Parenting lesson from Sheriff Taylor...

[tadamsmar]

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.

Here's an outline of "Teaching children with self-discipline":

http://bookoutlines.pbworks.com/w/page/14422705/Teaching%20Children%20Self-Discipline[/URL]

Looks interesting.

Looks to me that it implies giving a kid what he wants till he has the language skills required to negotiate. That is, don't hesitate to buy the toy before the language skills develop. Since you don't hesitate, there is no tantrum. (He also generally advocates setting up the situation in the parent's favor beforhand and that could include avoiding expensive toy stores before language skills I guess.)

Your approach seems to involve stonewalling the kid. "not giving up and buying the toy". Driving the kid to the "wall of futility".

Gordon advice seems to be either instantly buy the toy or negotiate with the kid.

"The wall of futility" is from Neufeld. I can imagine some of those human rights advocates who advise the UN might go after Neufeld someday if not already, the same ones that have gone after the Supernanny.

Seems like driving a kid to the wall of futiltiy would foster learned helplessness/depression. Whereas negotition might foster more of an optimistic "don't ever give up" attitude.

I know you are all empathetic about how being imprisoned in walls of futility hurts the kids feelings, verbalizing their feelings and all.

I cited an anti-Behavorism article by Kohn earlier in this thread. I think his stuff is very interesting, what little I know about it.

 

[tadamsmar]

And that sounds like a good reason to use RECENT knowledge, Tad, not outdated knowledge from the 1970's...

The "Kazdin Method" book was published in 2008. It has a DVD. I think its the best book on Behaviorism-oriented parenting, mainly because I think it does the best job of teaching the methods to parents.

Alan Kazdin was the President of the American Psychological Assn. in 2008.

 

[tadamsmar]

When my 10 yo stepson hit me up for a toy or something, I offer him a chance to earn some money doing chores.

 

[parentastic]

Looks to me that it implies giving a kid what he wants till he has the language skills required to negotiate.

Could you please tell me where you have read any of this in the outline?
I am a certified parenting instructor for Dr. Thomas Gordon's method and nowhere does Gordon ever advocate to give a kid whatever he wants until he has the language skill required to "negotiate".

However, what Gordon says is that before 1 or 1 and a half, a child is a infant and when he cries it is because his <I>needs</I> are not met.
And baby needs should always be met by a parent.

It's the difference between want and needs, which I have already explained earlier in this thread.

That is, don't hesitate to buy the toy before the language skills develop.

No, this is not it. Perhaps you should read it before you claim to know what it says?

Your approach seems to involve stonewalling the kid. "not giving up and buying the toy". Driving the kid to the "wall of futility".

Tad, are you actually taking the time to understand any of these concepts?!?
Stonewalling is what you do when you ignore someone - which is what YOU advocate with love withdrawal by the way, not I.

Driving the kid to wall of futility is a concept that comes from Dr Neufeld (not Dr Gordon) and it (also) involves NOT giving the toy while listening to the underlying needs for being heard and understood, so that the child understand he has to give up the idea that he will win and find his tears, in order to move on. In many situation, a tantrum aggravates because not only the child can't have the toy, but he is anger is ignored by the parent, causing a chain reaction to get heard. It helps children stuck in frustration to move from anger to tears, by showing the child that you truly do understand him, even if in that particular situation, it's just not possible to do what he wants.

Gordon and Neufeld are complementary because Gordon would have you find a win-win solution with your child whenever possible; while Neufeld helps you deal with situations where no matter how much we want it, it's not possible to find a win solution for the child's needs - so at least, the needs to be heard and understood is met.

Please stop spreading things you don't even understand. It's infuriating! It's also insulting.

Gordon advice seems to be either instantly buy the toy or negotiate with the kid.

No, you don't give in and you don't negotiate either. Negotiate is what you do when you compromise. Problem solving is not compromising nor negotiation.

