Trader Principle Progress

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

As you may be aware, we explicitly use, explain, refer to, and discuss the Trader Principle in many of our parenting situations. According to Ayn Rand:

A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. He does not treat men as masters or slaves, but as independent equals. He deals with men by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange—an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgment.

Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness (via the online Lexicon)

Free exchange and independent equals--this is how we deal with things like sharing and taking turns. You don't have to let your sister take a turn with your toy merely because you owe her some kind of duty because she's your sister or because she's younger or because she needs or wants it. She is not owed a turn merely because she has decided she wants a turn. You have no moral obligation to share toys, and she has no moral claim on your toy by virtue of her desires or needs.

Indeed, this is generally how kids are taught to share. "Give him a turn, he wants it!" "Share that toy because he's a baby!"

A somewhat separate though related issue is that often the adult will swoop in and make a declaration as to which kid ought to have a turn, and skip over the process of teaching kids to negotiate their own terms independently.

But here, we trade. We trade goods (like turns with toys) and services (like help or kind words). If someone really, really doesn't want to share, he doesn't have to (but he may have some negative consequences that go along with that decision, such as a mad friend who stomps home or a sibling unwilling to share with him in the future).

My role is not to make people take turns, but rather to help them negotiate kindly and properly, and only step in where necessary. Sean, at 27 months, sometimes needs a little assistance in letting go, so sometimes I need to pry the toy away from his little hands and help him cope with the ensuing sadness. Ryan (8), who has never been Mr. Willing to Share, needs daily (hourly!) reminders to speak kindly and what to do if someone is touching his stuff. Morgan (5), generally willing to take turns and speak kindly, needs help in surviving the interminable negotiation process. (How could I ever have considered Ryan "not persistent?" That's clearly Crazy Talk, as nobody has his stamina or motivation when it comes to a negotiation.)

And as with any developmental stage or new skill, kids seem to make some forward progress, take a step or two backwards, and then move forward again. We're in Forward Motion around here lately, and it's so enjoyable!

For instance, I was playing Chutes and Ladders with Morgan the other day, and Sean's job was to spin the spinner when it's my turn (always best to give him a job where he can be kind of helpful in such situations). He was resisting handing the spinner back over to M for her turn. She sat there patiently, hand out, and would say in a sweet little voice "Come on, Seanie! It's my turn now, but YOU can have the NEXT turn!" And he would then hand it over of his own volition (though with some pouty face)! The fact that he is able to do this at least sometimes is super great, as he's still quite young.

I was also really impressed with Morgan. By explaining the process, she's helping him get an understanding of turn-taking (first you, then me, then you, then me). And she appealed to his self-interest, that he wanted a turn, and reassured him that he would get what he wants. So cool.

Then yesterday, Ryan surprised me with this exchange:

"Mom, can you help me reach the UNO cards that dropped down by my bookcase?"

Me: "Not right now, because I'm about to take all the garbage to the curb."

Ryan: " Well why don't I help you? That way your work will get done even faster and then you can come help me sooner!"

Me, jumping up and down: "Hooray! Hooray! Hooray! Oh I've waited for this moment my entire life!" (or similar)

So we did that. He worked hard and helped me do my job, and then we came back in and I helped him reach the UNO cards. I played it cool (though inside I was shouting and jumping as previously described), but told him thanks for helping me out. And I mentioned that trading work and kindness helped us both get what we want, and made us happy, too!

It was pretty cool!

Discipline Without Rewards

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

A few weeks ago, an interesting discussion began in the comments section of my On Children, Parents and the Use of Force post. A few astute and thoughtful readers brought up the issue of rewards, and suggested that I ought to clarify my thoughts on that due to some ambiguity with the way I was using the term. I've been thinking this over quite a lot since then, and I think I'm ready to address it.

Please know that while I am still firmly anti-reward, I'm still thinking through my explanation of my reasons. This is a first attempt (and I'm going to TRY to make it short-ish). I've no doubt that I'll think of other things to add and if you find anything confusing, please let me know in the comments of this post.

The post on the use of force was my first real attempt to pull together some of the ideas I've been writing about over the last year or so into one spot. One thing I left out of it though (I know! It could have been even longer!), and which deserves repeating for the benefit of this post (and others), is why I'm trying to think all of this out, and be so explicit. Here, I'll try to bullet point, maybe that'll be more succinct:

• I want my children to be happy in their lives.

