Podcast #19: Let's Talk about Sex

Okay, so we skipped putting out a podcast last week, so we're making up for it by posting a REALLY INTERESTING podcast this time. :D

Situation of the Week (Jenn): Teaching kids what to do instead of just fussing at them for making mistakes. Amazing how helpful that is.

Links: On Minilectures at Rational Jenn


Topic: Talking to your kids about sex. Yes, there is some explicit discussion here, so be aware of your surroundings when listening! (begins 6:02)

Links: It's Not the Stork: A Book About Girls, Boys, Babies, Bodies, Families and Friends (The Family Library) and It's So Amazing!: A Book about Eggs, Sperm, Birth, Babies, and Families (The Family Library) (that's the book we couldn't remember the name of)


Q & A: What is the best way to deal with rude behavior that is not physically aggressive such as name-calling or sticking your tongue out, particularly in very young children? (begins 31:17)

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Please send us comments and feedback and give us more questions to answer in future podcasts! And thanks for listening!

Using the Mistaken Goal Chart In the Classroom

(originally posted at Reepicheep's Coracle)

Since I wrote about the mistaken goal chart last week, I thought this week I would give my dear readers an example of how I have used it. Plus, I have been wanting to write more about my classroom/gym experience using positive discipline, so here goes.

I was teaching a one-hour 5 year old gymnastics class with 8 kids in it. Mostly, it is super easy to get kids to behave in gymnastics because they love to be there and naturally stay right on track. With the littler kids, though, there is often the problem of distractability in a gym where 6 thousand things are going on all around them. But for a 5 year old class like this, usually just calling the kids name snaps him back into the task at hand, and that's often all the discipline I have to do.

Most of my class management occurs before the kids even get there. I try to streamline the process of moving from bars to beam to floor to vault so that there is little time between activities in which to misbehave. I enlist the kids help for setting up, give them little tasks while moving between activities (like walking on toes), and try to minimize waiting in lines. Those things keep kids moving and having fun, so they don't even think of doing anything inappropriate.

I also use my energy level to keep kids focused. If a coach sits or stands still or stops talking and encouraging and laughing, the laws of physics state that the coach becomes a black hole and all the energy of the class will be sucked away. So I move constantly, touching everyone, giving constant feedback, laughing and joking and enjoying myself, and that keeps the kids energy where it belongs: in their cartwheels.

But I have had a few challenging students who required more support from me to behave well, and that's where the mistaken goal chart comes into the story. In this particular 5 year old class, I had a little boy who was a terror. He constantly irritated the other kids, would do one cartwheel and then stop, would wander away from the class, would try to get my attention every second, etc. He was one of those kids that gets talked about in the break room. Coaches try to teach classes he isn't in. He had several older brothers who also ran wild over the gym waiting area while the little one was in class, and they all drove the secretary mad. I asked around about his family because I never ever saw a parent with whom to discuss his behavior. I was told that he didn't have a dad, and his mom was almost completely uninvolved in his life. Basically, he was being raised by his older brothers who were still kids themselves.

Knowing something about his life did two things. First, it made me feel sympathetic to him instead of angry and annoyed. Second, it made me think about the whys of his behavior instead of just the what. So, I used the mistaken goal chart. I noticed that I mostly felt annoyed and irritated by him, so that's a clue that his mistaken goal might be undue attention. From what I understood about his home life, it seemed to fit. Why wouldn't a child who didn't get enough adult attention try to get it from every adult he came into contact with? And if he was being taught all his social skills by other kids, it seemed reasonable that he was using a poor method that wasn't getting results. I wondered about what school must be like for him; I would be willing to bet that his teachers think of him as a trouble maker (just like the coaches at the gym). He was probably getting mostly negative attention there too.

So I decided that I wouldn't wait for him to misbehave or ask for attention. I would just give him tons of physical contact and kind words from the beginning and see what happened. I would also continue to stop him from irritating other students, but I would worry less about how much gymnastics he was learning and focus for a while on what kind of experience he was getting from me (one of the few adults he ever interacted with).

I asked him if he would like it if I carried him from activity to activity. Yes, he said, with a lit up face, he would love this. Most 5 year old boys want to play roughly with me, but they aren't usually cuddlers, so I took this as proof that he desperately needed adult contact. I hugged him when I saw him. I touched his hair when I passed by him in line. I spent time picking him up and throwing him into the foam pit (I did the same to the other kids, since they all love this). I spoke with him before and after class. I waved at him on the playground when I saw him during his brother's classes. I carried him from beam to bars to vault to floor. I treated him like a darling child that I couldn't get enough of. And an amazing thing happened. He became a darling child that I couldn't get enough of.

His behavior improved A LOT. He stayed on task; he begged for attention less; he kept his hands off the other students; he stayed where he was supposed to stay. He blossomed when some love and affection was showered on him, not as a reward for good behavior, but as his due as a child.

Had I not consulted the mistaken goal chart, I would still have addressed his behavior using positive discipline. But I wouldn't have been fixing the problem he really had. I could have made him the line leader, but his problem wasn't that he felt a lack of power. I could have found him a smaller class with less going on in the gym at that time, but his problem wasn't over-stimulation. By using the chart to find his real problem, the misbehavior melted away. Jane Nelson really is right when she says that "children behave better when they feel better."

The Mistaken Goal Chart: The Swiss Army Knife of Parenting

(originally posted at Reepicheep's Coracle)


I was firmly entrenched in the positive discipline method before I discovered the Mistaken Goal Chart, and now, I cannot imagine thinking through misbehavior without it.

First, what is a mistaken goal? The practitioners of positive discipline hold that behavior is purposive. That means that when a child does something inappropriate, she is trying to meet some need or want. She is trying to achieve a perceived value, even if the value isn't in her best interest or if her way of of trying to achieve it is inappropriate. The mistaken goal chart includes four possible reasons a child might misbehave: to get attention, to have power, to get revenge, or to give up and be left alone. There might be more reasons, but in my experience, these four are awfully common.

Because positive discipline is not permissive, the point of identifying a child's mistaken goal is not to ignore the behavior itself; inappropriate behavior must be stopped. The point is that when a parent or teacher has more information about why a child misbehaves, he can choose his explanations, tools, etc with more care and directly address the child's actual problem.