"The wall of futility" is from Neufeld. I can imagine some of those human rights advocates who advise the UN might go after Neufeld someday if not already, the same ones that have gone after the Supernanny. Seems like driving a kid to the wall of futiltiy would foster learned helplessness/depression.

Learned helplessness is what develops when a child feels <I>nothing he tries</I> ever works, so he learns to stop trying. It has nothing to do with Neufeld's, who advocate deep listening of anger <I>to prevent</I> a child from bottling up feelings and emotions.
You really understand nothing of these concepts, do you?

 

[parentastic]

Reasoning from root causes without empirical findings to back up the reasoning kills babies.

Empirical findings without a known root cause saves the lives of babies.

And here we go again with trolling.
From Xero's rule post:

A troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. This is not allowed and will not be tolerated.

(my emphasis added).

I think the "killing babies" would qualify?

 

[singledad]

Tadamsmar - if I can ask you a question, and request you to give me a straight answer - What exactly do you think is wrong with looking for the root cause of a problem and trying to address that, rather than addressing symptoms? It is clear that you are very strongly against it, but please explain to me, why is it so bad?

Then:

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 .

CBT is all about understanding Here is a very brief but rather good summary.

But as parentastic said - CBT is therapy, not a parenting method, and as such is really off-topic for this thread. However, I can understand that often therapy is more appropriate for Chloe than parenting alone. Sadly, I can't imagine that CBT would be suitable for her. It requires a lot of conscious self-examination from the subject and although I'll confess that I don't know much about Autism, I don't think she'll be capable of doing that. I would probably be a bit much even for an average child of her age.

 

[tadamsmar]

Tadamsmar - if I can ask you a question, and request you to give me a straight answer - What exactly do you think is wrong with looking for the root cause of a problem and trying to address that, rather than addressing symptoms? It is clear that you are very strongly against it, but please explain to me, why is it so bad?

The impression that I have is that people are rejecting empirical findings of behaviorism along with the implied methods based on some kind of root cause reasoning. As I have pointed out with examples like the Spock case, this can turn out badly.

 

[tadamsmar]

Could you please tell me where you have read any of this in the outline?
I am a certified parenting instructor for Dr. Thomas Gordon's method and nowhere does Gordon ever advocate to give a kid whatever he wants until he has the language skill required to "negotiate".

I misread the outline, he supports other options, including not giving in while empathizing.

No, you don't give in and you don't negotiate either. Negotiate is what you do when you compromise. Problem solving is not compromising nor negotiation.

You seem to be arguing with Gordon here, he clearly is a big believer in negotiation. I assume you have a copy of his most recent book on parenting:

http://www.amazon.com/Parent-Effectiveness-Training-Responsible-Children/dp/0609806939[/URL]

Check the index or search it for "negotiate" at Amazon.

Learned helplessness is what develops when a child feels <I>nothing he tries</I> ever works, so he learns to stop trying. It has nothing to do with Neufeld's, who advocate deep listening of anger <I>to prevent</I> a child from bottling up feelings and emotions.
You really understand nothing of these concepts, do you?

A parent can set up a situation where nothing he tries to get the toy ever works, while at the same time engaging in deep listening of anger. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[singledad]

The impression that I have is that people are rejecting empirical findings of behaviorism along with the implied methods based on some kind of root cause reasoning. As I have pointed out with examples like the Spock case, this can turn out badly.

I don't even know how to respond to this. It makes you sense.

So basically, you reject 30-40 years' research because of Spock's terrible mistake? You would rather stick with 40 year old research because of a mistake that was made 40 years ago?

 

[tadamsmar]

I don't even know how to respond to this. It makes you sense.

So basically, you reject 30-40 years' research because of Spock's terrible mistake? You would rather stick with 40 year old research because of a mistake that was made 40 years ago?

Please explain, what 40 years of research are you talking about? Please provide PubMed references so that no one will think you are confusing research with mere opinion.

