for a young person. It doesn't mean they don't
want their parents to help. Maybe the parents never realized or have
forgotten that things adults consider to be easy are more complex for
probably most children. This apparent "trust" means their kids have a
very conventional upbringing after all. They can call it unschooling
tho. ;) Whatever.
An example are kids whose parents won't talk much about sex and their
kids are forced to deal with that area of their lives without their
parents as a source of info. See how that's conventional in terms of
how trust is laid out in parent/child relationships? Everything's
groovy until something goes wrong.
The people that have a hard time with trusting because they've been
burned by the people in their lives, have a hard time with trusting
anyone, including their own children. And this turns up in unconscious
ways. All of this is why most if not all parents NEED to hear that
Holtian message of "trust your children" if they're going to do
nurture the relationships within the family and build the kind of
rapport that makes unschooling succeed.
~Katherine
On 5/19/10, Kelly Halldorson <kelly@...> wrote:
> ==>I couldn't tell by that whether she meant she did find a section
> after, or that there wasn't one.<==
>
> That's the whole clarity of writing thing. I wrote that last sentence wrong.
> I didn't even know what I meant. : )
>
> ==>That's on my site, too. http://sandradodd.com/substance
> It's about trusting the process of natural learning.<==
>
> This is where I think most unschoolers get confused or maybe not. I'm
> curious what others think.
>
> Here is one John Holt quote:
>
> "To trust children we must first learn to trust ourselves...and most of us
> were taught as children that we could not be trusted." -John Holt
>
> There are others and really a many mentions of "trusting children" in the
> words of John Holt.
> http://tinyurl.com/3y5ehyv
>
> John Holt seems to mean blanket trust of children.
>
> ==>Other places in The Big Book of Unschooling where "trust" is
> mentioned, it's usually about the parents earning the children's
> trust, and about deciding which sources the parents will consider to
> be trustworthy.<==
>
> It's about the parents earning the children's trust in specific areas too.
> These examples don't bother me at all. I'm in agreement with all of
> them...because of the context. And it's not a general blanket trust.
>
> -=-Is there "unschooling philosophy"? Is there one way in which all
> unschoolers use "trust"? I'm anxious to know why you wrote so much on
> trust. If you don't like the way it's used (by whom??), why are you
> wondering why I didn't have a section on it?
>
> Here is what I wrote back to Sandra with a little bit of expansion....
>
> I was *informed* early on by my local folks that the core of unschooling is
> about trust, more specifically "trusting your children" -- this always
> pissed me off. It implies (the way folks said it to me) that if you don't
> unschool then you don't trust your kids. Period. I'm not a fan of absolutes.
> I think everything has a perspective.
>
> I eventually just learned to get over it and find a different word that
> worked for me. And somewhat tune-out that word...
>
> I generally don't like the way people use the word trust. Because often
> times there is this assumption that you are a bad person if you don't
> "trust" someone. I don't think trust is that all inclusive. I actually think
> some unschoolers use that word to make themselves sound/feel *better* than
> everyone else in the world.
>
> Here is an example that has nothing to do with unschooling but everything to
> do with the word trust. I recently spoke with a woman who's husband cheated
> on her. She has decided to stay with him. She says she is miserable, can't
> trust him SO they can't have a good relationship.
>
> I replied to her this...paraphrased a bit.
>
> "I don't think you need blanket trust to have a good relationship. I think
> it's more important to live in reality. He's not trustworthy, in that way. I
> think you work your life around that limitation. If he evolves, if things
> change...okay but in the meantime don't focus on needing to trust him. Don't
> beat either yourself or him up about it. Accept it's an issue/limitation and
> work around it. I don't expect my husband to trust me to fix the brakes on
> the car. I've pretty much proven that I'm not real good at that stuff. If I
> demanded he trust me and I didn't have him check up on my work. I might
> inadvertently kill the family."
>
> Blanket trust does not exist. I have not met a single parent of a toddler
> that "trusted" her child to walk across the street alone. There are
> limitations that can be developmental, environmental, biological, personal
> etc. You do your children no favors if trust them without taking those
> factors into consideration.
>
> Trusting in the process of natural learning, trusting that your kids know
> best what interests them...that's where trust comes into play, I think.
>
> Peace,
> Kelly
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Kelly Halldorson
+++Music is one of those. My parents didn't think I could do music so
they didn't encourage it and said I couldn't carry a tune in a bucket
(which is true because I can't hear well) but I wanted to enjoy music
in my own way and wasn't given much chance to.+++
I guess here is one of those areas. I don't think this is a matter of trust. Just because they didn't think you could do it or said you didn't carry a tune...I don't think that is about a lack of trust in you. I guess I just don't think that is quite the word. I'm probably splitting hairs but this feels more like just not believing in you or maybe your interest in music was an annoyance. Maybe they thought it would end up costing them money or they'd have to drive you to lessons or something like that. Or maybe they just didn't like music themselves?
+++Trusting children (or anyone) need not be an all or nothing deal.+++
Which is really what I was saying in the first place. The problem (I see) is there are a lot of unschoolers that claim it is all or nothing...or are so loose with the word *trust* that it seems that way.
+++Until then, I trust his intention to do well, or
I assume positive intention as Jeff Sabo recently put it in his blog +++
I prefer to not assume intent. I prefer to ask the person/child their intent, if it's even relevant.
Peace,
Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
they didn't encourage it and said I couldn't carry a tune in a bucket
(which is true because I can't hear well) but I wanted to enjoy music
in my own way and wasn't given much chance to.+++
I guess here is one of those areas. I don't think this is a matter of trust. Just because they didn't think you could do it or said you didn't carry a tune...I don't think that is about a lack of trust in you. I guess I just don't think that is quite the word. I'm probably splitting hairs but this feels more like just not believing in you or maybe your interest in music was an annoyance. Maybe they thought it would end up costing them money or they'd have to drive you to lessons or something like that. Or maybe they just didn't like music themselves?
+++Trusting children (or anyone) need not be an all or nothing deal.+++
Which is really what I was saying in the first place. The problem (I see) is there are a lot of unschoolers that claim it is all or nothing...or are so loose with the word *trust* that it seems that way.
+++Until then, I trust his intention to do well, or
I assume positive intention as Jeff Sabo recently put it in his blog +++
I prefer to not assume intent. I prefer to ask the person/child their intent, if it's even relevant.
Peace,
Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-I guess here is one of those areas. I don't think this is a matter
of trust. Just because they didn't think you could do it or said you
didn't carry a tune...I don't think that is about a lack of trust in
you. I guess I just don't think that is quite the word. I'm probably
splitting hairs but this feels more like just not believing in you or
maybe your interest in music was an annoyance. Maybe they thought it
would end up costing them money or they'd have to drive you to lessons
or something like that. Or maybe they just didn't like music
themselves?-=-
I agree.