• In order to be happy, you need to be virtuous (independent, rational, just, honest, have integrity and pride, and be productive).

• Therefore, I want them to understand these virtues, practice them, and see examples of them in our home. Hopefully when they're older, they will embrace them as we have.
  

In other words, just as I should do my absolute best to make sure my kids acquire educational tools that they will need as independent adults--reading and math--I should do my absolute best to make sure they acquire the virtues they will need to be happy.

Also important to keep in mind:

• Children are learning all the time--in addition to reading and math, they are learning how to act.

• Children have free will, but are predisposed (at least when young!) to give their parents' ideas a try, or at least a hearing.

• Children learn by watching others, by copying, by trying, from success and failure, through the choices they make.

• Children are neither irrational adults nor highly intelligent animals. They are humans who are learning to be rational.

With me? (I hope?) All right, moving on.

One question I've been asking myself since I got pregnant with our first child is: How, as an Objectivist who is also a parent, is the best way to raise my kids so that they have a lot of experience using the virtues?

I want my children, at the time they leave home and head out on their own (sniff), to have seen for themselves (not because I said so!) the benefits that come with being honest and productive, etc. Hopefully when they're adults, they'll each make a conscious decision to pursue their own values according to those virtues (that is, become moral people). I think if they do that, then they'll be happy.

One way they'll learn about the virtues for themselves is through getting lots and lots of practice. As I've written previously, I think it's best to let kids experience the consequences of their choices and actions--for good or ill. It's good experience and they will learn something!

However, there are times when the full consequences shouldn't happen--when the child's life, limb, or long-term health is at risk of serious or irreparable harm. Or when the rights of others are being violated (or will probably be violated). That's where parenting happens--to protect them from terrible consequences (running out into traffic), or to protect someone else from a rights-violation (one child hitting another).

Adults get to experience the full-on effects of their decisions (rational or irrational). If adults want to risk their lives doing something foolhardy like, I don't know, jump off a house roof into a shallow swimming pool during an electrical storm, then they will experience the consequences of doing that. Children, just learning rationality, deserve to be protected from the consequences of such decisions. The parenting safety net helps get them to adulthood, at which time they'll be free to make crazy decisions like that. :o)

So then the question becomes, is there a way I can set appropriate limits and enforce them as necessary without interfering too much with their chances to learn about virtuous behavior? The discipline method that I have found that best suits my goals is non-punitive discipline, aka "Positive Discipline" or "positive parenting."

And now we--finally!--get to the point of this post! (Hooray!) I've already written about how we don't punish our kids here, so I won't be talking much about traditional punishment in this post.

Okay. Rewards. Part of the problem in the Force post is that the word "reward" has many connotations. So let me define exactly what I'm talking about. Alfie Kohn, in his book Punished By Rewards, defines rewarding as a parent saying to a child "Do X and then you'll get Y." If you can put the interaction into If-Then terms, then it might be a reward. That is what we do not do around here with our kids--promise them something in order to get them to behave in a certain way.

Parental intent and manner is perhaps the most important factor in whether or not any given interaction between parent and child is the kind of reward I am advocating against. How a situation is handled by Mom can make a non-reward situation into a reward situation. (Back in the summer, I wrote about a time when I enforced a limit with Morgan--she lost the use of her art supplies for a day because she wasn't helping put them away. I could have enforced that in a punishing way, but I didn't. This same idea applies to rewards.)

I think I'm better at definition-by-example, so maybe this will help clarify what I am talking about (I hope!):


Rewards are:

• A piece of candy or a toy each time a kid does something desirable: If you pee in the potty, I'll give you an M&M.
  

• A gold star system for certain behaviors: If you brush your teeth without whining for 10 nights in a row, you'll get a prize.

• Promises of future extra privileges (tv time, a fun outing) in exchange for good behavior now: Look, be quiet now and you'll get to play a video game later.

Rewards are not:

• Celebrating an achievement with a child who is clearly proud of her achievement: Hooray! You used the potty all day today!

• Something good that happens as a natural result of a kid's behavior: No cavities at the dentist check up. (This "natural consequence" may be rewarding, certainly, but it is not something provided to the child by Mom and Dad.)