For the second time, Alan Kazdin who was the 2008 American Psychological Society President published the book "Kazdin Method" in 2008, that is 4 years ago.

Also, surely you are aware that we all depend on plenty of research findings that are 40 year old or older. There is simply no basis for rejecting reasearch findings simply because they have been around for a while. There is no cut-off point of that sort. None of you are doing yourselves a favor by claiming this.

 

[bssage]

Also, surely you are aware that we all depend on plenty of research findings that are 40 year old or older. There is simply no basis for rejecting reasearch findings simply because they have been around for a while. There is no cut-off point of that sort. None of you are doing yourselves a favor by claiming this.

While it may appear that way. I don't think anyone is recommending that.

I believe what is being said (maybe not as clearly) is that when comparing two similar studies it is my belief and I guess a common belief on this forum: That generally new studies have better controls and methodology. Over time much has been learned about the data collection process and that in a general way the reports based off of the new data have more solid foundations than the older information. Many now include science to back up the theory. Thats not to say opportunities for bad information do not exist. Nor is it to say that the old studies are invalid. Only that significant improvement in data collection has occurred.

Also a lot of consideration has to placed on who and why a given report from a data set was presented in the first place. Similar to biblical studies. The same data can be presented in opposing ways to support the report writers agenda. This is true in both the old and new studies. That is why I prefer links to data rather than studies. I like to draw my own conclusions when possible.

What we found in our other thread was that some of the methodology in the older studies is shocking and extremely misleading.

The things that PSTC commonly reffers to involves the huge tech advancements that are now commonly used either supporting the "brick and mortar" type studies. Or replacing them all together. Using more science than theory. Feel free to correct me pstc.

Personally when looking at a report. I research the author to try and determine where their vested interest is. That includes both old and new. But all thing being equal. I will choose a new study over a simular old study.

IMHO

 

[tadamsmar]

bssage,

What new research are you referring to? Earlier, you quoted the wikipedia saying that there was no convincing research in favor of Attachment Parenting.

 

[tadamsmar]

Prax Kinderpsychol Kinderpsychiatr.[/URL] 1993 Jan;42(1):20-5.
[Effectiveness of the Gordon parent training].

[Article in German]
Heekerens HP[/URL].
Abstract

The analysis of recent reviews concerned with the efficacy of Parent Effectiveness Training (PET) demonstrates, within limits, its reliability and helpfulness as a therapeutic measure for children and adolescents. However, parents do seem to benefit more than their offsprings, on whom, judged by outcome, the effectiveness seems minor. As to its indication, open questions remain. Taking everything into account it would seem somewhat unjust or premature, to erasure PET from the catalogue of approved measures.

PMID: 8441747 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[tadamsmar]

So where is all this new research? Untill I see it, I will have to agree with have to agree with Azerrad that the only solid research there is just plain being ignored:

"Many of the most popular child-rearing books are full of such nonsense. They repeatedly urge parents to hold, soothe, comfort and talk to a child who bites, hits, screams, throws or breaks things, ignores or refuses parental requests or otherwise behaves in obnoxious, infantile ways. Common sense and a truckload of research argue solidly against this practice. Yet these experts seem to be unaware of the well-established fact that children do what gets noticed, that adult attention usually makes behavior more likely to occur, not less.

Nevertheless, thousands of parents follow the bad advice of these and like-minded child-rearing gurus every day. And the more faithfully they follow the advice, the worse their children become. Some of these parents eventually find their way to my office, desperate for help. I advise them to redirect their attention from infantile behavior to grown-up behavior. They are often amazed by the change in their children."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200109/why-our-kids-are-out-control?page=2[/URL]

 

[cybele]

Tad, you maybe have to wait a bit for your reply, bumping the thread saying "where is it" isn't going to make it move faster, most people here have jobs and kids to take care of in addition to the forums.

Not to mention different timezones.