I can't "trust" that my kids will be athletes. What I can do is trust
that if they want to they'll be able to pursue that with my support.
That would be trusting me not to thwart their desires.
But why would I trust myself? Better to decide to make decisions in
that direction than to say "I trust that I will..."
Trust has to do with being realistic about a person's skills and
talents. Keith's dad's church is having a hard time with its
trustees. They've had a policy for a long time that the minister
doesn't need to open or lock up the building. That's the job of the
trustees. When Keith's dad had a heart attack, the other guy who had
the keys wasn't always showing up. Keith and I were discussing that.
I said they should have more than two trustees. He said a guy who
can't show up should not BE a trustee.
I think I see Kelly's point. Not positive. But trust, when it's
earned, is a valuable thing. Trust when it's not even understood well
is just a word misused.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
of trust. Just because they didn't think you could do it or said you
didn't carry a tune...I don't think that is about a lack of trust in
you. I guess I just don't think that is quite the word. I'm probably
splitting hairs but this feels more like just not believing in you or
maybe your interest in music was an annoyance. Maybe they thought it
would end up costing them money or they'd have to drive you to lessons
or something like that. Or maybe they just didn't like music
themselves?-=-
I agree.
I can't "trust" that my kids will be athletes. What I can do is trust
that if they want to they'll be able to pursue that with my support.
That would be trusting me not to thwart their desires.
But why would I trust myself? Better to decide to make decisions in
that direction than to say "I trust that I will..."
Trust has to do with being realistic about a person's skills and
talents. Keith's dad's church is having a hard time with its
trustees. They've had a policy for a long time that the minister
doesn't need to open or lock up the building. That's the job of the
trustees. When Keith's dad had a heart attack, the other guy who had
the keys wasn't always showing up. Keith and I were discussing that.
I said they should have more than two trustees. He said a guy who
can't show up should not BE a trustee.
I think I see Kelly's point. Not positive. But trust, when it's
earned, is a valuable thing. Trust when it's not even understood well
is just a word misused.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
riasplace3
--- In [email protected], "Kelly Halldorson" <kelly@...> wrote:
Ria
>This is what I've understood *"trust" in unschooling* to mean....learning will happen, it's not about making everything "educational", learning happens in all activities. *Trust* that learning really happens organically.
>>> I was *informed* early on by my local folks that the core of unschooling is about trust, more specifically "trusting your children" -- this always pissed me off. It implies (the way folks said it to me) that if you don't unschool then you don't trust your kids. Period. I'm not a fan of absolutes. I think everything has a perspective.
>
>>> Trusting in the process of natural learning, trusting that your kids know best what interests them...that's where trust comes into play, I think.
>
Ria
Kelly Halldorson
+++I can't "trust" that my kids will be athletes. What I can do is trust
that if they want to they'll be able to pursue that with my support.
That would be trusting me not to thwart their desires.
But why would I trust myself? Better to decide to make decisions in
that direction than to say "I trust that I will..."+++
Exactly what I was getting at.
+++Trust has to do with being realistic about a person's skills and
talents. Keith's dad's church is having a hard time with its
trustees. They've had a policy for a long time that the minister
doesn't need to open or lock up the building. That's the job of the
trustees. When Keith's dad had a heart attack, the other guy who had
the keys wasn't always showing up. Keith and I were discussing that.
I said they should have more than two trustees. He said a guy who
can't show up should not BE a trustee.+++
I love this example.
+++I think I see Kelly's point. Not positive. But trust, when it's
earned, is a valuable thing. Trust when it's not even understood well
is just a word misused.+++
Looks to me like you get it exactly.
Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
that if they want to they'll be able to pursue that with my support.
That would be trusting me not to thwart their desires.
But why would I trust myself? Better to decide to make decisions in
that direction than to say "I trust that I will..."+++
Exactly what I was getting at.
+++Trust has to do with being realistic about a person's skills and
talents. Keith's dad's church is having a hard time with its
trustees. They've had a policy for a long time that the minister
doesn't need to open or lock up the building. That's the job of the
trustees. When Keith's dad had a heart attack, the other guy who had
the keys wasn't always showing up. Keith and I were discussing that.
I said they should have more than two trustees. He said a guy who
can't show up should not BE a trustee.+++
I love this example.
+++I think I see Kelly's point. Not positive. But trust, when it's
earned, is a valuable thing. Trust when it's not even understood well
is just a word misused.+++
Looks to me like you get it exactly.
Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On May 19, 2010, at 7:43 PM, Kelly Halldorson wrote:
did ;-)
What the statement means is that unschooling is built on a foundation
of trust, not that unschoolers have claimed ownership of trust! Trust
is one of the building blocks. There's still trust left over for
everyone else to use. ;-)
But I agree about the use of the word trust in describing unschooling.
I think it muddies more than clarifies. While unschooling is about
trusting children, and it's obvious what people mean once you get it,
the way it's expressed doesn't paint the right picture.
Trust children's wants and needs. (I've written trust kids understand
their needs, but that's not it. It's not intellectual. It's a drive, a
curiosity, biology, a hole that needs filled with something. Trust
they can feel it and trust that if they're trying to meet it, then
it's important to them.)
Digging deeper into that: kids know they want something but they don't
always know what it is and what will fill it. Trial and error is a
good tool! By trying out things they're drawn to, they grow their
understanding of the hole, of what doesn't work, what does work, and
more about themselves and the things they're trying. Being a partner
is good, not just in physically helping them but tapping into a
parent's greater knowledge and experience to help them figure out what
might work and better ways to get it. We don't necessarily want to
hand them the solution, just help them face a more useful direction
and eliminate some of the things that look good on the surface but
don't really offer what they appear to (like misleading cover art on a
book).
Trust children don't want to die. But they don't always know how not
to. So we help them find safe ways to get what they want.
(I've said they don't want to hurt themselves, but we all judge how
much pain and difficulty we're willing to bear to get something we
want. Different wants will be worth different levels of pain and
irritation. For instance, kids are plenty willing to risk scrapes and
bruises to master skateboarding.
Trust children don't want to hurt others. But they don't always know
how not to. So we help them find respectful paths to get what they want.