• A list of things a person needs to remember to do: Keeping a bedtime checklist is something we've done as a tool to help people remember all of their bedtime tasks--using the potty, brush teeth, pick up clothes in room, etc.

• A negotiated-ahead-of-time (with both parties, kid and adult, having equal negotiating power) trade: Dad: I know you want to play a computer game with me, but I have to rake the leaves now. What if we make a deal? You help me out now and then we'll get to play the game quicker.
  

• Doing something to make a not-so-fun job more fun: Cleaning up time isn't our favorite thing in the whole world. Why don't we put some music on to listen to while we're working?
  

I hope those examples help distinguish between If-Then rewards (or reward systems) and situations that might be rewarding. Another way to look at it is if the fun thing or system under discussion can be taken away by the parent and used to punish or threaten the child for not behaving, that's the kind of rewarding I don't use. So for the purposes of the rest of this post, please know that I'm talking about If-Then Rewards.


Why I Don't Reward

My primary objection to using rewards is that the process involves a kind of mental bait-and-switch tactic. It takes (some or all of) the child's attention away from what needs to be done and why and places (some or all of) his attention onto the reward. In encouraging the child to switch his focus away from the rational reasons he ought to engage in a certain behavior, he is losing a valuable opportunity to learn some deeper ethical lessons. (And I really think getting practical experience in using the virtues helps a child gain a better understanding of their benefits. A child will learn the value of honesty much more effectively by trying it out--or not--than by hearing me talk about how great honesty is.)

If-Then Rewarding, while certainly effective in getting a child to act in a particular way, doesn't reinforce the more abstract ideas of independence and responsibility and other great things I think my kids need to practice and understand thoroughly before heading out into the world. Kohn gives the example of using a reward to get a kid to take out the garbage. The kid takes out the garbage and gets his reward. The action has been performed and now everyone is happy. He's learned where to put the garbage, but he's learned nothing about responsibility, which is more important overall than the learning the physical action of taking out the garbage.

Now, if the kid is refusing to take out the garbage, and I simply enforce the limit and help him do it (by putting the bag in his hand and walking him out to the garbage can), he may or may not learn something about responsibility, that is very true. But his attention will remain on the task and the reasons for it and the fact that it's important enough that Mom is willing to help him do it. There is nothing shiny to take his attention off of these things. If he is rewarded (bribed) to do this job, he is more likely to miss the responsibility message entirely, or mistakenly integrate the idea of responsibility as "something I take care of in order to get a prize."

I want my kids to learn to do the right things because they are the right things to do. I do not want my kids to learn to do the right things because I give them a prize if they do it (or punish them for not doing it). This kind of "moral practice" will pay off for them in the long-run.

(Also, there is abundant evidence that reward systems, for kids and adults, do not produce lasting changes in behavior. There's a lot of this discussed in Kohn's book. That falls into the realm of psychology I believe; my objections are primarily philosophical.)


Enforcing Limits--the only Parental Action Necessary

I've tried to make the above point many times, but never so explicitly. Many parents (including me, once upon a time) think that in order to drive a lesson home, something needs to be done to the child. So the parent enforces a limit and then doles out a punishment. Or she enforces a limit by offering the child a reward in exchange for the desired within-the-limit behavior.

Kids WILL learn how to behave through the enforcement of limits. That is all the parenting intervention necessary.

I like to compare limit-setting to training wheels. The training wheels are there to help the kid learn how to correct his balance and protect him a little at the same time. Too far one way . . . oops! . . . the training wheels hit and the kid is (usually) prevented from tipping all the way over, and can correct his balance and lean the other way. Over time, the training wheels get raised, as the kid needs less and less correction and protection. After a while, they're removed altogether because he's gained the skill and can be safe.

There is no need for there to be an additional punishment or reward for learning to ride a bike. If the kid leans too far to one side, there's no mechanism on the training wheels that reaches up and smacks his hand to teach him a lesson, to reinforce the fact that he made a mistake. There's no automatic candy dispenser that doles out M & M's for every tenth of a mile traveled without an overcorrection, in order to encourage him to stay perfectly balanced. No, the training wheels set a limit and enforce it, and protect him some all at the same time. And that's how I see my role as parent--set and enforce (rational) limits, while protecting them (and others) at the same time. Nothing more.

