One last reply, and I apologize for the readers who have to endure all these long posts in a row.
They don't try to be obnoxious. They use a developing brain that has not reach maturation yet. And by the way, it is the parent's job to provide the best conditions possible to help the growth of the child's brain and help the child through the stages of his development (which behaviorist happily ignore, since they are only concerned with "making the behavior less obnoxious for the parent")
2) A truckload of research <I>in behavioral science only</I> (outside any work on root cause, intent, emotions, or needs), indeed shows that behaviors that are not ignored (both with positive AND negative attention) tend to be reproduced, while ignoring unwanted behavior tend to suppress the behavior.
The reason this is true is that attention and love are fundamental needs of a child. So even behaviorist actually do use the needs to manipulate the child's behavior. But instead of asking themselves what need triggered the unwanted behavior, they instead withdraw another fundamental need to force the child to change, completely ignoring the harmful side effects of suppressing a symptom when the root cause has not been addressed.
3) A truckload of research <I>in other fields of psychology, </I>including attachment, neuro-science, and cognitivism, argue solidly against love withdrawal techniques and behavioral modification, because <I>whatever the child is doing, he is responding to his natural programming to meet his needs. </I>A child cannot "misbehave". He doesn't even grasp what a good or a bad behavior is. He can only react the best his immature brain can to meet his need. Which is why the parent's job is to meet that need as fast and as best as possible, while not letting the child's immature "wants" drive the relationship - a delicate and nuanced balance to achieve, which some great parental expert like Colorosso, Aldort, Gordon, Neufeld, or Seigal have touched upon in great details, based on the work on hundreds of various discipline of psychology before them.
4) This being said, the author of your citation above is right that when parents are holding, soothing or comforting a child that bites, hits, screams, throws or breaks things, <I>without addressing the root cause of the issue, </I>then they would indeed reinforce the bad behavior.
Attachment is all about responding to a child's needs, holding, soothing and comforting, WHILE MAKING SURE that the underlying issue is addressed - so that there is NO MORE biting, hitting, screams, throwing or breaking things.
5) Attachment parenting is backed by neuroscience, a field of study that, no doubt, you have not heard of since it didn't exist in the 1970s.
I trust a video reference from the director of the Center on the developing child from Harvard University will be satisfactory for you? Pay attention to what he says about children under stress.
1) Children behave in "infantile ways" because... they are children.tadamsmar said:
They don't try to be obnoxious. They use a developing brain that has not reach maturation yet. And by the way, it is the parent's job to provide the best conditions possible to help the growth of the child's brain and help the child through the stages of his development (which behaviorist happily ignore, since they are only concerned with "making the behavior less obnoxious for the parent")
2) A truckload of research <I>in behavioral science only</I> (outside any work on root cause, intent, emotions, or needs), indeed shows that behaviors that are not ignored (both with positive AND negative attention) tend to be reproduced, while ignoring unwanted behavior tend to suppress the behavior.
The reason this is true is that attention and love are fundamental needs of a child. So even behaviorist actually do use the needs to manipulate the child's behavior. But instead of asking themselves what need triggered the unwanted behavior, they instead withdraw another fundamental need to force the child to change, completely ignoring the harmful side effects of suppressing a symptom when the root cause has not been addressed.
3) A truckload of research <I>in other fields of psychology, </I>including attachment, neuro-science, and cognitivism, argue solidly against love withdrawal techniques and behavioral modification, because <I>whatever the child is doing, he is responding to his natural programming to meet his needs. </I>A child cannot "misbehave". He doesn't even grasp what a good or a bad behavior is. He can only react the best his immature brain can to meet his need. Which is why the parent's job is to meet that need as fast and as best as possible, while not letting the child's immature "wants" drive the relationship - a delicate and nuanced balance to achieve, which some great parental expert like Colorosso, Aldort, Gordon, Neufeld, or Seigal have touched upon in great details, based on the work on hundreds of various discipline of psychology before them.
4) This being said, the author of your citation above is right that when parents are holding, soothing or comforting a child that bites, hits, screams, throws or breaks things, <I>without addressing the root cause of the issue, </I>then they would indeed reinforce the bad behavior.
Attachment is all about responding to a child's needs, holding, soothing and comforting, WHILE MAKING SURE that the underlying issue is addressed - so that there is NO MORE biting, hitting, screams, throwing or breaking things.
5) Attachment parenting is backed by neuroscience, a field of study that, no doubt, you have not heard of since it didn't exist in the 1970s.
I trust a video reference from the director of the Center on the developing child from Harvard University will be satisfactory for you? Pay attention to what he says about children under stress.
Last edited:
