Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Greene's "Plan B" in the Trenches

A few years ago I wrote a review of Ross Greene's "The Explosive Child" and in that I explained about Plan B. (Yeah folks, this is a parenting post, not a birth control one.)
Dr Greene discusses 3 plans: Plans A, B, and C.
Plan A is where the Adult forces his will on the child...
Plan C is where the adult capitulates and just lets the Child do what he pleases...
Plan B is to utilize what Dr Greene calls "collaborative problem solving" (CPS) to find solutions that will solve the concerns of Both adult and child.
This last weekend I had a chance to use collaborative problem solving to find a Plan B with my thirteen-year old Wolf.
The scenario was thus: I have established a household policy that food and drink (with the exception of closeable water bottles) remains in the kitchen/dining area. More especially, food is definitely not allowed in bedrooms. Wolf is well aware of this policy, and breaks it repeatedly. (I only catch him actually eating in his room occasionally, but there are often empty wrappers or crumbs in his room, so the evidence is obvious. And this has been going on since he was four. When he was little I tried to focus on teaching him better, as he got older I started punishing...the behavior has never changed.) Of course in addition to breaking the rule, he also is sneaky about it so as to be able to get away with it, so he's adding deceit to disobedience, and sometimes lying on top of the whole pile. Last week he did that (lying on top of it all) and I lost my temper at him. I decided it was time to step back and bust out some CPS about this.
oh look, he's not the only one!

CPS can be hard for a parent, because it means that *I* have to be willing to compromise too. But it's also a recognition that I can still get what is most important to me, while still giving my kid a chance to have something that is important to him, and give him some practice in collaboration, problem solving, and compromise. (Yes I like and still use the Oxford comma, bite me!)

I began by clearing the air about my outburst the other night. I asked him why he'd lied to me, and if he'd really thought he could get away with it. He said no, he was pretty sure I knew, but he knew that lying would get yelling, whereas if he had only gotten caught with the soda can--and not lied about it--then he would have gotten a lecture. He just wanted it over fast so he chose lying/yelling.

Ummmmm.

My concern
Alright. So, I had already considered my position, and I knew my most important concern in this conflict. I am concerned about mess. I don't want crumbs, or spills, or sticky spots, or wrappers, or garbage in his room. I'm concerned about it attracting insects or vermin partly, but I also just think it's really gross to have crumbs in your bed and wrappers on the floor.
His concern
Wolf considered, and concluded that he really only wants to eat in his room when he is playing games on his computer because he doesn't want to be interrupted. (The computer is only a few months old so I don't know what his excuse was for the last nine years, but we'll work with this for now and re-evaluate as necessary.) He has no problems leaving his room for a snack when he's supposed to be doing homework! But he plays some online real-time games with his cousin or other friends, and if he's absent from the game for five or ten minutes his character could get booted off the server.
Our collaborative compromise
I will get him a garbage can for his bedroom--he hasn't had one, but promises to utilize it if one is present. He will handle emptying it as well.
He is considering purchasing an anti-tipping or spill-proof cup (with his own money) to use in his room.
He has to ask an adult before taking a snack--to ensure that the food he wants isn't earmarked for something, or that dinner isn't imminent, or that sort of thing.
With those criteria met, he may take food to his room when gaming. This may be a weekends-only thing, or (depending on his homework load) an after-homework thing.


When I raised the point of having to have homework done before playing, he asked if we could adjust that a little "perhaps one late assignment per week?" I gave him a full-blown stink eye and told him I wasn't going to go for that idea. Then I nudged him to articulate his desire in a different way, and he was able to explain that after six hours at school he just wants a little break before diving into the homework. Now THAT I can support. His school day lets out at 2:30, so we've agreed that he has to get started on homework by 4. (Of course, if he is really eager to get to his games, he may change his mind about this schedule, because I'm still thinking no games before homework...but maybe that will be another Plan B for us to play with.)

Saturday, June 8, 2013

On raising children

Do not try to control your children. 
Instead, listen to them, 
help them to learn the gospel, 
inspire them, 
and lead them toward eternal life. 

You are God’s agents in the care of children 
He has entrusted to you. 
Let His divine influence remain in your hearts 
as you 
teach and persuade. 

~Russell M. Nelson

I'm pretty sure I've said things like this before. Over and over and over. But Elder Nelson says it pretty. :)

Monday, April 15, 2013

Agency and Obedience: internal and external control

"Obedience is the first law of Heaven." I heard this so often growing up that I was sure it was scripture until about fifteen minutes ago when I actually looked it up. It seems that a couple of well-know church leaders said it, and at least one non-LDS philosopher said it before either of them.
I was an extremely compliant young person. The notion of obedience as the most important thing in the universe did not phase me...until I considered it in light of some other oft-repeated tenants of the faith:
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness. [Doc & Cov 58: 26-27]

Wait, did I read that right? Someone who obeys "in all things" is still "slothful and not wise" and "receiveth no reward" because he did not "do many things of his own free will"? Because that is what it looks like to me. If we are simply compliant in all things, without learning to be independent and proactive, then we are not where God wants us to be.

And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon... Wherefore, men are free to choose liberty and eternal life, [or] to choose captivity and death [2 Nephi 2:26-27]
In the great council in Heaven there were two plans, one which would force compliance so that every person would definitely return to God, and one which promised freedom of choice for every individual. Which one did God choose? Choice. Free will. Self control.

It is important to note that "self control" means actively controlling oneself. It doesn't always mean that you're making the choices that someone else thinks you should. But it does mean that you are making your own choices.

~~~~~~~~~


Swedenborg (he was that other philosopher I mentioned earlier) suggested that obedience is the "first" law in that it is the most basic (as opposed to the most important). It is a building block. Without argument, obedience is a useful way to build healthy and righteous habits. But there comes a point where each individual needs to be able to evaluate a new situation and know how to make a choice about it, without the support of pre-designated rules.

Some people, when they reach adulthood, are still looking for someone to control them. They feel safer with a high fence of rules all around them. They look for rules in philosophies or advice books. Religious leaders and scripture give delightfully long lists of rules to follow. But is this really self-control? Or is it still deferring to someone else to control you? I would argue that it is the latter.

But, but, but, WAIT! I hear you saying, When there are rules, you choose whether or not to obey them. So even with rules you still have agency. You still can choose whether to obey or not!

Yes and no.

Studies consistently show that children who are heavily controlled by their parents grow up without much self-control.  In fact, these overly-controlled children can be just as out-of-control as the kids who are neglected. (When they grow up, some of them continue seeking outside sources to control them, and others cut loose all over the place. I argue that neither is very healthy.) What children--and the rest of us--need is to have some guidance in how to make decisions ourselves. We need to develop our own ethical guidelines and moral values; we cannot just have someone else's thrust upon us. We can use those other rules and values as guide to forming our own, but ultimately we do need to form our own.

"he that is compelled in all things is a slothful and not a wise servant"

So it is not just a matter of choosing to obey or not. It is a matter of forming our own internal source of guidance, rather than relying on an external one.

~~~~~~~~~ 

Some people have a remarkable sense of direction. Blindfold them, put them anywhere, spin them around, and then let them go...and they can point north or find their way home without any assistance from anyone. Other people can only do that if there are familiar landmarks or geographic features to rely on. Some people will point every which way unless the have a GPS in their hand to show them which way is actually north. Some people can have a GPS in their hand, be looking at it, and still end up pointing somewhere vaguely southwest...

Life is a little like that.The GPS is a useful tool (if you know how to use it!), and it can help you get oriented in unfamiliar territory. If it is just a GPS, then all it can do is tell you where you are, but offers no help in where to go next. Many newer GPS systems have directional programs in them that may be able to give you the directions to get home. On the other hand, if you rely wholly on that GPS, it may send you on an indirect or inconvenient route--in other words, a route that is not good for you. Is it a functional route? Sure, probably. But it's someone else's idea of the best route, and it may or may not be appropriate for you.

Ultimately, we need to learn to read the map ourselves, to read the street signs ourselves, to trust our guts, and figure things out ourselves. It is not wrong to have maps, guides, or rules to help you find your way. But it is very problematic to rely on them so totally that you are unable to function independently.

And it is very problematic to raise our children with so many rules that their only options are compliance or defiance, and not true agency. Of course we are bound to give them some rules (I vote for as few as possible) in order to help them develop some good habits. But I think that guidelines (such as "respect yourself and others") are more useful than strings of specific rules ("don't hit your brother, don't sass your mother, do your homework on time, don't put the cat in the dishwasher, turn the lights off when you leave a room, clean up your own messes and don't leave them for someone else," etc etc etc...) More general guidelines leave room for personal interpretation and understanding, and demand individual thought and commitment to the behavior choice. Of course these things adjust with age, but even a three year old can understand the idea of  "respect" a lot better than most parents would probably give him credit for.

you may choose one

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Postpartum Anxiety. My Story.

I wrote this to be shared with Momma Trauma. I'm not sure how much of it she'll use there, or in what form, and I know I get different readership here anyway so I wanted to share the story here as well. I just discovered MT's site last week as part of The Amethyst Network's networking. Momma Trauma addresses pregnancy and birth-related traumas of all sorts, from loss to traumatic births to postpartum psychoses.


Regular readers here will know that I had been through several miscarriages prior to my first live birth. I experienced a lot of depression during and after those, and credited it to grief, although I knew that there could be chemical components to it too. When I did realize I was going to carry to term with this one, I was shocked to find that I was still depressed. I was depressed for most of my pregnancy, in spite of being extremely excited that I was finally going to have a baby. I anticipated that I might have postpartum depression, and tried to have a support network in place just in case.
I have a family background of depression, bipolar, anxiety attacks, and even severe panic-induced breakdowns. But aside from the depression I mentioned here, I had never experienced any of those things myself. I'd never had an anxiety attack let alone chronic anxiety.

When my baby was born, I was jubilant. Our circumstances were actually really bad, my husband was working two jobs because we were broke, and it was the middle of winter. But I was not depressed. I was delighted to have a baby.