Trust children want to be better and do better. Trust that they can
learn through trying things. Those are connected. Regardless of
whether a child is learning what we think they should learn from what
they're doing, they *are* learning something that's important to them
right now. The thing we think they should be learning, may be worth
putting up with for now to get something else that's far more
intriguing.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I was *informed* early on by my local folks that the core ofI'm not sure how you got that interpretation but I trust that you
> unschooling is about trust, more specifically "trusting your
> children" -- this always pissed me off. It implies (the way folks
> said it to me) that if you don't unschool then you don't trust your
> kids. Period. I'm not a fan of absolutes. I think everything has a
> perspective.
did ;-)
What the statement means is that unschooling is built on a foundation
of trust, not that unschoolers have claimed ownership of trust! Trust
is one of the building blocks. There's still trust left over for
everyone else to use. ;-)
But I agree about the use of the word trust in describing unschooling.
I think it muddies more than clarifies. While unschooling is about
trusting children, and it's obvious what people mean once you get it,
the way it's expressed doesn't paint the right picture.
Trust children's wants and needs. (I've written trust kids understand
their needs, but that's not it. It's not intellectual. It's a drive, a
curiosity, biology, a hole that needs filled with something. Trust
they can feel it and trust that if they're trying to meet it, then
it's important to them.)
Digging deeper into that: kids know they want something but they don't
always know what it is and what will fill it. Trial and error is a
good tool! By trying out things they're drawn to, they grow their
understanding of the hole, of what doesn't work, what does work, and
more about themselves and the things they're trying. Being a partner
is good, not just in physically helping them but tapping into a
parent's greater knowledge and experience to help them figure out what
might work and better ways to get it. We don't necessarily want to
hand them the solution, just help them face a more useful direction
and eliminate some of the things that look good on the surface but
don't really offer what they appear to (like misleading cover art on a
book).
Trust children don't want to die. But they don't always know how not
to. So we help them find safe ways to get what they want.
(I've said they don't want to hurt themselves, but we all judge how
much pain and difficulty we're willing to bear to get something we
want. Different wants will be worth different levels of pain and
irritation. For instance, kids are plenty willing to risk scrapes and
bruises to master skateboarding.
Trust children don't want to hurt others. But they don't always know
how not to. So we help them find respectful paths to get what they want.
Trust children want to be better and do better. Trust that they can
learn through trying things. Those are connected. Regardless of
whether a child is learning what we think they should learn from what
they're doing, they *are* learning something that's important to them
right now. The thing we think they should be learning, may be worth
putting up with for now to get something else that's far more
intriguing.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
Joyce cheated for rhetorical purposes, by misusing the word
"trust" (grammatically).
All these statements need "that."
"Trust children don't want to die" should be "Trust that children
don't want to die."
"Trust children don't want to hurt others" should be "Trust that
children don't want to hurt others."
"Trust children want to be better and do better" should be "Trust that
children want to be better and do better."
This one is okay technically: "Trust children's wants and needs."
But what is clearer (and Joyce clarified in her explanations) is
"Trust that children's wants and needs have a valid basis."
Those are like trusting in natural learning, which is trusting in
human nature. Trusting that children want to become a part of the
life and culture around them. They learn as they grow because that's
what all primates and all mammals do. I'm not extending it to all of
the animal world because arguing about worms and spiders isn't going
to help. But knowing about the behavior of wolves and chimpanzees
might not hurt.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"trust" (grammatically).
All these statements need "that."
"Trust children don't want to die" should be "Trust that children
don't want to die."
"Trust children don't want to hurt others" should be "Trust that
children don't want to hurt others."
"Trust children want to be better and do better" should be "Trust that
children want to be better and do better."
This one is okay technically: "Trust children's wants and needs."
But what is clearer (and Joyce clarified in her explanations) is
"Trust that children's wants and needs have a valid basis."
Those are like trusting in natural learning, which is trusting in
human nature. Trusting that children want to become a part of the
life and culture around them. They learn as they grow because that's
what all primates and all mammals do. I'm not extending it to all of
the animal world because arguing about worms and spiders isn't going
to help. But knowing about the behavior of wolves and chimpanzees
might not hurt.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-+++I think I see Kelly's point. Not positive. But trust, when it's
earned, is a valuable thing. Trust when it's not even understood well
is just a word misused.+++
-=-Looks to me like you get it exactly.-=-
Well then we come back to another abiding problem.
This list is where many people end up coming to question what they
learned in other places. I can't be responsible for what other people
are irresponsibly putting out there. It frustrates me when another
list gets all focussed on something that doesn't help, or that
hinders. "Autonomy." "Freedom." "Trust."
With those banners, parents march out into a muddle.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
earned, is a valuable thing. Trust when it's not even understood well
is just a word misused.+++
-=-Looks to me like you get it exactly.-=-
Well then we come back to another abiding problem.
This list is where many people end up coming to question what they
learned in other places. I can't be responsible for what other people
are irresponsibly putting out there. It frustrates me when another
list gets all focussed on something that doesn't help, or that
hinders. "Autonomy." "Freedom." "Trust."
With those banners, parents march out into a muddle.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
keetry
== Here is one John Holt quote:
Using the toddler crossing the street as an example:
First, I think it depends on the street. If we lived on a country road on which the only traffic was us or people we were expecting, it might be safe to let a toddler cross that road alone. On a very busy, city street, it might not be safe for anyone to cross.
Second, it's important to trust that the toddler does not have ill intent by wanting to cross the street. The child isn't being "bad". Assume there's something interesting on the other side that the toddler wants to see, hear or do. Then do what you can to make it safe for the toddler to accomplish rather than screaming at the child, grabbing the child and spanking the child.
A lot of parents assume ill intent for any behavior that bothers the parents. I think that goes back to religion and the idea of original sin. Everyone is born a sinner. To me, that's what Holt was getting at with the idea that we were taught that we couldn't be trusted. My husband thinks this way without even realizing it. When we've talked about people being able to do what they want, he assumes they will do something mean or hurtful or bad. He can't fathom the idea that most people might be able to do what they want without hurting others. When I've asked him if he thinks that comes from his Catholic upbringing, he denies it. I think it's been so ingrained into his thinking that he's not conscious of it.
It's not about assuming that the toddler who wants to cross a busy street knows when it's safe to cross. The child is new to this world and doesn't understand that a large hunk of metal coming at a person at even 15 mph can be very dangerous. It's our responsibility as parents to keep the child safe from those things that are truly and immediately dangerous. That's where trust from the child to the parent comes in. Children should be able to trust their parents to keep them safe.
Food and sleep are the other areas where I think parents have difficulty with trusting their children. Babies and children don't need to be taught what it feels like to be hungry or satisfied. They don't need to be taught what it feels like to be tired or well-rested. These are instinctive survival mechanisms that every person is born understanding. That's why the baby cries when his tummy hurts from hunger and roots around for the nipple when picked up and then falls asleep after getting his fill. So rather than forcing a child to eat everything in his plates at only certain times of the day and making him go to bed and wake up at certain times because someone taught you that was the right, responsible, disciplined thing to do, trust the child to eat when he's hungry and sleep when he's not.
