Parenting lesson from Sheriff Taylor...

[tadamsmar]

I am not that impressed with search for "root cause".

If I go out to the parking lot and see a dent on my car, am I suppose to think "It's impossible to get this fixed unless I find out exactly how this happened and who did it"? Granted, it might be worth thinking about the safest locations to park.

Is the bad thinking pattern really the root cause of the depression? What caused the bad thinking pattern? An event? Genetics? Have you ever heard the term "Turtles all the way down"?

Also, nobody ever proves that they actually found the root cause. It's just fuzzy thinking. This is psychodynamics, not the real dynamics of physics.

If you make the tantrums go away, you know the tantrums went away, there is no doubt about it. You don't need to find the original cause.

I certainly don't think that confirming a root cause is alway necessary or even a practical approach.

 

[singledad]

I am not that impressed with search for "root cause".

Yeah, we noticed

I certainly don't think that confirming a root cause is alway necessary or even a pratical approach.

And you are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

On the other hand, I hope you will excuse me when in future I post conflicting advice whenever you advise parents to simply suppress the symptoms in the quickest way possible. See, I believe that it is much more effective in the long run to solve the actual problem than it is to simply keep managing the symptoms. And yes - I know one might never get to the root of the problem, but unlike you seem to do, I don't consider the possibility of failure a good enough excuse to not even try.

In fact, I find that attitude rather sad.

PS: You will notice that I elected to ignore the pathetic attempt to suggest that one can handle a child with an emotional problem like you would a dented car

<SIZE size="75">Although, come to think about it - you probably think one can. That would certainly explain your point of view...</SIZE>

 

[tadamsmar]

Another problem is that even the authors of parenting books disagree on the root cause of tantrums. Some say it's due misdirected parental attention around age 2 or before and other's dispute that.

Seems to me that parents who pick their methods based on "root cause" are going to be going against the opinion of some parenting expert or other.

Seem better to just use what the research shows works best, as with CBT.

 

[bssage]

Psct &amp; Tad. Its funny both of your suggestions for thread title are the exact reverse of each others suggestion.

SD I think when we use cars or dogs or whatever as a analogy. Its trying to simplify the message. Not a attempt to detract from seriousness of what we are discussing. Just IMHO

While I agree with the dent theory. And had not considered it in that way. I believe the more severe the damage the more earnest our search for root cause would be. After all we dont want to get the car fixed just to have to do it all over again next week.

I have to say. My gut likes CBT just because <I>to me</I> the name implies understanding. I have to do some research.

CBT is not something I have come across in my Chloe adventure. And it sounds like it wouldn't be: until we can better understand what she is actually thinking that it would even be considered.

I am assuming CBT like most of the therapies we have discussed has some off shoot disciplines that might bear fruit for her down the road (not a real road SD .

 

[tadamsmar]

This is just a minimal samples of the <U>evidence</U> that were found in the FOURTY years of science that happened between the OP's exposure to parenting and today.
Some of this evidence, or description of the evidence, can be found in the work of:
...
Dr Gershoff, PhD, the most preeminant child care researcher &amp; psychologist on punishment and their ill effects
...

On the contrary, Gershoff provides evidence <U>for</U> my position. She says Kazdin's Parent Management Training, Webster-Stratton's interventions, and other parenting interventions "that deemphasize the use of coercive techniques such as corporal punishment have been associated with improvements in children’s behaviors and with decreased likelihood of physical abuse by parents":

http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/pdfs/Gershoff-2002.pdf[/URL]

Webster-Stratton created the "Incredible Years" program.

 

[bssage]

If you all don't mind.

Lets kinda try and keep the spank items separate as best we can. That is somthing that absolutely goes in the debate section. And gets pretty heated. I dont mind regurgatating the thread every year or so. I just would rather not pull this thread into that. If you all dont mind.

 

[parentastic]

If you make the tantrums go away, you know the tantrums went away, there is no doubt about it. You don't need to find the original cause.

And that's precisely where you are wrong and - not only wrong - but potentially harmful and damaging to children.

If the tantrums goes away because you have suppressed the behavior through behavior modification techniques, you have caused at least 2 things:
a) The needs have not been met and the original causes not addressed; these problems don't go away and are now festering inside and getting aggravated with time, and
b) You have closed the communication channel with your child, so when these larger / accumulated problems becomes unbearable, the child will not confide in you or will have learned that his emotions are not okay to have. Hence encouraging lying, self-abuse and substance abuse, bullying, and so many other much more serious problems a few years ahead instead.

