Problems that Involve the Distribution of Attention...

[babysitter]

In a fairer world, children would instinctively know that their parents, guardians, and child care providers want to give all those they care about/for equal attention. In an even fairer world, parents, guardians, and child care providers could give all of their attention to all of their children/charges all of the time. However, as we all know, these fantasies are a far cry from reality. In fact, there are many, many problems that parents, guardians, and child care providers have to deal with that concern the distribution of attention.

While there are many different kinds of problems we could discuss (e.g., children who feel that they must compete against one of their parents for the attention of the other, children that aren't given sufficient attention in school, children that constantly demand the full, undivided attention of their parents, parents who feel that their children give their husbands or wives more attention than they give them, etc.), I want to focus first on two common ones that concern siblings: (1) siblings who feel they have to vie with each other for the attention of their parents, and (2) children that are reluctant or altogether unwilling to share the attention of their parents with their siblings.

As a starting point for our discussion, I would like you to share with the community how you would resolve the main problems illustrated by each of the following two scenarios:

<CENTER>

Scenario One

<LEFT>

Katy (seven years-old) and Tom (six years-old) have been vying with each other for the attention of their parents since they both could talk. Each goes out of his or her way to downplay or draw attention away from the other's successes and steal the attention of his or her parents from the other. Each is hurt when his or her sibling receives attention and he or she does not. Each only feels important when he or she is the center of attention and, even when his or her parents give both he or she and his or her sibling attention at the same time, he or she is discontented.

<CENTER>

Scenario Two

<LEFT>

Sadie (five years-old) and Bridget (four years-old) are two very different sisters. Sadie is shy and quiet, while Bridget is outgoing and wild. Bridget craves attention and is always trying to get it. She tries to be with her parents and be the center of their attention as often as possible. She follows close behind her parents wherever they go. She jumps at the chance to get up on their laps when they sit down and stays on until they get up. She doesn't like sharing attention with her sister. She doesn't care that her sister gets much less attention than her because she thinks her sister does not ask for it. Bridget also can be manipulative in her efforts to get attention and often tries to steal attention from Sadie. Sadie would like more attention, but is too timid to compete with her sister for it. She often goes off and plays alone when she feels left out despite her parents attempts to try to make her feel included.
​

</LEFT>
​

</CENTER>
​

</LEFT>
​

</CENTER>

 

[Andrew W.]

Katy (seven years-old) and Tom (six years-old) have been vying with each other for the attention of their parents since they both could talk. Each goes out of his or her way to downplay or draw attention away from the other's successes and steal the attention of his or her parents from the other. Each is hurt when his or her sibling receives attention and he or she does not. Each only feels important when he or she is the center of attention and, even when his or her parents give both he or she and his or her sibling attention at the same time, he or she is discontented.

This is wrong. The motivations you ascribe to these hypothetical children behaving in this way are unfounded. In a real situation where children behaved in this way, there would be an underlying problem causing the behaviour which would need to be discovered and solved, and in 99 cases of 100, it would be a problem with the parents.

Sadie (five years-old) and Bridget (four years-old) are two very different sisters. Sadie is shy and quiet, while Bridget is outgoing and wild. Bridget craves attention and is always trying to get it. She tries to be with her parents and be the center of their attention as often as possible. She follows close behind her parents wherever they go. She jumps at the chance to get up on their laps when they sit down and stays on until they get up. She doesn't like sharing attention with her sister. She doesn't care that her sister gets much less attention than her because she thinks her sister does not ask for it. Bridget also can be manipulative in her efforts to get attention and often tries to steal attention from Sadie. Sadie would like more attention, but is too timid to compete with her sister for it. She often goes off and plays alone when she feels left out despite her parents attempts to try to make her feel included.

Four-year-old Bridget is not doing the analysis you credit her with. She is insecure, for some reason we can't know from your description, except for the clue that getting the attention from her parents doesn't satisfy her need. Sadie sounds like a normal kid, dealing with an imperfect world.

