Parenting lesson from Sheriff Taylor...

[tadamsmar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dzxBxa1HQE


I want to bring your attention to the segment around 4:30 and after.

I learned from this that a simple head crank, turning away, can sometimes effective as a kind of time out in place. This episode was aired in 1963 and it models parenting techniques that had been validated in ABA research only a few years before, methods that most parents have not mastered even today. But perhaps they were already understood by some parents before the research, not sure.

 

[cybele]

...??

Sorry to be difficult, but you realise that discipline is easier on a scripted television show, right?
I'm confused, all I just watched was a show that I remember my parents watching, then the section you directed to was a child holding his breath?

I don't understand what you mean.

 

[Xero]

Ok, that was funny. What are we supposed to learn from it? It was acting, and it was a joke, there was nothing serious or educating about that at all. That's not how tantrums really happen. If I asked my kid what he was doing in the middle of a crying tantrum, he wouldn't be interested in giving me a comical answer.

 

[tadamsmar]

How about this kid?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpSfThUv_pc

Is this kid having a real crying tantrum?

Is this kid acting?

Is this kid putting on a performance for his parents or whoever is holding the camera?

If this kid is having a real crying tantrum, then why does he keep stopping in the middle of the tantrum and calmly going over to where center stage is?

 

[cybele]

I would say that he is more attention seeking than having a real tantrum.

In my experience, if my kids (at a younger age) are attention seeking it is turned on and off, and real tantrum tends not to go away when I leave the room.

Just my opinion of course, I don't believe that walking away is some magic cure for making things stop, it is my way of dealing with tantrums too, but that never made my kids stop. Unless, of course, it was a very tame tantrum, but the real ones, hell no.

 

[tadamsmar]

Do tantrums always begin when you are in the room? Or do your kids ever go to some empty room and begin a tantrum? Do they begin a tantrum when there is no one to watch?

 

[cybele]

Well they don't tend to anymore, but yeah, my kids have started tantrums when they are in a room by themselves.

 

[singledad]

So what's the lesson here? Don't let your kids manipulate you (especially if they're bad actors)? Now who thinks who are idiots?

 

[parentastic]

Not only is the movie obviously scripted and acted, but it's also making humor our of the worst stereotypes possible for children. It presents children both as stupid and manipulative. It may be funny to watch, but it's not giving justice to children.

Before approx. 5 years old, children's brain are not yet able to hold more than one emotion at a time in the right side hemisphere. So when they get angry, desperate and emotional, it invades ALL of their senses and the result can be a devastating tantrum; my nephew for instance used to make himself vomit out of crying. The <I>emotion</I> is <I><U>real</U></I>, even when the reason seems trivial to us. Ignoring a child's tantrum makes it worst (as it is, in 99% of the cases, the expression of a need to be heard and validated), although of course listening does not mean agreeing or giving the child what he wants. (i.e., the idea is to respond to the child "needs", not the child "wants"). And there is always, always a need underlying a tantrum.

 

[tadamsmar]

I would say that he is more attention seeking than having a real tantrum.

In my experience, if my kids (at a younger age) are attention seeking it is turned on and off, and real tantrum tends not to go away when I leave the room.

Just my opinion of course, I don't believe that walking away is some magic cure for making things stop, it is my way of dealing with tantrums too, but that never made my kids stop. Unless, of course, it was a very tame tantrum, but the real ones, hell no.

Ignoring alone is not particularly effective. Specific praise for the opposite behavior causes ignoring to be more effective. Also, timing is important, if you have the habit of giving the tantrum attention right at the onset and then ignoring will not work. You need to start the ignoring right at the onset.

Also, the tantrums typically get worse when you start ignoring them. It's called the extinction burst. Parents who start ignoring early, around 1.5 yo, will not experience the extinction burst. But if you try to introduce the ignoring strategy later as a strategy switch from giving attention, you will see the extinction burst.

Ignoring should typically not be used before 1.5 yo.

In a sense, there are two types of tantrums. Kid before 1.5 yo have tantrum-like loss of emotional control. But, during the period after 1.5 yo tantrums tend to become a response the the way parents direct their attention. As a general rule, parents will get more of whatever behavior they pay attention to, even when the attention is negative like scolding.

 

[Incogneato]

I'm not sure I understand the point of this thread, but ok.

 

[jollysmith123]

What exactly is this video trying to portray? Children who cant act or kids who are confused. I am not getting the point.

 

[bssage]

That show is always good. And while the situation is made for tv. It does exaggerate a issue many parents have had to deal with over the years. Now considering that specific episode. IMO if your child was displaying a deliberate attempt to manipulate then I would say yes ignoring is fine. In the real world this would not be a typical scenario.