Teenagers get a lot of flack for sleeping until noon and craving pizza and potato chips and soda. Teenagers are going through a major growth period, both physically and developmentally. They need the extra sleep and the high calorie foods to fuel that growth. Back in the day before processed foods and fears about fat and cholesterol, it was bacon and eggs, butter, meat and potatoes. Humans, like other animals, instinctively strive to provide for their needs as quickly and efficiently as possible in order to optimize survival. So now it's easier and faster to get what they need from all the processed, prepackaged, premade high fat, high calorie foods. It's not ill-intent. It's basic survival instinct. That's my opinion, anyway.
Alysia
>To me, this means trusting that your children know what they need physically and emotionally and trusting that your children don't have bad intent.
> "To trust children we must first learn to trust ourselves...and most of us were taught as children that we could not be trusted." -John Holt
>
> There are others and really a many mentions of "trusting children" in the words of John Holt.
> http://tinyurl.com/3y5ehyv
>
> John Holt seems to mean blanket trust of children.==
Using the toddler crossing the street as an example:
First, I think it depends on the street. If we lived on a country road on which the only traffic was us or people we were expecting, it might be safe to let a toddler cross that road alone. On a very busy, city street, it might not be safe for anyone to cross.
Second, it's important to trust that the toddler does not have ill intent by wanting to cross the street. The child isn't being "bad". Assume there's something interesting on the other side that the toddler wants to see, hear or do. Then do what you can to make it safe for the toddler to accomplish rather than screaming at the child, grabbing the child and spanking the child.
A lot of parents assume ill intent for any behavior that bothers the parents. I think that goes back to religion and the idea of original sin. Everyone is born a sinner. To me, that's what Holt was getting at with the idea that we were taught that we couldn't be trusted. My husband thinks this way without even realizing it. When we've talked about people being able to do what they want, he assumes they will do something mean or hurtful or bad. He can't fathom the idea that most people might be able to do what they want without hurting others. When I've asked him if he thinks that comes from his Catholic upbringing, he denies it. I think it's been so ingrained into his thinking that he's not conscious of it.
It's not about assuming that the toddler who wants to cross a busy street knows when it's safe to cross. The child is new to this world and doesn't understand that a large hunk of metal coming at a person at even 15 mph can be very dangerous. It's our responsibility as parents to keep the child safe from those things that are truly and immediately dangerous. That's where trust from the child to the parent comes in. Children should be able to trust their parents to keep them safe.
Food and sleep are the other areas where I think parents have difficulty with trusting their children. Babies and children don't need to be taught what it feels like to be hungry or satisfied. They don't need to be taught what it feels like to be tired or well-rested. These are instinctive survival mechanisms that every person is born understanding. That's why the baby cries when his tummy hurts from hunger and roots around for the nipple when picked up and then falls asleep after getting his fill. So rather than forcing a child to eat everything in his plates at only certain times of the day and making him go to bed and wake up at certain times because someone taught you that was the right, responsible, disciplined thing to do, trust the child to eat when he's hungry and sleep when he's not.
Teenagers get a lot of flack for sleeping until noon and craving pizza and potato chips and soda. Teenagers are going through a major growth period, both physically and developmentally. They need the extra sleep and the high calorie foods to fuel that growth. Back in the day before processed foods and fears about fat and cholesterol, it was bacon and eggs, butter, meat and potatoes. Humans, like other animals, instinctively strive to provide for their needs as quickly and efficiently as possible in order to optimize survival. So now it's easier and faster to get what they need from all the processed, prepackaged, premade high fat, high calorie foods. It's not ill-intent. It's basic survival instinct. That's my opinion, anyway.
Alysia
k
>>>Those are like trusting in natural learning, which is trusting inhuman nature. Trusting that children want to become a part of the
life and culture around them. They learn as they grow because that's
what all primates and all mammals do. I'm not extending it to all of
the animal world because arguing about worms and spiders isn't going
to help. But knowing about the behavior of wolves and chimpanzees
might not hurt.<<<
Trusting natural learning is what I meant by the example of
opportunities to try and see if an interest is what creates learning
and fun.
It's a pretty fine line between trusting that children want to learn,
that they will learn organically, and trusting children. Probably in
the child's view, there would be very little distinction. And in the
parent's eyes, there's something very intertwined in the child and
learning that must be trusted or else the conventional parent will
continue to make decisions for the child and override the child's
interests and motivation, thinking that the child can't be trusted to
know what they really want.
There is considerable trust in children, and an unaccustomed trust in
themselves to change old ways, that one could use to build
unschooling. Unless I'm missing something.
~Katherine
On 5/20/10, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> Joyce cheated for rhetorical purposes, by misusing the word
> "trust" (grammatically).
>
> All these statements need "that."
>
> "Trust children don't want to die" should be "Trust that children
> don't want to die."
> "Trust children don't want to hurt others" should be "Trust that
> children don't want to hurt others."
> "Trust children want to be better and do better" should be "Trust that
> children want to be better and do better."
>
> This one is okay technically: "Trust children's wants and needs."
> But what is clearer (and Joyce clarified in her explanations) is
> "Trust that children's wants and needs have a valid basis."
>
> Those are like trusting in natural learning, which is trusting in
> human nature. Trusting that children want to become a part of the
> life and culture around them. They learn as they grow because that's
> what all primates and all mammals do. I'm not extending it to all of
> the animal world because arguing about worms and spiders isn't going
> to help. But knowing about the behavior of wolves and chimpanzees
> might not hurt.
>
> Sandra
k
>>>A lot of parents assume ill intent for any behavior that bothers the parents. I think that goes back to religion and the idea of original sin. Everyone is born a sinner.<<<This is a BIG issue of trust that Brian and I overcame in order to
unschool our child. Otherwise, there would be all the trappings of
conventional parenting plus the burden of assuming we're all "born a
sinner" working against any hope of unschooling.
I know a lot of people never come with that kind of baggage. Yet for
parents who do, trusting children is directly connected to the ability
to trust in the learning process. It means the parent needs to
experience learning in a very different, freer, less convoluted
context in order to realize that thinking and exploration won't
necessarily lead a child to death (or hell itself). However the
diligence needed to make safe paths to exploration is very different
from the exhausting energy needed to subdue children and keep them
from learning dangerous things.
We know a religious family who bars their children from all manner of
things because they might be spiritually dangerous. Lego Batman on the
DS was one of those things and Karl was baffled by that restriction
for his friends. He doesn't get it. But in that game, the child can
choose to play the bad guy, and that's why his friend's mother will
probably never get those 3 boys a DS. Yet they have an old Atari where
the goal is to shoot spaceships down one after the other which I
assume IS ok.