The problem with hypotheticals is that they are hypothetical. Your questions are like painting a landscape and then asking an agronomist to analyze the soil composition in it. Sure, he can make guesses based on some of the features in the painting, or what plants are growing, but if the painting is not of a real place, the guesses will be meaningless. Even if the painting is a true to life rendering of an actual landscape somewhere, it will not contain most of the information needed to answer the questions.

In a real example, we can dig deeper and get more information, whatever information we think will help us. You can't just make up more information in a hypothetical example, because it will not necessarily be consistent with any valid underlying explanation.

 

[cybele]

I agree with Andrew, personally I am more of a treat the underlying problem rather than the symptoms kind of person, so with the inability to find the underlying problem, my solution is to shrug my shoulders and go "I don't know".

 

[babysitter]

@ Andrew W.:

The children in the scenarios are based on real-life children I have cared for, the former exaggerated. While representing extreme cases, each illustrates kinds of behaviour that many parents have to deal with. I hoped the open situations would inspire varied responses from people approaching the problems from a variety of standpoints. Your point, however, is well taken; I should have spelled out what I wanted more clearly. I want everyone to know that, if you find it difficult to relate to the scenarios, I encourage you to discuss any similar experiences you may have. Please note that the first scenario is exaggerated because I am interested to know how you might deal with such an extreme situation. I don't agree that I need to include more information as, no matter how detailed I am, no one is going to be able to relate to every detail of the scenarios; even if I gave a three-page scenario, you could only help as much as your experiences would allow. If you need more information to feel comfortable enough to suggest ways of dealing with the problems, add your own. Also, fiction cannot be unfounded.

@ cybele:

State what you think the underlying problems may be and go from there.

 

[parentastic]

Babysitter, you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about kid's motivations when they act in certain ways and seek attention.
Perhaps it would help if you'd switch from some hypothetical scenario to some real situations. Have you been involved in a babysitting recently where you encountered a similar problem?

 

[babysitter]

Babysitter, you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about kid's motivations when they act in certain ways and seek attention.
Perhaps it would help if you'd switch from some hypothetical scenario to some real situations. Have you been involved in a babysitting recently where you encountered a similar problem?

What assumptions?

 

[cybele]

@ cybele:

State what you believe the underlying problems may be and go from there.

See, that's the thing, it's not my place to guess, it's my place, and role if it is towards my children or any children I am caring for, to find out, but the information needs to come from their heads, not mine.

It could be the most obvious reasoning or something completely left of centre. If I assume a reasoning and try to fix my assumption, there is a very good chance that I am way off the mark, and either make the situation worse, or achieve nothing when I could have been spending the time actually finding out the source of the problem.

So it comes back to "I don't know". I don't know what the underlying problems are.
#1 could be sibling rivalry, it could be parents who ignore their children, it could be parents that only give attention for the point of praise, it could be that both kids are coming down with an illness and are being exceptionally clingy because they don't feel well, it could be because someone is picking on one of them and that child wants positive attention and the other one follows suit because monkey see, monkey do, it could be that one child was given more attention at some point and it has now become a competition, it could be that they are restless and have nothing to entertain themselves with, it could be that they have too much to entertain themselves with and are over-stimulated, therefore cannot make a decision and want their parents to make those decisions for them, it could be that they have been raised to believe that winning is the be all and end all, so praise aimed at them is the only way they can make their parents proud, it could be that one thinks there is a magical green unicorn under the bed who tells them their parents love their sibling more.

I can't go anywhere from there, I'm stuck because for every one of those things I would act a different way to 'correct', hence why the reasoning needs to come from the child, not from what the adult imagines.

 

[singledad]

Green unicorn. There is definitely a green unicorn telling the kid his parents love his sibling more...

Solution is to get in the green-unicorn-catchers, to trap it and take it to a green-unicorn-sanctuary. Gotta be humane, you know. Those things can talk!

 

[cybele]

The green ones smell like lime.