I wont advise on what you should do. But will share my experience with what I have had success. I disagree that a tantrum is always a response to a need. Possibly a perceived need. But more likely a want. With Cole I generally remove him from any public environment and wait for a calm moment at which point I will do some active listening and conflict resolution type of actions. There is a period of time where it is difficult, possibly impossable to tell. I try and temper my actions and try to remain consistent regardless. I am not naive enough to believe that my kids are not testing boundaries. And I don't necessarily consider that abnormal or bad. It is, what they do. And while rare at 11 yrs. Almost all are precipitated by a lack of sleep or illness.

With Chloe its different. It is rare that we know root cause. And have never been able to have a cognitive discussion with her about it. My stratagy is two fold. First at its inception the opportunity to derail the tantrum or meltdown exist. A simple assertive change of activity or environment produces a very successful result for me.

Second for a meltdown or tantrum "in progress" I secure the area. I move her to a place where others will be less effected. I look for the obvious (obvious to me) things that cause her issues and eliminate them. Then its a waiting game. I will use some type of hearing protection for myself. This is big. I can physically feel the meltdown raise my blood pressure and increase my level of irritability. Hearing protection for me dramatically reduces these effects. Then I wait patiently for it to run its course. Anything other than this stratagy I have found increases both the intensity and duration of the event. These events have been fewer and farther between in the last year or so. But still frequent enough to happen more than once a week.

I also think the answer can be as complicated as our kids or ourselves are. I would advise making whatever strategy you use, deliberate. Make mental notes of successes. Share information with other caregivers. And if this is a issue for you. You should be able to make short work of developing a consistent response that is effective

 

[bssage]

Just stop me if I am wrong Tadamsmar.

I believe the episode is an example of ABA http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Applied+behavior+analysis&amp;l=1

And the point is that while not common. It was being effectively, non-formally used at the time.
And that while we may not be familiar with ABA. It would prove helpful if we were.

The only reason I am familiar with ABA is Chloe. It is a very common resource used by teaching institutions for special needs kids.

 

[tadamsmar]

Just stop me if I am wrong Tadamsmar.

I believe the episode is an example of ABA http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Applied+behavior+analysis&amp;l=1

And the point is that while not common. It was being effectively, non-formally used at the time.
And that while we may not be familiar with ABA. It would prove helpful if we were.

The only reason I am familiar with ABA is Chloe. It is a very common resource used by teaching institutions for special needs kids.

It common every place where evidence-based method are encouraged or required, teaching institutions for special need kids being one place.

It uncommon in the home. Perhaps only one parenting book in a thousand consistently presents evidence-based methods.

 

[parentastic]

No offense to the OP, but I have to straighten the record here.

ABA, as it says in the name, is based on <I>behaviorism</I>.
This strategies are based on the idea that the behavior is the only thing that can be changed, though various techniques such as operand conditioning, shaping, reinforcement (both negative and positive), etc.

it is, to my knowledge, very useful to treat certain pathologies and personality disorders.

However, it completely ignores the child's needs, it fails to even consider a child's motivation for the unwanted behavior (the root cause, rather than the symptom) and it also ignores the negative effect on the attachment link and its consequence on the long run.
It uses techniques of behavioral <I>control</I>. It's <U>training</U> (like training a dog) not teaching, parenting or developing a child's cognitive and emotional abilities.

It has also massively been <U>invalidated</U> as a parenting tool (for regular, non-special need parenting) in the last decade because of the new findings in attachment and neuro-science (although it was already heavily challenged with Piaget and the cognitive science a couple decade ago).

It uncommon in the home. Perhaps only one parenting book in a thousand consistently presents evidence-based methods.

It is not uncommon in the home, OP. 80% of every child-rearing books ever written are based, on some form or another, on the work on Dr. Skinner and the research made in the 1940-1960's on behaviorism.
And the "evidences" you are referring too were measured in lab using pigeons and rats -- not children.
I encourage parents and readers to move to the 20th century and use, if not avant-garde parenting, at least information based on the current state of child care science.

 

[parentastic]

I disagree that a tantrum is always a response to a need. Possibly a perceived need. But more likely a want.

To be clear with what I stated before, not only tantrums, but every single behavior, every single thing that a child does is driven by an internal <I><U>need</U>. </I>This or these needs are present, a conscious or unconscious way, in addition to the more obvious <I>want</I>.

