Scott Noelle's post on being nice
Marla
Scott Noelle's recent post below really got me to thinking about asking/coercing our children to be nice. I was wondering what others thought about it.
Here's his post:
"Most of us have been thoroughly trained to be "nice."
The 2-part Rule of Nice goes like this...
Part 1: Only say and do things that please others.
Part 2: If you feel like saying or doing something
that might possibly displease someone, see Part 1.
So, to obey the Rule of Nice at all times, you have to
get pretty good at *not* being authentic. But being
inauthentic is not very nice, so the only way to win
this game is not to play it!
Children are naturally authentic, which means they
often aren't "nice." You're supposed to pressure them
to obey the Rule of Nice, but wouldn't it be nicer to
let them inspire *you* to be more authentic?"
Thanks!
Marla
Here's his post:
"Most of us have been thoroughly trained to be "nice."
The 2-part Rule of Nice goes like this...
Part 1: Only say and do things that please others.
Part 2: If you feel like saying or doing something
that might possibly displease someone, see Part 1.
So, to obey the Rule of Nice at all times, you have to
get pretty good at *not* being authentic. But being
inauthentic is not very nice, so the only way to win
this game is not to play it!
Children are naturally authentic, which means they
often aren't "nice." You're supposed to pressure them
to obey the Rule of Nice, but wouldn't it be nicer to
let them inspire *you* to be more authentic?"
Thanks!
Marla
Dana Stewart
I'm new on the list, and I know you're supposed to lurk awhile before posting... But I found this so thought-provoking that I just couldn't keep it in :-)
I think that it all depends on your definition of "nice". If by nice you mean sweet in a fake (even manipulative) way, then, yes, we should all scrap it in favor of authenticity! But if by nice you mean kind and considerate, then I fully maintain that you can at least most of the time be that and still be authentic. I have found in my life very few situations where, if you try, you can't be both authentic and considerate/kind. Sometimes it takes a bit of forethought, and maybe some would say that forethought=inauthenticity, but I disagree. To me, kindness is about finding and connecting with the humanity in another person, even if that other person is not acting in a particularly humane way in that moment. I really have found that most people, if you reach out to them with kindness and humanity and respect, even if you're telling them something that is very difficult for them to hear (e.g. giving a fundamentally harsh criticism), will respond on a
similar frequency. This is not about saying/doing only things that please the other person, but rather about finding a way to communicate something difficult in a way that does not denigrate them. I really do believe that can be done in an authentic way.
But maybe I'm completely missing your point about what "niceness" is!
I'm wondering if there's anyone here with training in/knowledge of nonviolent communication methods and any opinions about this??
Dana in NYS
http://supermom-procrastinationcentral.blogspot.com
________________________________
From: Marla <marla@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, February 22, 2010 11:47:33 PM
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Scott Noelle's post on being nice
Scott Noelle's recent post below really got me to thinking about asking/coercing our children to be nice. I was wondering what others thought about it.
Here's his post:
"Most of us have been thoroughly trained to be "nice."
The 2-part Rule of Nice goes like this...
Part 1: Only say and do things that please others.
Part 2: If you feel like saying or doing something
that might possibly displease someone, see Part 1.
So, to obey the Rule of Nice at all times, you have to
get pretty good at *not* being authentic. But being
inauthentic is not very nice, so the only way to win
this game is not to play it!
Children are naturally authentic, which means they
often aren't "nice." You're supposed to pressure them
to obey the Rule of Nice, but wouldn't it be nicer to
let them inspire *you* to be more authentic?"
Thanks!
Marla
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I think that it all depends on your definition of "nice". If by nice you mean sweet in a fake (even manipulative) way, then, yes, we should all scrap it in favor of authenticity! But if by nice you mean kind and considerate, then I fully maintain that you can at least most of the time be that and still be authentic. I have found in my life very few situations where, if you try, you can't be both authentic and considerate/kind. Sometimes it takes a bit of forethought, and maybe some would say that forethought=inauthenticity, but I disagree. To me, kindness is about finding and connecting with the humanity in another person, even if that other person is not acting in a particularly humane way in that moment. I really have found that most people, if you reach out to them with kindness and humanity and respect, even if you're telling them something that is very difficult for them to hear (e.g. giving a fundamentally harsh criticism), will respond on a
similar frequency. This is not about saying/doing only things that please the other person, but rather about finding a way to communicate something difficult in a way that does not denigrate them. I really do believe that can be done in an authentic way.
But maybe I'm completely missing your point about what "niceness" is!
I'm wondering if there's anyone here with training in/knowledge of nonviolent communication methods and any opinions about this??