 

[IADad]

I appreciate trying to approach these problems, but as others have said, we don't know enough about Why each child is behaving the way they are to be able to offer up suggestions.

My kids never do anything so extreme, they'll interrupt conversation occasionally, or try to top the other in their knowledge on a subject, which usually elicits a "let's stop and talk about this' response from us. We'll talk about interrupting and ask how it feels to be be interrupted, or point out how not every situation has a right/wrong. better/worse answer.

 

[IADad]

The green ones smell like lime.

and taste delicious grilled and served with beer or a margarita....

 

[parentastic]

Each goes out of his or her way to downplay or draw attention away from the other's successes and steal the attention of his or her parents from the other. Each is hurt when his or her sibling receives attention and he or she does not. Each only feels important when he or she is the center of attention and, even when his or her parents give both he or she and his or her sibling attention at the same time, he or she is discontented.

In that scenario, you are assuming that children who behave in a competing way for attention are aware that they are competing and are purposely trying to draw each other away from the caretaker.
When these kind of situation happen, it's almost always because there is a insecurity in the kid's life. You need to look at how parents act around these children to understand how they behave. Otherwise your scenario is meaningless, it has no context.

Bridget craves attention and is always trying to get it. She tries to be with her parents and be the center of their attention as often as possible. She follows close behind her parents wherever they go. She jumps at the chance to get up on their laps when they sit down and stays on until they get up. She doesn't like sharing attention with her sister. She doesn't care that her sister gets much less attention than her because she thinks her sister does not ask for it.

Here you are also putting some conscious thoughts in Bridget's mind, as if you could read her mind. But the thing is, at that age, her brain is not yet mature enough to even <I>conceive</I> that other people around you think differently than you. So all of this ascribed motivation - it's just your own assumptions on the situation, which can then change the way you respond as a caregiver.

Worst:

Bridget also can be manipulative in her efforts to get attention and often tries to steal attention from Sadie. Sadie would like more attention, but is too timid to compete with her sister for it. She often goes off and plays alone when she feels left out despite her parents attempts to try to make her feel included.

Here, you are assuming intent to manipulate. At 4, the brain is barely developed enough to start conceiving <I>deceit</I>. As for Sadie, you are also assuming her timidity is the cause of her lack of competition for attention, but again this is a totally incomplete picture without the context: how the parents acts, how they relate in the family, who is around the kids, what's going on in the family life at that moment, and so many other variables.

A child's need for attention is like a jar with a hole at the bottom. It MUST be filled for the child to develop properly. Every child has one, but each child has a different jar size and a different hole size. So they all "burn" their accumulated attention faster or slower, and they all accumulate it more or less before they start feeling the need to get more.

When their jar is full, they feel confident, loved, and safe. They feel ready to explore the world and act independent, at least until the level in the jar has gone low again. That's why, contrary to popular myths, tough love don't work to promote independence. As counter-intuitive as it may sound, you need to give a lot of attention to a child in order to help them develop their independence.

If their jar gets too low, they start "misbehaving" and instinctively doing whatever works for them to get their jar back full. They don't "manipulate". They don't really understand that their sibling think differently than they do, all they feel is this loss and the terrible need to feel connected.

Some children never fill up their jar because they never get enough attention; or the attention they get is always negative. When they feel they are loved <I>conditionally</I> to their behavior, that jar never gets fully full, because the hole becomes huge. They can't "accumulate" the safety because they have learned that anything they may do may cause their parents not to love them. That becomes an insecure attachment. Insecure kids become either clingy (I must get every possible scrap of attention I can find!) or distant (If I show how needy I am, I won't get attention. I better fake it and remain distant so they eventually give me attention). These "strategy" are totally unconscious, they are "learned behaviors", instinctively learned from years of repetition. They are NOT conscious cognition.

So the bottom line: how they are parented means everything to your scenarios. Otherwise, we only have a surface picture.

