Even More Trader Principle Progress

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

As a follow up to last week's post, I just overheard the following exchange:

Morgan: "But, remember? I shared my modeling clay with you! Don't you think I can try?" (I have no idea what it is of his that she wants to try.)

Ryan: "Well, yeah you shared your clay with me, but this is different."

Morgan: "Why?"

Ryan, stumped:  . . .

I hated to intervene, but they seemed to be at an impasse, and because I know that sometimes he triumphs in disagreements out of perseverance, and because I thought Morgan had an excellent point, I said, not turning around from my desk:

"So it sounds like Morgan wants to borrow something and she is reminding Ryan of a time when she shared modeling clay with him." (all in the third person)

Morgan: "Yes. Ryan I am reminding you of when I shared my modeling clay." (somewhat copying the words I offered her)

Ryan: "Well that's a good point. Let me think it over."


Okay, so he didn't agree (yet?), but he conceded the point and at least agreed to think it over. In the meantime, Morgan got on the computer and appears to have forgotten the matter. But still: progress!

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!

Podcast #6: The Trader Principle

This week’s topic is The Trader Principle!

• Situation of the Week (Kelly): Helping a child manage her frustrations

• Topic: The Trader Principle (begins at 5:51)

• Q&A: Toothbrushing Tactics (begins at 17:07)

Thanks for listening! This podcast marks the end of our first group of recordings. We made a couple of changes beginning with Podcast #7. I hope the technical changes will not be apparent, or at least improve the listening experience. And next time we’ll have our first question for the Q&A that came to us after we started podcasting. (Click here to get to the podcast site to download it directly.)

Enjoy this week’s podcast, and help us spread the word! As always, send us email at cultivatingthevirtues@gmail.com. We’d love some constructive feedback, and of course, questions for our Q&A or topic suggestions.

Powered by Podbean.com

On Manners

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

A few weeks ago, I asked for some suggestions for parenting topics. Thanks to those who left me some good ideas. Miranda asked me:

What's your policy on the kids saying sorry? The normal parenting technique after one kid wrongs another is to force one kid to apologize. And if the apology doesn't sound sincere enough, the kid is forced to make it sound "more real". How do you handle it? Is it even a priority?

As you might imagine, we handle apologies (and other issues relating to good manners) just a little bit differently around here. :o)

To answer Miranda's last question first: Yes, good manners, including apologies, are important to me. I think using kind words to express oneself, particularly with the people you value the most, makes things around here run more smoothly. It's also an expression of justice, treating the people you value as if you, well, value them.

That's not to say you shouldn't express your anger or disappointment or sadness when you feel it, ignoring injustices done to you. But expressing yourself with manners is a good starting place. There's a big difference in saying "Wow! That really hurt my feelings and I'm feeling sad about that." and "Stop being such a jerk!"

I'm also not advocating sticking with politeness for its own sake in the face of repeated injustices. There IS a time and place for rudeness. I haven't read too much Miss Manners, but I love the posts Diana shares on her blog (such as this recent one). Miss Manners is great at knowing when to straighten people out with just the right amount of disdain in one's voice.


Kids and Manners

The most important thing we do to help our kids learn manners is to use good manners ourselves. Modeling appropriate behavior is a great way to teach kids things (since they hardly ever take their eyes off of the adults around them, keen as they are to learn how to be adults themselves).

And you know something? I'm a more polite person than I was before I had kids. That's not to say I was a complete you-know-what all the time; I wasn't. But I make more of an effort to find a kinder way to say what I'm thinking than I used to, because I am very aware of the eyes and ears that are paying attention to me. So I'm better at expressing myself now, and doing it in an appropriate way.

So in addition to saying regular things in a kind way (like "Take your plate to the sink, please!"), I also correct myself in front of them, usually for their benefit:

• "Let me think of a kinder way to say that. How about . . . ?"

• "Hmmm....let me try that again."