So how about a real-life example? I think anyone reading this will probably agree that it's important for people to wear their seatbelts in the car regularly. (And if you don't, then just play along for a moment. :o) )

Ryan sits in a booster seat with a regular shoulder belt now. He's tested the "Wear your Seatbelt in the Car" limit a few times, unbuckling himself while the car is moving. Here are some of the things I've done to enforce our limit:

• Sat in the back with him and held the buckle in place.

• Moved him from the back row to the middle row so that I can more easily see if he's unbuckled himself, and so that one of us can reach back there and hold the buckle if necessary.

• Pulled the car over and stopped and waited until he buckled back up.

I didn't punish him by taking away a toy for each unbuckling incident. Nor did I give him any kind of prize for remaining buckled. I simply enforced the limit (over his often loud objections) and explained (usually in a calmer time) my reasons for this limit.

He now remains buckled all the time. He has learned and respects this limit. He knows how important it is. He knows that if he tests it again that I will do one or more of the above things each and every time. Again. He knows that I will not stop doing those things until I can trust him to remain buckled. He knows this because I am consistent in enforcing this limit. He knows that I will enforce this limit with his sister and brother when they move into booster seats. He knows that this is his responsibility and willingly manages it, usually without any reminders.

Another quick example--Epipens. Ryan is very responsible about remembering his Epipens. I have not had to develop a reward system designed to encourage him to remember them. We simply talk about it, remind each other to bring them, and if we forget them, then we have to leave the fun place we were heading to (like the playground) and return home.


There's more I'd like to say about this issue, but I think I'll stop here for now. I hope I've made my point about rewards more clearly. I can think of a few more reward-related posts, and now that my background thinking is out here in the blogosphere, it will be easier (for me) to write more specific posts on this topic. Oh, wait, there is one more thing.

In the comments section of the post on the use of force, there was some objection to my statement that rewards are a kind of coercion. According to one dictionary, "coerce" can mean: to compel to an act or choice; or to achieve by force or threat. I think these two definitions (the second and third as found in that particular online dictionary) apply to If-Then Rewards. To reiterate one of the main points of my post on force--there is a time and place for parents to compel a child to an act or a choice (enforcing a limit). When a parent uses If-Then Rewards to compel a child to do a particular something, that is one method of setting and enforcing a limit. That is the sense in which I was using coercion. [UPDATE: I am currently re-thinking the use of this word per some feedback in the comments. I think that the imbalance of power that naturally exists in the parent-child relationship makes this an accurate word. However, I am wary of muddying the waters where this concept is concerned, especially among non-Objectivists, so I'm re-thinking this. Thanks.]

Questions and comments (especially the thought-provoking kind) are welcome. :o)

The Nature of Children

originally posted at Reepicheep's Coracle

Just as it is important for us to define the nature of humans before we start to talk about ethics, we should also define the nature of children before we start to talk about parenting.

First, are children rational (i.e. able to use reason to make decisions)? This is a more complex question than it seems. Babies certainly are not. Small children come in and out of rationality, sometimes able to reason, sometimes not. Older children reach a point where they are capable of reason, but they may not yet have the practice and judgment to be left completely in charge of every aspect of their lives. Reason develops as all other abilities do, over time. There is not a day when suddenly a child goes from being utterly incapable of reason to able to use it all the time.

So, are children rational in the way adults are? No, they are not always capable of using reason. However, they are not irrational, either. They are not to be likened to adults who choose not to use reason when they are able to. They simply have not fully developed the capability yet.

Are they a-rational like animals? No, even though they are not constantly capable of using reason, they are developing this capacity all the time. They are not completely without rationality, even at a very young age (as seen in concept formation of toddlers). They have the potential for rationality at all times, unlike animals, and their brains are engaged in the growth toward rationality at all times.

I think of children as proto-rational. Though we cannot take for granted that they are able to reason at all times, we must constantly be aware of their potential for and growth towards rationality.

Next, these proto-rational creatures, like all humans, are neither inherently good or inherently bad. They have the potential to choose to be good or bad. There are metaphysically given facts about human children (I believe a drive toward the ability to reason is one of them), but there can be no inherent moral states. Morality is, by it's very definition, the realm of choice.