 

[cybele]

I have to admit, I know nothing on psychology, but I have been reading the thread and there are a few things I am confused about.

You say things like "infantile ways" and "infantile behaviour" and "grown up behaviour" what age are you talking about here specifically? I don't know diddly-squat about any psychology behind it, but to me, I don't see why one would want a child to have grown-up behaviour other than for parent convenience, which just doesn't seem right to me.

You believe that all parents who get to the root cause of their child's tantrums end up with children who behave worse than before? Is that interpretation correct? Because that's a pretty sweeping statement and, again, all I have to go off is my own kids but I have found that to be not the case, in 18 years and 5 very different kids I have pretty much tried it all, and whilst every single one of my kids reacts differently to different situations, trying to find out what is upsetting them has never failed me.

 

[parentastic]

Prax Kinderpsychol Kinderpsychiatr.[/URL] 1993 Jan;42(1):20-5.
[Effectiveness of the Gordon parent training].

[Article in German]
PMID: 8441747 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

If you want real results, you should use PsycInfo (which is the APA database) or other human science databases for your searches; PubMED is a database for medical doctors, not for child care professionals.

Here are a few:

Abstract: Conducted a meta-analysis of 26 studies of parent effectiveness training (PET) developed by T. Gordon (1970) to determine whether PET had any effects on parenting techniques or children's behavior and self-esteem. PET had an overall effect size of 0.33 standard deviation units, which was significantly greater than the effect size of a group representing alternative treatments. PET had effects on parents' knowledge, attitudes, and behavior and on children's self-esteem, and these effects endured (up to 26 wks) after the programs were completed. A trend was found suggesting that the effect on child behavior may have had a latency period. Better designed studies had significantly greater effect sizes (.45) than less well-designed studies (.26). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Source: Cedar, B., &amp; Levant, R. F. (1990). A meta-analysis of the effects of parent effectiveness training. <I>American Journal Of Family Therapy</I>, <I>18</I>(4), 373-384. doi:10.1080/01926189008250986

or

Abstract: Studied the short- and long-term efficacy of parent effectiveness training (PET) using meta-analysis techniques. A total of 17 primary and combined studies on the efficacy of PET were evaluated according to training parameters, control groups, success criteria, and followup. The analysis suggests that PET is highly effective in improving overall communication skills, moderately effective in changing parental attitudes toward child-rearing and parent–child communication, and slightly effective in changing parental behavior and children's self-concept. The analysis also suggests that PET is most effective in gender homogenous parent groups and for parents of other children. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Source: Müller, C., Hager, W., &amp; Heise, E. (2001). Zur Effektivität des Gordon-Eltern-Trainings (PET): Eine Meta-Evaluation. <I>Gruppendynamik</I>, <I>32</I>(3), 339-364. doi:10.1007/s11612-001-0034-7

Better yet, you could also (gasp!) read the actual content of Dr Gordon's work, first hand. Here is a journal article to start you:

Abstract: Discusses the belief that children must be disciplined (controlled) by parents and teachers. Semantic imprecisions by discipline advocates are illustrated, and more precise definitions are provided for such terms as discipline, authority, power, control, and influence. Why both rewards and punishments are ineffective and hazardous to the mental and physical health of children is documented. Alternatives to disciplining children include methods that encourage the involvement of children in family and classroom rule setting, methods that foster participation in the learning process, skills that influence children to solve their own problems and control their behavior out of consideration for others, and a method of resolving adult–child conflicts so that neither loses. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Source: Gordon, T. (1988). The case against disciplining children at home or in school. <I>Person-Centered Review</I>, <I>3</I>(1), 59-85.

 

[parentastic]

I cited an anti-Behavorism article by Kohn earlier in this thread. I think his stuff is very interesting, what little I know about it.

Perhaps you should read it?

The impression that I have is that people are rejecting empirical findings of behaviorism along with the implied methods based on some kind of root cause reasoning. As I have pointed out with examples like the Spock case, this can turn out badly.