The first mistaken goal is called "undue attention." The child's goal is to get the attention of the parent or teacher, and it is "undue" because the call for attention is inappropriate. A baby crying for milk or a terrified child needing to feel protected from a big dog is not trying to achieve a mistaken goal; her goal is perfectly rational, and she needs "due attention." An example of undue attention might be a child who acts up when mom is on the phone because he doesn't like it when she is not available to answer his questions or look at his drawings.

Next is "misguided power." The child's goal is to have power over someone else or to prove that no one has power over him, and it is misguided because the child has chosen an inappropriate way to gain power and control. A child who fights getting dressed because he wants to pick out his own clothes is seeking legitimate power over his own body and choices. But a child who refuses to put his shoes own because he doesn't want to go in the car to pick up his brother from school might be an example of child seeing inappropriate power; he cannot have power over the schedules of everyone in the house.

The child who has the mistaken goal of "revenge" is trying to get even. She might be hurting and want to hurt others so they feel as bad as she does. An example of this would be a child whose feelings got hurt when her mom set a limit, and so she lashes out and tells her that she wants to go to her dad's house she to make mom feel just as bad as she feels. Not that that has ever happened here. Sigh. I can't think of a time that a child taking revenge would actually be okay, but I think the wrong the child wants to get revenge for could be real or just perceived. Either way the goal of revenge would be a mistaken one.

The last one is the hardest for me to get a handle on because it is so much rarer and more scary. A child who is acting based on "assumed inadequacy" has decided that she can't do things well and may as well not try. She may actually not have the skills to be a competent person, or she might have made a wrong judgment about herself. But either way she is acting as if she is inadequate. For example, a child might have decided that he is not able to make friends, and so he doesn't even attempt to get to know his classmates or the other kids on the playground. He assumes from the beginning that he will fail, and so he doesn't bother to put forth any effort.

To use the mistaken goal chart, a parent introspects about his own reaction to the child's misbehavior and uses his feelings as a clue about which mistaken goal a child might be trying to achieve. At first, I was very resistant to this part. After all, what do my feelings have to do with my child's motivations. But when I used the chart, I found that my feelings did seem to be good clues. After putting some thought into this, I came up with this explanation.

Our feelings are automatic responses to certain kinds of situations. Anger is our reaction to a perceived injustice. Sadness to a perceived loss of a value. Happiness to a perceived gain of a value. When our children misbehave and we react to it, we are reacting to more than just the momentary situation. Our subconscious has made a gazillion integrations about our child's behavior that we may not have consciously considered. Our emotional reaction is based on what we perceive in the moment and all the integrations we've made in the past, even subconscious ones. So, when I feel anger at Livy's misbehavior, it's a good starting point to look for some injustice against me, real or perceived.

Will our feelings always lead us to the right mistaken goal? Definitely not. That's why I think it is wise to use the mistaken goal chart as Jane Nelson and Lynn Lott intended, as a guide and a starting point, and not as a final answer. Our emotions are great indicators, but they aren't tools of cognition. The mistaken goal chart tells me that if I am challenged, it would be a good idea to look and see if Livy might be seeking misguided power. The feeling of being challenged might be based on something irrational, but, especially if the parent has been working hard on his psycho-epistemology and carefully evaluating his feelings through introspection, the feeling is likely to point to something real that is going on. The mistaken goal chart is a way to find a starting point for thinking about the child's goals.

What I find so valuable about the chart is that it helps me address the root of a child's problem and not just work on the symptoms. It's possible for the same behavior to come from any of the mistaken goals, and if the parent just punished or stopped the behavior without trying to understand the cause and work on it, the behavior (or one like it) is likely to happen again.

For example, a child might refuse to put away his dirty dishes in the dishwasher because of any of the mistaken goals. What follows might not actually be said or even understood completely by the child, but these are the things they might be thinking or saying or acting.

• Undue attention: "If I don't do it, mom will yell at me or help me do it. I don't care if it's negative attention, I just want her to focus on me right now."
  



• Misguided power: "You can't make me do it! You do it! You aren't the boss of me! I don't have to put away my dishes just because you say so!"



• Revenge: "You were working on your blog all day and didn't help me with my art project, so I'm not gonna do the dishes now!"



• Assumed inadequacy: "I will not do it right. I never do. So why bother?"

Instead of just getting mad and forcing the child to put the dishes away, a parent who figured out his child's mistaken goal could address the larger issue while still stopping the inappropriate behavior.

• In the case of undue attention, the parent might insist that the child put her own dishes away but make sure to spend some special time with the child at another time or do the dishes together while talking or singing. The limit is set about dishes, but the parent also knows that the child is craving more attention.



• In the case of misguided power, the parent might insist that the child put her own dishes away but talk with the child about whether she is feeling out of control of her own life. Maybe the child needs more choices about when and how to do the dishes or maybe the child is feeling out of control in some other area. The parent can search for a way to give the child a reasonable chance to feel powerful and in control if he knows that she is acting from misguided power.



• In the case of revenge, the parent can insist that the child put her own dishes away but talk about what might have hurt the child's feelings. If the parent finds out it was revenge for her all day blogging session, she can let the child know that is inappropriate and help her find other ways to express her anger. The parent can validate her feelings of anger.
  



• In the case of assumed inadequacy, the parent might break the job down into smaller steps that seem manageable or express confidence in the child or remind her of a time she succeeded. In the future, the parent can watch for times the child does really well with chores and point out to her that she is capable.

The mistaken goal chart has become a part of the way I see Livy's behavior, and it has enhanced my response to her. When I remember to see her behavior as goal directed, though mistaken, I stay calmer and am in a problem solving frame of mind. It also helps me to teach her about introspecting about her own motivations. When I know that she is acting out of revenge, I can help her to realize that she is feeling hurt and lashing out. Then we can address the hurt in a healthier way. I hope she won't have to learn to sort out her tangled motivations in her late 20s, as I did.

I don't always get it right, though, as I said above, and that is also good practice for both of us. She gets to see that adults screw up too (always a good lesson), and, even if she tells me that I am wrong about her motivation, I still encouraged her to introspect and figure out what it was. I really really like the times when we get good results whether I am wrong or right, so the Mistaken Goal Chart is my friend!

I use things I have learned from the chart all the time, but the best times to use it for me are the times when Livy is doing the same kind of behavior over and over. Those times when nothing is working, and I feel like I am going to sell her to the gypsies. I have never gone to the Mistaken Goal Chart at a time like that and not come back with a better understanding of what the underlying problem might be or a few new suggestions for what to do (yes, there are suggestions!! Woohoo!!).

I recommend that all parents and teachers take a good look at this chart and revisit it often, especially in hard times. It's applicable to every kind of situation. It gives you different tools depending on what the problem is. It's only one piece of paper, so it will fit in your purse or pocket. It's the Swiss Army Knife of parenting tools.

Discussion, Not Debate

(originally posted at Rational Jenn)

I'm still recovering from MiniCon and dealing with tying up loose ends, so my time for blogging is limited just at the moment. So I might be recycling just a bit, please forgive.

A couple of weeks ago, when a certain thread under discussion on the OGrownups list got heated and became a debate, we called a temporary halt to that thread, and then I wrote the following email to the group. The reason I'm posting it here on Rational Jenn is that I'm proud of the email--I really took time in crafting it and I think it's a good bit of writing--and I also think it's good general advice for thinking about communicating with others in various online forums.

Enjoy!

In keeping with a principle from Positive Discipline that my friend Kelly has condensed into the phrase "Yippee Mistakes!" I view the acrimonious debate that occurred a couple days ago as an opportunity for members of our group to learn something new, regroup, and try to improve for the future. Mistakes were made the other day, and I have no wish to rehash them or point fingers (and ask that you refrain from doing so, too). We all make mistakes--I make them all day long. What I'm interested in is how we move forward as a group.

First let me try to explain why. One of the reasons I'm so excited about this group is that it's a real opportunity for us--as Objectivists, parents, educators, caring aunts, uncles, grandparents, and lurkers who might not be in full agreement with Objectivism but who are interested and learning from our discussions--to have the kind of principled discussions about this very, very important area of our lives. I can talk to other moms in my neighborhood or homeschool groups about parenting--and I do--but those people do not share this common philosophical base with me. This group provides a value for me as a parent, a way to talk about these sometimes difficult parenting issues with others who share my values. I hope that others view this in the same way, too.

Some parenting issues are pretty straightfoward and are purely in the realm of optional values. Other issues are much more difficult to decide about, such as whether to have a repeat c-section (to use an example from my own life that some people view as a controversial, and possibly wrong, decision). I want us to be able to talk about these more difficult, possibly controversial, decisions--the morality behind them, the thinking process, our personal context, our values--here on this list. But that will be impossible if such threads degrade into name-calling and accusations.

Diana suggested that we all go back and read a short essay written by Jean Moroney (http://www.oclubs.org/newsletter/a-discussion-is-not-a-debate-how-to-keep-discussions-friendl.html) , and if you haven't yet done so, please do. To summarize a couple of key points:

A debate . . .
. . . is to be won and lost (there is a winning and a losing side)
. . . requires thorough preparation and exactness of definitions and terms

A discussion . . .
. . . is an opportunity to present your thoughts
. . . is more casual, and participants should not be held to the same standards of precision in terms as a formal debate (or other presentation)
. . . will not necessarily change someone's mind (but that's not the purpose)

And of course, discussions are what we want, not debates. (In fact, it's official OList policy, I believe!)

Here are a few more suggestions I have for future discussions on OG:

• Use "I" language. Instead of "Don't be a maroooon" (as Bugs Bunny would say), say "I don't understand your point. Can you clarify further?" or say "I'm confused by this statement . . . ." Instead of deciding that the other person is [insert adjective here] ask a question to find out. "You" statements can put the other person on the defensive (which can turn the discussion into a win-lose debate); "I" statements are non-accusing and invite clarification.

• Focus on making YOUR point rather than refuting someone else's point.

• Consider that this group provides you with an opportunity to A.) say what you think and B.) maybe get someone else thinking about the idea in a new way.

• Give people the benefit of the doubt. We all want to understand these issues and be good parents. Until you have reason to think otherwise, assume positive intent.

• It's not fair to expect people to instantly change their minds about a subject, no matter how brilliant your argument happens to be. So if someone does not immediately come around to your viewpoint, that does not necessarily make him dishonest or irrational, etc. We all recognize the need for thoughtful consideration, introspection, and examination of premises. I don't know about you, but that process often takes me a while, and can't ever be done well when I'm stressed or tense.

• I'm not suggesting anyone refrain from judging. Feel free to judge others, but consider that your personal judgment of someone else's character is not adding to the discussion, particularly if you are interested in trying to persuade others. Stick to the issues--think what you like of the person, but keep that out of the discussion, and tone of your email.

• Keep in mind that most people don't participate in the discussions, but are probably reading them and learning from them. If people are watching a debate, the focus might be on who is going to make the next zinger, and less on the real issue at hand. That might be entertaining (or depressing) when watching politicians debate, but here, we're all trying to figure out how to do the best we can.

• Save retorts and one-upmanship for private emails--honestly, it's fine with me if you want to have an acrimonious debate, just don't do it here.

Here's something I learned in the how-to-teach parenting workshops I took in the last several months: all I can do as the facilitator/presenter is present the material. The learning must be done by the participants and the observers--and I have no control over that. All I can do here on OG is present my viewpoint and evidence for it. Whether or not I change a mind--outside of my control. In a way, knowing this has been freeing to me--I have no pressure to convince anyone. I challenge myself to be clear and have good reasons for the things I say, but that's all.

Finally, remember that we have ALL made mistakes with our children, both major and minor. And remember that a mistake (Yippee Mistakes!) is a chance to reexamine a premise, change, and improve. So I hope we can move forward from here, and get back to discussing the issues that affect us and the children we all love.

Assume Positive Intent: Another View

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

One of my personal parenting principles (say that ten times fast!) is Assume Positive Intent, as regular readers realize (say that ten times fast!). I've written about it here and there, and sometimes I've explained it well, and sometimes I think my explanation has been a little confusing.

Assume Positive Intent is a useful tool for helping me figure out what to do in a situation that requires Thoughtful Parenting. API is a reminder to me that the child is not necessarily trying to misbehave on purpose in order to turn my hair gray or make my eyes shoot red laser beams (although sometimes that is certainly the case).

API means that the kid is doing X because she is trying to fulfill a real actual (in other words, positive) need or desire that she has. She may not understand that X is dangerous/annoying/completely irrational and she may not care. The point is that the motivation behind her behavior isn't necessarily bad--it's misdirected.

Here's another way to understand Assume Positive Intent from an Objectivist point-of-view. (I almost don't know why it never occurred to me to explain it this way before.) When the kid is doing something you'd rather he not do: whining, hitting, being aggressive with his siblings, jumping like a maniac all over the house, think of what he's doing this way--he is pursuing his self-interest irrationally. He is making a mistake about how to go about getting what he believes to be in his self-interest.