But I was terrified of hurting him. I have eight younger siblings and had been helping with babies for two decades before I had my own baby. I knew how to handle diapers and baths and feedings and all those things, and yet I still found myself feeling scared all the time. I was afraid that he would stop breathing in his sleep. I was afraid that as I laid him on the bed that his arm would twist under him and break as I set him down. When I had him in the sling as I made dinner, I was afraid that he would reach out and touch a pan or get cut on a knife or something before I could prevent it. I was terrified that he would get badly hurt and that it would be my fault. Not an accidental kind of fault, but a totally preventable kind of fault. None of these were rational fears, but they all ran around in my head on a daily basis.

I never told anyone. I assumed that I was paranoid about this baby because of the years of miscarriages and the waiting for him. Of course I was hyper-protective of this baby! And I could tell that they were irrational fears, so I didn't tell anyone because I felt stupid for having them. By the time he was about 6 months old they went away.

Three years later I had a second baby. I had not had difficulty conceiving or carrying him. The delivery had been straightforward and good. But I had experienced pregnancy depression again, and I had the postpartum fears again. This time I couldn't justify it to myself, because I didn't have the same set of circumstances coming in. I had HAD a baby before and everything had been fine with him. I couldn't think of why I would feel paranoid this time around, but I did. And it was the same things...stopping breathing, breaking his arm...knives in the kitchen...

 
Sometimes real things did happen. Like when he was 3 months old but had gotten strong enough that he kicked so hard that he tipped his bouncer over. He had been on the floor and was scared but not hurt. I was not much distressed by this, I comforted him, and just accepted that he had gotten too big for the bouncer and didn't use it anymore. But I was still scared that I would hurt him somehow.

 
Again, when he was a few months old it faded.

That baby was two when I listened to a podcast where a woman talked about having had postpartum anxiety. I had never even heard of such a thing. Her case had been so serious that she was institutionalized for several weeks (away from her baby). I was grateful that my anxiety was not that severe, but I also felt so validated in my experiences. I wished I had told someone. I wished I had known what it was. Now that I know (and it's only been a year that I've known) I have started telling people. Nobody should have to deal with this kind alone. It's scary and unnerving and it would have been nice to know that I wasn't crazy.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

The Next Stage

Eagle is now 23 months old; just weeks away from the age Bear was when I got pregnant with Eagle.
But I'm not pregnant. Yes, I am fertile (it took 22 months this time instead of 20), but we're not trying to get pregnant; actually we are actively preventing pregnancy. Maybe forever.

If you had asked me a year ago (as my husband did), I would have said no way was I ready to be done having kids. Ever since my teens I had been planning on 5 kids at least... Even with my slow start and wider-than-anticipated spacing I was 28 when Eagle was born, so I could certainly have another child or two before 35! But when Eagle was just a couple of weeks old, Hubby said something about how we were outnumbered now (more kids than parents), and he thought maybe we should be done having kids. I figured he was tired and stressed with the newborn, and brushed it off. When he brought it up again a few months later,  I began to think about it.

Initially I hated the thought of being done. Only three children? But I have so much to give! I'm pretty good at this mommy thing, I know how to handle lots of kids, shouldn't I give a good home to as many kids as I can? Pregnancy is not that hard for me physically--I don't get that sick and my body doesn't fall apart. Birth isn't hard on me either--in fact it's exhilarating.

And then a friend gave me a piece of very sound wisdom. Some kids need more than others (and I do have a couple of high-needs kids). If a mother has a finite amount of energy (which I think she does!), then no matter how much love she has, it makes sense to go with a family size that is appropriate to her energy. Sometimes that might mean 9 children, and sometimes it might mean 3. As I considered the possibility that I might actually have my quiver full with [only] three children, I began to accept that it was probably true.

So we made the decision to be done with having babies. I admit I made it more mentally than emotionally--part of me keep thinking "we're just done for now, in a few years we'll have another one or two." But I set it in my head and then let it marinate... and it took a while. Some days I would think "ok, I can wait 3 or 4 or 5 years, but I want at least one more" and other days I would think "how nice would it be to have no kids in diapers?!" or "we'll never have to buy a bigger van!"

And then, one day last winter, my sister called and told me she was pregnant. And for the first time, instead of thinking "I wish I were" I thought "I am so glad I'm not." And that was a massive turning point. I had never experienced not wanting to be pregnant in a particular moment. It was weird, and also it helped me realize that maybe I could make this transition.

I don't know precisely what the future holds, but I do know that it does not hold pregnancy for me--not for several years at least, and very probably not ever again. Some days I still struggle with the finality of it, but I also feel confident that this is the right choice for us at this time.

I have an IUD now (because breastfeeding was messing with my charting, and we did not want to allow the possibility of an 'oopsie'). Even though I intellectually knew that I wanted to do this (Hubby and I discussed at length and agreed on this option), it was still hard emotionally. I felt as though I had voluntarily given up my "full bloom" of fertility, as it were, in trade for a forced infertility. Like I had handed in the fullness of my womanhood for premature old age. I appreciate that that probably sounds like hyperbole, but I really felt it keenly. It didn't hit me until I was in the CNM's office getting ready to have the IUD put in, and then I bawled and gushed to her (a veritable stranger) about it. I suppose she doesn't get that very often! I cried much of the day after I came home too. I had not expected to react that way--after all, an IUD can be removed! But the next day I calmed down enough to do a closure ritual for myself, and felt much better for it. It was shortly after this time that I had my epiphany about the three phases of womanhood which I wrote about here.

I may be finishing with one stage of my life, but I still have many stages to live and enjoy. Perhaps I am done with pregnancy and birthing (for myself), but of course motherhood goes on. My children are young, there is much to do with them. As I exit the baby stage, I can enter another stage--a stage I have been thinking about (but putting on hold for six years)--a stage where I can reach out to other women and teach and support them as a doula and a childbirth educator. It's actually pretty exciting.

Monday, October 3, 2011

Read to your Kids

Reason #339 that you should read to your kids every day?

In the middle of the night, when Eagle woke up and was sad because I would not nurse him (we're nightweaning), he went and brought me a book (and then another and another).
And I "read" them to him in the dark, from memory, because I knew the books without having to turn on a light.
And the boy was happy (even though he couldn't see the pictures any more than I could see the words) simply because mommy was reading to him.
And he went to sleep.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Pokes

I have always taken my kids for just one shot at a time. I feel that their bodies can better cope with the toxins that come along with a vaccination, and goodness knows it makes sense to me to only fight one disease at a time! (I realize that some vaccines are already combinations, and yes I do get those as they are...but I'm not going to get my kid shot up with a diptheria-tetanus-pertussis, a measles-mumps-rubella, AND a polio all on the same day!) I have had medical providers who were supportive of my choice, and providers who were not so much... But I smile and stand my ground and do it my way anyway. One per visit, no exceptions. I don't get any shots before 6 months old, and I get them when I get them--no fretting over following anyone elses schedule or being done by a certain age.


It has been my experience that with a toddler, they don't know what is coming. It hurts for a moment, they are upset and begin to cry, and by then it is over and so they recover and calm down again almost immediately.
 As they get to be 3 or 4 though, it gets harder.

I don't feel that it's honest to trick my kids (and can you think of an appropriate way to convince your child to drop his pants without telling him why?!) I avoid telling him until the last moment (because the anticipation is usually worse than the actual shot), but I do tell him. I explain that there will be a poke, it will be fast, then it will be over. I tell them why we do it--that the shot gives us a tiny bit of sickness, but that it's small enough that our body can fight it and make soldier cells to protect us from that sickness so that if it comes big we will be able to kill it (yes, I have boys, this is how we explain everything around here!).

Usually we go do something special afterward--an extra long day at the park, getting ice cream, etc. I tell him that it's ok to cry if he needs to (once Bear told me he didn't deserve ice cream because he had cried so he wasn't brave, so I made sure to nip that in the bud the next time). Often I take two or three kids together, and everybody gets a poke. In that case, I talk to the one who gets the most distressed (currently it's Bear), and I let him make some choices, such as whether he will be first or last, which arm, etc. It gives him control over something in a situation where he hasn't been given a choice, and I think that's important.

I have always taken them for just one shot per visit, but recently I had begun to wonder if the emotional distress of having so many separate visits might be harder on the kiddo than getting two shots at once. Bear gets really worked up, and will bawl for an hour (as I remember doing myself).
This last month, the whole family went in together. Hepatitis A is of concern out here in the bush, and so Hubby and I opted to get that along with the kids. Several of us also needed to get a tuberculosis screening, which is not a vaccination, but does involve a(nother) poke. When we walked into the room there was a tray with 8 needles on it, and Bear was very distressed, even after I explained that we were all getting shots and that they were not all for him.
Afterward, Bear told me that he didn't like getting pokes here, that it was better where we used to live. I thought he was going to say something about how he would only get pokes if we went back to the old place (which we both know isn't possible), but instead he just said "I liked it better there because we only got one poke instead of two." So it seems that--even for someone who gets really upset at each episode of poking--it's still better to do them one at a time, even if it means more total visits.

So we'll stick with the plan. One shot in a visit. No exceptions. The public health nurse can roll her eyes all she wants.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

25 Manners Every Kid Should Know by Age 9?

I saw this link shared on facebook recently:
25 Manners Every Kid Should Know by Age 9
I thought oh cool, someone out there saying that our kids should actually have manners! My husband and I both are regularly upset by the rudeness that we see among young people toward their teachers, parents, and friends. It's disgusting.
But then I went and actually read the list at the link.
And I was not happy folks.

Some of the manners are good:  
When asking for something, say "Please." (#1)
When receiving something, say "Thank you." (#2)
Knock on closed doors -- and wait to see if there's a response -- before entering (#10) (I  have a couple of kids who need to work on this one...then again, daddy and mommy need to work on this one too, so it's no wonder is it?!)

Others of the manners were also good in theory, but were a little overdone, such as #19 (As you walk through a door, look to see if you can hold it open for someone else.) Sure, that's nice, but is it essential? I don't really think so.
Or #16 (Even if a play or an assembly is boring, sit through it quietly and pretend that you are interested. The performers and presenters are doing their best.) I would have said that you should sit still and quiet and not be disruptive of others, but if you're bored, I honestly don't care if you pretend to pay attention. Just don't distract anyone else, and don't say anything rude afterward.
And how about #24 (Keep a napkin on your lap; use it to wipe your mouth when necessary.) Um, I don't put a napkin in my lap unless I'm at a restaurant. Actually, I keep a damp washcloth at the table--I use it for the baby, and anyone else is welcome to use it for messy fingers too. At the end of dinner, we wash our hands in the sink when we clear our plates. Honestly? Napkins in laps for children under 9? Who wrote this?!

Finally, though, were a few items on the list that I found deeply troubling. It's not because the advice was bad per se, but it was either patronizing to the child, or didn't give the child respect equal to an adult. As my readers know, I have a real problem with both of those things. Here are the two that most particularly bothered me:
#3 Do not interrupt grown-ups who are speaking with each other unless there is an emergency. They will notice you and respond when they are finished talking.

Do I like interrupting? No. But this is something that needs to be taught by example. The wording of "do not interrupt grown-ups" makes it very clear that grown-ups conversations get precedent over young people's conversations. They should not. They should be equal. I think it's appropriate for an adult to say "just a minute" and I think it's appropriate for a child to wait a minute for the adult to finish what they are saying...but it is plain old rude for an adult to ramble on and ignore a child who is standing there clearly wanting to say something. AND, it's equally appropriate for an adult to wait a minute for a child to finish what they are saying, and so on.
#6 The world is not interested in what you dislike. Keep negative opinions to yourself, or between you and your friends, and out of earshot of adults.
Pardon me, I just threw up a little bit. (Oh, wait, was that a negative opinion?!) Just that first sentence gives one message loud and clear "the world is not interested in you or what you think." I find that deeply offensive. Do we or do we not want to teach our children to respect others? Do we or do we not want our children to develop confidence in themselves? Trust of their own abilities and feelings? Don't ever tell my kid that the world is not interested in him! Go ahead and tell him that you have different preferences, or even that you're not interested in a specific topic. That's ok. That's opinion. But don't tell him that his interests and opinions are invalid!  And as for the negativity, I always start by telling my kids that you can't have an opinion about a thing unless you are educated about it. If it's a food, you can't dislike it until you've eaten some. If it's a book, you can't be uninterested until you've read a few chapters. If it's an activity, try it before you decide to hate it. I don't generally force them to try things, incidentally (I do encourage, but not force), they're just not allowed to voice an opinion if they haven't tried it. I also ask my kids to not speak negative opinions in front of siblings who might be influenced by it (ie, Bear learns to hate tomatoes because Wolf says they're gross). But if my son wants to come to me privately and express his frustration or dislike about something, he is entitled to do that. Everyone is entitled to an (informed) opinion, and if my kids can't share with me, who can they share with?!


To end on a better note, I also read a great parenting blog post this week: Ten Ways to Confuse a Child. Go check it out. ☺
Also, I've added a section to my "my parenting philosophy" index page, so now as well as linking to the many posts that I have written, it also has links to outside posts and articles that I thought were particularly good. 

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Spilled oil, er, milk

Recently, several of my friends shared the same link on facebook. This is common, because a lot of us have mutual friends and mutual interests, and so a link to an article about breastfeeding or nutrition or even just a funny comic will get shared and re-shared. In this case though, friend after friend was posting the link with comments such as "wow, I needed to read this today" and "what an important reminder." It was a link to a blog post someone had written, so I mosied on over and read it.

Why I don't cry (or yell) over spilled milk

(it's a pretty short post, feel free to run over and read it if you like, or here is the readers digest version: 3 year old threw her brother's shoes in the lake. Mom didn't flip out or yell at anybody. She also did not flip out when a little one pulled her expensive camera off the counter and broke it. Because people matter more than things.)

As I read, I thought, what is so groundbreaking about this? Why are so many people re-posting it? (apparently she's had over 4,000 hits on that blog post in the last week) And then it hit me, oh yeah, it's because, like her, I am in that minority.  That minority that looks at stuff as just stuff. I'm trying not to feel (or appear) stuck-up over this, because I have plenty of flaws of my own. But on this one, I think I get it.
I didn't always get it. Even 5 years ago I didn't get it very well. I believed it in theory but it was hard in practice. But then an idea got planted in my head that it was healthy to always "attribute to [a person] the best motives that are consistent with the facts" and I started practicing that. Plus we moved to Alaska and got rid of a lot of stuff, which helped me learn to be less attached to specific things.
It's just a matter of practice. I'm not a better person, or a smarter person, or a more perfect mother (oh trust me I'm SO not!), but I decided to make this a priority, so I practice it. So I'm getting good at it.

Things can be fixed or replaced (or lived without)
People, not so much.

And I would so much rather raise healthy kids (who will then be equipped to raise their own healthy kids) than make some quip about "I can offer to pay for their therapy."

I admit to a loud, frustrated "aaaaaarrrgh!" when my 16mo unscrewed the lid of a 5gal jug of oil and tipped it over, pouring a gallon plus of oil across my kitchen floor. It took several days (and a lot of Dawn dish soap) to get all the oil off the floor and out of the cleaning rags. My in-front-of-the-sink rug is still not quite the same, and probably never will be. It also meant dinner got delayed that night because I was mopping up oil. Did Eagle intentionally unscrew the lid and push over the jug? Definitely. Did he know what he was doing--what the consequences would be? Well, he does love opening lids, but I'm pretty sure the actual spill wasn't anticipated. Was he trying to be naughty, or ruin my evening? No! He was exploring. Hey, look, there's a jug. I wonder what's in it. Oooo, look, I can get the lid off, aren't I smart? Ooo, look, there's something in there, I wonder what it is...

It's normal for kids to be curious. And unless physical/mental/spiritual danger is imminent, I typically let them go ahead and explore. They are kids!!!

Which isn't to say I don't teach them, or that I don't have any expectations of them. If a preschooler explores the idea of helping himself to some candy in the store, I help him go put it back and explain that we can't take things we don't pay for. If a 9 year old did it (which he didn't, but just as an example), I would express my extreme disappointment in his choice, and review commandment #8 thou shalt not steal, and then help or direct him in making it right.

I try to avoid most of the issues by babyproofing the house, or keeping certain items hidden or stored out of reach. But when my 4 year old intentionally leaves his brand new (one day old) boots at the park, and I don't realize it until three days later (because he's always barefoot anyway), I do feel frustrated. He loved the boots for the first 20 hours, but then apparently he hated them. $18 seems a little steep for only a day of wear... but it is what it is. The boots are gone. There is nothing to be gained by yelling at him. I did tell him I was sad, and that if he didn't want them he should have given them to me to save for his little brother. (They were dinosaur boots!) But even here, was Bear trying to be naughty? No. He had tired of the boots. In his mind, leaving them at the park was a perfectly logical way to no longer have them.

There is nothing to be gained by yelling.
There is also nothing to be gained by feeling mad.

Learn the lesson (if there is one), and then move on.

And keep the oil on a higher shelf. ☺

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Yes We Cry

I have always told my children that it's ok to cry. (Have I ever mentioned that I have all boys? And that the societal standard is "be a big boy now, don't cry!" Well I refuse to buy it.) Everybody gets hurt sometimes, and everybody has a right to cry if they need to. Or to cry if they want to. And who am I to dictate whether or not an injury (physical, emotional, or otherwise) is big enough for crying?
So I don't.
My boys all know that it's ok to cry if we need to. They also all know that sometimes we need to go to a different space (for example, to our bedroom) if our crying is loud and disturbing other people. But it is always ok to cry.

Right now my 4-year-old is in an emotionally volatile stage, and has meltdowns over being given the wrong color of cup for his milk, or if the milk was not filled to a precise height within the cup, or if someone looked at him funny, (or breathed in his general direction...). I recognize all these things as being petty little things, but if he feels that they warrant crying then I'm not going to squelch his emotions. I'd rather he let it out than learn to be emotionally constipated. However, he also knows that his outbursts are not something that the rest of us want to listen to. At present he usually decides to cry, and then hops up and runs to his room before he bursts out with the wailing. Even when I know the crying is not genuine, I am not willing to tell him that he's not allowed to feel. He'll outgrow the meltdowns, but he should never have to outgrow being able to express his feelings.
So in this house, yes, we cry.

Monday, March 7, 2011

Gentle Parenting Question

I got this comment on one of my parenting posts last week, and while I don't know if I can give a really good answer, I will try. I would love it if any of my readers have ideas for this mama and would like to leave comments for her as well.


My son (3 next month) was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes last year and has to have his blood tested and get insulin injections before and after he eats. That's the reality--he HAS to have it done. Understandably, he hates it. And it's just getting harder and harder to get him to willingly comply. Being almost 3 isn't helping our situation, either!
I've started giving him a fuzzy in a jar every time he cooperates, but I hate bribing him. And, I know that it's bribing him and not really teaching him, but I don't know what else to do! We let him choose what finger to test, where to give his insulin shots, we sing songs to him while we give him his shots and let him choose those, we try to explain to him why he has to have it done (my husband also has type 1 diabetes so he's got someone else around to relate to), and we try to explain (as much as you can to a 3 year old!) that he can't eat until he has his blood checked, and that he'll feel yucky if he doesn't have a shot of insulin after he eats. I honestly don't know what else I can do to make it easier on all of us. Help!
I know that it could potentially get easier as he gets older and starts to understand a little more, but until then, I need suggestions on what I can do as a parent to avoid bribing him to do something he has to do. Thanks so much, and sorry this came out so long! 

Firstly, this is a hard one. I've never had to face something quite like this. I think the most similar thing I can think of is vaccinations and my son (of similar age) hates them, but that's one poke and then several months before another one...he hates them and cries but it's over fast and then we don't have to do it again for a while. Having to do it multiple times a day, every day, is a whole different ballgame.
I guess what I'm saying is I don't have any real experience to draw from, so I'm just theorizing here about what I would try in that kind of situation.