You do realize that this is a fallacy? (false dichotomy)
You are presenting the problem as if either you use empirical studies (and that would be behaviorism) OR you look at root cause (hence not using empirical studies) ????
Which is of course flawed reasoning (on purpose or not, I do not know).

EVERY BRANCH of psychology - not only behaviorism - uses (amongst other type of research) empirical studies. <I>Every single one of them</I>.
Every one of them also publish their findings in peer-reviewed journal - including cognitivism, humanism, attachment, and so many other branches of psychology.

The PURPOSE of most actual research, including of course empirical studies, is to find the root causes and actually understand what's going on in the human mind and with the human brain and its development.
When Newton used empirical studies to test gravity, he did it in order to discover a set of universal rules and understand what gravity is, so it can be applied to all sort of situations after.
Neuroscience and developmental psychology, likewise, are field of studies who attempt to understand, not just to modify. In fact, modifying someone's behavior without understand what was going on or why is dangerous and potentially harmful!

What are you imagining, that 40 years of developmental psychology and human sciences are basically happening in the void, that researcher just "came up" with theories in the void, without any real research what so ever?!?

Seriously, are you being dishonest on purpose or are you simply clueless?

 

[parentastic]

I misread the outline, he supports other options, including not giving in while empathizing.

So let's be clear - you spend hours arguing on a parenting forum on books you have never read, based on science you have no clue even existed; and then when confronted with it, you <I>read an outline</I> and then you think, poof, that's it, you know enough about something to counter it?!?

Seriously, who are you anyway? Do you have some actual science background? Are you a researcher? A scientist? Do you actually HAVE any education at all? I am starting to doubt you even have any qualifications what so ever to even understand what you are talking about.

Tell me all you want about behaviorism, and I will counter it with real arguments, like I did so far, because it has been proven to be harmful over and over in the past 40 years of research in the field of child care and developmental psychology.
But don't pretend you know enough of the other sciences out there. At least be honest enough to admit when you don't know something.

Here is an example:

You seem to be arguing with Gordon here, he clearly is a big believer in negotiation. I assume you have a copy of his most recent book on parenting...

I am a certified instructor. I have the instructor material too.

Check the index or search it for "negotiate" at Amazon.

So this is how you counter people's argument then?
You "check for the index on amazon" ? And then you pretend you know something?!?
I already explained that Gordon's method uses problem solving and "no-lose" method, not "negotiation", which is a compromise.

As for learned helplessness:

A parent can set up a situation where nothing he tries to get the toy ever works, while at the same time engaging in deep listening of anger. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Learned helplessness is something that develops when a child can never get what he *needs* (not what he wants) and that develops *over time* as he loses his belief that it's worth it to even try.
Which is what happens when they are manipulated through behavioral control. NOT when they are deeply and truly listened to and their underlying needs are met, NOR when the root cause of their distress is found and addressed.

 

[parentastic]

Please explain, what 40 years of research are you talking about? Please provide PubMed references so that no one will think you are confusing research with mere opinion.

Look dude, I have taken over 900+ hours of formation at the university level in developmental psychology and lifespan to become a family life educator. Are you REALLY expecting me to write down here the result of what I have learned over 2 years?

Seriously. Get your head out of your box and read other sources. We are not going to do your homework for you. Grab a textbook - those neat book that actually <I>summarize</I> the body of research that happened over the last decades.
Just the textbook for <I>one</I> of my course, the one on lifespan, is over 700+ pages and it contains over 3000 different names in the researcher's index at the end. Here is the reference if you want to start educating yourself back into the 20th century:
Lifespan Development, Fourth Canadian Edition with MyDevelopmentLab, 4/E
Denise Boyd, <I>Houston Community College</I>
Paul Johnson, <I>Confederation College of Applied Arts and Technology</I>
Helen L. Bee, <I>Stanford University</I>

Geez! :arghh: