What If Questions
Elliot Temple
(see also, perhaps first: http://www.tcs.ac/Articles/WhatIf.html )
I think I've discovered a general answer for how to solve what if questions
where a child is doing something the parent sees as horrible. It's
actually quite simple. All that's required is *explaining* the child's
behavior. What is the child trying to accomplish? Why does ey want to do
[horrible thing X]? This lends itself to many simple solutions. How else
could child accomplish eir goal? Let me use an example to illustrate. Ben
is 4 years old, and his mother, Olivia, has taken him to a toy store where
he is playing with toys. Olivia wishes to leave a 4pm, with Ben, to go to
the airport to meet her spouse and drive him home. So: What if Ben doesn'
t want to leave at 4pm?
At this point most parents would assert that "whiny children can't always
have their way," and carry Ben, kicking and screaming, to the car, where
they strap him in (reminiscent of mental institutes who tie up their
patients) and drive off. Coercing children is so common that kicking and
screaming do not seem to alarm parents. These behaviors, last resorts to
alert parent eir behavior is problematic, and even attempts to physically
stop or hurt parent, amazingly, do not set off warning bells that something
is going wrong. Of course, something is very wrong. So, let us apply my
general solution. Explain why Ben wants to stay.
*Olivia forgot to tell Ben in advance that they would be leaving. He is
playing with a toy and suddenly is whisked off in an instant. Ben simply
needed some advanced warning of when they would leave. Alternately, Olivia
told Ben they would be leaving at 4pm, but didn't give any useful warnings,
such as reminding Ben at 3:30, 3:45, 3:50, and 3:55.*
Well, this is Olivia's fault. How would she like it if she were involved
in some great project and, without warning, she was forced to stop? Not at
all! Projects are important for everyone, and disrupting projects is quite
harmful to the learning process. The solution is that Ben needs a warning
before they go, so Olivia should simply tell him that they need to go as
soon as possible, and then wait for Ben to finish his current project.
Father can wait. If Ben is going to need a significant amount of time,
Olivia can call father and explain the situation. Then he can take a taxi
home if he wants.
*Olivia did not forget to give Ben warnings. But Ben misjudged the time
and is in the middle of a project at 4pm. Olivia wants to go, and feels
she has done nothing wrong. Now what?*
Again, let Ben finish his project. Did he choose to have a rigid
appointment his calendar? No. Even if he "agreed" at the time, he didn't
mean it, or understand what it would entail. Olivia should not force rigid
schedules on her son. As before, she can call and tell father, and he can
take a cab if necessary (or wait, or call a friend to pick him up, or any
number of other solutions).
*Ben really likes a certain toy.*
Well, buy the toy and take it with you.
*Ben just wants his way.*
Life is not a zero-sum game. Families shouldn't be parents against
children, mother against son. If this explanation is actually true, and I
doubt it is, it must be because Ben has by systematically coerced for much
of his life, denied his wants, and taught (by living it out) that life is a
battle for each person to try to force eir way. The solution is to never,
ever initiate force against one's child, and to explain that life is not a
zero-sum game. If Ben hates Olivia, finding a CP will be very hard. This
is all the more reason to use TCS in the first place.
*Isn't this letting the child coerce the parent? Don't parents have
rights? Why is Ben allowed to violate Olivia's rights?*
This objection has false premises. Olivia is thinking "I want to leave,
but I can't because of Ben, so he is coercing me to not leave." But she is
wrong. She could leave. And Ben could stay where he is. Everyone has a
right to determine where to be. If she was with a friend, this is what
would happen. Attentive readers are probably now screaming at me that
Olivia can't leave Ben behind. Well, they're right, but this is hardly Ben
's doing. What Olivia is actually resenting is her own parental
obligations that she created of her own free will by having a child. To
blame Ben for her own obligations, taken on by choice, is unfair. So no,
Ben is not coercing Olivia; she is simply resenting her past choices. This
is her own personal problem, and she is obligated to keep it from Ben as
best she can. She should sort it out herself (and with any friend who
wants to listen or help).