Dana in NYS
http://supermom-procrastinationcentral.blogspot.com
________________________________
From: Marla <marla@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, February 22, 2010 11:47:33 PM
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Scott Noelle's post on being nice
Scott Noelle's recent post below really got me to thinking about asking/coercing our children to be nice. I was wondering what others thought about it.
Here's his post:
"Most of us have been thoroughly trained to be "nice."
The 2-part Rule of Nice goes like this...
Part 1: Only say and do things that please others.
Part 2: If you feel like saying or doing something
that might possibly displease someone, see Part 1.
So, to obey the Rule of Nice at all times, you have to
get pretty good at *not* being authentic. But being
inauthentic is not very nice, so the only way to win
this game is not to play it!
Children are naturally authentic, which means they
often aren't "nice." You're supposed to pressure them
to obey the Rule of Nice, but wouldn't it be nicer to
let them inspire *you* to be more authentic?"
Thanks!
Marla
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Feb 22, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Marla wrote:
explanation that involves the words "authentic" and "nice" can get
people's thoughts twisted up.
First, he defines "nice" to mean "Only say and do things that please
others." People often do use nice to mean that, but they *also* hold
several other definitions of nice. And they're not always clear -- to
themselves or others -- which definition they're using. In fact
people don't even realize they have multiple definitions that vary
with context. If asked, they'd be able to define what they mean by
nice in a particular context but unconsciously it's assume there's an
agreed on understanding of what the word "nice" means in the context
it's being used in.
(And they do that because that's how their moms used the word "nice."
Moms say "Be nice" and kids have to figure out what nice means in
that context. Does it mean don't punch your sister? Don't use an
outside voice? Don't run? Don't touch?)
(Good and bad are also words with a mish mosh of meanings. They're
all bad ;-) for clarity.)
And that variable definition problem happened to you with this post
of his. Probably happened to most people who read it. When you said
"really got me to thinking about asking/coercing our children to be
nice" I'm betting you didn't mean you want to ask and coerce your
children to "only say and do things that please others." You meant
that vague changeable definition of nice.
I'd absolutely agree kids shouldn't be made (or asked) to "only say
and do things that please others."
But should kids be made or asked to be "nice" as in polite, kind,
thoughtful, respectful, helpful? (Those are the words I used around
Kathryn. I think they're much clearer.) A better approach than making
or asking kids, is for the parents to *be* polite, kind, thoughtful,
respectful, helpful *to the kids* and others. Use and live by the
principles. In general kids need to feel the value of those
principles before they feel a reason to put in the effort to offer
them to others. They need to feel those practiced on them. They need
to see them offered to others. They also need to see how you choose
less direct paths to a goal (your own or while helping the kids get
what they want) in order to be respectful (and so on) of others.
If you are polite, kind, thoughtful, respectful, helpful to the kids,
they will, when they're developmentally able, be polite, kind,
thoughtful, respectful, helpful. And if they aren't, it's not because
they're being deliberately mean. It's because they still need help
finding the more complex routes to a goal that takes in those other
factors.
As for authentic ... I'm really disliking that word the more I hear
it used ;-) People are taking it to mean acting on or letting people
know their feelings. It's the opposite of keeping your feelings to
yourself and only saying and doing things that please others.
*Neither* of those is good. The first is totally selfish and the
other totally selfless. There are better options, options based on
meeting your own needs without stomping all over others.
LIttle children do have authentic feelings. Their reactions are based
on recent events. If they punch Sarah it's because Sarah just grabbed
the toy from them or they needed to eat an hour ago, not because
Sarah wouldn't let them have a toy last month.
But as they get older, the more hurt they build up that's ignored or
the parents are oblivious to, the more their past influences their
current feelings and, consequently, behavior.
A mother who blows up at her kids may feel authentically angry with
them. Maybe her parents yelled at her. Maybe she's hugely stressed
for the last few months and at the end of her rope. But acting on or
releasing the anger at the kids won't help. It's going to do more
damage. Stuffing the anger down won't help either! Better -- and
much more difficult but far more worthwhile in the long run -- is to
work on the other factors that cause her to feel like blowing up at
the kids. Kids need a mom's support and help, not be the release
valve for her "authentic" feelings created by her past.
I think for most adults it's really hard to have "authentic" -- eg,
childlike, not based on past experience -- feelings. In some ways
that's good! Our need to grab something we like from someone else
really doesn't need supported ;-) And feeling love for someone
doesn't necessarily give us the skills to show it in a way that our
loved one understands. But someone who grew up rigidly controlled and
when he's on his own feels like a wild animal released from a cage,
no matter how "authentic" those feelings are, acting on those
feelings is harming himself.
If someone's goal is to be "authentic" they're likely to damage
relationships. They might feel more powerful and less damaged from
their past, but they're going to trample on relationships.