I certainly don't think that confirming a root cause is alway necessary or even a practical approach.

It's not always practical, but it's ALWAYS necessary.

 

[parentastic]

Another problem is that even the authors of parenting books disagree on the root cause of tantrums.

Which parenting books? Care to provide some actual references?
Like I said in this thread already, the only child-care professionals who are still confused about the cause of tantrums are behaviorists, since they insist on ignoring it...

Seems to me that parents who pick their methods based on "root cause" are going to be going against the opinion of some parenting expert or other.

Anyone who picks anything as a parenting method will find someone else somewhere who is against it, Tad.

Seem better to just use what the research shows works best, as with CBT.

Research has moved on since the 1970's and NOW it shows that what works best is what I promote and advocate. You don't seem to be much up to date with research though?

As for CBT, it's a THERAPY.
Not a parenting method.

 

[parentastic]

On the contrary, Gershoff provides evidence <U>for</U> my position.

Gershoff's main focus has been to move parents away from corporal punishment. Since you advocate the ignoring of unwanted behavior rather than the use of corporal punishment, you may <I>think</I> she advocates for your position. It's already a good step to get parents to stop corporal punishment. Love withdrawal is just as detrimental, however, and that's the next step.

This being said, bssage is right, let's keep spanking out of this thread.

 

[tadamsmar]

a) The needs have not been met and the original causes not addressed; these problems don't go away and are now festering inside and getting aggravated with time

You are pretty much making my point. Glen Latham, in <I>The Power of Positive Parenting</I> says the root cause of tantrums is conditioning. You can cite authorities that say the root cause is something else.

The people who write books on parenting don't agree.

Glen Latham says that tantrums are easy to eliminate in about a week, and a skilled parent can prevent them in the first place. But you can probably cite some other authority says they are an inevitable developmental stage.

One can't decide this matter based on root cause.

 

[parentastic]

While I agree with the dent theory. And had not considered it in that way. I believe the more severe the damage the more earnest our search for root cause would be. After all we dont want to get the car fixed just to have to do it all over again next week.

Exactly.

Of course, if we are to use the car as a metaphor, I'd say fixing the dent in your car fixes <I>the frame</I>. Tad's behaviorism would be like fixing the car frame without checking if that dent also broke something inside the car. There is no diagnostic, only the surface is fixed so that it <I>looks</I> okay.

I have to say. My gut likes CBT just because <I>to me</I> the name implies understanding. I have to do some research.

CBT is a therapy, not a parenting method or a child rearing philosophy.
I don't even know why we are talking about CBT at all on this thread?
Although I do understand your questioning related to Chloe, as the situation is different in this case.

 

[parentastic]

You are pretty much making my point.

You say that's because you don't understand my point.

Glen Latham, in <I>The Power of Positive Parenting</I> says the root cause of tantrums is conditioning.

The root cause of tantrum are unmet aggravating <I><U>needs</U>. </I>
To say that the root cause of tantrum is conditioning is like saying that the root cause of car accident is driving cars. DUH!

The people who write books on parenting don't agree.

LOL, ALL the people who write ALL books on parenting don't agree? Wow! I am impressed. I have cited about 10-12 books in the thread already. They all follow what I have been advocating here.

Glen Latham says that tantrums are easy to eliminate in about a week, and a skilled parent can prevent them in the first place. But you can probably cite some other authority says they are an inevitable developmental stage.

The need to oppose is part of an inevitable developmental stage.
But the reason it moves into a tantrum rather than a less emotionally charged reaction is because it is not listened to properly.
And for the record: using what I advocate, in my parenting workshop (using active listening to draw out the emotion and show empathy in a tantrum, while not giving up and buying the toy) solves the tantrums PERMANENTLY within 2-3 tantrums. But unlike behaviorism, it doesn't come with all the harmful negative attached.

 

[bssage]

Gershoff .

I am not going to get into Elizabeth again. Her report is a gathering of data and information from many reports spanning hundreds of years. IMHO much of the methodology in this gathered information is at best suspect at worst unethical. This really is the rabbit hole we dont want to get into again right now.

Glen Latham says that tantrums are easy to eliminate in about a week, and a skilled parent can prevent them in the first place.

Sounds like a excellent tag line to sell a book.

The root cause of tantrum are unmet aggravating <I><U>needs</U>. </I>

While sounding very logical. I think that is unprovable. IMO its a statement of theory rather than fact. A good theory: But theory all the same.

the root cause of car accident is driving cars. DUH!

Small Derail. In the US some states are known as "No Fault" states. Which means you assume a percentage of the responsibility just for being there. I am sure driven by insurance. So in some states yes: part of the root cause is just driving the car.
[/QUOTE]

 

[bssage]

Research has moved on since the 1970's and NOW it shows that what works best is what I promote and advocate.

From Wiki:

Although there is research which shows that when mothers are taught to increase their sensitivity to an infant's needs and signals, this increases the development of the child's attachment security,[2] there are no conclusive empirical efficacy studies on Sears attachment parenting.

there is no conclusive or convincing body of research that shows this labor-intensive approach to be in any way superior to what attachment parents term "mainstream parenting" in the long run

I only posted those quotes in the interest of disclosure. I am a fan of what you are selling pstc. IMHO IT JUST MAKES SENSE. Its really a common sense approach to things.

I just don't know that it needs to be a 24/7/365 full court press. I think it can be successfully co-mingled with mainstream common sense parenting with very good results. That if you are having significant issues the 24/7/365 full court press may be appropriate.

And I do think you make an excellent advocate for Attachment Parenting. So rock on brother.

 

[tadamsmar]

And for the record: using what I advocate, in my parenting workshop (using active listening to draw out the emotion and show empathy in a tantrum, while not giving up and buying the toy) solves the tantrums PERMANENTLY within 2-3 tantrums.

Now you are talking about methods, not root causes.

I don't know of any empirical evidence (independent of your assertions) that those methods work, but I have an open mind on the matter.

Latham advocates a time out with no active listening, also no particular show of empathy but he does advocate calm and no show of agression.

I would think that your method would be better since it involves listening and empathy, even if it was not as fast as Latham's methods. As you say, it also covers the possibility that Latham's method would leave some need unfullfilled. Also, what you are advocating avoids putting the kid in time out and it can be hard for some parents to reposition a kid without showing agression. Your approach avoids having then parent do anything that is similar to agression.

I can see how your method would work well, even if conditioning was the root cause of the tantrum. Or rather, it would work well only if the parent engaged in lots of active listening, empathy, praise, or other forms of positive attention when the kid is not tantruming. If the parents tend to ignore the kid when he is not tantruming so that the kid is attention-deprived, then I would think that your method would not work well, and might even be counter-productive, if the root cause of the tantrum was a need for attention.

Hence, with certain preconditions, I can see that your method would work regardless the root cause.

 

[Incogneato]

Still reading and taking all of this in, but I must say, this thread wears me out!

 

[tadamsmar]

Glenn Latham says that tantrums are easy to eliminate in about a week, and a skilled parent can prevent them in the first place.

Sounds like a excellent tag line to sell a book.[/quote]

The claim was in the body of the book, I don't know that it was ever used as a tag line. I think was just based on an old research finding reproduced in applied settings countless times by the time Latham made this claim in his book in 1994. Up this thread somewhere I quoted the abstract of a paper where pre-school teachers were ramping crying down then up then down again. It took less that a week to ramp the crying down.

But, Latham did not give a specific reference for this. Latham's book <I>The Power of Positive Parenting</I> is similar to most parenting books in that it does not have citations like a scientific paper.

 

[parentastic]

But, Latham did not give a specific reference for this. Latham's book <I>The Power of Positive Parenting</I> is similar to most parenting books in that it does not have citations like a scientific paper.

However, Dr. Thomas Gordon's "Teaching children self-discipline", Dr Gottman "Raising an emotionally intelligent child", Dr Dan Siegel's "Parenting from the inside out" and Alfie Kohn's "Unconditional parenting" all have extensive notes and provide all the sources.

 

[tadamsmar]

Dr. Spock decided that choking on vomit was an important root cause of crib death. He started advocating belly sleeping in 1958, reasoning that back sleeping would lead to such choking. All good root-cause-based reasoning.

By1970, empirical evidence showed that belly sleeping was associated with SIDS.

But Spock stuck with his root-cause-based reasoning for another 20 years. There were 50,000 infant deaths in the English speaking world during that 20 year period.

 

[parentastic]

Dr. Spock decided that choking on vomit was an important root cause of crib death. He started advocating belly sleeping in 1958, reasoning that back sleeping would lead to such choking. All good root-cause-based reasoning.

By1970, empirical evidence showed that belly sleeping was associated with SIDS.

But Spock stuck with his root-cause-based reasoning for another 20 years. There were 50,000 infant deaths in the English speaking world during that 20 year period.

And that sounds like a good reason to use RECENT knowledge, Tad, not outdated knowledge from the 1970's...