Firstly, I'm so glad that you care about how you do this. That right there is an indication that you're respecting your son and his perspective, and that is important. Obviously the pokes and shots are a medical need for him, but you're trying to do it as gently as possible (both emotionally and physically). I don't know your son or his personality, but here is a list of things I might try:
  • Since daddy has to test too, can they test together? Make it a team thing! Maybe daddy can do his own poke at the exact moment that mommy does son's poke. This was the very first idea I thought of. A lot of kids are more willing to do something if they don't feel like they're doing it alone.
  • All the choices seem like a good thing--picking which finger and which songs and so on. At his age that much choice might be a little overwhelming though (adding stress to the situation). Again, depending on the kid...it might be better to have always the same song but let him pick which finger for example. I might just pick a default backup song, so offer him the choice but if he doesn't want to choose then you have one of your own ready to go.
  • Kids thrive on routine, so definitely have a routine about it. It sounds like you have some good things in place. I find that the location--sitting on the same chair--can also be helpful (my baby goes to sleep most easily if I sit on the chair in my room rather than anywhere else...it's just his routine and in his head that chair means sleeping time)
  • Explaining why is important. Keep doing that. He has a right to know why, even if he doesn't understand yet. Is he friendly with strangers? Perhaps the doctor would be willing to explain it at the next appointment (validate what mom and dad have been saying). Sometimes it helps to hear it from multiple sources.
  • Try distraction--this often helps for painful things. Can you get talking about a topic he really likes, or give him a favorite toy to play with while you do the shots? If his mind is elsewhere, then he'll feel the pain of the poke but won't have the mental stress of the anticipation. (Part of me feels like this would be trickery, to surprise them like that...but where he knows it has to be done, and you're just distracting him from the moment, it seems like a compassionate option.)
  • He might be a little young for this, but try making a chart. Not a rewards chart, just a checklist chart. Make a place to mark (or put a sticker) before/after each meal, to mark that you did the test/insulin. Every time he puts up the sticker, he knows that it will be a few hours before he has to do it again. It is similar to the warm fuzzies jar idea, but neither needs to be considered a 'bribe' per se I think unless the jarful of fuzzies can be exchanged for a toy or trip to the park or something...if the jar is just a jar then maybe it's just part of the routine.
  • How much damage would it do for him to skip the insulin shot once? To experience the yukky feeling? One of my children is a 'school of hard knocks' kid and seems to need to experience things before they set in to his brain. If you did that once, then afterward you could remind him how yukky it feels to skip the shot, so that the shot is the better option even though it hurts too.
  • Is he bothered by the blood of the finger poke? Or is he one of those boys who thinks blood is cool? Maybe there's a way to let him 'play' with that blood drop. Can he be more active in putting it in the monitor (does it have a 'start' button that he could press for example?)
  • I suspect that you usually utilize pressure to stop the bleeding on his finger, rather than the expense of bandaids every day... However at that age kids don't leave on bandaids very long, and they also seem to really like the pictures. After Bear's last shot he adored the "batman sticker" that the nurse had put on the spot, and kept dropping his pants to show anyone and everyone the batman on his leg. I don't know what your budget is like, but perhaps investing in some cool bandaids that he can put on his fingers (at least for the times when it's a bad poke or extra hurty) might help. He could help you pick out which bandaids to buy. That too could be construed as bribing I guess, but in my opinion at least having some bandaids on hand for wounds is just compassionate care, something applied in the moment if needed, rather than something used ahead of time to entice him to compliance.

I hope some of those are helpful. And as I said before, if any of my other readers have ideas, please comment! I'm sure this sweet mama will appreciate them!

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

"Punished by Rewards" by Alfie Kohn


...the trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other bribes.



"Like most things that we and the people around us do constantly, the use of rewards has come to seem so natural and inevitable that merely to post the question why are we doing this? can strike us as perplexing--and also, perhaps, a little unsettling" (13-14).

Punishing kids is bad, spanking and time-outs and yelling damage their self-esteem and make them resentful, right? So how do we get them to do what we want them to do? Rewards! It's the magic answer for a parent who wants to be positive! Sticker charts, bonuses to the allowance, penny jars, praise... focus on the positive and they will do those things more, right? After all, the rats in the studies did!

But humans are not rats.

"...our everyday practices rest on an implicit theory of human nature that fails to do us justice. When we repeatedly promise rewards...we are assuming that [the person] could not or would not choose to act this way on their own. If the capacity for responsible action, the natural love of learning, and the desire to do good work are already part of who we are, then the tacit assumption to the contrary can fairly be described as dehumanizing" (26).

This is the second Alfie Kohn book I have read. The other, Unconditional Parenting, I loved and hated at the same time. It challenged much of what I thought about parenting--much of what I thought about human nature--and yet it felt very right. (His books are quite dense and take some time to get through, which I think makes them a little tiring...but it was worth the three library renewals to get through this one!)

I took notes as I read this book,  so rather than try to re-write everything from the book, I'm mostly going to just give you a copy of my notes. ☺

A Few Facts about Rewards (based on scientific studies--which he quotes extensively) 
  • Rewards are effective for getting a dependent being to do something (anyone who is not truly, fully dependent on you will stop responding to the reward)
  • Rewards are effective only for as long as the reward lasts
  • Rewards are effective at inducing compliance in the present (but not at instilling morals or ethics)
  • Rewards damage relationships. Peers compete, lack teamwork, and blame each other for failures. In the relationship between rewarder and rewardee the unequal status is solidified.
  • "Rewards are not actually solutions at all; they are gimmicks, shortcuts, quick fixes that mask problems and ignore reasons. They never look below the surface [to ascertain the cause or source of the behavior, nor solve it]" (60).
  • "When we are working for a reward, we do exactly what is necessary to get it and no more" (63).
  • Rewards diminish motivation, therefore "extrinsic motivators are most dangerous when offered for something we want children to WANT to do" (87).


The most notable aspect of a positive judgment is not that it is positive, but that it is a judgment" (102).I talked about this idea (of judging) in this post. I gave some examples of using neutral responses rather than verbal praise, for example "that's an interesting picture, tell me about it!" instead of "what a beautiful picture!" (Really, no matter how cute he is, my toddler isn't Michelangelo and we all know it.)


"Rewards and punishments are not opposites at all; they are two sides of the same coin. And it is a coin that does not buy very much" (50).

So, what is a better option than rewarding (or punishing)? Kohn shares a gameplan:
1--Begin by evaluating why the child is misbehaving. Did they know/understand what was expected? Were they physically and mentally able to comply? Did they try?
2--Assume that the child had the best motives (that are consistent with the facts). Usually they did.
3--Use the least intrusive method of correction or instruction that is possible.

Use the 3 C's
Content--are you asking for reasonable behaviors? consider the capacity of the child and the relative importance of the issue.
Collaboration--work together with the child(ren) to make household rules, create family expectations, etc.
Choice--(a continuation of 'collaboration), involve the kids. Bobby may have chosen to hit his brother, but he did not choose to be spanked--the parent chose  to attach that specific consequence; so even if Bobby knew about it, he did not choose it. Instead, involve kids in decision about how to resolve things. Teach them autonomy.

  • Be a person. A real person. A nice person. Use 'I' rather than the third person to refer to yourself. (like this!)
  • Model the good behavior. Remember that our actions speak so loudly they cannot hear what we say!
  • Explain why. Every person, no matter their age, has a right to know why they are being asked to do a thing.
  • Assume the best motives.
  • Emphasize perspective taking. Try to understand their side, try to help them learn to understand yours.
  • Do not rig choices when you offer them. (this post details this idea a bit)

In the end, kids need to feel love and positivity withOUT strings attached. They need our love without it being dependent on behavior. In short, they need unconditional love, and we need to be unconditional parents.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Parenting WithOUT Punishments

"When we use punishment, our children are robbed of the opportunity to develop their own inner discipline-the ability to act with integrity, wisdom, compassion, and mercy when there is no external force holding them accountable for what they do."
~Barbara Coloroso

We're all familiar with the typical punitive parenting methods: Johnny does something bad, Parent doles out a lashing or a tongue lashing or a time-out or a grounding or some other consequence.
And the lesson Johnny learns? As most of us who used to be children can attest, he does NOT learn to avoid the bad behavior; rather, he learns to avoid being caught.
In other words, the punishment was totally ineffective in the ultimate goal of teaching Johnny to do better things. It was primarily effective in teaching him to be sneaky.
(And, for the kids who DO internalize the lesson to 'be good,' it is usually based on fear...I say this from experience, because I am someone who even in toddlerhood had an intense desire to do the right thing, but I can state without reservation that a fair portion of my 'good behavior' in childhood was still based on fear of punishment. A I did my share of sneaky things too. I remember one particular time I got what I felt was an undeserved spanking, and for the next several years I justified at least a dozen acts based on the conclusion that I had already had the punishment for them. My parents read this blog, but I betcha they had no idea about that, did you mom and dad?)

We have a dog. We also have a rule that she does not climb on furniture or go into bedrooms. She is allowed to roam freely through most of the house, but I don't want the dog hair in my bed or bedroom and so bedrooms are off limits. She usually sleeps curled up right in front of our bedroom doorway--even when our door is open, she knows not to come in. (Of course we trip on her if we get up in the night, but that's forgivable.) Sometimes, however, when we're not paying attention to her, she slides a paw over the threshold. Then another paw. Then a nose... A few times she has come right into our bedroom. The moment one of us makes eye contact with her she bows her head and backs out again...but so long as nobody is looking, she tests the limits of the rules.

I'd like to think that my kids are smarter than my dog. If she knows how to be sly, then so do they. Do I think they can get away with stuff without my knowing? I am certain that sometimes they do. Do I want them to think that 'anything goes so long as you don't get caught'? No Way!! I want them to think about the things they chose, and make good choices of their own volition, not just because of fear of punishment. 

Do I inflict punitive punishments sometimes?
Yes. It's culturally normal and it's habit besides.
But I have been trying to use them less.
My oldest son (age 10) knows what when I catch him at something we'll be sitting down and talking about it (admittedly some of those talks are more calm than others), but it's pretty rare that I lay out a punishment as such. Mostly I ask him to articulate why he did what he did, and we talk about the reasons for the rules (including my entertaining petitions to change them if he makes a good argument for such), and we come up with better solutions for the next time he faces a similar situation.This method takes a lot more time and energy (and self-control) than just smacking his naughty little behind (most gentle discipline does). In my heart though, I believe that it's more effective. And my kids are worth it.

Of course, rewards aren't any better than punishments. More about that tomorrow!!

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Releasing Judgment--part 1

I think it's normal to be judgmental, at least to a certain point. We are raised with judgments nearly from the day we are born, starting with "you did a good job!" and then moving into "that shirt doesn't go with those pants" and finally into complex moral situations such as "thou shalt not steal."

Now I'm not for a moment arguing the validity of moral judgment. BUT, I do think we over-judge on all the little things. Scripture says that we will be judged by God in the way that we judge others. I don't know about you, but I think that if God is going to be as nitpicky and micromanaging as some mothers I've seen, then I'm not sure if that's a heaven I want to go to, you know? So, especially with my children, I make a point of not making judgments about things unless I need to.

When my preschooler brings me a page full of crayon scribbles and says "look what I made!" I say "yep, I see!" rather than making a judgment by saying that it is "pretty" or that he is "good." I share excitement without casting judgment.
When one of my kids picks an outfit that most of us would deem outlandish, I let it go. He is dressed, isn't he? Why does it matter if he 'matches'? If he doesn't care, then why should I? I mostly just stick with being glad that he's not streaking.
When my children learn to use the potty, I avoid the phrase "good job" (um, everybody pees, there's nothing terribly spectacular about it). Instead I just comment on the facts "you peed in the potty, thank you, it makes a mess if you pee somewhere else so I appreciate when you do it in the potty." And if they pee on the floor, it is the same "oh look, you made pee-pee on the floor, we'd better clean that up. Do you think you can do it in the potty next time? Then we could just flush it away!"
The kiddo wants plain peanut butter for breakfast? Fine by me, it's protein. Oatmeal for lunch? Why not? I like oatmeal. Who says you can only have oatmeal for breakfast?!

Actually, releasing judgment toward our kids is pretty easy. The hard part is releasing the judgments that others cast upon us, or that ones that we put on ourselves. More on that coming tomorrow and the next day!

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Own It

I found this notion in a book, but I don't recall which one.

I have noticed in myself--and in many other parents--the habit of referring to themselves in the third person. "Mommy doesn't it like it when you do that" "Daddy has to go now." It's a form of separating oneself from ones actions or feelings, and I've come to the conclusion that that's not a healthy thing to be teaching our children.
After all, when Bobby hits Johnny, don't we want him to take responsibility for what he did? When Janie feels angry, shouldn't she be able to own her emotions, and be accountable for whatever actions she takes? Of course they should, and so should we.

We refer to ourselves in first person when talking to other adults; I don't go to the bank and say "Jenni would like to make a deposit today," do I? So what is the difference with children? Sure, perhaps we're trying to reinforce identity by referring to ourselves by name ("mommy") but I think that kids can figure that out by other means.
So when my baby is testing out his sharp new little teeth, and bites me, I say "ouch, you hurt me!" rather than "oo, you hurt mommy." Mommy isn't some disconnected person, it's ME and I just got BITTEN! When "I" am hurt, when "I" need to go, when "I" am upset, I am owning my feelings and my actions. (There is a second part to that of course, that nobody can 'make' anyone feel anything. They can say or do things we don't like, but our feelings are our own...)

Monday, July 12, 2010

On Presence and Remembering

Today's post is not for those with a weak constitution. Consider yourself warned.

The other day I was in a waiting room and picked up a magazine. I flipped through it as I waited for my appointment, and happened to read this article. It made me feel a bit sick to my stomach, and has been on my mind ever since, and I knew I needed to write something about this. The article is about children left in hot cars who die because they overheat. It's horrific just to think about poor infants and toddlers strapped into carseats, hardly able to move let alone escape, and trapped alone as they are baked to death. In looking for a link to the original article, I found Fatal Distraction in the Washington Post. It is a much longer article than the other, and even more likely to make you feel sick (it has multiple stories, and excerpts from medical examiners about what exactly happens to the children). With that said, it's still probably worth reading.
As this page shows, in some cases (18%) the adult intentionally left the child, probably for a brief errand, but cars can get very hot very fast (20 degrees in 10 minutes). In about 30% of cases the child was playing in an unattended vehicle. In over 50% of cases however, it was a matter of the caregiver forgetting that the child was in the car at all, and leaving them for hours. (Sick as it is, Alaska actually has a law allowing people to bring minor children into bars, because too many children had been left in vehicles and frozen to death while the parent went in for a drink...) The vast majority of children who died were two or younger--so most of them were strapped into rear-facing carseats where the driver could not see them from the front seat. As laws have increased vehicle safety on one front, they are increasing danger on another, and we as parents must be vigilant.
We all want to think that we are the parents who would never forget that our kid was in the car, but in fact over the last decade an average of 37 children have died this way each year in the USA, and their parents are not neglectful, merely forgetful. The same way one might forget to pick up milk on the way home, or forget to recharge the cell phone, so one can forget that a child is in the car...at least, that is what the articles say. Our brains are not as fancy as we think, and forgetting is forgetting.


As the content of the article swirled around and around in my head, something leaped out at me. We all think this will never happen to us...but I think that for some of us it really never would. At the very least, the chances are very very much reduced. Why do I think I can say that of myself? Simple: I'm not in the habit of being anywhere without my kids.
Most of the parents who left their child in the car had forgotten to drop off the child at daycare or a babysitter--the child had fallen asleep or something like that, and the parent simply went to work as usual and didn't realize the mistake until hours later. They were not accustomed to having their child as a constant part of their daily routine, so the absence of the child was not noticed.
For me, the default is to have my kids with me. Even when I do leave them with a sitter I find that my mind is often on my children rather than on where I am or what I'm doing. Am I obsessive? Perhaps, but more than that, I am living in the present. My children will only be young for a short time, and so for this time, I am with them--really with them--because I will have plenty of life without them, so I don't want to lose these precious years. Does it get tiring? Oh sure, some days bedtime just can't come fast enough...but while the days may be long, the years are short, and I'm just not willing to leave my children regularly while I go do...what?
I'm not trying to sound holier-than-they, but this topic has definitely led me to think that this is yet another good reason for mothers to be home with their children. I'm sure it's possible for a stay-at-home-parent to forget a child in the car...possible...but of the dozen stories told in the articles, every single one involved a working parent getting distracted by the routine or business of the day, and forgetting that the child was in the car. Every.Single.One. If your child is not part of your normal routine, then you probably won't notice if he's missing.
It's food for thought anyway.

In the meantime, the articles had several good suggestions for protecting your children against your own mental lapses:
  • Put the younger (or quieter) child on the passenger's side (not right behind the driver) so that the driver will be more likely to see the child in the rearview mirror.
  • Always put your purse or diaper bag in the back, next to the carseat, so that you have to go back there to get it when you arrive at your destination. (I do this, though I never thought of it as protective of my child, I will certainly continue to do it)
  • Consider keeping a teddy bear or other toy in the carseat--when you put the child in, move the toy to the front seat (where you can see it).
  • Never assume that someone else has gotten the baby--check for yourself that the carseat is empty.
  • Always check the carseat when you get out of the car, even if you *know* there's nobody in it. Just make a habit to always check anyway.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Telling vs Tattling

The thoughts in this post stem from the ideas in Barbara Coloroso's book "Kids are Worth it: Giving Your Child the Gift of Inner Discipline."

If your kids are old enough to talk, you have probably heard it: "Mooooooom, Johnny is ______"...and then you are supposed to figure out what to do next. Is Freddy's telling of the situation accurate? Should you intervene? Would your intervention be helpful? Is it too late? Did Freddy need to tell you or is he just mad at Johnny? Does Johnny need to be disciplined? Does Freddy need to be disciplined?! It can be complicated.

In the book, Barbara Coloroso suggests this litmus test for determining whether something is "telling" (good) or "tattling" (bad).

Tattling will get the other child into trouble
~
Telling will get the other child (or both children) out of trouble.

So if Johnny stuck his tongue out at Freddy, Freddy is tattling because he's trying to get Johnny into trouble.
If Johnny is stuck on the bathroom counter and can't figure out how to get down (don't laugh, it happens!) then Freddy is telling, and it's a good thing he is because otherwise Johnny might never make it down! ☺

Now I'm not saying that it's ok for Johnny to hit Freddy, and if Freddy was hurt then of course mom should step in and address some things with Johnny. But if there was no bodily harm, then consider letting it slide. No harm no foul...and maybe next time Freddy won't tattle about stuff that doesn't matter.
Ms Coloroso proposes the idea that parents only get involved in what they themselves actually see or hear happen. With the exception of blood or other serious damage, if you weren't there, then let it lie. If you're an attentive parent then you will see/hear a lot of things, and there will be opportunities to teach your children what they need to know. It's a much calmer (and more accomplishable) goal than intervening in every little thing.
I personally stand somewhere in the middle. I don't necessarily wait for serious damage, because I think that certain careless or aggressive behaviors, even if they didn't cause a big problem this time, they might do so next time. So if there was no serious damage but there was potential for it, then I try to intervene with teaching (though not generally with punishment).

I will say that in a household where tattling doesn't accomplish much, it doesn't happen very often. We get reports of legitimate problems, and a smattering of reports which I answer with "sounds like you guys need to work something out, do you want help?" Of course there is telling, but not very much tattling.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Kids are Worth It by Barbara Coloroso

(I actually read "Kids are Worth it: Giving Your Child the Gift of Inner Discipline" some time ago, and want to re-read it, but this is based off the notes I took at the time)

"It's not control or compliance that you are looking for;
it's calm and cooperation."

As I stated in my prior post about compliance vs cooperation, I feel that it is more important to teach our children how to think and problem solve by themselves than it is to just boss them around all the time. This is more or less the mindset behind this book.

The author, Barbara Coloroso, makes three basic points:
  1. Kids are worth it. It is worth the time and effort that it takes to raise our children. We are glad that we have them. We want them. We love them.
  2. "I will not treat a child in a way that I myself would not want to be treated." Because children are people too, and deserve to keep their dignity intact, including when they make mistakes or do something wrong.
  3. If it works, and leaves my dignity intact, and leaves the child's dignity intact, then it is a good solution.
Her guide for dealing with specific issues that arise is as follows:
Show kids what they have done ~ If the child doesn't realize what he did, then no consequence is going to be useful. Especially with younger children this step may involve helping them to understand why the behavior was a problem (eg, hitting is not ok because it hurts people)
Give them ownership of the problem ~ this is not my problem, it is the child's problem. It's not about me being embarrassed or frustrated, it is about something that the child did and about something that he needs to learn.
Give them options for solving the problem (as they get old enough to begin thinking--I think by age 3 or so--they should participate in the thinking of options. Remember that the goal is to teach them to do this themselves, not to just boss them around! "Plan B" is a great methodology for this) ~ Come up with several possible courses of action. If you are not willing to actually do it, then don't suggest it! Once the options are on the table, the child should choose which course to follow--remember, this is his problem, not yours.
Always leave their dignity intact ~ the goal of consequences should never be to embarrass or shame a child, but merely to teach them.