I have also observed that children have a built-in desire to imitate and please the adults around them. This is not second-handedness, as it would be in an adult, because they do not choose it. Perhaps this desire to please evolved as a survival strategy. I can imagine that it would greatly increase the chances for survival if a young child imitated the adults in the tribe and sought their approval by obeying the survival oriented commands he was given.

I have also observed that children all want to be adults and to succeed in adult tasks. Even in the face of parents who glorify a fairy tale idea of childhood, children still beg for more privileges, more responsibility, more adult roles.

Obviously, much more could be said about the nature of children, and science has much to discover about how they grow and develop and the nature of their psychological relationships with adults. These are only my preliminary observations about the what children are.

Now, what do we do with these observations? As regular readers of my blog know, I am an advocate of non-punitive discipline, and I believe that it is the rational way to parent in accord with the nature of children.

Because they are proto-rational, not a-rational or irrational, we must teach a rational approach to problem solving. We cannot train them through rewards and punishments (behaviorism), as we would a-rational animals. We cannot be unkind to them, using retribution or a withdrawal of time or affection, assuming that they were capable of better choices, as we might an irrational adult (though I have my doubts about how appropriate that is even with adults behaving irrationally, if we want to maintain relationships with them). Instead, we must use tools that teach better behaviors while respecting the burgeoning rationality of the child.

Because children are not inherently good, we cannot expect good behavior without practice. They must learn to make the choices that lead to positive outcomes (the good), and they must learn not to make choices that harm them (the bad). We cannot expect them to know things until they have had a chance to observe adults or experience the consequences of an action first hand. We cannot be angry because they don't know how to behave - that is putting a wish before reality. No matter how much we wish children might be inherently good and make the right choices with ease, reality doesn't work that way.

Because children are not inherently bad, we cannot assume that any annoying behavior is malicious. They rarely are, in m experience, and never are in very, very young children. Their poor choices are not the result of a bad character. Children's characters are not set; they are still forming. This is why advocates of non-punitive discipline choose to assume positive intent. Instead of thinking of children as bad and needing to be straightened out, we think of them as inexperienced, acting wrongly, often because they have not connected an action to its negative consequences yet. Assuming positive intent is like being innocent until proven guilty. I assume that kids are acting with poor information and with poor judgment until I am sure there is malice or intentional irrationality in the behavior (incredibly rare, in my experience, which is limited to youngish kids).

Because children are so driven to please the adults in their lives, rewards and punishments are particularly damaging. We want children to grow towards independence, to practice this virtue along with their growing rationality, and so we should let reality teach the lessons as often as possible. A parent who rewards and punishes strengthens their child's reliance on outside judgment, rather than helping him to strengthen his reliance on his own judgment, on his own evaluation of how beneficial a behavior is to his life.

Also, because of children's natural reliance on their parents, it is very easy to manipulate children emotionally. It is very easy to convince a child that he loves soccer and hates baseball by showing him (even in subtle ways) that soccer is the better choice for him. By using our enthusiasm for our values to influence our children, we can teach them to make their own values subservient to ours. We must guard against influencing a child's values and tastes, carefully not crossing the line between expressing our own values and dictating his.

It is also important to remember that modeling virtuous behavior is the best way to teach it to children. No amount of great parenting is going to make a child do right if his parents don't do right. We can capitalize on their drive to mimic by giving them a good subject to copy.

Finally, the observation that children want to be adults and want to grow and learn to be successful helps a non-punitive parent remember to explain and problem solve instead of punishing. Since children want to succeed in reality, they are open to learning which actions lead to success and which to failure. They can often find ways to solve problems themselves (with some help in knowing what the process is) because they are motivated to learn to be like adults (again, it would really help if they see adults solving problems and improving their behavior). Their desire to grow up and succeed should fuel their desire to grow into the virtues, since the virtues are our keys to success (and parents should be demonstrating this all the time).

Okay, big post, first thoughts on this subject. I'd love feedback.

More from Montessori

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

Today, I'm wrassling with a parenting post that is just not cooperating. Does that ever happen to you? I find it somewhat frustrating, especially when I have a neat-o topic I'd like to start talking about right NOW. But I know there's little point in publishing something that is not coherent.