We want our kids to be rationally selfish, to pursue self-interest. In the Introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand wrote (original emphasis):

Just as man cannot survive by any random means, but must discover and practice the principles which his survival requires, so man’s self-interest cannot be determined by blind desires or random whims, but must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles. This is why the Objectivist ethics is a morality of rational self-interest—or of rational selfishness.

(Via the online Ayn Rand Lexicon)

Often selfishness is misunderstood by non-Objectivists, because of the way the word selfishness is more commonly used. Rational selfishness, or rational self-interest, does not mean "every man for himself" or that pursuing one's self-interests is a license to stomp all over others in one's path. Again, from the Introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness (my emphasis in bold; original emphasis in italics):

The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life—and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest. It is not a license “to do as he pleases” and it is not applicable to the altruists’ image of a “selfish” brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims.

Quite a lot of parenting has to do with helping kids put the rational into "rational self-interest." The self-interest part comes very naturally, as far as I can tell. They want things for themselves, and they want things first, and they want more than other people, and quite frankly, they might be willing to kill someone over who gets a turn with that helicopter. (I'm not prepared to test that supposition for real, though.)

It's that pesky rationality! Kids are developing this skill all the time, and the gray matter with which to perform this necessary function is still in development-mode, too. Part of what makes parenting such a frustrating endeavor for me is that I'm dealing with people who are irrational (or sometimes a-rational, when they're really little perhaps). So it helps me to remember that when they are annoying the ever-loving-crap out of me, it's because they are trying to pursue their self-interests, and they are doing so in an irrational manner.

The Positive Discipline peopleguys (Jane Nelsen and Lynne Lott) have developed a tool called the Mistaken Goal Chart (here's a link to a site where you can buy a copy of it, but it's also included in many of the Positive Discipline books). They derived the chart from different premises, but the tool is very useful because the underlying idea is essentially the same--kids are trying to satisfy a valid need and are going about satisfying that need in the wrong way. Maybe I'll write more about the similarities and differences in another post.

Back to these kids and their misbehaviors. Or maybe we should reframe that word, look it as a contraction of sorts: mis(taken)behaviors, instead of mis-- as in "wrong?" Anyway.

• So, shrieking in my ear? You want my attention, and are attempting to get it in a mistaken way.

• Grabbing toys from your baby brother? You believe it to be in your self-interest to have a turn with that toy, and are going about fulfilling it in a non-rights-respecting way.

• Want to eat chocolate for breakfast, lunch, dinner, elevensies, second breakfast, etc.? Not in your rational self-interest over the long-term.

• Think the only way to resolve a conflict with another is to resort to your fists, or run and hide and pretend there is no conflict, or always give in to the other person's demands? None of those strategies are rational (using brute force, evasion, or subverting your self-interests to another's).

In each of those instances of mistaken goals, or pursuing self-interest irrationally, a parent may (but perhaps not always) need to step in and guide, communicate, restrict, provide teaching or a tool, or set a limit in a dozen ways. This assumption of positive intent, the realization that the child is attempting to satisfy his self-interest in a mistaken or irrational manner, really helps shape MY attitude in dealing with the mis(taken)behavior. (I like that!)

I can make sure that the parenting I do is focused on the long-term and helping the kids understand why the limit I'm setting really is in their rational self-interest. It's also easier for me to remain calmer and focused on guiding and helping them out in a kind and respectful way (as opposed to punishing or shaming them with guilt or bribing them for short-term results), which in turn strengthens the relationship I have with each of them (for each is a rational value of mine, and I hope that when they're grown they choose me as a rational value, too).

And that is another way to look at Assume Positive Intent! :o)

Positive Discipline From Day One

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

In my previous parenting posts, I use Ryan and Morgan as my examples, since they've been around a while now and I have lots of great stories and parenting experiences with them.

But this time, I thought I'd talk about the baby for a while, partly because he's super cute and squeezable, but also because we do use PD with him, too! (This post brought to you by the Electrical Cord Chewing Button Pushing Peopleguy--Sean.)

A brand new baby doesn't really need guidance from his parents, but he does need responsiveness. When his parents take care of his basic needs in a prompt way, the baby learns to trust those big people and begins to gain a sense that those big people seem to value him a lot. The primary focus of those early days is (besides sleep) building a connection with the baby. This is also known as "attachment parenting" and for more information about this, go to the website of Dr. Sears, who has coauthored (with his wife) many books on the subject.

But after those first couple of sleepless months pass by, the baby becomes more aware of things and interactive. Not coincidentally, you, the parent, begin to emerge from the new baby fog--just a bit!--and become more aware and interactive. :o)

But the baby isn't really conceptual--the baby can't really misbehave--so what is the purpose of discipline at this stage?


Good for Mom and Dad

Babyhood is the perfect time for parents to begin sharpening some of the parenting tools in their toolbox. Of course, if you have more than a minute or two between all of the new baby tasks like changing diapers and feeding and various cleaning activities, now is a great time to read some books about Positive Discipline.

But it's also a great time to practice. Practice saying the things you're going to be repeating thousands of times in the not-too-distant future. Practice which words you're going to say and practice how you're going to say them.

So when you find baby somewhere he's not supposed to be (who expected him to roll over so quickly?), such as in front of the the cat food or a trapped in a particularly electrical-cord-ridden corner of the room, you can say "Oops! Electrical cords are not for eating. Come with me!" as you remove him.

Now the baby will not understand a word. That's okay. He may not even have noticed that you moved him from the cords. To him, the experience is: I was lying somewhere, then that nice lady who smells yummy scooped me up and made some noises, and now I'm somewhere else. (That's if he could even articulate the experience, which, you know, he can't.)

Of course you'd remove him from situations you deem to be potentially dangerous. And the baby may or may not notice or care. But why not use the time to try out what you're going to say when he's a little bit older? Because before you know it, he will begin to understand.

Practice words and phrases:

• That's not for touching.
• You want to hold something; here's a bear.
• Pulling hair is ouchy! Let me help you do a gentle pat.

Practice distraction:

• Look! Up in the sky! It's a ceiling fan!
• You want to touch that. Let's go in the kitchen now.
• Let's go see what Daddy's doing.

Practice tone-of-voice (which of course I can't really describe in writing, but I really do practice different ways of saying things, so that I am firm but kind in the real situation):

• Ouch! That hurts!
• Cords aren't for pulling.
• That's not for eating.
• I know you don't want a diaper change. I'll help you hold still and it will be over quickly.