 

[babysitter]

&lt;r&gt;&lt;QUOTE author="cybele;143029"&gt;&lt;s&gt;

&lt;/s&gt;See, that's the thing, it's not my place to guess, it's my place, and role if it is towards my children or any children I am caring for, to find out, but the information needs to come from their heads, not mine.
&lt;e&gt;

&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/QUOTE&gt;

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure if you understand what I am asking for (which is most likely a failure on my part). I'm asking you to expand upon (and, if need be, alter) my scenarios with fictional details informed by your experiences and to, essentially, create your own scenario and work from there. The underlying problems are yours to create, and they don't have to have a relationship with their symptoms that is typical. Real life is varied, and I want our fictional scenarios to reflect that variety. If all we ever did was address the typical, there would be no innovation&lt;B&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;—&lt;e&gt;&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/B&gt;and, of course, out of the ordinary problems are just as important to address as ordinary ones. Also, there is no right or wrong way to interpret or expand upon my (fictional) scenarios as they are too general for anyone to be certain about what underlying problems the scenarios illustrate. The thing to focus on is not whether the scenarios have highly probable underlying problems, but the discussion about possible solutions to the problems we bring up. Don't get stuck in the details; remember the big picture.&lt;/r&gt;

 

[babysitter]

In that scenario, you are assuming that children who behave in a competing way for attention are aware that they are competing and are purposely trying to draw each other away from the caretaker.

When these kind of situation happen, it's almost always because there is a insecurity in the kid's life. You need to look at how parents act around these children to understand how they behave. Otherwise your scenario is meaningless, it has no context.

Your statements are unfounded generalizations. All of the more specific details in my scenarios are based on real children I have cared for who related their feelings to me and/or informed by discussions I have had with real parents about their child(ren). Everyone's brain develops at a different rate. I have cared for manipulative kids as young as three-years old. Even if a child doesn't know the full extent of what it means to be manipulative and/or all of the implications of such behaviour, it doesn't mean that a child who engages in such behaviour shouldn't be called manipulative. According to dictionary.com, <I>manipulative</I> means own purposes." By that definition, I was manipulated by a four-year old several times this very day.

 

[parentastic]

Your statements are unfounded generalizations.

They are no more generalized than your scenarios. And they are based on developmental psychology, which happens to be my expertise. Perhaps you should consider actually listening to the answer you get? You are the one who chose to ask them.

All of the more specific details in my scenarios are based on real children I have cared for who related their feelings to me and/or informed by discussions I have had with real parents about their child(ren).

Then it shouldn't be a problem for you to provide the context and answer the questions several of us asked you here, right? As long as your are convinced that the answer to a child's behavior can only be found in the child, rather than his/her parents and environment, you are still missing most of the puzzle pieces.

Everyone's brain develops at a different rate.

No, not really. Everyone's brain develops according to the same sequence, following various critical stages, even if everyone of course may reach various stages faster or slower.
Again - basic developmental psychology. Google Piaget.

I have cared for manipulative kids as young as three-years old.

You have cared for kids as young as 3 years old who <I>made you feel manipulated</I>. If you can't let go of your assumption, don't expect to be able to be able to learn how to change the way they behave. It's deeply dependent on the way YOU act with them, which in turn is dependent on the way you <I>think</I> and the motivation you ascribe to them.

own purposes." By that definition, I was manipulated by a four-year old several times this very day.[/quote]

The quality of the light outside influences my mood. So is how long I managed to sleep last night, whether I have a cold, or if I got a tasty dinner in my belly.
Yet the light, the sleep, my health or my dinner didn't <I>manipulate</I> me.
Manipulation assumes purposeful <U><I>intent</I></U>.
I always found it ironic when a full fledged adult cries that they have been manipulated by children. If you did, then how much do you think you, as an adult twice as big, with more power, more knowledge, more strength, more independence, more cognitive ability and your access to control whether or not that four years old can meet their fundamental <I>needs</I> - how much do you think <I>you</I> manipulate that child, every day?