• "Okay, 'BLAAAARRGGGH!' isn't exactly a good way to say that. How about 'I'm feeling upset now!"

I also model good manners for them when they are having disputes. And I make suggestions about what they could say.

• "I know it's your turn on the computer. Could you think of a kinder way to let her know it's your turn?"

• "What if you try saying 'Please don't touch my projects.' instead of screaming at her?"

• "Could you try again and ask for that crayon back in a polite way?"

• "You could say 'Stop! That's my drawing! Please leave it alone!' "

Sometimes when they're in the midst of some tremendously emotional conflict, they simply can't think of appropriate words to say. So I find making suggestions works well. The kid often stops and says the words I suggested (or similar ones). That's good practice for the next time.

I also explain the effect their rude words have on me, so they can better make that connection:

• "Wow. Normally, I'd be happy to help you, but your rudeness just now makes it harder for me to want to help you."

• "Can you ask me in a way that will make me WANT to help you?"

• "When you speak to me that way, I feel angry and that makes me not really want to make the effort. Kinder words are going to be necessary if you expect to get my assistance."

• "You're not offering me kindness with those words. If you want kindness in return from me, you might start by offering me some kindness in your words."
  

The older children understand that I am not obligated to submit to their rude demands. And I, in fact, do not feel obligated to do so. I am a whole actual person who is entitled to her own rational self-interest. Mommy, yes; servant, no. (No, they don't like this fact, but they do at least understand it. I'm okay with that.)

In the last example above, I used the phrase "offering kindness." The way we've explained the importance of good manners is by comparing it to The Trader Principle. Rational people trade rather than demand or force. Good manners is a way of trading kindness for kindness, rather than demands. This explanation has really helped them understand WHY using good manners is important, particularly with the people you love most and see all the time. (Here's my original post on the subject.)

Also, I don't insist on the word "please." It's okay if you say "Mom, will you help me open this?" in a nice way. Sometimes parents, I've observed, will make a child repeat an otherwise polite request because the child didn't use the word "please." I hate to dispel such a common myth, but "PLEASE" is NOT magic. It doesn't automatically make any request polite (you can say it in an angry way!!!). And it is not necessary in order to make a request polite. I think you can tell whether a person intends to be polite by their tone of voice and phrasing than whether they used one little word. So I place more value on tone of voice and phrasing.


Suggest and Model, Not Insist

Kids copy the adults in their lives (as you are no doubt aware if you've ever used a, um, colorful metaphor in front of a child) and my kids copy our polite manners, too. Now that Sean is speaking (and demanding), I'm beginning to model good manners for him. And I've caught him trying to imitate my manner and my words, and he is only 18 months old. He'll scream "Nooooooo!!!! Mom-MY!" and I'll look at him and say "No, Mommy! I would like to close the door!" in a kind voice. I'm showing him the words to say and how to say them. And sometimes, he changes to "No, Mommy!" and then blathers on in Baby Language in a kind, sing-songy sort of way. He is learning to be polite.

So we do not insist that they say the words. I strongly suggest, and offer words they could say, and refuse to act when I'm being spoken to in an unjust way. But I do not try to make them say the words.

As Miranda mentioned, parents often insist that their children use good manners--apologies in particular is sort of a hot button issue, and we've certainly encountered that from time to time. When Ryan was small, I tried to make him apologize once or twice and then stopped doing that for a couple of reasons.

First, even a small child can see through a false apology. Which is why, again as Miranda noted, parents often make their kids keep at it until a satisfactory apology is produced.

Next, I think it teaches a potentially harmful lesson to the child who is being made to apologize, especially when he doesn't actually feel sorry. You are telling him that it's okay to pretend that you feel something you don't, to say words expressing this because of someone else. It can teach the child that it's fine to evade your own feelings in the interests of others. Faked apologies can also give the victims a skewed understanding of justice (more on that in a bit).