Good for Baby

Obviously, Baby won't really get what you're saying and doing until he is older--in my completely non-scientific experience, around 6 months or so. And even then, he won't understand the words--but he will pick up on your tone of voice. And once he gets some sense of Object Permanence--the idea that things don't disappear just because you can't see them--he will definitely begin to understand what you're doing (removing the object or him) and even start to be upset by it.

But if you're already in the habit of saying the right things in the way you want to say them, then the first time the baby whips your glasses off of your face and nearly drops them in the toilet, you will have some words at your disposal that you can use despite your surprise and dismay. That saves the baby from a shocking sense of "Who is this freaking yelling person who has replaced my Mommy?" if you can somehow put him gently on the floor and say "My glasses are not for touching!" instead of "Nnooooo! Blllaaarrrgg!" (Please. Learn from my mistakes. :o) )

The baby will also begin to pick up on the fact that you mean what you say and will reinforce it in a kind and gentle manner. Kids like consistency and need Mom and Dad to provide that for them. It's unsettling not to be able to predict things--babies and kids are comforted by routines and consistency.


Good for Older Siblings

If you have older kids, there's an immediate benefit to practicing PD with the new baby. The Big Kids get to see that you will help the baby follow the house rules: "Ryan wants to play by himself right now; let's go play over here." or "Ouch! Pulling hair hurts and Morgan doesn't like that! I'll help you stop."

Besides the sense of justice that comes from being able to see that you will be fair and not always default in favor of the baby (which is hard not to do!), the Big Kids will begin to view the baby as a real member of the family, an actual person with legitimate wants and desires. And, you are modeling words and action for them to use with the baby. Ryan helps Sean give the cat "gentle pats" (kind of!) and Morgan will say comforting things to him when he's sad like "You're sad Mommy moved away, but see? She's right over there in the kitchen!"


Strategies for Baby "Misbehaviors"

A baby is becoming self-directed--especially once he can sit up on his own and move around some (rolling, crawling, etc.). He's going to do things you don't want him to--not because he's trying to irritate you or hurt himself. He doesn't even have a sense of that yet. He is merely curious about the world and is trying to learn about it, touching everything and probably tasting everything, too.

This is a good time to practice the PD idea: Assume Positive Intent. If you practice this now, it will be easier to do when the child is older and really does do something on purpose to annoy you. (See 4 and 7 year old Casey Kids for examples).

Nobody would think that a crawling baby is trying to disconnect your computer and wireless router on purpose. He sees flashing lights and neat-o buttons and he wants to know what they are, which means touching and/or tasting. If you're Sean, that also means picking up a stick and beating things to see what they do. Maybe a scream or a gurgle will do something. What if I stick it in my eye?

By the way--I LOVE the stage that Sean is in right now. He is so curious and adventurous--a little Scientist Explorer Peopleguy. Even though I've been interrupted 5 times in the writing of just this paragraph by that curiosity, I just love it.

So, what can you do when he is ripping cords out of the wall and attempting to strangle himself with them?

• Physically remove baby from the No-No.

• Say "Not for touching." or "No." or "Stop." in a gentle voice. (I don't say something every time.)

• Rearrange some furniture--take valuables upstairs, or block off the zone. The makeshift barricade I have near my computer desk is NOT holding anymore, so we'll have to move on to a different idea.

• Distract, distract, distract. Give him another toy, move him to another area, make a funny face. The main advantage you have as a parent at this stage is the fact that Baby is so interested in EVERYTHING that his attention is (relatively) easily focused on something different. Also, babies in general are not known for their excellent memories.

• Give the baby an appropriate substitute. If he wants to chew something, remove the cat food or Daddy's iPhone and give him a teething ring or soft toy instead. Pulling up grass is a better outlet for when you get the urge to rip something up by its roots (as opposed to hair). Etc.
  

• Be prepared to do this a million times until he finds another dangerous thing to obsess over or until he leaves home for college. (In the words of Dave Barry, I am not making this up.)

I do not recommend:

• Shouting or yelling at baby. It will scare him and he'll get the same idea--"Mom won't let me over in this corner."--through your action of physically removing him.

• Hitting baby--smacking his hands, etc. Again, he'll get scared and focus on the hurt--why hurt or scare him when he gets what he needs--redirection--without physical or mental pain?

Babyproofing

I'm not sure if this really a PD idea, but it's certainly a value I hold--give the baby as much freedom as absolutely possible. Create a safe zone in which he can play and explore--and make that zone big.

Having older kids has resulted in some logistical challenges along these lines. As parents know, the older the kid, the more pieces their toys, and the smaller the pieces. It's a Danger Trifecta: lots of small pieces are not only a hassle to clean up and keep track of, it's also a Major Choking Hazard!

We've worked around some of these issues by creating Big Kid Zones, where one can play with LEGO in relative freedom. Our playroom also has doors, which has been helpful, although Sean has reached an age where it's no longer feasible to keep him out of there. I've also enlisted the help of the older kids: they can identify Sean-safe toys, and will sound a red alert (literally) if they see him with anything in his mouth. Given all of the birthdays recently celebrated around here, hearing Ryan or Morgan shout "Floor cake!" is common. Sean does love some leftover floor cake. (And I'm confident at this point that he is not allergic to eggs, dairy, or wheat. Although it was definitely NOT my preference for us to have figured it out in that particular manner.)

And even though we let him have as much freedom as we can, we still make judicious use of baby gates (to keep him out of the kitchen and from being underfoot while I'm cooking, for example) and outlet covers. But it's funny--Sean is surviving and thriving in a much more dangerous environment than Ryan did at the same age! Ah, the joys and perils of being a Third! Even so--we still redirect him and guide him all the time. But for both of our sakes, I try to minimize it.

What are some other ideas for guiding young babies and toddlers? I'm sure there are things I've forgotten about toddlerhood, which will re-surprise me in just a few more months here. Ideas?

This Will Be Funny One Day, Right? RIGHT?!?!?!

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

So one of the things we did while Brendan's family was in town was paint Morgan's room pink! She's been making do with the old green walls of the nursery, and the zoo animal wallpaper border, and a mish-mash of furniture new and old. (Sean's room will be our current guest room, so he's not in the old nursery.)

Tuesday was wet and rainy, our family brought old clothes and so we got a nice shade of pink paint from Home Depot and went to work! It's very pretty and I plan to touch up tonight.