So instead of publishing my post today, I thought I'd share with you more quotations from Maria Montessori that I found in my research today. It's been a little while since I've read any of her books, but I still find her thoughts interesting and inspiring. Many of her quotations apply to my personal parenting principles, even though her focus was education.


Encouraging Independence

As an example of one my parenting principles (and I've mentioned this before), I try to encourage my kids' independence by giving them as much freedom as possible to experience reality and the consequences of their actions. And when I'm in doubt about what I should/could do, I try to err on the side of freedom--meaning that if I can think of no good reason to interfere (in matters of safety, for example), then I do not.

“Never help a child with a task at which he feels he can succeed.”

“Little children, from the moment they are weaned, are making their way toward independence.”

“To give a child liberty is not to abandon him to himself.”

“The essence of independence is to be able to do something for one’s self.”

Using Positive Discipline Methods

The ideas behind Positive Discipline are very similar to Montessori's thinking. One of my favorite PD books has the phrase "giving your child the gift of inner discipline" right in the title, which really speaks to the essence of PD. We ultimately want our kids to reach adulthood with inner discipline, and not become accustomed to someone else doing their thinking for them, making decisions about what is best for them. True inner discipline will be difficult--if not impossible--to attain without the relative freedom to interact with reality, to learn how things work.

“Discipline must come through liberty. . . . We do not consider an individual disciplined only when he has been rendered as artificially silent as a mute and as immovable as a paralytic. He is an individual annihilated, not disciplined.”

“Free choice is one of the highest of all the mental processes.”

“Only through freedom and environmental experience is it practically possible for human development to occur.”

The Teacher (Parent) as Guide

One of the striking things about a Montessori classroom is that the role of the teacher is very defined and it's quite different from a traditional classroom. Traditional teachers are experts who impart knowledge to children and the child's job is to learn what the teacher tells him. By comparison, a child in a Montessori classroom has an enormous amount of freedom of movement, freedom to choose what he wants to do. The teacher is there to assist the child--when and if he needs it. Other than that, the teacher stays out of the child's way.

The way I try to parent emulates how Montessori teacher guides her students. I'm there to guide and help them: when Ryan needs help he calls for "reinforcements" which is a pretty good way to describe it, too.

“To let the child do as he likes when he has not yet developed any powers of control is to betray the idea of freedom.”

“These words reveal the child’s inner needs; ‘Help me to do it alone’.”

The first quotation is pretty interesting; I'd love to read it in context. (There is a danger, always, to taking quotations like these out of context.) At first, she seems to directly contradict the quotation above about how giving a child liberty is not "abandoning him to himself." If you happen to know the context, point me to one of her books. I believe that remark describes the crucial role of the teacher--and I think, the parent--in helping a child gain control over his body and his mind, so that he might become truly independent one day. (But I could be wrong.)

[WARNING: Despite what I wrote at the beginning of this post about not publishing posts that are not coherent, there's rambling disjointedness coming up! These ideas are very much a work in progress as I'm thinking through some things. I'd love to get some constructive feedback, though.]

Allowing a child do absolutely anything he likes with no boundaries does not foster true freedom. He will not learn how to control his impulses or exercise his own rationality--unlike lower animals, a human child is not born knowing what to do automatically. But because he has an immature brain, he also lacks rationality. I think the process of developing inner discipline might be simply learning to use one's mind, to learn how to focus on reality and understand how one's thought processes work (among many other things).

A child who lacks inner discipline will not be able to be truly independent and would develop into an adult who is essentially a slave to his own ungoverned mental processes. It's easy to see how such a person might be easily swayed by others; how he might follow his irrational whims; how he might view the world as essentially out of control and a malevolent place. There are of course many directions such a person may head (drift?) toward. Someone will need to make his decisions, to guide his life--the choice between learning to exercise rationality and developing discipline of mind and body or, well, not--is essentially the choice to guide one's own life or to put others in charge of those crucial decisions.

How hard do we adults have to work to break a bad habit or even just to improve an "okay" habit? To do so requires inner discipline, to retrain our minds to hold X instead of Y as our higher value--to hold one's health higher than smoking or overeating, to hold saving money for a home higher than spending through each paycheck, etc. If you are accustomed to accepting another's thoughts as your own, or accepting another's direction instead of your own, breaking a bad habit would be that much more difficult to accomplish. Consider how much easier life would be if you grew up with a strong, limber rational muscle, and lots of solid experience to help guide your decisions.