I feel bad that this lady's first experience of the DS (it was Karl's
DS) may have messed up her kids probably ever getting one. She doesn't
trust the learning or the things in the world a child might learn
from, and most of all she doesn't trust her kids not to turn into
killers due to exposure to these things. The mother's lack of trust
may translate later on into the inability of the children to trust
themselves to be good people, and so it creates an insecurity built-in
for the rest of their lives. I think it's unnecessary to do that.
Sure they can learn from other things, but what this means is that the
parent filters rather than facilitates in the learning process. I
think any parent filters somewhat for a myriad of reasons, financial
limits for instance, not enough access to the right knowledge at the
moment, etc. Those are not permanent hurdles probably or they depend
on circumstances. Some filters are permanent or close to it. I know
because all the rules and no-nos that Brian and I learned in childhood
are very difficult (a LOT of work) to overcome once they take.
~Katherine
On 5/20/10, keetry <keetry@...> wrote:
> == Here is one John Holt quote:
>>
>> "To trust children we must first learn to trust ourselves...and most of us
>> were taught as children that we could not be trusted." -John Holt
>>
>> There are others and really a many mentions of "trusting children" in the
>> words of John Holt.
>> http://tinyurl.com/3y5ehyv
>>
>> John Holt seems to mean blanket trust of children.==
>
> To me, this means trusting that your children know what they need physically
> and emotionally and trusting that your children don't have bad intent.
>
> Using the toddler crossing the street as an example:
>
> First, I think it depends on the street. If we lived on a country road on
> which the only traffic was us or people we were expecting, it might be safe
> to let a toddler cross that road alone. On a very busy, city street, it
> might not be safe for anyone to cross.
>
> Second, it's important to trust that the toddler does not have ill intent by
> wanting to cross the street. The child isn't being "bad". Assume there's
> something interesting on the other side that the toddler wants to see, hear
> or do. Then do what you can to make it safe for the toddler to accomplish
> rather than screaming at the child, grabbing the child and spanking the
> child.
>
> A lot of parents assume ill intent for any behavior that bothers the
> parents. I think that goes back to religion and the idea of original sin.
> Everyone is born a sinner. To me, that's what Holt was getting at with the
> idea that we were taught that we couldn't be trusted. My husband thinks this
> way without even realizing it. When we've talked about people being able to
> do what they want, he assumes they will do something mean or hurtful or bad.
> He can't fathom the idea that most people might be able to do what they want
> without hurting others. When I've asked him if he thinks that comes from his
> Catholic upbringing, he denies it. I think it's been so ingrained into his
> thinking that he's not conscious of it.
>
> It's not about assuming that the toddler who wants to cross a busy street
> knows when it's safe to cross. The child is new to this world and doesn't
> understand that a large hunk of metal coming at a person at even 15 mph can
> be very dangerous. It's our responsibility as parents to keep the child safe
> from those things that are truly and immediately dangerous. That's where
> trust from the child to the parent comes in. Children should be able to
> trust their parents to keep them safe.
>
> Food and sleep are the other areas where I think parents have difficulty
> with trusting their children. Babies and children don't need to be taught
> what it feels like to be hungry or satisfied. They don't need to be taught
> what it feels like to be tired or well-rested. These are instinctive
> survival mechanisms that every person is born understanding. That's why the
> baby cries when his tummy hurts from hunger and roots around for the nipple
> when picked up and then falls asleep after getting his fill. So rather than
> forcing a child to eat everything in his plates at only certain times of the
> day and making him go to bed and wake up at certain times because someone
> taught you that was the right, responsible, disciplined thing to do, trust
> the child to eat when he's hungry and sleep when he's not.
>
> Teenagers get a lot of flack for sleeping until noon and craving pizza and
> potato chips and soda. Teenagers are going through a major growth period,
> both physically and developmentally. They need the extra sleep and the high
> calorie foods to fuel that growth. Back in the day before processed foods
> and fears about fat and cholesterol, it was bacon and eggs, butter, meat and
> potatoes. Humans, like other animals, instinctively strive to provide for
> their needs as quickly and efficiently as possible in order to optimize
> survival. So now it's easier and faster to get what they need from all the
> processed, prepackaged, premade high fat, high calorie foods. It's not
> ill-intent. It's basic survival instinct. That's my opinion, anyway.
>
> Alysia
lalow66
> We know a religious family who bars their children from all manner ofWhen my son James was 4, he was in a Christmas Pagent at church and was so thrilled when he found out he got the play King Herrod. He was in an identifying with the bad guy stage and wanted to be the bad guy no matter what he was playing. He was determined that the bad guy usually won. My husband thought it was fun to point out to him all the shows/movies that the bad guy lost out. Their favorite was the Incredibles.
> things because they might be spiritually dangerous. Lego Batman on the
> DS was one of those things and Karl was baffled by that restriction
> for his friends. He doesn't get it. But in that game, the child can
> choose to play the bad guy, and that's why his friend's mother will
> probably never get those 3 boys a DS. Yet they have an old Atari where
> the goal is to shoot spaceships down one after the other which I
> assume IS ok.
Jenny Cyphers
+++Trusting children (or anyone) need not be an all or nothing deal.+++
***Which is really what I was saying in the first place. The problem (I see) is there are a lot of unschoolers that claim it is all or nothing...or are so loose with the word *trust* that it seems that way.***
Are you thinking about this in terms of kids doing whatever they want and the parents trusting them to do it and for all involved to be okay with it?
If so, then I agree. The thing about trust is that it really is one of those things that must go both ways. Parents can trust kids to navigate their world, but kids also need to trust that their parents will be there to help them when they need it.
I'm trying to understand where you are coming from here...
+++Until then, I trust his intention to do well, or
I assume positive intention as Jeff Sabo recently put it in his blog +++
***I prefer to not assume intent. I prefer to ask the person/child their intent, if it's even relevant.***
Assuming positive intent is one the biggest aspects of parenting that needed to shift in order for me to be a better parent. Not in all things of course. If one of my kids is angry and hitting people, that's not a place of positive intent, but I can still assume that they'd like to have a positive outcome and need help getting there.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
***Which is really what I was saying in the first place. The problem (I see) is there are a lot of unschoolers that claim it is all or nothing...or are so loose with the word *trust* that it seems that way.***
Are you thinking about this in terms of kids doing whatever they want and the parents trusting them to do it and for all involved to be okay with it?
If so, then I agree. The thing about trust is that it really is one of those things that must go both ways. Parents can trust kids to navigate their world, but kids also need to trust that their parents will be there to help them when they need it.
I'm trying to understand where you are coming from here...