So anyway, the kids were upstairs and quiet this afternoon--too quiet. I called up, "Whatcha doing?" Both of them, "Nothing!"

Suspicious, I headed upstairs with the baby. Ryan, obviously anticipating the next scene, tells me, "Morgan's painting her carpet." and skedaddled.

W. T. F.

Sure enough, I walk in to Morgan's room to discover her covered with pink paint, holding a dripping paint brush over her carpet. A glance at the paint can revealed the extra roller brush (sans roller) bobbing up and down in the paint can like the Titanic.

I didn't yell. (Go me!) I was, however, extremely upset, and a few oh-no-oh-noes escaped my lips.

Morgan burst into tears, dropped the paint brush and ran from the room. Sean, who is Mr. Emotional Mirror lately, also bursts into tears. I nearly did.

I got Morgan in the tub and washed off her hair, and she was screaming and sobbing, "Ryan told me to do it!" I gently reminded her that she is in charge of her own body and that she can always tell Ryan NO.

I called Ryan up and asked him if he told her to do it. "No," says he, "I think she misunderstood me. I told her NOT to paint her carpet." He repeated this a couple of times.

Now this is plausible. But I smelled a rat. So I told him, sitting on the bathroom floor, holding Sean, Morgan still wailing in the bathtub, "I need to know what's true. I'm going to give you one chance to tell me what the truth is, and I promise I won't get mad. Well--any madder than I already am--I'm pretty upset right now. But . . . if you tell me a lie right now, and then later I find out that you lied to me, well then I will be VERY upset, way more upset than I am right now. So I need you to tell me what really happened because I want to believe and trust you."

He stared at me for a second and then said, "Okay. What I said before was a lie and I want to tell you the truth now. I told Morgan that I thought she might like pink carpet and I told her to paint it."

And I didn't get mad. I kept my promise. (Go me again!)

I thanked him for telling him the truth, explained to both of them that wall paint does not come off of carpets the way kid paint does, and told them we'd figure something out. I gave them both a hug (Morgan got me all wet), and then put Ryan in charge of Sean while I went to inspect the damage.

It is everywhere and pretty much dried up. Sigh. Also, the walls were smeared in random spots (I fixed those as best I could with the still dripping paint brush).

So, what do we do--a creative use of rugs? Some of it we can cover up with furniture, but some we can't--right in front of the closet.

Funny one day, yes? :o) I must be feeling better because I can kind of see a glimmer of humor about it as I type.

Oh well. Even though this was kind of a disaster, I think I did some things right--I didn't yell. I did show how upset I was in an appropriate way--and even though Morgan got so sad, I think it's good for them to see that this made me mad. I got Ryan to tell me the truth and told him I was proud of him for telling me the truth. I explained about the difference between wall paint and kid paint.

And Morgan's room is just a leeeetle bit pinker than we had intended.

Discipline Without Punishment

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

I've been writing about our experience with and applications of Positive Discipline methods for a while now. I'm aware that there may be some new readers who have found this blog (hi!) and so I wanted to do a quick review of what PD entails, how it fits well with my principles as an Objectivist, and to revisit the most controversial aspect of this parenting method: no arbitrary punishments and rewards.

(If you would like to read more about PD, check out my list of resources in this post.)

One of the reasons I like using the PD approach is that it reminds me to treat the children as if they are young human beings--because they are in fact, young human beings. A carrot-and-stick approach may be necessary with lower animals (and I'm not entirely sure if I think that's always so), but young humans, while not fully rational, are not the same as animals. They need guidance, sure. But their nature as humans demands that we treat them differently from other animals.


The Ambassador

I once read an analogy on a discipline discussion group that is a really wonderful way to describe the positive discipline approach. (If you happen to know the origin, please let me know so I can credit it properly.)

Imagine that you are a government official (no, really--it's a good analogy. Stay with me.) and your job is to introduce a foreign ambassador to our country. The Ambassador is brand new here. He has no knowledge of our language or customs, but he sure is excited to be here, and is eager to do things just right. As he tries to get along with "the natives," he's going to make some mistakes. LOTS of mistakes. Your job is to show him the way to do things around here. The Ambassador likes you a lot and has readily accepted your authority in the matter of All Things This Country. What is the best way to help him understand how to behave?

Imagine a dinner party where the Ambassador reaches across the table and grabs food off of someone else's plate. That's how they do it in his country, but not here. Should you smack his hand away and scold him for being rude? Should you scream at him? Should you talk condescendingly to him? Should you force him to apologize to the other guests for his behavior?

Or should you say "In our country, we only eat off of our own plates. If we'd like more food, we can say 'Please pass the carrots.' and someone will pass us the bowl."?

Imagine he doesn't know how dangerous a moving car can be. (They only ride horses in his country.) The Ambassador walks heedlessly into traffic. You grab his arm and stop him just in time. Do you now smack him? Scream at him for being so foolish?

Or do you say in probably a loud, obviously stressed out tone of voice "Don't walk into the road! Those moving cars could hurt you!"

Imagine that he lies to you about something important. Do you make him sit in his hotel room and think about what he did? Do you make him wash the windows of the embassy (a chore he hates) as punishment?

Or do you explain to him that truthfulness and trust is extremely important, that your relationship depends on it, that tricking someone by lying to them is a good way to damage a relationship and make yourself miserable? That because your trust is damaged, you'll be doing an extra careful job of making sure that what he says is true, so that you can continue to help him out?

And if I had belittled or smacked the Ambassador, what would his impressions of our country be? He might feel inadequate or stupid for not somehow automatically knowing what the rules were. He might view the our country as a place that doesn't make sense, and maybe a place that he can't ever understand.

What might he think of me? He might worry that I didn't really like him. He might learn to fear me instead of look to me for guidance and protection and answers about the way things are. He might become scared to try anything new (since my reactions were negative and unpredictable to him), afraid of making a mistake and facing my anger or a punishment or physical pain.

If I treat the Ambassador in a kind way, answering his questions, correcting his behavior, helping him make sense of things that are incomprehensible to him, he will begin to understand the customs, act in accordance with them, and he will look to me as a resource--someone who can help him out.


No Punishment? Really?

When I first started reading about PD, I couldn't get over the whole "no punishing" thing. I kept looking for loopholes--because I simply couldn't see how a child who isn't punished for his wrong actions would learn the right way to behave. How he wouldn't just act like a crazy hooligan all the time. How his parents would keep him under control.