I think Montessori is right--that without freedom to make choices, there is no real discipline. Experience--direct interaction with reality--is a really great teacher. And as a parent, I try not to interfere with that great teacher's methods. And to be perfectly honest, it's a whole lot easier when the kids are mad at reality and not me!

The Goal . . .

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

. . . Or, Parenting, What's the Point? :o)

Since I've been writing more about parenting issues, I thought maybe I should address what I think the goal of parenting should be. But before I do that, I'd like everyone to know that while many of my parenting ideas come from books I've read, most them seem to come through conversations with my friend and parenting-philosophy cohort (and fellow Objectivist mommy), Kelly.

On most Fridays, we get together with Kelly and her 5 year old daughter, and usually spend hours and hours together, from lunchtime past dinnertime. I refer to our gatherings as Fun Friend Fridays. Fun Friend Fridays are a great way to end our week and we always eagerly look forward to an action-packed day. (Which is why I rarely blog on Fridays, as I'm sure that has been a question weighing on your mind.)

Because all of those kids are right there with us every second, having adventures and sometimes conflicts, Kelly and I usually spend some of our time talking about parenting. We pretty much see eye-to-eye on parenting goals and discipline strategy and help keep each other on track with our goals. So, many of these parenting issues I've posted about have ideas that either came directly from Kelly, or were developed in conjunction with Kelly, or were influenced by some way by something Kelly said, etc. It's so nice to have a good friend like Kelly! (Thus endeth the paragraph where I give Kelly her due and sayeth "Thank You!")

Anyhoo, Kelly and I were talking about the goals of parenting the other day. It really helps me remember what my ultimate goals are, especially when I'm dealing with a cranky unreasonable three year old!

Ultimately, I plan to work myself out of a job. :o) I know I'll probably never stop "parenting" because they'll always be my babies (sniff). But I know that I want each of my kids to be independent rational productive happy adults. That's my goal for each of them. My goal for myself and Brendan is to have a happy, healthy relationship with our adult children.

Identifying the goals of parenting is the easy part. The more challenging issue is figuring out how to parent such that our goals are met. I'm still figuring this stuff out, and believe me, I'm well aware that my oldest is not even 7 years old, so I have years of shiny new challenges ahead of me. So I'm only really knowledgeable to a point here. I think one of the keys to this parenting thing is to give them lots of room and time to "practice" being an adult, while providing a safe and loving environment where they can get support and hugs as needed. And one way to give them practice at being rational is to give them as much control as possible over their own lives and the right to take the consequences, be they good or bad.

So, control and consequences. In Sean's case, this means being allowed to sit up as long as his little body can do it and if he gets tired or startled and begins to fall over--allowing him to fall and experience what happens. Sometimes he cries, sometimes not. Most of the time he doesn't even fall and sits there, happy and proud. That's an easy example, because he's small and his challenges are relatively few, but the same goes for the older kids--generally as they get older, they need more independence and responsibility. It isn't fair to the child, to put yourself in their way, to prevent them getting the experience of dealing with their good and bad decisions . . . and then to suddenly expect them to be a responsible adult just because their body turned 18 or 21.

So, practice being rational. Only, of course, their brains are immature and they don't have so much life experience--hence the need for the parental safety net. The tricky part is that Line, figuring out where and when you should step in and prevent them from hurting themselves or others, or when to give them help without taking too much independence from them, or when to step back and let the chocolate chips fall where they may. The Line is where your action turns from support into interference.

It's hard sometimes, to figure out when to let go of one of our Ways because the child has outgrown it, or when to nudge the fledgling a little closer to the edge of the nest. And to do so in such a way that is kind and respectful, but firm if need be. But I think that the more they can experience things independently and deal with the outcome and act on their decisions and struggle with something they're trying to learn, the better off they'll ultimately be, because they'll have had lots of practice by the time they're grown. I think the parent is like the training wheels on a bike--at first, providing a great deal of support because they're touching the ground, but then slowly moving up and away, allowing the kid to pedal on his own. There if he needs them, but eventually he'll be free of them.

Or something like that. More to come!