+++Until then, I trust his intention to do well, or
I assume positive intention as Jeff Sabo recently put it in his blog +++
***I prefer to not assume intent. I prefer to ask the person/child their intent, if it's even relevant.***
Assuming positive intent is one the biggest aspects of parenting that needed to shift in order for me to be a better parent. Not in all things of course. If one of my kids is angry and hitting people, that's not a place of positive intent, but I can still assume that they'd like to have a positive outcome and need help getting there.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kelly Halldorson
+++Assuming positive intent is one the biggest aspects of parenting that needed to shift in order for me to be a better parent. Not in all things of course. If one of my kids is angry and hitting people, that's not a place of positive intent, but I can still assume that they'd like to have a positive outcome and need help getting there.+++
I guess I don't understand, you *seem* to be saying. - I assume positive intent except when there isn't positive intent and that makes me a better parent.-
I work hard not to *assume* any intent. I am not the other person, there is no way to know what their intent is except to ask.
I don't see any good in assuming anything but I'm open to hearing why I should.
It feels a lot like the idea of blanket trust. Should I just trust intent is always positive? I don't think so.
Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I guess I don't understand, you *seem* to be saying. - I assume positive intent except when there isn't positive intent and that makes me a better parent.-
I work hard not to *assume* any intent. I am not the other person, there is no way to know what their intent is except to ask.
I don't see any good in assuming anything but I'm open to hearing why I should.
It feels a lot like the idea of blanket trust. Should I just trust intent is always positive? I don't think so.
Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-I work hard not to *assume* any intent. I am not the other person,
there is no way to know what their intent is except to ask.
-=-I don't see any good in assuming anything but I'm open to hearing
why I should.-=-
When a ball is coming toward you, do you always kick at it? Always
wait for it to hit you in the head? Always... anything?
If you never assume any intent at all, then are you treating others
the very same way regardless of ANY clues in posture, tone of voice,
glance, or facial expression?
Some people don't read other people very well at all, but I can't
imagine a parent who can't read her own child one bit.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
there is no way to know what their intent is except to ask.
-=-I don't see any good in assuming anything but I'm open to hearing
why I should.-=-
When a ball is coming toward you, do you always kick at it? Always
wait for it to hit you in the head? Always... anything?
If you never assume any intent at all, then are you treating others
the very same way regardless of ANY clues in posture, tone of voice,
glance, or facial expression?
Some people don't read other people very well at all, but I can't
imagine a parent who can't read her own child one bit.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robin Bentley
> I work hard not to *assume* any intent. I am not the other person,Oh, boy. *That* would go over like a lead balloon in my house <g>.
> there is no way to know what their intent is except to ask.
Talking to my child in the heat of the moment (like Pam did *not* do
with Roxana) would be the worst thing I could do. Maybe later would be
okay, but I want to hear what she has to say, before I ask what she
was intending. She can easily take what I say as blame, which can
start the whole upset over before she's finished calming down.
I mostly assume that Senna is trying to get her needs met (to be
heard, perhaps) and may be going about it in a totally inappropriate
manner. That often requires intervention of some sort (moving her out
of the space; many times, Senna stalks off, much like Pam's Roxana)
to make sure others aren't hurt by words or actions. But I still think
of her wanting a good outcome, so I try to help her with that.
I do *not* assume she *wants* to be mean or loud or hurtful. It
wasn't always that way, though, when my need for approval from other
parents caused me to assume that she had bad intentions. It affected
my relationship with her; it's recovering.
>It might be worth it to repeat more of Pam's words:
> I don't see any good in assuming anything but I'm open to hearing
> why I should.
> The most important thing I did was really listenThat is part of assuming positive intent. That kids want to be happy,
> to Roxana and really pay attention to what seemed to help and what
> didn't. Enlist the child's help - it isn't like the kid wants things
> to
> be hard - kids want to be happy, too.-=-
that they want to get along with others, that they want to do the
right thing. Sometimes, they just don't know how or don't yet have the
maturity to better handle situations or they have that "hair-trigger"
emotional response.
>I think trust is important in knowing that your child, with your help,
> It feels a lot like the idea of blanket trust. Should I just trust
> intent is always positive? I don't think so.
will eventually have better thought processing, will eventually
mature, will eventually have better social skills. I don't think we
can abdicate our responsibility to our children to help them, by
trusting everything will just *happen*.
It's like trusting your child will know what they will need to know
(in terms of "academic" learning, for instance) by giving them plenty
of resources and tools and opportunities. If we lock them in an empty
room and trust they'll learn those things, it's not going to happen.
Oh, they'll learn something alright. Not to trust you to help them.
Not to trust you to be there for them. Not to trust you to believe
they are doing their best, and to help them do better.
When unschoolers talk about trust, it's in the context of trusting in
the learning process. That with all the opportunities and facilitation
and help we can give them, they will learn. I think that applies to
their lives in all aspects.
Robin B.
Kelly Halldorson
>I do *not* assume she *wants* to be mean or loud or hurtful.but you assume she didn't?
>wasn't always that way, though, when my need for approval from otherI think *assuming* any particular intent (either positive or negative) affects a relationship. I don't like it when people assume my intent...period...lots of the times they get it wrong. Maybe that's my own fault for not communicating myself well enough but maybe it's the persons fault for assuming they know my reasons for doing something in the first place.
>parents caused me to assume that she had bad intentions. It affected
>my relationship with her; it's recovering.
> I don't see any good in assuming anything but I'm open to hearingIt might be worth it to repeat more of Pam's words:
> why I should.
> The most important thing I did was really listenAre you really listening if you are busy making assumptions? I listen and if need be I make educated guesses about what they are trying to communicate but I always follow up later and make sure I was at least somewhere near right in those guesses.
>I think trust is important in knowing that your child, with your help,I don't trust everything will *just happen* - I trust that my kids will mature. I trust my kids will learn to better cope with disappointments etc...I trust they will learn. I trust I can help with all that...more like I trust that I can choose not to hinder that.
>will eventually have better thought processing, will eventually
>mature, will eventually have better social skills. I don't think we
>can abdicate our responsibility to our children to help them, by
>trusting everything will just *happen*.
>When unschoolers talk about trust, it's in the context of trusting inagreed.
>the learning process. That with all the opportunities and facilitation
>and help we can give them, they will learn. I think that applies to
>their lives in all aspects.
Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-When unschoolers talk about trust, it's in the context of trusting in
the learning process. That with all the opportunities and facilitation
and help we can give them, they will learn. I think that applies to
their lives in all aspects.-=-
When unschoolers on this list talk about trust, it's likely to be in
the context of trusting in the learning process.