But what to do? When you do someone a wrong, it is just to help right it. And that is something I do think is valuable to teach kids. Apologies are only one way to help right the wrong (and are often necessary but not always sufficient). Well, as a parent, that's when I step in to say the words my child can't, either because he is not actually feeling sorry or because he is also too upset. So I say:

• "I'm so sorry you got hurt!"

• "I'll make sure that we keep that toy away from the baby next time, so that he can't break it again."

• "I'm sorry that this happened, and I can tell Ryan is feeling sorry, too. It's hard for him to say the words right now, so I'm saying the words for him."

• "I'm sorry about that. Here's what I will do next time to make sure that this doesn't happen again."

Because I am feeling genuinely sorry that my kid bopped the other kid on the head with a wooden block (to use a completely non-random example), then I have no problem expressing MY emotions. Justice is served, and the apology is genuine. It's not necessarily ideal, in that the perp is not the one apologizing, but I think a genuine apology from a Mommy is better than a faked one from an unremorseful kid.

I have generally found that the victim is willing to accept a Mommy Apology, although sometimes they won't. Those kids who can't accept a Mommy Apology are always the kids who live in homes where apologies are forced, and the older they are, the less likely it is that they'll accept a Mommy Apology. They feel cheated when the other kid doesn't say the magic words, and I am sorry (no pun intended) about that. When those kids interact with each other, they tend to insist on the fake apology, and then lord it over the apologizer in a mean way. This is most certainly NOT good manners. These kids have been confused about the purpose of a meaningful apology, and have learned to use "I'm sorry" as a way to continue their conflict, not resolve it. When these kids demand that my child utter the words, I'll request that my kid apologize first. If he won't, then I'll apologize on his behalf. If the victim becomes upset that my child won't say the words, I'll explain that I will not insist, repeat my apology, and then try to get things moving on to the resolution stage.

The great thing about not insisting on fake apologies is that when my kids apologize, it's genuine. And THAT knowledge is wonderful! I'd much rather have that (and yes, they do apologize to me) than a phony apology any day.

There have been a couple of times when my kids wronged someone, felt genuinely sorry about what happened, yet felt too upset or embarrassed to utter the words. One event in particular stands out in my mind. Ryan and his friend had had a big blow up over something, and his friend left here, crying. Ryan was in tears and told me what happened (I honestly can't remember what it was though). I asked him if he was sorry about it, and he said he was. So I explained that the just thing to do would be to tell his friend that he was feeling sorry, to tell him that he would not let it happen again. He agreed, but completely freaked out about the idea of doing the actual apology. He was embarrassed and sad and completely overwhelmed with emotion. I let him calm down for a while, and then reminded him that he needed to do the right thing--apologize. He got upset again, and I suggested that I go with him and help. He finally agreed and we went right on over and asked to talk to the boy. When the moment came, Ryan started crying again, so I said the apology while Ryan nodded his head along in agreement, which was the only thing he could manage. And things were resolved.

His friend's mom was a little confused, I think, because she knows we do not force apologies and yet she could tell that Ryan was reluctant to be there. But what I tried (and failed, I believe) to explain to her that this wasn't a faked apology. Ryan's remorse was genuine, and he needed my help to do the right (just) thing, because he valued this boy's friendship. So yes, I insisted that we go over and do the right thing, but when it came to it, I said the words for Ryan because he was so upset. In doing this, I modeled good manners and justice for him, which is one of my primary jobs as a parent--helping them and showing them how to act morally.

So that's how we do manners around here. Thoughts?

More About Back Talk

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

I mentioned in my post the other day that we don't consider angry or defiant words from our kids "back talk" in the sense that the term was used when I was growing up. When I was a child, it simply wasn't acceptable for a child to express such sentiments (such as "No." or "I'm mad at you.") to an adult, because of the way adult-child relationships worked in my family.

I thought I'd get a little more specific about how I have handled "back talk" situations around here. It's hard, because I tend to "Back Talk Back" as the PD Tool Card wisely advises against.