Coloroso also offers a guide ("RSVP") for what constitutes a reasonable consequence:
Reasonable ~ it makes sense to both parent and child, and is appropriate (natural/logical)
Simple ~ (does this one need to be explained?!)
Valuable ~ the child will actually learn something from this course of action...oh yes, and they will learn what you were hoping to teach!! (in other words, they learn how to make a better choice next time, rather than "I'll be more careful to not get caught next time!")
Practical ~ this also seems obvious, but some people forget about it anyway...one time we were problem solving together and Wolf proposed a solution that might have worked except it involved my micromanaging his life over the coming two weeks. I have other children and *gasp* other responsibilities! I told him that I was happy to help him, but that that particular proposal would not work because I could not do that much. He understood that it was not practical, and we choose something else.

I think that my favorite part of the book was where she talked about finding alternatives to 'no.' Her point was that if you are yelling "No!" at your child every 5 minutes, he will begin to tune it out, and in the moment when it really matters (eg: as he's running into the street) he will neither hear nor respond to you. So, instead of always saying no, Coloroso proposes using alternatives like "yes, but later" or "give me a minute [to think about it]" or (my favorite--for older kids) "Why? Talk me into it!" (Children can come up with a variety of fascinating reasons why they should be allowed to do this or that, and frankly I think a lot of them are valid!)
I find the overuse of 'no' to be a very interesting topic, and I have discussed it in more depth in a separate post.

Here are a few bullet points from my notes:
  • A child is a person--an individual. Let them be independent when they need to be. Let them--or help them--discover who they are, and then let them be themselves (so long as it's not physically, mentally, or morally threatening).
  • When you give a child a choice, there should be no strings attached. Present choices that are all equal rather than some that are "better" or "worse" than the other. Do NOT get upset if the child's choice is not your own!!
  • Good parents neither smother their children's feelings nor steal them. They acknowledge their own feelings and take responsible and purposeful action about them. They allow and teach their children to do the same. They do not judge the feelings of another.
  • When encouraging children to find solutions, have them define what they WILL do rather than what they WON'T do. For example "I won't hit" vs "If I'm upset I will go out of the room." (It's much easier to do something than to not do something. Remember this post?!)
She also has some suggestions about problem solving and also addresses the issue of tattling. I'll cover those in separate posts in the coming week. ☺



My post was featured in the Gentle Discipline Fair!
Visit BabyDustDiaries.com to see the monthly fairs and other great Gentle Discipline resources.

Gentle Parent - art by Erika Hastings at  http://mudspice.wordpress.com/

Saturday, May 15, 2010

TV and our Children's Minds

This article is very long, and the writing is pretty dense. I found that I needed to read a bit, then go do something else, then read the next section. With that said, it is very interesting, and very thought-provoking. I have done some dividing/bolding of section headings to make it a little easier to break into chunks. Honestly, you can skip the introductory section and skip right down to the Q&A portion and you'll get the meat of the article.
~j



TV and Our Children’s Minds

by Susan R. Johnson, MD, FAAP
May 1, 1999, 2007 (revised)

TV rots the senses in the head!
It kills the imagination dead!
It clogs and clutters up the mind!
It makes a child so dull and blind.
He can no longer understand a fantasy,
A fairyland!
His brain becomes as soft as cheese!
His powers of thinking rust and freeze!

An excerpt from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl, 1964

As a mother and a pediatrician who completed both a three-year residency in Pediatrics and a three-year subspecialty fellowship in Behavioral and Developmental Pediatrics, I started to wonder: “What are we doing to our children’s growth and learning potential by allowing them to watch television and videos as well as spend endless hours playing computer games?” I practiced seven years as the Physician Consultant at the School Health Center in San Francisco, performing comprehensive assessments on children, ages 4–12, who were having learning and behavioral difficulties in school. I saw hundreds of children who were having difficulties paying attention, focusing on their work, and performing fine and gross motor tasks. Many of these children had a poor self-image and problems relating to adults and peers.

As a pediatrician, I had always discouraged television viewing, because of the often violent nature of its content (especially cartoons) and because of all the commercials aimed at children. However, it wasn’t until the birth of my own child, 6 years ago, that I came face to face with the real impact of television. It wasn’t just the content, for I had carefully screened the programs my child watched. It was the change in my child’s behavior (his mood, his motor movements, his play) before, during and after watching TV that truly frightened me. Before watching TV, he would be outside in nature, content to look at bugs, make things with sticks and rocks, and play in the water and sand. He seemed at peace with himself, his body, and his environment. When watching TV, he was so unresponsive to me and to what was happening around him, that he seemed glued to the television set. When I turned off the TV he became anxious, nervous, and irritable and usually cried (or screamed) for the TV to be turned back on. His play was erratic, his movements impulsive and uncoordinated. His play lacked his own imaginative input. Instead of creating his own play themes, he was simply reenacting what he had just seen on TV in a very repetitive, uncreative, and stilted way.

At age 3-1/2 years, our son went on a plane trip to visit his cousins near Boston, and on the plane was shown the movie Mission Impossible. The movie was right above our son’s head making it difficult to block out. Earphones had not been purchased, so the impact was only visual, but what an impact it had on our son. He had nightmares and fears about fires, explosions, and bloody hands for the next 6 months, and his play was profoundly changed. One of my colleagues told me I just had an overly sensitive child, and because I had not taken him to see a movie or let him watch much TV, he was not “used to it” and that was why he was so disturbed by the pictures he saw. All I could think was—thank heaven he was not “used to it.”

Later that year, I assessed six different children from ages 8–11 years at the School Health Center who all had similar difficulties with reading. They couldn’t make a mental picture of letters or words. If I showed them a series of letters and asked them to identify one particular letter, they could do it. If I gave them no visual input and just asked them to write a particular letter by memory, they couldn’t do it. All of these children watched a lot of television and videos and played computer games. I wondered what happens to a developing child placed in front of a TV set if they are presented with visual and auditory stimuli at the same time. What is left for the mind to do? At least with reading a story or having a story read to them, the mind can create its own imaginative pictures.

A question arose and I immediately called up my colleague and asked: “Could television itself be causing attention problems and learning difficulties in children?” My colleague laughed and said just about everyone watches TV—even my child does—and she doesn’t have Attention Deficit Disorder or a learning disability. I thought to myself: “Are we spending enough time with our children and looking deeply enough into their development and souls to notice the often subtle changes that occur from spending hours in front of the TV set?” Maybe some children are more vulnerable to the effects of television because of a genetic predisposition or poor nutrition or a more chaotic home environment. I wondered about the loss of potential in all our children, because they are exposed to so much television and so many videos and computers games. What are the capacities we are losing or not even developing because of this TV habit? I then started to read, attend lectures, and ask a lot more questions.

Television has been in existence for the past 80 years, though the broadcasting of entertainment shows didn’t begin until the 1940s. In 1950, 10 percent of American households owned a TV set. By 1954, this percentage had increased to 50 percent, and by 1960, 80 percent of American households owned a television. Since 1970, more than 98 percent of American households own a TV and currently 66 percent of households own three or more TVs. Television is on almost 7 hours per day in an average American home. Children of all ages, from preschool through adolescence, watch an average of 4 hours of TV per day (excluding time spent watching videos or playing computer games). A child spends more time watching TV than any other activity except sleeping, and by age 18 a child has spent more time in front of a TV than at school.

There have been numerous articles looking at the content of television and how commercials influence children’s (and adults’) desires for certain foods or material goods (e.g., toys), and how violence seen on television (even in cartoons) leads to more aggressive behavior in children (Fischer et al. 1991, Singer 1989, Zuckerman 1985). Concerns have been raised about who is teaching our children and the developmental appropriateness of what is presented on TV to toddlers, children, and even adolescents.

Miles Everett, Ph.D., in his book, How Television Poisons Children’s Minds, points out that we don’t allow our child to talk to strangers, yet through television we allow strangers into the minds and souls of our children everyday. These “strangers” (advertising agencies), whose motivations are often monetary, are creating the standards for what is “good” or developmentally appropriate for the developing brains of our children. More importantly, several investigators (Healy 1990, Pearce 1992, Buzzell 1998, Winn 1985) have drawn attention to the actual act of viewing television as even more insidious and potentially damaging to the brain of the developing child than the actual content of what’s on TV. So what are we doing to our children’s potential by allowing them to watch television?


Question: How does a child’s brain develop and how does a child learn?

Joseph Chilton Pearce in his book, Evolution’s End, sees a child’s potential as a seed that needs to be nurtured and nourished in order to grow properly. If the environment doesn’t provide the necessary nurturing (and protections from over-stimulation), then certain potentials and abilities cannot be realized. The infant is born with 10 billion nerve cells or neurons and spends the first three years of life adding billions of glial cells to support and nourish these neurons (Everett 1992). These neurons are then capable of forming thousands of interconnections with each other via spider-like projections called dendrites and longer projections called axons that extend to other regions of the brain. It is important to realize that a six-year-old’s brain is 2/3 the size of an adult’s though it has 5–7 times more connections between neurons than does the brain of an 18-month-old or an adult (Pearce 1992). The brain of a 6–7 year old child appears to have a tremendous capacity for making thousands and thousands of dendrite connections among neurons.

This potential for development ends around age 10–11 when the child loses 80 percent of this dendritic mass (Pearce 1992, Buzzell 1998). It appears that what we don’t develop or use, we lose as a capacity. An enzyme is released within the brain and literally dissolves all poorly myelinated pathways (Pearce 1992, Buzzell 1998). In the developing child, there is a progression of brain development from the most primitive core (action) brain, to the limbic (feeling) brain, and finally to the most advanced neocortex, or thought brain. There are critical periods for brain development when the stimulus must be present for the capacity to evolve (for example, language). There is also plasticity in brain development so that even adults can make new dendritic connections, but they have to work harder to establish pathways which were more easily made in childhood.