Needs are things like: physiological needs, need for security, need for affection, safety, warmth, recognition, need to discover the world, need to develop, etc. These are biological imperative. We are wired to find ways to meet our needs. When our needs are not met, we can't thrive. After a while, we may even wither or die.

A child in a tantrum may be yelling about that toy he <I>wants</I>. However, the need under the want can be: "I want to be recognized for a full grow up, I want to buy things on the shelves too, I want to do like my dad, I want to be taken seriously and I want to matter. I want to feel comforted when I am in distressed, but I don't know how to ask for it. The more I express my distress, the more [some parents] ignores me, increasing my distress.

The toy is not important.
But the need is.
A parent who can address the underlying need can stop the tantrum right away, without having to agree on the <I>want</I> at all.

I am not naive enough to believe that my kids are not testing boundaries.

And that one also stems from a need - a need for independence, a need to dissocate one self from the parent in order to develop cognitively. It's marked by several different developmental stages (see Erikson for instance)

And I don't necessarily consider that abnormal or bad. It is, what they do.

Yep, 100% on agreement with you here. It's normal - at least for Cole, I can't say for Chloe. I wish I knew more about autism, so I could help for that, but all I learned about this is to refer these cases to a competent profession like a psychologist.

 

[bssage]

not trying to pick pepper out of fly sh@tt but I guess we consider needs differently. physiological needs vs physical needs. When I think of a need its more like food, water, shelter. necessary to sustain life. Expanding on that would be transportation, education ect...

By my definition of a need. You would have to be a very bad parent to have a child throwing many tantrums driven by needs not being met.

Your definition is probably better in this context.

Although I still consider them very necessary wants. I don't believe they are required to sustain life. No doubt deprived of them will have significant impact on a persons life. I think a considerable number of people have overcome this deficit to become happy healthy productive members of society. That's not saying many have not.

Deprived of my needs. You die.

 

[cybele]

I think 'perception' of needs is different though as you get older.

As adults, we class needs as food, water, shelter, love, medical care, and so on.

A child, to use the example parentastic used of the shop, being treated like a big boy or girl who can make selections in a store is a need, to us it isnt, but to them it is because they don't understand that it really isn't that special. It just so happens that due to interests, most kids want to select toys or lollies, haha.

I get what parentastic says about redirecting, with the store, it is something I do with my kids, enver knew there was some reasoning behind it, it was just something I stumbled upon working for my kids, when they were crying about lollies, I took them to another section and let them make selections and whilst it isnt an immediate fix, it is a faster fix than sitting them in the trolley going "no no no no no no no" and so on.

Whether it was distraction, or fulfilling their need to make decisions too, I don't know.

 

[parentastic]

not trying to pick pepper out of fly sh@tt but...

LOL First time I have heard of that expression, it's a good one

I guess we consider needs differently. By my definition of a need. You would have to be a very bad parent to have a child throwing many tantrums driven by needs not being met.
Your definition is probably better in this context.

That makes a lot of sense! Yeah, there are many definitions...
I am basing myself on Maslow's pyamid of needs, in developmental psychology:

Here is another one, with more finer details at the top:

A child, to use the example parentastic used of the shop, being treated like a big boy or girl who can make selections in a store is a need, to us it isnt, but to them it is because they don't understand that it really isn't that special.

Yes, it is very true! For each different person - depending where they are in their development - their perceptions of needs will be different.. because (according to the revised Maslow model above) you need to feel safe in a level before you can really need the next level. [in reality it's not that clear cut, I think, but the Maslow model is still very useful to understand what's going on with a child].

Making their own selection in the shop... and also doing what the parent does: it's part of the "self-esteem" needs, and also the "cognitive needs" above it.

But also, if you start ignoring their tantrum like the OP suggests using behaviorism (rather than listening / active listening like bssage was saying) then what happens is that they become increasingly frustrated, angry and distressed because the one person that matters the most to them in the world is now withdrawing their support and care - which is an even deeper need from the inferior level in the pyramid: it makes the child feel "unsafe" (insecure attachment) and challenges his need for belonging (level 3) and below his need for safety (level 2).

I get what parentastic says about redirecting, with the store, it is something I do with my kids, enver knew there was some reasoning behind it, it was just something I stumbled upon working for my kids, when they were crying about lollies, I took them to another section and let them make selections and whilst it isnt an immediate fix, it is a faster fix than sitting them in the trolley going "no no no no no no no" and so on.

Yes, this works much better on the long run, because a) you don't make things worst by ignoring the tantrum (even if you won't buy the toy!) and b) because you have responded to the deeper need (a desire to feel they belong, they matter, they can do something that looks significantly important to them (pick things off shelves like you do).