I know the complaint/topic has to do with more sparkly-eyed (but
unfocussed) unschoolers preaching platitudes like "All you have to do
is trust your child." Or "I trust my child to know what's right for
him." If that's said while a kid is pummeling another kid in the sand
box, I would no longer trust that parent to know much of anything.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
the learning process. That with all the opportunities and facilitation
and help we can give them, they will learn. I think that applies to
their lives in all aspects.-=-
When unschoolers on this list talk about trust, it's likely to be in
the context of trusting in the learning process.
I know the complaint/topic has to do with more sparkly-eyed (but
unfocussed) unschoolers preaching platitudes like "All you have to do
is trust your child." Or "I trust my child to know what's right for
him." If that's said while a kid is pummeling another kid in the sand
box, I would no longer trust that parent to know much of anything.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On 5/22/2010 2:27 PM, Kelly Halldorson wrote:
their own way and their own time. Assume kids want to be happy. Assume
kids want to be alive and relatively healthy. Assume they have the
capacity to care about others. And on and on. I think unschooling
requires a lot of assumptions.
-pam
>Assume kids want to learn stuff. Assume they will learn naturally and in
> I don't see any good in assuming anything but I'm open to hearing why
> I should.
their own way and their own time. Assume kids want to be happy. Assume
kids want to be alive and relatively healthy. Assume they have the
capacity to care about others. And on and on. I think unschooling
requires a lot of assumptions.
-pam
Sandra Dodd
-=-Assume they have the
capacity to care about others. And on and on. I think unschooling
requires a lot of assumptions.-=-
All relationships involve assumptions.
I assume Keith will still be in the back room when I go back there,
unless he comes up here or has gone for a walk.
If he goes for a walk, I assume he'll come back unless he's wounded or
dead.
I have reason to believe he wants to come home.
Marty is playing a game and singing along to a song he's playing on
Pandora, on the Roku/TV.
I assume he's happy and comfortable. I offered him food a bit ago,
and he wasn't hungry.
I assume because of where he's sitting (and where he usually sits)
that he's in that chair because the swamp cooler fan blows in that
direction.
I could go and confirm these assumptions, but it would be irritating
to Marty and Keith.
I know Keith as assuming I'm going to keep heating the hot tub. I
told him I would. He assumes I'll remember, and that I'll do it. I
wouldn't want him to come and ask me if I mean to really do that.
It's already above 90 degrees. <g>
All these assumptions of mine are based on knowing these people well,
and trusting them, and trusting my perceptions of them.
When Kirby was little he was a lot like me, so we would guess that his
preferences would be like mine, and were often right.
When Marty was little he was a lot like Keith, and often guessing
Keith's preferences would be right (before Marty could communicate).
When Holly was little she wasn't like either of us or like either
sibling, so our guesses weren't right as often. We had to guess more
things, and be more aware of her responses and hints, until she could
explain things.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
capacity to care about others. And on and on. I think unschooling
requires a lot of assumptions.-=-
All relationships involve assumptions.
I assume Keith will still be in the back room when I go back there,
unless he comes up here or has gone for a walk.
If he goes for a walk, I assume he'll come back unless he's wounded or
dead.
I have reason to believe he wants to come home.
Marty is playing a game and singing along to a song he's playing on
Pandora, on the Roku/TV.
I assume he's happy and comfortable. I offered him food a bit ago,
and he wasn't hungry.
I assume because of where he's sitting (and where he usually sits)
that he's in that chair because the swamp cooler fan blows in that
direction.
I could go and confirm these assumptions, but it would be irritating
to Marty and Keith.
I know Keith as assuming I'm going to keep heating the hot tub. I
told him I would. He assumes I'll remember, and that I'll do it. I
wouldn't want him to come and ask me if I mean to really do that.
It's already above 90 degrees. <g>
All these assumptions of mine are based on knowing these people well,
and trusting them, and trusting my perceptions of them.
When Kirby was little he was a lot like me, so we would guess that his
preferences would be like mine, and were often right.
When Marty was little he was a lot like Keith, and often guessing
Keith's preferences would be right (before Marty could communicate).
When Holly was little she wasn't like either of us or like either
sibling, so our guesses weren't right as often. We had to guess more
things, and be more aware of her responses and hints, until she could
explain things.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kelly Halldorson
> I don't see any good in assuming anything but I'm open to hearing why+++Assume kids want to learn stuff. Assume they will learn naturally and in
> I should.
their own way and their own time. Assume kids want to be happy. Assume
kids want to be alive and relatively healthy. Assume they have the
capacity to care about others. And on and on. I think unschooling
requires a lot of assumptions.+++
I *assumed* you all would know my intent. ; )
No seriously...my mistake, I wasn't clear I meant...
I don't see any good in assuming anything in regards to a persons intensions but I'm open to hearing why I should.
Yes, I agree I make assumptions all the time. I assume Jeff is going to bring me coffee when he makes it. I assume the kids will let the dogs in when they scratch the door etc.
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (23)
Recent Activity: a.. New Members 13
Visit Your Group
MARKETPLACE
Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Su Penn
On May 22, 2010, at 9:33 PM, Kelly Halldorson wrote:
Say I've got a 6-year-old (hypothetically :-) who is going through a time of being easily frustrated, during which he will hit, bite, or pull his older brother's hair with little or no apparent provocation. He will resort to punching before even _saying_ anything, like, "Eric, please stop that." The first indication we have that he's mad is Wham! He's whacked his brother.
We can see him as a mean, out-of-control kid and crack down on him. We can put him in time out when he hits, or we can take away a privilege, or cut his allowance. We can see this as flat-out Bad Behavior That Must Be Stopped.
Or: we assume that Carl has a positive intent. That his positive intent is to get a need of his met. In this case, we still want to make sure he knows he shouldn't hit people (and believe me, he knows! He's not stupid! He's known since he was 2 that people don't like to be hit), but instead of trying to stop the behavior by punishing it, we try to stop it by figuring out to the best of our ability what need he has that isn't getting met, why he has this underlying frustration that is giving him this hair trigger, and what skill he is lacking that would let him find a more productive way to meet that need.
[Disclaimer: we have not yet figured all of this out.]
Attributing positive intent even to "bad" behaviors changes the parent-child dynamic dramatically. For the better, I think. It shifts the focus from behavior and punishment to support, help, skill-building, and relationship.
Maybe that's not a useful way to frame things for you. It has been for me.
Su, mom to Eric, 8; Carl, 6; Yehva, 2.5
tapeflags.blogspot.com
> I don't see any good in assuming anything in regards to a persons intensions but I'm open to hearing why I should.Well, here's what makes sense to me:
Say I've got a 6-year-old (hypothetically :-) who is going through a time of being easily frustrated, during which he will hit, bite, or pull his older brother's hair with little or no apparent provocation. He will resort to punching before even _saying_ anything, like, "Eric, please stop that." The first indication we have that he's mad is Wham! He's whacked his brother.