Even if a child doesn't know the full extent of what it means to be manipulative and/or all of the implications of such behaviour, it doesn't mean that a child who engages in such behaviour shouldn't be called manipulative.

Yes, it means exactly that, and for two reasons.
1) Because that behavior is how their brain is programmed to act in order to get their needs met (which they would have been able to meet in the first place without the need for such behavior if the caretakers had done their job). Unless they are carefully taught otherwise, they cannot prevent themselves from doing this anymore than they could stop their heart from beating on purpose. See the <YOUTUBE id="H75gbkLvIRA" url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H75gbkLvIRA,">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H75gbkLvIRA,</YOUTUBE> to learn more about this.

2) Because the minute you call a child 'manipulative', you are tossing the responsibility on the child's back and away from the caretakers (including yourself). This opens the door to MORE behavior from you that will cause the child to increase his own reaction - because their need is still unmet.

Now - you asked a question and provided 2 scenario.
You got answers, and some very detailed one too.
Are you looking for answers or are you only looking for the answers you'd like to hear?

 

[babysitter]

They are no more generalized than your scenarios. And they are based on developmental psychology, which happens to be my expertise. Perhaps you should consider actually listening to the answer you get? You are the one who chose to ask them.

I fail to see the relevance of my scenarios being generalized in regard to your defense of your own generalizations. Also, one's scholastic and/or vocational background does not make right something they say that is wrong. Remember, the processing and germane application of knowledge is far more important than its accruement.

Then it shouldn't be a problem for you to provide the context and answer the questions several of us asked you here, right? As long as your are convinced that the answer to a child's behavior can only be found in the child, rather than his/her parents and environment, you are still missing most of the puzzle pieces.

It is very much a problem. I abstain from relating anything to the public that I think has even a minute chance of betraying the identities of my charges and/or employers. This includes far more information than just names and locations. I should have mentioned this earlier.

No, not really. Everyone's brain develops according to the same sequence, following various critical stages, even if everyone of course may reach various stages faster or slower.

Such was my point.

The quality of the light outside influences my mood. So is how long I managed to sleep last night, whether I have a cold, or if I got a tasty dinner in my belly.
Yet the light, the sleep, my health or my dinner didn't <I>manipulate</I> me.
Manipulation assumes purposeful <U><I>intent</I></U>.
I always found it ironic when a full fledged adult cries that they have been manipulated by children. If you did, then how much do you think you, as an adult twice as big, with more power, more knowledge, more strength, more independence, more cognitive ability and your access to control whether or not that four years old can meet their fundamental <I>needs</I> - how much do you think <I>you</I> manipulate that child, every day?

Manipulation does not assume intent. You speak of a <I>kind</I> of manipulation: manipulation with intent. Also, the above is mostly irrelevant to my concerns.

Yes, it means exactly that, and for two reasons.
1) Because that behavior is how their brain is programmed to act in order to get their needs met (which they would have been able to meet in the first place without the need for such behavior if the caretakers had done their job). Unless they are carefully taught otherwise, they cannot prevent themselves from doing this anymore than they could stop their heart from beating on purpose.

Precisely, so, what needs are not being met? Give me your thoughts, your ideas, your suggestions for how to resolve the problems. You are missing the point of this thread: I don't care if you feel you must flesh out my scenarios (by drawing from your own experiences) before you address them (in fact, I encourage it)—all I care about is that you address them. Also, fault or intent on the child's part has nothing to do with whether they are being manipulative. Yes, children naturally display the types of behaviours I described in my scenarios. Yes, they often display such behaviours because of a failure on the part of their parent(s), guardian(s), and/or child care provider(s). However, this does not mean that the behaviours should not be called manipulative. You ignored (or failed to comprehend) this when you read my previous post, but, hopefully, you will get it this time. By the way, the manipulative behaviours (displayed by my charges) on which I based my scenarios were not caused by me; in all cases they were present day one, minute one.