The core (action) brain is dedicated to our physical survival and manages reflexes, controls our motor movements, monitors body functions, and processes information from our senses. Along with the limbic (feeling) brain, it is involved in the “flight or fight” response that our body has to a dangerous or threatening situation. Humans react physically and emotionally before the thought brain has had time to process the information (Buzzell 1998). Our limbic (feeling) brain wraps around our core (action) brain and processes emotional information (e.g., our likes/dislikes, love/hate polarities). Our feeling brain gives meaning and value to our memories and what we learn. It influences behavior based on emotional feelings and has an intimate relationship to our immune system and capacity to heal. It is involved in the forming of our intimate relationships and emotional bonds (e.g., between mother and child) and is connected with our dreaming, subtle intuitive experiences and the daydreams and fantasies that originate from the thought brain (Healy 1990). This feeling brain connects the more highly evolved thought brain to the more primitive action brain. Our lower action brain can be made to follow the will of our thought brain or our higher thought brain can be “locked into” the service of the lower action-feeling brain during an emergency that is real or imagined (Pearce 1992). The action and feeling brains can’t distinguish real from imaginary sensory input. It is a survival advantage to react first and think later.

Finally our thought brain, the neocortex, represents our highest and newest form of intellect. It receives extensive input from the core (action) brain and limbic (feeling) brain and has the potential of separating itself and being the most objective part of the brain. It connects us to our higher self. However, the neocortex needs more time to process the images from the action and feeling brains. It is also the part of the brain that has the most potential for the future, and it is the place where our perceptions (experiences), recollections, feelings, and thinking skills all combine to shape our ideas and actions (Everett 1997). The thinking brain is “5 times larger than the other brains combined and provides intellect, creative thinking, computing and, if developed, sympathy, empathy, compassion and love” (Pearce 1992).

There is a sequential development (a progressive myelination of nerve pathways) of the child’s brain from the most primitive (action) brain to the limbic (feeling) brain and finally to the most highly evolved thought brain, or neocortex. Myelination involves covering the nerve axons and dendrites with a protective fatty-protein sheath. The more a pathway is used, the more myelin is added. The thicker the myelin sheath, the faster the nerve impulse or signal travels along the pathway. For these reasons, it is imperative that the growing child receives developmentally appropriate input from his/her environment in order to nourish each part of the brain’s development and promote the myelination of new nerve pathways. For example, young children who are in the process of forming their motor-sensory pathways and sense organs (the action brain) need repetitive and rhythmical experiences in movement. Children also need experiences that stimulate and integrate their senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch. Their senses need to be protected from over-stimulation, since young children are literally sponges. Children absorb all they see, hear, smell, taste and touch from their environment since they haven’t developed the brain capacity to discriminate or filter out unpleasant or noxious sense experiences.

The sense of touch is especially crucial since our culture and its hospital birth practices (including the high rate of C-sections) and, until recently, its discouragement of breastfeeding, deprive infants of critical multi-sensory experiences. The stimulation and development of our sense organs is the precursor to the development of part of our lower brain, called the Reticular Activating System (RAS). The RAS is the gateway through which our sense impressions coordinate with each other and then travel to the higher thought brain. The RAS is the area of the brain that allows us to attend and focus our attention. Impairments in motor-sensory pathways lead to impairments in children’s attention span and ability to concentrate (Buzzell 1998). Over-stimulation and under-stimulation of our senses and poorly developed fine and gross motor movements may lead to impairments in attention. By age 4, both the core (action) and limbic (feeling) brains are 80 percent myelinated. After age 6–7, the brain’s attention is shifted to the neocortex (thought brain) with myelination beginning first on the right side or hemisphere and later joined by the left hemisphere.

The right hemisphere is the more intuitive side of the brain, and it particularly responds to visual images. It grasps wholes, shapes and patterns and focuses on the big picture rather than the details. It directs drawing and painting and monitors melodies and harmonies of music. It is especially responsive to novelty and color and is the dominant hemisphere when watching TV (Healy, 1990, Everett 1997). The left hemisphere dominates when a child reads, writes and speaks. It specializes in analytical and sequential thinking and step-by-step logical reasoning. It analyzes the sound and meaning of language (e.g., phonic skills of matching sound to letters of the alphabet). It manages fine muscle skills and is concerned with order, routine and details. The ability to comprehend science, religion, math (especially geometry) and philosophy relies on abstract thinking characteristic of the left hemisphere.

Even though we emphasize which functions of learning are performed by which hemisphere, there is a crucial connection between the two hemispheres called the corpus callosum. It consists of a large bundle of nerve pathways that form a bridge between the left and right hemispheres. It is one of the brain’s latest-maturing parts. The left and right sides of the body learn to coordinate with each other by this pathway. Gross motor activities like jumping rope, climbing, running, and circle games and fine motor activities like form drawing, knitting, pottery, origami, woodworking, embroidery, and bread-making are crucial to myelinating this pathway and lead to more flexible manipulation of ideas and a creative imagination. This pathway provides the interplay between analytic and intuitive thinking, and several neuropsychologists believe that poor development of this pathway affects the right and left hemispheres’ effective communication with each other and may be a cause of attention and learning difficulties (Healy 1990).

We myelinate our pathways by using them. Movements of our bodies combine with experiences of our senses to build strong neural pathways and connections. For example, when a toddler listens to the sound of a ball bouncing on the floor, tastes and smells the ball or pushes, rolls and throws the ball, neurons are making dendritic connections with each other. When a toddler examines balls of varying sizes, shapes, weights and textures, a field of thousands (and possibly millions) of interconnecting neurons can be created around the “word” ball (Pearce 1992). Repetition, movement, and multisensory stimulation are the foundations of the language development and higher level thinking. The toddler’s repetitive experiences with an object like a ball, create images or pictures in his/her brain. “The images of the core limbic brain form much of the elemental “food” for the remarkable and progressive abstracting abilities of the associative high cortex [neocortex]” (Buzzell 1998).

Question: What is so harmful to the mind about watching television?

Watching television has been characterized as multileveled sensory deprivation that may be stunting the growth of our children’s brains. Brain size has been shown to decrease 20–30 percent if a child is not touched, played with or talked to (Healy 1990). In addition, when young animals were placed in an enclosed area where they could only watch other animals play, their brain growth decreased in proportion to the time spent inactively watching (Healy 1990). Television really only presents information to two senses: hearing and sight. In addition, the poor quality of reproduced sound presented to our hearing and the flashing, colored, fluorescent over-stimulating images presented to our eyes cause problems in the development and proper function of these two critical sense organs (Poplawski 1998). To begin with, a child’s visual acuity and full binocular (three-dimensional) vision are not fully developed until 4 years of age, and the picture produced on the television screen is an unfocused (made up of dots of light), two-dimensional image that restricts our field of vision to the TV screen itself. Images on TV are produced by a cathode ray gun that shoots electrons at phosphors (fluorescent substances) on the TV screen. The phosphors glow and this artificially produced pulsed light projects directly into our eyes and beyond affecting the secretions of our neuroendocrine system (Mander 1978). The actual image produced by dots of light is fuzzy and unfocused, so that our eyes, and the eyes of our children, have to strain to make the image clear.

Television, like any electrical appliance and like power lines, produces invisible waves of electromagnetism. Last June, a panel convened by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences decided there was enough evidence to consider these invisible waves (called electromagnetic fields or EMFs) as possible human carcinogens. In the article it was recommended that children sit at least 4 feet from TV and 18 inches from the computer screen (Gross 1999). Our visual system, “the ability to search out, scan, focus, and identify whatever comes in the visual field” (Buzzell 1998), is impaired by watching TV. These visual skills are also the ones that need to be developed for effective reading. Children watching TV do not dilate their pupils, show little to no movement of their eyes (i.e., stare at the screen), and lack the normal saccadic movements of the eyes (a jumping from one line of print to the next) that is critical for reading. The lack of eye movement when watching television is a problem because reading requires the eyes to continually move from left to right across the page. The weakening of eye muscles from lack of use can’t help but negatively impact the ability and effort required to read. In addition, our ability to focus and pay attention relies on this visual system.

Pupil dilation, tracking and following are all part of the reticular activating system. The RAS is the gateway to the right and left hemispheres. It determines what we pay attention to and is related to the child’s ability to concentrate and focus. The RAS is not operating well when a child watches television. A poorly integrated lower brain can’t properly access the higher brain. In addition, the rapid-fire change of television images, which occurs every 5 to 6 seconds in many programs and 2 to 3 seconds in commercials (even less on MTV), does not give the higher thought brain a chance to even process the image. It reportedly takes the neocortex anywhere from 5 to 10 seconds to engage after a stimulus (Scheidler 1994). The neocortex is our higher brain, but also needs a greater processing time to become involved. All the color combinations produced on the television screen result from the activation of only three types of phosphors: red, blue and green. The wavelengths of visible light produced by the activation of these phosphors represents an extremely limited spectrum compared to the wavelengths of light we receive when viewing objects outdoors in the full spectrum of reflected rays from the sun. Another problem with color television is that the color from it is almost exclusively processed by the right hemisphere so that left hemisphere functioning is diminished and the corpus callosum (the pathway of communication between the brain’s hemispheres) is poorly utilized (i.e., poorly myelinated).

Reading a book, walking in nature, or having a conversation with another human being, where one takes the time to ponder and think, are far more educational than watching TV. The television—and computer games—are replacing these invaluable experiences of human conversations, storytelling, reading books, playing “pretend” (using internal images created by the child rather than the fixed external images copied from television), and exploring nature. Viewing television represents an endless, purposeless, physically unfulfilling activity for a child. Unlike eating until one is full or sleeping until one is no longer tired, watching television has no built-in endpoint. It makes a child want more and more without ever being satisfied (Buzzell 1998).


Question: Well, what about watching Sesame Street? Isn’t it educational for our children? Doesn’t it teach them how to read?

Jane Healy, Ph.D., in her book, Endangered Minds wrote an entire chapter entitled “Sesame Street and the Death of Reading.” In addition to the concerns already mentioned about watching television, Sesame Street and the majority of children’s programming seem to put the left hemisphere and parts of the right hemisphere into slow waves of inactivity (alpha waves). Television anesthetizes our higher brain functions and disrupts the balance and interaction between the left and right hemispheres.