We can see him as a mean, out-of-control kid and crack down on him. We can put him in time out when he hits, or we can take away a privilege, or cut his allowance. We can see this as flat-out Bad Behavior That Must Be Stopped.
Or: we assume that Carl has a positive intent. That his positive intent is to get a need of his met. In this case, we still want to make sure he knows he shouldn't hit people (and believe me, he knows! He's not stupid! He's known since he was 2 that people don't like to be hit), but instead of trying to stop the behavior by punishing it, we try to stop it by figuring out to the best of our ability what need he has that isn't getting met, why he has this underlying frustration that is giving him this hair trigger, and what skill he is lacking that would let him find a more productive way to meet that need.
[Disclaimer: we have not yet figured all of this out.]
Attributing positive intent even to "bad" behaviors changes the parent-child dynamic dramatically. For the better, I think. It shifts the focus from behavior and punishment to support, help, skill-building, and relationship.
Maybe that's not a useful way to frame things for you. It has been for me.
Su, mom to Eric, 8; Carl, 6; Yehva, 2.5
tapeflags.blogspot.com
k
Karl will get very nutty when he's hungry. Always has and now that
he's bigger and stronger at 6, it isn't as easy to deal with. I'm much
more aware of the fact that he needs protein at those times. And it
doesn't matter how old a person gets (adult), that same dynamic can
kick in.
What was it that people could be on the look out for?
Here's something that Sandra wrote about that
(http://sandradodd.com/peace/noisy):
out ways to respond that are helpful.
~Katherine
he's bigger and stronger at 6, it isn't as easy to deal with. I'm much
more aware of the fact that he needs protein at those times. And it
doesn't matter how old a person gets (adult), that same dynamic can
kick in.
What was it that people could be on the look out for?
Here's something that Sandra wrote about that
(http://sandradodd.com/peace/noisy):
>>>First level, humans need food, water, air and sleep. Without those, they just can't concern themselves with anything else.<<<And that's part of trust. Trusting how human nature works and figuring
>>>The second level of human needs, according to Maslow, is safety and security. If they don't feel safe and trusting, they can't concern themselves with other things.<<<
>>>Third level is the need for love and belonging—friends, supportive family, some kind of feeling of being part of a social unit.<<<
out ways to respond that are helpful.
~Katherine
On 5/22/10, Su Penn <su@...> wrote:
>
> On May 22, 2010, at 9:33 PM, Kelly Halldorson wrote:
>
>> I don't see any good in assuming anything in regards to a persons
>> intensions but I'm open to hearing why I should.
>
> Well, here's what makes sense to me:
>
> Say I've got a 6-year-old (hypothetically :-) who is going through a time of
> being easily frustrated, during which he will hit, bite, or pull his older
> brother's hair with little or no apparent provocation. He will resort to
> punching before even _saying_ anything, like, "Eric, please stop that." The
> first indication we have that he's mad is Wham! He's whacked his brother.
>
> We can see him as a mean, out-of-control kid and crack down on him. We can
> put him in time out when he hits, or we can take away a privilege, or cut
> his allowance. We can see this as flat-out Bad Behavior That Must Be
> Stopped.
>
> Or: we assume that Carl has a positive intent. That his positive intent is
> to get a need of his met. In this case, we still want to make sure he knows
> he shouldn't hit people (and believe me, he knows! He's not stupid! He's
> known since he was 2 that people don't like to be hit), but instead of
> trying to stop the behavior by punishing it, we try to stop it by figuring
> out to the best of our ability what need he has that isn't getting met, why
> he has this underlying frustration that is giving him this hair trigger, and
> what skill he is lacking that would let him find a more productive way to
> meet that need.
>
> [Disclaimer: we have not yet figured all of this out.]
>
> Attributing positive intent even to "bad" behaviors changes the parent-child
> dynamic dramatically. For the better, I think. It shifts the focus from
> behavior and punishment to support, help, skill-building, and relationship.
>
> Maybe that's not a useful way to frame things for you. It has been for me.
>
> Su, mom to Eric, 8; Carl, 6; Yehva, 2.5
> tapeflags.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Joyce Fetteroll
On May 22, 2010, at 9:33 PM, Kelly Halldorson wrote:
intentions would cause someone to respond similarly to assuming good
intentions.
But I think it's part of most people's natures to try to make
connections between action and intent. It's a fundamental process of
story telling to wonder why someone's doing something. If it's not
part of your makeup, then it would be confusing why someone would want
to assume anything.
To not make assumptions I think would be unnatural for most people so
it's better to replace it with a positive natural thing rather than a
negative natural thing.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I don't see any good in assuming anything in regards to a personsI can picture that not making any assumption about another's
> intensions but I'm open to hearing why I should.
intentions would cause someone to respond similarly to assuming good
intentions.
But I think it's part of most people's natures to try to make
connections between action and intent. It's a fundamental process of
story telling to wonder why someone's doing something. If it's not
part of your makeup, then it would be confusing why someone would want
to assume anything.
To not make assumptions I think would be unnatural for most people so
it's better to replace it with a positive natural thing rather than a
negative natural thing.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On 5/22/2010 3:59 PM, Kelly Halldorson wrote:
saying I assume anything about your specific reasons for doing
something, but I'm assuming, for example, that you are here to learn,
and to help others learn, about unschooling.
-pam
>Maybe you're thinking of these assumptions as very specific. I'm not
> I think *assuming* any particular intent (either positive or negative)
> affects a relationship. I don't like it when people assume my
> intent...period...lots of the times they get it wrong. Maybe that's my
> own fault for not communicating myself well enough but maybe it's the
> persons fault for assuming they know my reasons for doing something in
> the first place.
saying I assume anything about your specific reasons for doing
something, but I'm assuming, for example, that you are here to learn,
and to help others learn, about unschooling.
-pam
Sandra Dodd
-=-Maybe you're thinking of these assumptions as very specific. I'm not
saying I assume anything about your specific reasons for doing
something, but I'm assuming, for example, that you are here to learn,
and to help others learn, about unschooling.-=-
That's how I feel.
My assumption isn't the whole game. My assumption is what I'll base
my first move on. Then the other person (my husband my child, someone
on the list) makes their move. Then I know more.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
saying I assume anything about your specific reasons for doing
something, but I'm assuming, for example, that you are here to learn,
and to help others learn, about unschooling.-=-
That's how I feel.
My assumption isn't the whole game. My assumption is what I'll base
my first move on. Then the other person (my husband my child, someone
on the list) makes their move. Then I know more.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]