And then I realized--discipline shouldn't be about keeping kids "under control." It should be about helping them understand rational (not arbitrary) boundaries and how to control themselves. In time, as the child matures, he will understand not only what the boundaries are, but why they are necesssary, and have the self-discipline required to abide by those boundaries. He will understand how to correct his mistakes. He will want to do the right thing because it is right--not because he'll be punished for doing the wrong thing, or rewarded with a prize for doing the right thing.

I should define what I mean when I say "punishment." I'm talking about an arbitrary, adult-imposed sanction upon a child for a specific transgression. If you run out into the street, I'll smack your bottom. If you scream at me, I'll make you sit in the Time Out Chair. If you throw a toy, I'll smack your hand. If you hit me, I'll hit you. If you break something precious of mine, I'll send you to your room. If you speak rudely to me, I'll withhold love, affection, or television privileges. If you lie to me, I'll ground you. In other words, punishment is something negative I'll do TO you in order to let you know you did something wrong (or something I don't like).

All of these parental actions are designed to get the message across that the child's action is unacceptable. Because those behaviors are unacceptable (accidents excepting). And of course kids ought to learn those things. And they CAN learn them if they are not punished for making mistakes or bad decisions.

Does this mean that there's an "anything goes" policy at my house? No! The kids take responsibility for their mistakes and bad decisions--but the consequences they face are reality-driven, not mommy-driven.

Children need rational, non-arbitrary boundaries based in reality, because like The Ambassador above, they are new here and don't automatically know the right way to act. If such limits are set and consistently enforced, then there is actually no need for an additional parent-imposed punishment. The child bangs up against the limit, the rule is enforced, end of story. In a way, handling limits in this manner sets the parent free (to a certain degree) from being the Bad Guy or JJ&E (Judge, Jury & Executioner). Mom is there to help the child respect the limits which are grounded in reality. The child can rant and rage against Mr. Reality (and my kids often do this), but Mr. Reality has a way of being constant and immovable, doesn't he?

Non-arbitrary limits include: Cleaning up a spill you made. A parent quickly grabbing you before you run into the street. Being held firmly by a parent until you can stop your arms from hitting. Being asked to choose between taking your screaming voices outside or quieting down a bit. Getting strapped into your carseat against your will, or being taken from a store or restaurant because you are flipping out and disturbing others.

Punishments do discourage unwanted actions. Rewards (the positive flip-side of punishment) do encourage desirable actions. But both are ways of controlling the child as opposed to helping the child learn to control himself in a rational way. In fact, punishments and rewards encourage second-handedness, I think, because the child learns to look to others for an indication of whether he has done right or wrong. He learns to expect consequences (positive or negative) to come from others--not reality. And he doesn't learn why right and wrong actions are right and wrong--only that others say so.


Examples!

Some limits need no Mom-intervention whatsoever. Walking on gravel in your bare feet is a reality-based experience that needs no adult comment. Not wearing a coat or sweater outside when it's 38 degrees--again, No Mommy Necessary (except to bring a backup jacket). The negative consequence to those actions are "punishment" enough, yes?

The vast majority of the limits my husband and I set for our kids are rooted in Ethics, of course. And the principle we use is that of individual rights (although we don't often use that term when explaining our reasoning, since that's a bit too abstract for them just yet).

When the child's actions infringe upon the rights of another, we put a stop to the action. There is no additional consequence--because all I want to do is stop the violation of someone else's rights. I always explain why the behavior must stop (in terms they can understand), but the most important thing is that the rights violation ceases. The kids will--and have--figure out that what they were doing is unacceptable and as they mature, they will be able to stop themselves from doing it, and they will eventually be able to truly understand WHY the behavior is unacceptable. (Ryan has been flirting on the edge of this true understanding for a while now, but at nearly 7, he's not all the way there. I'll let you know when he gets there--I still expect it to be a while.)

So--hitting. Hitting hurts and is not respectful of other people's bodies. You must stop. If you can't stop your arm, then I will help you, asking you to stop hitting, or by moving you away from the victim, or even occasionally by holding your arm still.

Screaming at me rudely. Well, I really dislike that, and screaming at me makes me not want to help you out. I'm much more willing to help you open the milk if you ask me in a kind way. If you scream, then I'll probably won't help you.

Bossing your friends. Your friends won't want to play with you if they are bossed incessantly. Guess what? I'm happy to report that Ryan is changing his behavior and is treating his friend more kindly.

Coloring on my walls (or writing ASS on it!). My walls belong to me and I like them sans colorful words. (Also, I like them poop-free. Yes.) So you must erase it and if you need to write things, please find some paper.

Trashing your room rock-star-style. The things in your room belong to you, yes, but I wash your clothes and you need to keep them neat and tidy in your dresser drawer. So you'll need to clean them up. Also, we vacuum every other week, so you'll need to clean up the floor, too. And you'll need to get this cleaned up now, so I don't think we'll have time to read your story tonight. Oh, your friends helped you make this mess? Well, then you'll need to ask them to stop making a mess next time, since this is your room. If they won't stop, come and ask me for help. Also, I think you and your friends shouldn't be alone in your room for a while.

In any of the above examples, I can't see how adding a punishment on to what happened would have done anything more toward having the kids understand the limits and why.


Rational Discipline

The best thing about positive discipline techniques is that they are very compatible with my principles. When I am guiding my children through a situation, I am focused on reality; I'm thinking about ideas that are important to me; I'm treating my children as individuals; I'm making sure they treat me and others as individuals with rights; I'm protecting them from catastrophic harm; I'm staying out of the way of them experiencing the consequences of their actions; I'm ensuring that they are thinking about things for themselves instead of accepting an argument from authority (me).

PD tools reinforce the virtues which I try to exercise on a daily basis for my own happiness. When I slip back into JJ&E mode (and I do), I'm not a happy mommy. I don't like thinking up punishments and enforcing them; I'd rather enforce the rational rule. I don't like implicitly asking my kids to do something merely because I want them to do it; I like them understanding that it's important to do something because it's right to do it (even if they don't like it in the moment).

In the words of Aristotle: we are what we repeatedly do; excellence is not an act, but a habit. With rational, reality-based limits, kids will get experience making good and bad choices, and lots of practice in how to navigate the local customs. I think they'll enter adulthood with experience and skills in their own toolboxes to help them be happy, productive adults.

I realize that some of my readers may have disagreements about these ideas. Feel free to comment (pros and cons!).