2) Because the minute you call a child 'manipulative', you are tossing the responsibility on the child's back and away from the caretakers (including yourself). This opens the door to MORE behavior from you that will cause the child to increase his own reaction - because their need is still unmet.

No, one is not; one's calling it like it is. One is tossing the responsibility on the child's back, when one is tossing the responsibility on the child's back. Using the widely accepted definitions of terms (like <I>manipulative</I>) when communicating serves to ensure one's being understood; engaging in conjecture and ill-informed speculation about what things might infer when communicating, as you are doing, serves to achieve only misunderstanding and to spread information that has little or no objective basis. Billy has a problem and he needs help from others to solve it. In order for people to be able to help Billy solve his problem, they need to understand the problem. Billy's communicating the problem clearly is paramount to that understanding. One thing that could help Billy communicate the problem clearly would be to use terms with widely accepted definitions. However, this would not help if Billy's audience reads too much into the terms and/or does not know or understand the widely accepted definitions of the terms.

You have cared for kids as young as 3 years old who <I>made you feel manipulated</I>. If you can't let go of your assumption, don't expect to be able to be able to learn how to change the way they behave. It's deeply dependent on the way YOU act with them, which in turn is dependent on the way you <I>think</I> and the motivation you ascribe to them.

As I said above, they were manipulating me and others and my behaviour was not the cause of their manipulation. Your assumptions are baseless and problematic, not mine.

Now - you asked a question and provided 2 scenario.
You got answers, and some very detailed one too.
Are you looking for answers or are you only looking for the answers you'd like to hear?

I want suggetions for how one might resolve the problems I described, not pedantic deflections. Most of the responses I recieved are of precious little use to me.

 

[mom2many]

I want suggetions for how one might resolve the problems I described, not pedantic deflections. Most of the responses I recieved are of precious little use to me.

Then why do you keep coming back? You're on a forum with parents, the only advice we will have is from a parenting perspective. Don't like it, move on.

Parentastic isn't completely wrong in what he is saying, we don't always agree, but that doesn't mean there wasn't some useful information in his replies. So to repeat myself: don't like it, move on.

Oh, and don't bother reporting me for being rude. I don't really need you to report me...to well me.

 

[babysitter]

Then why do you keep coming back? You're on a forum with parents, the only advice we will have is from a parenting perspective. Don't like it, move on.

Parentastic isn't completely wrong in what he is saying, we don't always agree, but that doesn't mean there wasn't some useful information in his replies. So to repeat myself: don't like it, move on.

Oh, and don't bother reporting me for being rude. I don't really need you to report me...to well me.

I come back because I'm looking for more replies. When I said the responses are of precious little use to me, I was referring to the responses I've gotten on this thread so far. I find the rest of the forum very helpful. Why would I report you? You're not being rude. You're merely stating your opinion. I'm sorry if my being so forward has offended you. I am just trying to make it clear that, if one needs more information in order to analyze and suggest solutions for the problems illustrated by my scenarios, then I encourage one to flesh out my scenarios with details drawn from one's experiences. Also, I know parentastic was right on some accounts; that's why I said "precisely" and "Thus was my point." My main criticism of his or her arguments is that they involved too much conjecture.

 

[parentastic]

It is very much a problem. I abstain from relating anything to the public that I think has even a minute chance of betraying the identities of my charges and/or employers.

While that concerns honors you, I suggest you read the content of this forum: you will find many examples of detailed account of situations, while the identity remains perfectly confidential. This being said, I do understand that the need for strict confidentiality may outreach beyond obfuscation of simple names or places.

Perhaps another issue with giving more details is that as a babysitter, you might simply not have many reliable information about how a child has been parented and about the family dynamics. If that is a reason for your lack of information, you could simply state that and I am sure everyone here would understand.

Manipulation does not assume intent. You speak of a <I>kind</I> of manipulation: manipulation with intent. Also, the above is mostly irrelevant to my concerns.