Brain waves can be measured by an EEG, and variations in recorded brain waves correspond to different states of activity in the brain. In general, reading produces active, fast beta waves while television watching leads to an increase in slow alpha waves in the left hemisphere and at times even in the right hemisphere (Buzzell 1998). Once again, the left hemisphere is the critical center for reading, writing and speaking. It is the place where abstract symbols (e.g., the letters of the alphabet) are connected to sounds (phonic skills). The pulsating fluorescent light source of television may have something to do with promoting slow wave activity. Our brain “wakes up” to novelty and falls asleep or habituates to repetitive, “boring” stimuli. Advertising agencies and many children’s shows (including Sesame Street) have had to counter children’s tendency to habituate to television by increasing the frequency of new images, using flashing colors, closeups, and startling, often loud, sounds. These distracters get our attention momentarily but keep us operating in our lower core and limbic brains. The lower brain can’t discern between images that are real or created on TV, because discernment is the function of the neocortex. Therefore, when the TV presents sudden close-ups, flashing lights, etc., as stimuli, the core-limbic brain immediately goes into a “fight or flight” response with the release of hormones and chemicals throughout the body. Heart rate and blood pressure are increased and blood flow to limb muscles is increased to prepare for this apparent emergency. Because this all happens in our body without the corresponding movement of our limbs, certain TV programs actually put us in a state of chronic stress or anxiety. Studies have shown atrophy of the left hemisphere in adults who are chronically stressed and only functioning from their core-limbic brain. Even as adults, what we don’t use, we lose.

Finally, when our brain is simultaneously presented with visual (images on the screen) and auditory (sound) stimuli, we preferentially attend to the visual. A dramatic example of this phenomenon was illustrated when a group of young children (6–7 years old) were shown a video show where the sound track did not match the visual action, and the children, when questioned, did not appear to notice the discrepancy. Therefore, even in Sesame Street, studies have shown that children are not absorbing the content of the show (Healy 1990). Maybe the most critical argument against watching television is that it affects the three characteristics that distinguish us as human beings. In the first 3 years of life, a child learns to walk, to talk and to think. Television keeps us sitting, leaves little room for meaningful conversations, and seriously impairs our ability to think.


Question: What’s wrong with using television as just entertainment?

I enjoyed watching Disney films like Snow White. Television seems to have a profound effect on our feeling life and therefore, one could argue, on our soul. As human beings, we become detached from the real world by watching television. We sit in a comfortable chair, in a warm room, with plenty to eat and watch a show about people who are homeless, cold and hungry. Our hearts go out to them, but we do nothing. One could argue that reading a book could promote the same sense of unreality without action. The phrases “turn off the TV” or “get your nose out of your book” and “go do something” have meaning.

Nevertheless, while reading a book (that doesn’t have a lot of pictures) the child’s mind creates its own pictures and has time to think about them. These thoughts could actually lead to ideas that inspire a child or adult to action. TV does not give time for this higher level of thinking that inspires deeds. Television projects images that go directly into our emotional brain. It is said that the words we hear go into knowledge while the images we see go into our soul. Pictures that elicit emotion are processed by the limbic system and the right hemisphere of the neocortex. If no time is given to think about these emotional pictures, then the left hemisphere is not involved. Once again, watching television often eliminates the part of our brain that can make sense of, analyze and rationalize what we are seeing. We don’t forget what we see. The limbic brain is connected to our memory, and the pictures we see on TV are remembered—either consciously, unconsciously or subconsciously.

For example, it is almost impossible to create your own pictures of Snow White from reading a story if you have seen the movie. It is also true that often one is disappointed when one sees a movie after reading the book. Our imagination is so much richer than what can be shown on a screen. The problem with television is that children get used to not using their imaginative thinking at all, and they don’t exercise that part of the brain (the neocortex) that creates the pictures. Children are not reading enough, and we aren’t reading or telling them enough stories to help their minds create pictures. Creating pictures is not just entertaining, but the foundation of our dreams and higher thoughts (intuitions, inspirations and imaginations). We dream, think and imagine possibilities of the future in pictures.

Finally, the heart is now seen as an organ of perception that can respond to a stimulus and release a hormone-like substance that influences brain activity. This phenomenon is referred to as our heart intelligence (Pearce 1992). Interacting with human beings is essential for the development of this intelligence. When we stand face to face and look into another person’s eyes, we meet soul to soul and we get a sense of who they really are (Soesman). We get a sense of whether they mean what they say—in other words, whether they are enthusiastic and passionate about their subject. We experience their non-verbal language such as how they move, the tone of their voice, and whether their gaze shifts around when they talk. This is how we learn to discern consistency between verbal and non-verbal cues and, therefore, truth.

Television can’t give us this intelligence of the heart. It can shock our emotions, and we can cry, laugh or get angry, but these emotions are just reactions. When human beings speak on TV, children are often doing homework, playing games, and talking to friends while watching TV. These activities help save their visual system from the effects of TV, but the underlying message is that you don’t need to listen when another person speaks or comfort anyone if you hear crying. If the heart, like the brain and probably the rest of our body, gives off electromagnetic waves (Pearce 1992, Tiller 1999), then there is a form of subtle energy that only can be experienced between human beings by relating to each other in the same physical space. This subtle energy can’t be experienced by watching human beings on television. Just as we must use all our senses to construct higher level thoughts or pictures of an object, empathy and love for others does not develop from seeing human beings as objects on TV, but by actively relating, face to face, with each other.


Question: What can we do to help our children’s brains develop?


1. Keep the television turned off as much as possible. One author recommended avoiding television as much as possible for the first 12 years of your child’s life and then encouraging your child to always read the book first before seeing the movie. It helps to cover the TV with a cloth or store it away in a closed cabinet or closet. Out of sight really helps the child keep the TV out of mind (Large 1997). Remember that what we do serves as a role model for our children. We can’t really ask our children to stop watching TV if we keep doing it—that will eventually lead to power struggles. When the television is on, then try to neutralize its damage. Select the programs carefully and watch TV with your child so you can talk about what you see. Keep a light on when the TV is going since that will minimize the effects of the reduced field of vision and provide a different light source for the eyes. Try to sit at least 4 feet from the television and 18 inches from the computer screen. Plan to go outside (to the park, woods, or beach) after viewing television.

2. Read a lot of books to your children (especially ones without lots of pictures) and tell your children lots of stories. Children love to hear stories about our lives when we were little or you can make them up. Bedtime and riding in the car provide good opportunities for telling stories. Telling our children stories helps to stimulate their internal picture making capabilities.

3. Nature! Nature! Nature! Nature is the greatest teacher of patience, delayed gratification, reverence, awe and observation. The colors are spectacular and all the senses are stimulated. Many children today think being out in nature is boring, because they are so used to the fast-paced, action-packed images from TV (Poplawski 1998). We only truly learn when all our senses are involved, and when the information is presented to us in such a way that our higher brain can absorb it. Nature is reality while television is a pseudo-reality.

4. Pay close attention to your senses and those of your child. Our environment is noisy and overstimulating to the sense organs. What a child sees, hears, smells, tastes, and touches is extremely important to his or her development. We need to surround our children with what is beautiful, what is good, and what is true. How a child experiences the world has a tremendous influence on how the child perceives the world as a teenager and adult.

5. Have children use their hands, feet and whole body performing purposeful activities. All the outdoor activities of running, jumping, climbing, and playing jump rope help develop our children’s gross motor skills and myelinate pathways in the higher brain. Performing household chores, cooking, baking bread, knitting, woodworking, origami, string games, finger games, circle games, painting, drawing, and coloring help develop fine motor skills and also myelinate pathways in the higher brain.

Finally, the future of our children and our society is in the protection and development of our children’s minds, hearts and limbs. What we are aiming for in the thoughts of our children is best summarized in this fine verse from William Blake’s “Auguries of Innocence”:
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.


------

Acknowledgments

—To Cindy Blain for her dedicated and inspirational work in preparing this paper and creating the title.

—To Jacques Lusseyran whose book, And There Was Light, literally opened my eyes to the more subtle senses of human beings.

Bibliography

Buzzell, Keith. The Children of Cyclops: The Influence of Television Viewing on the Developing Human Brain. 1998 California: AWSNA.

Everett, Miles. How Television Poisons Children’s Minds. 1997 California: Miles Publishing.

Fischer, Paul. “Brand Logo Recognition by Children Aged 3 to 6 Years: Mickey Mouse and Old Joe the Camel.” JAMA Vol. 266, No. 22, December 11, 1991.

Gross, Liza. “Current Risks: Experts finally link Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer.” SIERRA, May/June 1999, p. 30.

Healy, Jane. Endangered Minds: Why Children Don’t Think and What We Can Do About It. 1990 New York: Simon and Schuster.

Large, Martin. Who’s Bringing Them Up? How to Break the TV Habit. 1997, 3rd ed. England: Hawthorn Press.

Mander, Jerry. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. 1978 New York: William Morrow and Co.

Pearce, Joseph Chilton. Evolution’s End: Claiming the Potential of Our Intelligence. 1992 California: Harper San Francisco.

Poplawski, Thomas. “Losing Our Senses.” Renewal: A Journal for Waldorf Education, Vol. 7, No. 2, Fall 1998.

Scheidler, Thomas. “Television, Video Games and the LD Child.” 1995 Pamphlet: Greenwood Institute.

Singer, Dorothy. “Caution: Television May Be Hazardous to a Child’s Mental Health.” Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Vol. 10, No. 5, October 1989.

Soesman, Albert. The Twelve Senses: Wellsprings of the Soul. 1998 England: Hawthorn Press.

Tiller, William. “Robust Manifestations of Subtle Energies in Physical Reality and Its Implications for Future Medicine.” Lecture, Stanford University, April 28, 1999.

Winn, Marie. The Plug-in Drug. 1985 New York: Penguin Books.

Zuckerman, Diana M. and Barry S. Zuckerman. “Television’s Impact on Children.” Pediatrics, Vol. 75, No. 2, February 1985.

This paper was first presented at the Waldorf School of San Francisco on May 1, 1999 as part of a senior project.

Reprints available from the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America (AWSNA) – http://www.awsna.orgpublications@awsna.org

Linked Within

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...