If someone's goal is relationships, they will need to work on
"authentic" feelings that damage relationships when released so they
don't derail themselves from the path to their goal.
Joyce
> Children are naturally authentic, which means theyI agree with the idea behind what he's saying but I think his
> often aren't "nice." You're supposed to pressure them
> to obey the Rule of Nice, but wouldn't it be nicer to
> let them inspire *you* to be more authentic?"
explanation that involves the words "authentic" and "nice" can get
people's thoughts twisted up.
First, he defines "nice" to mean "Only say and do things that please
others." People often do use nice to mean that, but they *also* hold
several other definitions of nice. And they're not always clear -- to
themselves or others -- which definition they're using. In fact
people don't even realize they have multiple definitions that vary
with context. If asked, they'd be able to define what they mean by
nice in a particular context but unconsciously it's assume there's an
agreed on understanding of what the word "nice" means in the context
it's being used in.
(And they do that because that's how their moms used the word "nice."
Moms say "Be nice" and kids have to figure out what nice means in
that context. Does it mean don't punch your sister? Don't use an
outside voice? Don't run? Don't touch?)
(Good and bad are also words with a mish mosh of meanings. They're
all bad ;-) for clarity.)
And that variable definition problem happened to you with this post
of his. Probably happened to most people who read it. When you said
"really got me to thinking about asking/coercing our children to be
nice" I'm betting you didn't mean you want to ask and coerce your
children to "only say and do things that please others." You meant
that vague changeable definition of nice.
I'd absolutely agree kids shouldn't be made (or asked) to "only say
and do things that please others."
But should kids be made or asked to be "nice" as in polite, kind,
thoughtful, respectful, helpful? (Those are the words I used around
Kathryn. I think they're much clearer.) A better approach than making
or asking kids, is for the parents to *be* polite, kind, thoughtful,
respectful, helpful *to the kids* and others. Use and live by the
principles. In general kids need to feel the value of those
principles before they feel a reason to put in the effort to offer
them to others. They need to feel those practiced on them. They need
to see them offered to others. They also need to see how you choose
less direct paths to a goal (your own or while helping the kids get
what they want) in order to be respectful (and so on) of others.
If you are polite, kind, thoughtful, respectful, helpful to the kids,
they will, when they're developmentally able, be polite, kind,
thoughtful, respectful, helpful. And if they aren't, it's not because
they're being deliberately mean. It's because they still need help
finding the more complex routes to a goal that takes in those other
factors.
As for authentic ... I'm really disliking that word the more I hear
it used ;-) People are taking it to mean acting on or letting people
know their feelings. It's the opposite of keeping your feelings to
yourself and only saying and doing things that please others.
*Neither* of those is good. The first is totally selfish and the
other totally selfless. There are better options, options based on
meeting your own needs without stomping all over others.
LIttle children do have authentic feelings. Their reactions are based
on recent events. If they punch Sarah it's because Sarah just grabbed
the toy from them or they needed to eat an hour ago, not because
Sarah wouldn't let them have a toy last month.
But as they get older, the more hurt they build up that's ignored or
the parents are oblivious to, the more their past influences their
current feelings and, consequently, behavior.
A mother who blows up at her kids may feel authentically angry with
them. Maybe her parents yelled at her. Maybe she's hugely stressed
for the last few months and at the end of her rope. But acting on or
releasing the anger at the kids won't help. It's going to do more
damage. Stuffing the anger down won't help either! Better -- and
much more difficult but far more worthwhile in the long run -- is to
work on the other factors that cause her to feel like blowing up at
the kids. Kids need a mom's support and help, not be the release
valve for her "authentic" feelings created by her past.
I think for most adults it's really hard to have "authentic" -- eg,
childlike, not based on past experience -- feelings. In some ways
that's good! Our need to grab something we like from someone else
really doesn't need supported ;-) And feeling love for someone
doesn't necessarily give us the skills to show it in a way that our
loved one understands. But someone who grew up rigidly controlled and
when he's on his own feels like a wild animal released from a cage,
no matter how "authentic" those feelings are, acting on those
feelings is harming himself.
If someone's goal is to be "authentic" they're likely to damage
relationships. They might feel more powerful and less damaged from
their past, but they're going to trample on relationships.
If someone's goal is relationships, they will need to work on
"authentic" feelings that damage relationships when released so they
don't derail themselves from the path to their goal.
Joyce
Faith Void
Wow, Joyce that was beautiful. I've been flipping this same kind of thoughts
around in my head with no coherency. This post has really giving me a huge
amount to think about. The whole post was wonderful and this passage
especially spoke to me.
Thanks
Faith
around in my head with no coherency. This post has really giving me a huge
amount to think about. The whole post was wonderful and this passage
especially spoke to me.
Thanks
Faith
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...>wrote:
>
>
> A mother who blows up at her kids may feel authentically angry with
> them. Maybe her parents yelled at her. Maybe she's hugely stressed
> for the last few months and at the end of her rope. But acting on or
> releasing the anger at the kids won't help. It's going to do more
> damage. Stuffing the anger down won't help either! Better -- and
> much more difficult but far more worthwhile in the long run -- is to
> work on the other factors that cause her to feel like blowing up at
> the kids. Kids need a mom's support and help, not be the release
> valve for her "authentic" feelings created by her past.
>
--
www.bearthmama.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
plaidpanties666
--- In [email protected], Dana Stewart <dana.stewart@...> wrote:
The trouble comes when it turns into some kind of rule in your head - Be Kind. That's something that can be a big issue for moms, in particular - some moms get wrapped up in an idea of who they are as women and mothers that's tied to this Rule of Nice, as Scott calls it, and will push themselves beyond their own limits and boundaries for the sake of more kindness.
Its an issue that comes up a lot in unschooling discussions, actually, although this is the first time the idea of a Rule of Nice has been articulated in those terms (that I know of). Suggestions to new unschoolers include such advice as "say yes more" and "its okay to be kind to your kids" and because so many unschoolers are trying to be better parents that sometimes leads to parents allowing their own personal boundaries to be squashed - not all parents, but like I said, its an issue that comes up frequently: "don't I get to have boundaries?"
To some extent, that sort of pendulum-swing is part of how some people learn about unschooling. The vast majority of us grow up used to rules, so it makes sense to think about unschooling as a new set of rules to apply at first. That's a challenging hurdle to overcome (was for me, although I didn't have a Rule of Nice, mine was "Better a Bitch than a Doormat" - I Get to be nice, now, and I like that).
At the same time - given what I said about my own internal rule - there are personality issues that play into this topic. I suspect that people who are naturally inclined to please others can have a Rule of Nice and it feels perfectly "authentic" until they run out of energy!
(I'd be willing to be a lot of the Big Voices on unschooling lists aren't natural pleasers - any takers?)
Speaking of good ideas that can turn into rules in people's heads! I've mostly seen NVC in real life used as a (sometimes vicious) tool for manipulation. I like a whooooole lot of the ideas and principles, though - I think they're a fantastic set of tools for the understanding side of communication, which is arguably the important side ;)
---Meredith (Mo 8, Ray 16)
>> I think that it all depends on your definition of "nice". If by nice you mean sweet in a fake (even manipulative) way, then, yes, we should all scrap it in favor of authenticity! But if by nice you mean kind and considerate, then I fully maintain that you can at least most of the time be that and still be authentic.********************
The trouble comes when it turns into some kind of rule in your head - Be Kind. That's something that can be a big issue for moms, in particular - some moms get wrapped up in an idea of who they are as women and mothers that's tied to this Rule of Nice, as Scott calls it, and will push themselves beyond their own limits and boundaries for the sake of more kindness.
Its an issue that comes up a lot in unschooling discussions, actually, although this is the first time the idea of a Rule of Nice has been articulated in those terms (that I know of). Suggestions to new unschoolers include such advice as "say yes more" and "its okay to be kind to your kids" and because so many unschoolers are trying to be better parents that sometimes leads to parents allowing their own personal boundaries to be squashed - not all parents, but like I said, its an issue that comes up frequently: "don't I get to have boundaries?"
To some extent, that sort of pendulum-swing is part of how some people learn about unschooling. The vast majority of us grow up used to rules, so it makes sense to think about unschooling as a new set of rules to apply at first. That's a challenging hurdle to overcome (was for me, although I didn't have a Rule of Nice, mine was "Better a Bitch than a Doormat" - I Get to be nice, now, and I like that).
At the same time - given what I said about my own internal rule - there are personality issues that play into this topic. I suspect that people who are naturally inclined to please others can have a Rule of Nice and it feels perfectly "authentic" until they run out of energy!
(I'd be willing to be a lot of the Big Voices on unschooling lists aren't natural pleasers - any takers?)
> I'm wondering if there's anyone here with training in/knowledge of nonviolent communication methods*****************
Speaking of good ideas that can turn into rules in people's heads! I've mostly seen NVC in real life used as a (sometimes vicious) tool for manipulation. I like a whooooole lot of the ideas and principles, though - I think they're a fantastic set of tools for the understanding side of communication, which is arguably the important side ;)
---Meredith (Mo 8, Ray 16)
Marla
Thanks, Joyce!!! I knew someone here would be able to interpret it in a way I could understand and use.
Thanks!!!!!!
Marla
Thanks!!!!!!
Marla