Please, let's stop the pointless arguments over definitions.
You can chose to see my point or you can decide to ignore it; you seem to have chosen the later and that's your choice. Don't complain after that nobody is helping you. Help is around you if you'd open yourself to it.

Precisely, so, what needs are not being met? Give me your thoughts, your ideas, your suggestions for how to resolve the problems.

There can be thousands of reasons the child's needs aren't met, OP.
That's the whole point of this sterile discussion between us.
I'd be happy to help you but I can't take several years of knowledge and cram them into a generalized response that will cover any possible scenario! If you look around other threads in which I have helped parents, you will notice that the parent is always the one who knows best. They know their child, their situation, their history, their context, their patterns.

Your questions about attention are like a patient going to a doctor and saying: "Doctor, I am in pain. Please tell me what's wrong."
And the doctor is answering with: "Pain is a warning signal of the body that something is wrong. Please tell me where you are hurting, for how long, what happened before it started, what's your medical history - and then I can do a diagnosis"
To which you keep responding: "I can't tell you any more details. But I encourage you to flesh out my scenario before you answer it!"

Please re-read what I wrote about the jar metaphor. It's a powerful metaphor that can be used to truly understand why children may behave in various ways when they lack attention. Your role, if you are to help these children, is to both provide more attention to fill up the jar, and help reduce the size of the draining hole at the bottom. The former requires you to be attached to the child enough so that your attention matters to them, and the second requires past traumas to be addressed on the long term, either trough therapy or active listening from an attached caregiver. I really wish I could tell you more, but to go to the specifics would requires more details and you refuse to give any. Sorry but that's how it is.

You are missing the point of this thread

Do I? Or perhaps are you missing the point of the responses you got?

Yes, children naturally display the types of behaviours I described in my scenarios. Yes, they often display such behaviours because of a failure on the part of their parent(s), guardian(s), and/or child care provider(s).

Indeed.

However, this does not mean that the behaviours should not be called manipulative. You ignored (or failed to comprehend) this when you read my previous post, but, hopefully, you will get it this time.

Again - am I failing to comprehend your question, or is my answer totally eluding your grasp? It's your choice to default to tossing the responsibility to the others instead of looking at yourself.

By the way, the manipulative behaviours (displayed by my charges) on which I based my scenarios were not caused by me; in all cases they were present day one, minute one.

Yes, I do understand this. Most likely, since you aren't a parent but only a babysitter, these kids acquired their behavior as the result of their parent's choices and family dynamics across several years; you are stuck with it when you start your job with these kids. Your influence to cause these problems is limited, compared to the influence their parents had and still have on them on a daily basis; on the flip side, your influence to mitigate it is also limited by your lack of deeper attachment to them, unfortunately.

No, one is not; one's calling it like it is. One is tossing the responsibility on the child's back, when one is tossing the responsibility on the child's back. Using the widely accepted definitions of terms (like <I>manipulative</I>) when communicating serves to ensure one's being understood; engaging in conjecture and ill-informed speculation about what things might infer when communicating, as you are doing, serves to achieve only misunderstanding and to spread information that has little or no objective basis.

Translation: you have no idea what I was talking about.

Billy has a problem and he needs help from others to solve it. In order for people to be able to help Billy solve his problem, they need to understand the problem.

Sounds to me that this is what everyone keeps telling Billy on this thread; however Billy would rather call the problem a "scenario" and provide no context to help others help him.

I want suggestions for how one might resolve the problems I described, not pedantic deflections. Most of the responses I received are of precious little use to me.

If most of the responses you got when you ask a question are useless; perhaps it is time to wonder if you asked the right question, rather than assume everyone but you is wrong?

 

[cybele]

I'm a little confused. Are these actual problems that you want help with or discussion topics you just happen to have taken from real life?

I assumed the latter, but if our answers are of "precious little use" (how rude, everyone has been nothing but polite and truthful to you) then the former? In which case even if we did do what you were asking and make up the rest of the story ourselves, then offer suggestions on problems in our story, that would also be "of precious little use" to you because it isn't real.