New situation. Ben is hitting another child, Sue, with a baseball bat. (I
know this sounds crazy, but I was recently asked exactly this.) Well, now
what? Explain it!
*Coercion damage.*
Practice TCS. Figure out what entrenched theory is causing the hitting (in
other words, get a more detailed explanation). Now rationally criticize
this theory and offer some alternatives so that Ben can improve his
worldview.
*Ben likes hitting things with baseball bats.*
Well, get him something else to hit, like a sandbag.
*Ben likes hitting noisy things with baseball bats.*
Get a sandbag and an audiocassette with appropriate sounds.
*Ben likes hitting noisy things that move with baseball bats.*
Find or build an appropriate toy/structure. Or maybe suggest that baseball
(or t-ball) is much more fun, and let Ben try that.
*Ben is mad at Sue.*
Why is Ben mad at Sue? A better explanation is necessary.
*Ben is mad at Sue because Sue took Ben's toy truck.*
Get Ben's truck back.
*Ben is mad at Sue because she has cooties.*
Explain that cooties don't exist.
*Ben is mad at Sue because she is ugly.*
Explain that initiating force is wrong. Offer Ben some pretty pictures to
look at. Explain that Sue can't control her appearance. Explain that
hitting Sue with a baseball bat does not make her pretty. Try to find
pretty friends for Ben.
*Ben is mad at Sue because she called him stupid.*
Explain to Ben that Sue is mean and wrong. Explain that hitting her with
the bat doesn't solve the problem. Ask Sue not to insult Ben anymore. If
she does, keep her away from Ben. Compliment Ben so he feels better.
*General form: Sue caused Ben distress.*
Solve *that* problem, and Ben won't want to hit Sue anymore.
Many what if questions, prima facie, seem impossible to solve without
coercion. *Oh my God, Ben is hitting Sue, I better grab him and lock him
in his room!* might be a typical response. And, if the only information
available is "Ben is hitting Sue," then I think the problem may not be
soluble. However, a little more information, in the form of an explanation
of the [objectionable behavior X] will render the question near trivial.
-- Elliot
I think I've discovered a general answer for how to solve what if questions
where a child is doing something the parent sees as horrible. It's
actually quite simple. All that's required is *explaining* the child's
behavior. What is the child trying to accomplish? Why does ey want to do
[horrible thing X]? This lends itself to many simple solutions. How else
could child accomplish eir goal? Let me use an example to illustrate. Ben
is 4 years old, and his mother, Olivia, has taken him to a toy store where
he is playing with toys. Olivia wishes to leave a 4pm, with Ben, to go to
the airport to meet her spouse and drive him home. So: What if Ben doesn'
t want to leave at 4pm?
At this point most parents would assert that "whiny children can't always
have their way," and carry Ben, kicking and screaming, to the car, where
they strap him in (reminiscent of mental institutes who tie up their
patients) and drive off. Coercing children is so common that kicking and
screaming do not seem to alarm parents. These behaviors, last resorts to
alert parent eir behavior is problematic, and even attempts to physically
stop or hurt parent, amazingly, do not set off warning bells that something
is going wrong. Of course, something is very wrong. So, let us apply my
general solution. Explain why Ben wants to stay.
*Olivia forgot to tell Ben in advance that they would be leaving. He is
playing with a toy and suddenly is whisked off in an instant. Ben simply
needed some advanced warning of when they would leave. Alternately, Olivia
told Ben they would be leaving at 4pm, but didn't give any useful warnings,
such as reminding Ben at 3:30, 3:45, 3:50, and 3:55.*
Well, this is Olivia's fault. How would she like it if she were involved
in some great project and, without warning, she was forced to stop? Not at
all! Projects are important for everyone, and disrupting projects is quite
harmful to the learning process. The solution is that Ben needs a warning
before they go, so Olivia should simply tell him that they need to go as
soon as possible, and then wait for Ben to finish his current project.
Father can wait. If Ben is going to need a significant amount of time,
Olivia can call father and explain the situation. Then he can take a taxi
home if he wants.
*Olivia did not forget to give Ben warnings. But Ben misjudged the time
and is in the middle of a project at 4pm. Olivia wants to go, and feels
she has done nothing wrong. Now what?*
Again, let Ben finish his project. Did he choose to have a rigid
appointment his calendar? No. Even if he "agreed" at the time, he didn't
mean it, or understand what it would entail. Olivia should not force rigid
schedules on her son. As before, she can call and tell father, and he can
take a cab if necessary (or wait, or call a friend to pick him up, or any
number of other solutions).
*Ben really likes a certain toy.*
Well, buy the toy and take it with you.
*Ben just wants his way.*
Life is not a zero-sum game. Families shouldn't be parents against
children, mother against son. If this explanation is actually true, and I
doubt it is, it must be because Ben has by systematically coerced for much
of his life, denied his wants, and taught (by living it out) that life is a
battle for each person to try to force eir way. The solution is to never,
ever initiate force against one's child, and to explain that life is not a
zero-sum game. If Ben hates Olivia, finding a CP will be very hard. This
is all the more reason to use TCS in the first place.
*Isn't this letting the child coerce the parent? Don't parents have
rights? Why is Ben allowed to violate Olivia's rights?*
This objection has false premises. Olivia is thinking "I want to leave,
but I can't because of Ben, so he is coercing me to not leave." But she is
wrong. She could leave. And Ben could stay where he is. Everyone has a
right to determine where to be. If she was with a friend, this is what
would happen. Attentive readers are probably now screaming at me that
Olivia can't leave Ben behind. Well, they're right, but this is hardly Ben
's doing. What Olivia is actually resenting is her own parental
obligations that she created of her own free will by having a child. To
blame Ben for her own obligations, taken on by choice, is unfair. So no,
Ben is not coercing Olivia; she is simply resenting her past choices. This
is her own personal problem, and she is obligated to keep it from Ben as
best she can. She should sort it out herself (and with any friend who
wants to listen or help).
New situation. Ben is hitting another child, Sue, with a baseball bat. (I
know this sounds crazy, but I was recently asked exactly this.) Well, now
what? Explain it!
*Coercion damage.*
Practice TCS. Figure out what entrenched theory is causing the hitting (in
other words, get a more detailed explanation). Now rationally criticize
this theory and offer some alternatives so that Ben can improve his
worldview.
*Ben likes hitting things with baseball bats.*
Well, get him something else to hit, like a sandbag.
*Ben likes hitting noisy things with baseball bats.*
Get a sandbag and an audiocassette with appropriate sounds.
*Ben likes hitting noisy things that move with baseball bats.*
Find or build an appropriate toy/structure. Or maybe suggest that baseball
(or t-ball) is much more fun, and let Ben try that.
*Ben is mad at Sue.*
Why is Ben mad at Sue? A better explanation is necessary.
*Ben is mad at Sue because Sue took Ben's toy truck.*
Get Ben's truck back.
*Ben is mad at Sue because she has cooties.*
Explain that cooties don't exist.
*Ben is mad at Sue because she is ugly.*
Explain that initiating force is wrong. Offer Ben some pretty pictures to
look at. Explain that Sue can't control her appearance. Explain that
hitting Sue with a baseball bat does not make her pretty. Try to find
pretty friends for Ben.
*Ben is mad at Sue because she called him stupid.*
Explain to Ben that Sue is mean and wrong. Explain that hitting her with
the bat doesn't solve the problem. Ask Sue not to insult Ben anymore. If
she does, keep her away from Ben. Compliment Ben so he feels better.
*General form: Sue caused Ben distress.*
Solve *that* problem, and Ben won't want to hit Sue anymore.
Many what if questions, prima facie, seem impossible to solve without
coercion. *Oh my God, Ben is hitting Sue, I better grab him and lock him
in his room!* might be a typical response. And, if the only information
available is "Ben is hitting Sue," then I think the problem may not be
soluble. However, a little more information, in the form of an explanation
of the [objectionable behavior X] will render the question near trivial.
-- Elliot
Fetteroll
If anyone finds the TCS discussions annoying, you've got a delete button :-)
Reading and debating the TCS style of thinking helped me a lot in developing
my unschooling philosophy so I think it can be valuable.
I think it would be helpful to those who don't want the list to become a TCS
discussion list, to label any TCS viewpoints as TCS (just tack a TCS onto
the subject for instance) so those who are getting something out of that
view point can continue, but those who aren't can easily delete them.
That way you wouldn't be forcing the TCS ideas on those who don't want them.
It could be a win-win situation :-)
We'll see how this works. And all thoughts on this are welcome.
Joyce
Unschooling-dotcom moderator
Reading and debating the TCS style of thinking helped me a lot in developing
my unschooling philosophy so I think it can be valuable.
I think it would be helpful to those who don't want the list to become a TCS
discussion list, to label any TCS viewpoints as TCS (just tack a TCS onto
the subject for instance) so those who are getting something out of that
view point can continue, but those who aren't can easily delete them.
That way you wouldn't be forcing the TCS ideas on those who don't want them.
It could be a win-win situation :-)
We'll see how this works. And all thoughts on this are welcome.
Joyce
Unschooling-dotcom moderator
[email protected]
First, I don't think cross-posted messages are a cool thing for this list:
curi@...
[email protected]
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/28/02 4:37:47 AM, curi@... writes:
<< *Ben is mad at Sue because Sue took Ben's toy truck.*
<<Get Ben's truck back.>>
This could involve some coercion.
<<*Ben is mad at Sue because she has cooties.*
<<Explain that cooties don't exist. >>
Cooties do too exist. It's a word for lice.
Better to tell her that it's rude to play "cooties" in a tag-game kind of way.
<<*Ben is mad at Sue because she is ugly.*
<<Explain that initiating force is wrong. Offer Ben some pretty pictures to
look at. Explain that Sue can't control her appearance. Explain that
hitting Sue with a baseball bat does not make her pretty. Try to find
pretty friends for Ben.>>
That's disgusting to me.
Sue's appearance shouldn't be a cause for Ben to be rude and insulting.
<<
*Ben is mad at Sue because she called him stupid.*
Explain to Ben that Sue is mean and wrong. Explain that hitting her with
the bat doesn't solve the problem. Ask Sue not to insult Ben anymore. If
she does, keep her away from Ben. Compliment Ben so he feels better.
stupid.
Telling a child that someone else is "mean and wrong" could pretty easily
justify somene else telling a child he is "stupid."
The parent who tells stupid and mean Sue not to insult poor innocent Ben
anymore isn't doing the world any really big favors.
<< Explain that hitting her with
the bat doesn't solve the problem.>>
Explain that hitting her with the bat is assault and could be considered
attempted murder when he's older and that reform schools and prisons are way
more real than TCS is.
<<*General form: Sue caused Ben distress.*
<<Solve *that* problem, and Ben won't want to hit Sue anymore.>>
Glaring truth: Ben is distressed when he isn't coddled, and isn't being
given tools to get along in the world. Sue did not *cause* Ben's distress.
TCS seems to me a "method" for families who are greatly lacking in the
interpersonal/intrapersonal skills departments.
Here's what I'm going to do:
I'm going to keep sharing my life in public, because I have some very
well-adjusted kids who have learned some amazing things without coercion (I'm
speaking English here, not using the jargon of a small group with a theory
and no evidence), without "being taught" in any traditional way, who are
learning all about life and living it even while they're little, who are
trusted and trusting and thoughtful.
I will also occasionally be rebuked and insulted by people who have bought a
theory and will repeat the rhetoric without offering any actual evidence that
it is or has worked with real people in any longterm way.
And others will read all that and some of it will affect their lives and most
won't, and I will continue to share what I know in an open and honest way,
and others will occasionally come by to pick at it and suggest off-the-wall
methods which imply that unschoolers don't really know what they're doing.
Sandra
curi@...
[email protected]
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/28/02 4:37:47 AM, curi@... writes:
<< *Ben is mad at Sue because Sue took Ben's toy truck.*
<<Get Ben's truck back.>>
This could involve some coercion.
<<*Ben is mad at Sue because she has cooties.*
<<Explain that cooties don't exist. >>
Cooties do too exist. It's a word for lice.
Better to tell her that it's rude to play "cooties" in a tag-game kind of way.
<<*Ben is mad at Sue because she is ugly.*
<<Explain that initiating force is wrong. Offer Ben some pretty pictures to
look at. Explain that Sue can't control her appearance. Explain that
hitting Sue with a baseball bat does not make her pretty. Try to find
pretty friends for Ben.>>
That's disgusting to me.
Sue's appearance shouldn't be a cause for Ben to be rude and insulting.
<<
*Ben is mad at Sue because she called him stupid.*
Explain to Ben that Sue is mean and wrong. Explain that hitting her with
the bat doesn't solve the problem. Ask Sue not to insult Ben anymore. If
she does, keep her away from Ben. Compliment Ben so he feels better.
>>If that parental behavior keeps up, a LOT of people are going to think Ben is
stupid.
Telling a child that someone else is "mean and wrong" could pretty easily
justify somene else telling a child he is "stupid."
The parent who tells stupid and mean Sue not to insult poor innocent Ben
anymore isn't doing the world any really big favors.
<< Explain that hitting her with
the bat doesn't solve the problem.>>
Explain that hitting her with the bat is assault and could be considered
attempted murder when he's older and that reform schools and prisons are way
more real than TCS is.
<<*General form: Sue caused Ben distress.*
<<Solve *that* problem, and Ben won't want to hit Sue anymore.>>
Glaring truth: Ben is distressed when he isn't coddled, and isn't being
given tools to get along in the world. Sue did not *cause* Ben's distress.
TCS seems to me a "method" for families who are greatly lacking in the
interpersonal/intrapersonal skills departments.
Here's what I'm going to do:
I'm going to keep sharing my life in public, because I have some very
well-adjusted kids who have learned some amazing things without coercion (I'm
speaking English here, not using the jargon of a small group with a theory
and no evidence), without "being taught" in any traditional way, who are
learning all about life and living it even while they're little, who are
trusted and trusting and thoughtful.
I will also occasionally be rebuked and insulted by people who have bought a
theory and will repeat the rhetoric without offering any actual evidence that
it is or has worked with real people in any longterm way.
And others will read all that and some of it will affect their lives and most
won't, and I will continue to share what I know in an open and honest way,
and others will occasionally come by to pick at it and suggest off-the-wall
methods which imply that unschoolers don't really know what they're doing.
Sandra
Hazy_lilly
*Ben is mad at Sue because she called him stupid.*
Explain to Ben that Sue is mean and wrong. Explain
that hitting her with
the bat doesn't solve the problem. Ask Sue not to
insult Ben anymore. If
she does, keep her away from Ben. Compliment Ben so
he feels better.
*General form: Sue caused Ben distress.*
I have a serious queston in regards to this situation.
The Statement here " Explain to Ben That Sue is mean
and wrong" sounds that it is ok to call Sue names.
Sue could have had a reason for calling Ben stupid.
He could of pulled her hair or he just showed up. Yes
she did cause ben distress, but he obviously caused
hers as well. Iwould think a parent would approach him
and tell him that sue was angry and she hurt your
feelings. Instead of stating that hitting her doesn't
solve the problem how about stating it doesn't change
what happened. It's ok to be angry but we cannot beat
sue just because he is angry.
Am i thinking still in TCS mentality of handiling the
situation? I am really curious. I do understand that
the example where just examples of possible answers.
Thanks,
Hazel
=====
"When we make a choice we change the future" Deepak Chopra
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
Explain to Ben that Sue is mean and wrong. Explain
that hitting her with
the bat doesn't solve the problem. Ask Sue not to
insult Ben anymore. If
she does, keep her away from Ben. Compliment Ben so
he feels better.
*General form: Sue caused Ben distress.*
I have a serious queston in regards to this situation.
The Statement here " Explain to Ben That Sue is mean
and wrong" sounds that it is ok to call Sue names.
Sue could have had a reason for calling Ben stupid.
He could of pulled her hair or he just showed up. Yes
she did cause ben distress, but he obviously caused
hers as well. Iwould think a parent would approach him
and tell him that sue was angry and she hurt your
feelings. Instead of stating that hitting her doesn't
solve the problem how about stating it doesn't change
what happened. It's ok to be angry but we cannot beat
sue just because he is angry.
Am i thinking still in TCS mentality of handiling the
situation? I am really curious. I do understand that
the example where just examples of possible answers.
Thanks,
Hazel
=====
"When we make a choice we change the future" Deepak Chopra
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
joanna514
>pictures to
> Explain that initiating force is wrong. Offer Ben some pretty
> look at. Explain that Sue can't control her appearance. Explainthat
> hitting Sue with a baseball bat does not make her pretty. Try tofind
> pretty friends for Ben.When I first started reading about unschooling, everything I read
>
resounded in my heart. It took a while to let go of my fears, but
the words I read were truth to me.
When I read about TCS, I just shake my head.
While I believe in respect and choice and "not locking kids in their
room", and am working towards less coercion. TCS doesn't ring in my
heart. Though, no doubt I could learn quite a lot from it.
Joanna
rumpleteasermom
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Hazy_lilly <hazy_lilly@y...> wrote:
here a lot. Rachel has a quick temper and Wyndham has no impulse
control . . . really bad combination!
Bridget
>Well, we point out the 'two wrongs don't make it right' thing around
> I have a serious queston in regards to this situation.
> The Statement here " Explain to Ben That Sue is mean
> and wrong" sounds that it is ok to call Sue names.
> Sue could have had a reason for calling Ben stupid.
> He could of pulled her hair or he just showed up. Yes
> she did cause ben distress, but he obviously caused
> hers as well. Iwould think a parent would approach him
> and tell him that sue was angry and she hurt your
> feelings. Instead of stating that hitting her doesn't
> solve the problem how about stating it doesn't change
> what happened. It's ok to be angry but we cannot beat
> sue just because he is angry.
>
here a lot. Rachel has a quick temper and Wyndham has no impulse
control . . . really bad combination!
Bridget
[email protected]
Who's Ben? And why is Ben so much more important than Sue is in these
"hypotheticals?" Whereas it is fine to cater to Ben's every ugly whim and
desire, and to avoid all "coercive behaviour" toward him, it seems to me that
poor little ugly stupid lice-ridden Sue is being trained well how to be a
victim all her life. Where did this ridiculousness originate, anyway?
Kate Davis
In a message dated 4/28/2002 7:53:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
"hypotheticals?" Whereas it is fine to cater to Ben's every ugly whim and
desire, and to avoid all "coercive behaviour" toward him, it seems to me that
poor little ugly stupid lice-ridden Sue is being trained well how to be a
victim all her life. Where did this ridiculousness originate, anyway?
Kate Davis
In a message dated 4/28/2002 7:53:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
> First, I don't think cross-posted messages are a cool thing for this list:[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> curi@...
> [email protected]
> [email protected]
>
>
> In a message dated 4/28/02 4:37:47 AM, curi@... writes:
>
> << *Ben is mad at Sue because Sue took Ben's toy truck.*
>
> <<Get Ben's truck back.>>
>
> This could involve some coercion.
>
> <<*Ben is mad at Sue because she has cooties.*
>
> <<Explain that cooties don't exist. >>
>
> Cooties do too exist. It's a word for lice.
> Better to tell her that it's rude to play "cooties" in a tag-game kind of
> way.
>
> <<*Ben is mad at Sue because she is ugly.*
>
> <<Explain that initiating force is wrong. Offer Ben some pretty pictures
> to
> look at. Explain that Sue can't control her appearance. Explain that
> hitting Sue with a baseball bat does not make her pretty. Try to find
> pretty friends for Ben.>>
>
> That's disgusting to me.
> Sue's appearance shouldn't be a cause for Ben to be rude and insulting.