Positive Discipline and Rational Self-Interest

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

In my earlier post on Positive Discipline (PD), I mentioned that I would attempt to write more about how I think PD techniques help me to parent according to my values--specifically with Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

As a good Objectivist parent, I want my kids to grow up knowing for certain that it is morally right for them to pursue their goals. I do not want them to learn that self-sacrifice is desirable, nor do I want them to feel guilty about pursuing their own selfish ends. I think that children have as much right to be selfish as adults--while recognizing that they will need guidance from loving adults. (If you are curious about why Objectivists think selfishness is moral, I refer you to ARI and, of course, the many works of Ayn Rand. I use "rational self-interest" in this post because it helps me demonstrate my point better, but many Objectivists use both terms interchangeably. By the way, any philosophical errors in this post--or any of my posts--are mine and mine alone.)

Kids have absolutely no trouble being selfish, self-interested! It takes a while for the brain to mature to the point where the kid can even begin to understand that others have feelings and ideas. They start out very selfish. So what's the issue? The parenting issue for an Objectivist parent is not driving the selfishness out of the child, but rather, helping the child develop rational self-interest.

There are two main issues we've encountered here at our house. The first one is getting the child to understand and respect that other people (and that includes Mom) also get to have self-interests. The second is helping the child develop that faculty of reason--in other words, putting the rational into rational self-interest.

The techniques suggested by PD authors are excellent ways to guide a child toward appropriate behavior while respecting their right to their own rational self-interest. One of the recommendations many PD proponents make to parents is "Assume Positive Intent." This means that the parent should err on the side of thinking that the child is trying to fulfill some positive need or desire of his own, rather than intentionally trying to do something undesirable to Mom (like drive her insane).

I like this advice because it makes me focus on the question: "What self-interest is he trying to fulfill?" Then I try to help the child find ways to satisfy that need in an appropriate way, which shows him that I'm respectful of his self-interest, and also models to him what the appropriate behavior is and why.

Example time!

In the previous post, I wrote about Ryan's need to sometimes spontaneously scream at the dinner table. Actually, he needs to do that all the time. Obviously, shouting loudly in the presence of others is inappropriate. An Old School (OS) discipline method might work, in that it gets the kid to hush. But a PD approach acknowledges that this shouting might be an actual need or desire for the kid. AND the other people in the family get to have the peace they desire.

So instead of saying, "Stop that shouting or you're going to be punished!" and then following through on the punishment, I might say "That shouting needs to stop. It hurts my ears and makes it hard for me to talk to everyone else. If you need to shout, then go do it outside or up in your room." With PD, I acknowledge the child's need to shout (his self-interest) and I also can talk to the child about what I want (my self-interest). I present him with a way that both of our needs can be fulfilled--he can do his shouting away from me. Many times, I will engage the kids in brainstorming plans in which everyone's needs are met (more on that in another post).

As an aside--I don't need to agree that the kid's self-interest is rational or even makes sense. I personally don't feel the need to shout randomly in large groups of people. However, I recognize that Ryan often needs to do that. It may not be rational--but here it's important that I remind myself that he is a child and not fully rational yet. And yes, I often need to remind myself of this fact! I also refrain from judging his desire, so I wouldn't say "It's ridiculous that you feel like shouting right now. What's wrong with you?" That would be damaging in many ways and have negative long-term consequences (again, a topic for another post). I do use the sentence, "I'm confused about why you want to do XYZ." I use that sentence a lot. Because sometimes these people do not make sense to me.

More Examples

• Child throws trucks or other inappropriate toys. Mom says: "You seem like you're in the mood for throwing things. Trucks aren't for throwing--something might get broken. Can you help me find a toy that is good for throwing?" And guides the child to the basket of soft balls.

• Child is writing her name on her grandmother's the wall. Mom says: "Crayons are for paper. Nonnie wants her walls to stay white. After you help me clean this up, you can use this paper to write on."

• Child is pulling the cat's tail. Mom says: "Stop! Pulling the cat's tail is ouchy for kitty! Let me show you how to give the kitty a gentle pat. If you pull her tail, she might bite and I don't want you OR the kitty to have an ouch."

In all of those examples, Mom acknowledges the kid's need/want and helps the kid identify someone else's need/want as a way to show why the action is undesirable. Then Mom offers another outlet for the kid's need/want. Rational. Self-Interest.

I can't even think of a counter-example. If I'm in PD-mode, then there's no way I can discipline without acknowledging someone's self-interest! There are better or different ways I can phrase what I'm trying to say, but somebody's self-interest is always part of what I say.

The examples above handle issues in which the child is being exposed to the self-interests of others, while having their right to their own interests acknowledged. But what about the other issue? Putting the rational in rational self-interest?

Part of using PD means that I let the child make his/her own decisions, and then stand aside and let the kid experience the consequences without my interference. This is also known in our house as "Mr. Reality Never Takes A Day Off."

Mostly, what this requires is that I do nothing. Or at most, offer a suggestion or opinion about what the consequence might be. Because my goal here is to not interfere with Mr. Reality. I've learned that if I do, then I'm more likely to be blamed for any adverse outcomes! What I do is try to decide whether it's terribly likely that any permanent or deep damage to life, limb, property or self-esteem is going to happen. If the answer is "no," then I'll let them go ahead. (Obviously, if the answer is "yes"--playing in traffic on roller skates with razor blades--then I'll put a stop to it--I reserve the right to substitute my better judgment in many situations. It's an obligation, actually!)

• Child builds a LEGO city and decides to walk on it. What I might do: I might say "It's likely that your city will get broken if you walk on it." Or I might not--depends . Next step--soothe sad child.

• Child wants to slide down carpeted stairs head first on her back. What I do: Assume semi-non-chalant facial expression, note location of phone in case 911 call is necessary, take deep breath.

• Child wants to pull up the flowers she's just planted. (The flowers belong to her.) What I do: Nothing.

Eventually, they will figure out not to do something if they experience something bad as a result. Or, maybe they didn't experience something negative. When Morgan is pulling up her flowers, she imagines she's checking on them, touches the roots, and replants them. There is something she is learning then, something she needs to know, and because I didn't interfere, she got to experience it.

That's all I have to say about PD and rational self-interest for now. I really like the PD technique, because when I'm parenting this way, I am very aware and reinforcing aspects of Objectivism, too.

Hmmm....I thought this post would be much shorter than the other one! If you've made it this far, I'd like to know what you think!

Also: Edited for typos and because I accidentally published this before I was ready. Hopefully your feed-reader picked up my alterations.