>
> <<
> *Ben is mad at Sue because she called him stupid.*
>
> Explain to Ben that Sue is mean and wrong. Explain that hitting her with
> the bat doesn't solve the problem. Ask Sue not to insult Ben anymore. If
> she does, keep her away from Ben. Compliment Ben so he feels better.
> >>
>
> If that parental behavior keeps up, a LOT of people are going to think Ben
> is
> stupid.
>
> Telling a child that someone else is "mean and wrong" could pretty easily
> justify somene else telling a child he is "stupid."
>
> The parent who tells stupid and mean Sue not to insult poor innocent Ben
> anymore isn't doing the world any really big favors.
>
> << Explain that hitting her with
> the bat doesn't solve the problem.>>
>
> Explain that hitting her with the bat is assault and could be considered
> attempted murder when he's older and that reform schools and prisons are
> way
> more real than TCS is.
>
> <<*General form: Sue caused Ben distress.*
>
> <<Solve *that* problem, and Ben won't want to hit Sue anymore.>>
>
> Glaring truth: Ben is distressed when he isn't coddled, and isn't being
> given tools to get along in the world. Sue did not *cause* Ben's
> distress.
>
> TCS seems to me a "method" for families who are greatly lacking in the
> interpersonal/intrapersonal skills departments.
>
> Here's what I'm going to do:
>
> I'm going to keep sharing my life in public, because I have some very
> well-adjusted kids who have learned some amazing things without coercion
> (I'm
> speaking English here, not using the jargon of a small group with a theory
> and no evidence), without "being taught" in any traditional way, who are
> learning all about life and living it even while they're little, who are
> trusted and trusting and thoughtful.
>
> I will also occasionally be rebuked and insulted by people who have bought
> a
> theory and will repeat the rhetoric without offering any actual evidence
> that
> it is or has worked with real people in any longterm way.
>
> And others will read all that and some of it will affect their lives and
> most
> won't, and I will continue to share what I know in an open and honest way,
> and others will occasionally come by to pick at it and suggest off-the-wall
>
> methods which imply that unschoolers don't really know what they're doing.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> ~~~ Don't forget! If you change the topic, change the subject line! ~~~
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website:
> http://www.unschooling.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Fetteroll
For those who just joined, TCS (Taking Children Seriously) is a parenting
philosophy separate from unschooling. You can understand unschooling fine
without reading a bit about it. (The webpage for TCS is http://www.tcs.ac/)
If you find the TCS discussions annoying, try the delete button :-)
From my experience if no one responds to a conversation, it goes away. (But
that would be induction and apparently Hume showed that doesn't work.)
Reading and debating the TCS style of thinking helped me a lot in developing
my unschooling philosophy so I think it can be valuable.
I think it would be helpful to those who don't want the list to become a TCS
discussion list, to label any TCS viewpoints as TCS (just tack a TCS onto
the subject for instance) so those who are getting something out of that
view point can continue, but those who aren't can easily delete them.
That way you wouldn't be forcing the TCS ideas on those who don't want them.
It could be a win-win situation :-)
We'll see how this works. And all thoughts on this are welcome.
Joyce
Unschooling-dotcom moderator
philosophy separate from unschooling. You can understand unschooling fine
without reading a bit about it. (The webpage for TCS is http://www.tcs.ac/)
If you find the TCS discussions annoying, try the delete button :-)
From my experience if no one responds to a conversation, it goes away. (But
that would be induction and apparently Hume showed that doesn't work.)
Reading and debating the TCS style of thinking helped me a lot in developing
my unschooling philosophy so I think it can be valuable.
I think it would be helpful to those who don't want the list to become a TCS
discussion list, to label any TCS viewpoints as TCS (just tack a TCS onto
the subject for instance) so those who are getting something out of that
view point can continue, but those who aren't can easily delete them.
That way you wouldn't be forcing the TCS ideas on those who don't want them.
It could be a win-win situation :-)
We'll see how this works. And all thoughts on this are welcome.
Joyce
Unschooling-dotcom moderator