Let's take a somewhat common scenario with my kids. It's time to go somewhere, usually because one child has an activity we need to get to, and we need to be there at a certain time. Sometimes, despite my best efforts to adequately prepare the kids for the fact that we need to load up in the car within a certain time frame--in other words, despite my "perfect" parenting!--one of them will respond to my "Okay, everyone, it's time to get in the car!" with a "NO. I'm not going."

ARGH. Especially when I have been calm in my manner and have been more than fair in terms of meeting everyone's needs (one last round of a game, or a quick snack, etc.), that just makes me MAD. And when that "No, I will NOT." is delivered in a rude tone of voice, that just makes me madder.

Now, since I'm trying to be completely honest about my parenting successes and foibles, I must confess that I have (often) let this get to me and snapped back something in a mean voice like "I told you we needed to go! Get in the car!" [That would be the Back Talking Back.] You know? Now that I think about it--so much of better parenting is in the tone of your voice.

Anyway, my saying "WE NEED TO GO, GET IN THE CAR!" loudly, while not how I prefer to communicate with my kids, is a step in the right direction away from "Don't back talk me!" or "You'll do as I say because I said so!" But I can still do better.

When I'm really in the positive parenting communication zone, here are some things I might say (and have said) to the child instead of shouting in a mean voice:

• "It sounds like you don't want to go and I'm sorry about that. But it's time to go now. Can you walk to the car or do you need me to carry you?"

• "What's a kinder way to tell me what you're feeling?"

• "I've explained the plan lots of times now and I feel frustrated about repeating myself. I'm all done talking about this right now."

• "Would you like another chance to say that? Because I feel pretty mad."

• Or, I could act without words (another PD Tool Card I haven't reviewed yet) and take the child gently by the hand or carry her to the car.

Yes. These situations-formerly-known-as-"back talk" are super irritating, but they are also wonderful opportunities to reiterate the principle of kind communication. (Especially when I'm able to model that myself!) They give me opportunities to express my emotions in an appropriate way, and the child can see the real-time effect his hurtful words have on someone he loves. I do this not in an "I'm going to teach him a lesson" kind of way, but in a "rational human interaction" kind of way, if you get the distinction.

I've recently hit on another way to explain why "kind communication" is not only important to the people you're talking to, but is also consistent with the child's (or anyone's) rational self-interest. I must admit that I think I'm pretty clever for having thought of this explanation, particularly because it really struck home and things have improved! :o)

Ryan. Oh my boy Ryan. He has many wonderfully endearing qualities and strengths. I have had dozens of comments from complete strangers who observe him or talk to him and say things like "He is such an interesting kid. I wonder what he'll do in his life!" And I agree. He is an interesting and creative child. I love him to the moon and back.

But, Ryan. Oh my boy Ryan. He can be pretty mean when he wants to, and he crosses the line more than he should, and upsets Morgan or his friends or even me. I dislike it when he speaks so unkindly, not just because I don't like such things said to me or others I care about, but because I can see how such words and tone will cause him harm in the long run. I don't think he truly wants to alienate his friends by bossing them to death or using an unkind tone of voice, but he simply doesn't understand why it matters. Not yet--he's getting there, and he will get there. Anyway, my intent of course, is not to rag on my seven year old, but to provide you with a bit of background knowledge for context.

One night on our vacation, Ryan was arguing and speaking pretty unkindly to me about something. I think we were trying to settle them down to bed or something. Anyway, I looked at him and said something like, "The way you're speaking to me makes me mad. I don't like it." But that didn't really faze him too much, as I believe his intent was to make me mad. Mission accomplished, yes?

And then I said, "You know how we trade in our family? How we trade work for work? Like when you need me to do something and I ask you to watch Sean while I do that for you?" And he nodded. "That's a good way for us to do things, isn't it? Because we are each getting something we want, and we are helping each other out at the same time. Right?" More nods.

"Well, the thing is, Ryan, we need to trade when we speak to each other, too. We need to trade kindness for kindness. And if you are expecting me to do something for you, then you need to offer me some kindness first, because that's your part of the trade. Or if you are glad that I did something for you, then you can offer kindness by saying 'Thank you.' You don't like it if you ask something nicely and I say "NO!" in a mean way. Because you offered kindness as your part of the trade but got meanness instead. And that's not fair, is it? And that works both ways. Does that make sense?"

AND. IT. DID. What I said to him penetrated into his head that night. He really got it. In a way, it's the Trader Principle applied to communication and relationships.

Since that evening about a week ago, Ryan has made a noticeable effort to speak kindly to me and everyone else in the family. He is thanking us more consistently. He is saying things like "Well, I don't really like that at all, but since you asked me to wait, I guess I ought to wait patiently." and "I'm feeling like yelling right now, but instead I'm going to just ask you to hurry up please, Mom." :o)

Now I'm not saying this strategy is going to help every child see the point of kind communication. Nor am I saying that Ryan has been a perfectly kind communicator in the last week (he had a big blow up this evening, as a matter of fact). But hey--it's an idea! If it helps one of your kids, I'd love to know about it!

I think if I had been focused on the idea that children shouldn't speak to grownups in a certain way, I would have missed this opportunity to get through to him on this issue. If I had been focused on Back Talk and how "no child of mine is going to speak to ME that way," I would have also become focused merely on somehow getting the child to stop that behavior--at least towards me. I'm not sure I would have been focused on helping him learn better ways to talk to others--especially if I had had the wrong idea that there are supposed to be different standards for the ways in which children should speak to adults than the ways in which they are permitted to speak to other children.

So I'm glad that I'm (mostly) successful in reframing "back talk" as "rude communication" and focusing on problem-solving the latter.

Happy Consequence

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)
tra
Here's another great thing about the kids being responsible for more laundry: now we are able to exchange work in a Trader Principle manner!

Earlier today, I needed to run upstairs briefly to pull some clothes out of the dryer before they got wrinkled. I didn't want to bring the baby all the way up there, just to come back down with him (which would anger him tremendously). I also knew Ryan had sheets in the washing machine.

So I offered him a deal. If he'd keep an eye on Sean while I ran upstairs to empty the dryer, I'd be happy to put his stuff into the dryer for him, and start the next load. And a deal was struck!

Prior to making Ryan responsible for his laundry, I would have had to do the same exact thing--throw the sheets in the dryer and start the new load. But I may or may not have received his help with the baby. Not without complaint, perhaps.

He was clearly able to see this as a value-for-value exchange, and stopped his game to play with Sean for a few minutes. I got the laundry situated, and the baby saw no need to lose his temper. Ryan didn't need to be grumpy because of my asking him to do this; and I had no need to get grumpy because I was doing all of this laundry, yet was having a difficult time getting five minutes' worth of help.

Hmmm.....what other responsibilities is he ready for? YAY!

Kids Handling Conflict

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

One of the most useful things I've picked up in all of my Positive Discipline (PD) reading and in practice has been teaching the kids how to negotiate their own conflicts. In Kids Are Worth It!, Barbara Coloroso has an entire chapter devoted to this subject, and much of Siblings Without Rivalry revolves around this topic, too.

I touched on the subject of negotiations in my post "Positive Discipline and the Trader Principle" but the focus of this post is the process of conflict resolution.

To state what I hope is obvious, people living together in close proximity are bound to have disagreements from time to time. Sometimes, I think that parents believe that either something is wrong when their kids fight (disrupting a fantasy of childhood harmony) or that their conflicts are too juvenile or silly to be taken seriously. This is an observation based on parents I've encountered in real life.

Now I remember what it's like to have siblings and I also know what it's like to live with my spouse. None of these people has ever just done everything I wanted or the way I wanted and, yes, it's really freaking annoying! it can be a problem from time to time.

Teaching the kids how to work through their own conflicts accomplishes two important goals. First, as I think I said in a previous post, I, as Supreme Mommy Extraordinaire, have no wish to be judge, jury, and executioner in their conflicts. If they become dependent on me to solve their conflicts, then that creates a lot of extra work for me and I've already got a lot to do.

Second, I do not want them to arrive at adulthood unable to work through problems. I don't want them to view every conflict as a Complete and Utter Disaster and want to run away from them (this is how I used to be). I don't want them to view each conflict as a Fight to the Death either. Or as an opportunity to bring up every wrong from the past. Or as a way to vent one's anger in a big explosion but then never resolve anything.

I want to provide them with tools for solving problems with other human beings in a rational, respectful way. Because the cold, hard facts here are that while they will one day stop living with each other and us (sniff!), they will have lots of roommates, spouses, coworkers, and colleagues to fight with. And they need to know good ways to handle conflicts.


Old School Method (aka, How it Went Down when I was a Kid)

Two kids are fighting over a toy: "It's mine!"

"No, it's MINE!"

"Moooommmmm: she took my toy and it's mine."

"No I didn't! He told me I could have a turn and then he grabbed it!"

Mom, extremely motivated to make the noise stop, must make a spur-of-the-moment decision. No matter who gets the toy, someone is going to be sad and angry at Mom. How does Mom know how to be fair? Does she even care about justice at this particular moment? Mom is tempted to toss the toy in the trash and tell the kids to hush, but knows the kids are looking to her for an answer: "Give it back to him. It's his."

One kid has won and the other has lost. This is a solution to the problem--but not one that everyone had input into or agreed to. Is this really a solution for the kid who lost the judgment? And is this really a solution for Mom? She is not only the target of some strong emotions (anger, resentment), but will also be expected to arbitrate the next conflict. And she's already got enough on her plate, don't you think?

When the responsibility for solving a conflict is the responsibility of the children involved in the conflict, Mom is no longer in an impossible position. Instead of being asked to solve the problem (one way or the other) for the kids, Mom is now in the position of facilitator, the objective third party who assists the kids in talking through the process of solving the issue.

Taking the same example--two kids screaming and fighting over the same toy, just after the spine-tingling "Moooommmmmm!"


Defining the Problem

Mom says: "Sounds like a problem. What can I do to help?"

Both kids start talking at once, in a hurry to get Mom on their side.

Mom says: "First of all, why don't I be the one to hold the toy while we talk about this problem. Also, I can't understand the problem if you're both talking at once. Morgan, why don't you describe the problem for me?"

Morgan: "Well, I was having the first turn and then he took it away and I wanted a turn!"

Mom: "So you were expecting a turn and you feel mad because he took the toy, right? Okay, Ryan, now you tell me about the problem."

Ryan: "It's MY toy and she didn't tell me she was going to take such a long turn and it's MINE!" [In real life, Ryan's explanation could take minutes. Edited for Clarity, Brevity, and Sanity.]

Mom: "So you weren't expecting her to take such a long turn and you'd like it back, right? Okay, let me make sure we all know what the problem is: Morgan would like a long turn with this toy and Ryan wants the toy back now, yes?"

If I didn't get the problem exactly right, then we'd spend a few more minutes identifying the main issue(s).


Time for a Plan

Mom says: "Before I let go of this toy, you two need a plan. When you've agreed on a plan, then you can let me know who this toy goes to." Often at this point they'll start fussing at each other and I'll remind them that they need a plan.

Morgan, the younger of the two, and somewhat likely to give in to Ryan and his demands because she just doesn't want to deal with it any more (which I can relate to!), will sometimes just say "Okay, I'm all done with my turn." And that will be that.

However, if she has been giving in frequently, or I can tell that she is really wanting a turn and needs some assistance articulating her desire and/or standing up for herself, I'll try to help her out a little more by saying "Would you like me to help you know what to say?" She'll agree to this quite often.


Negotiating a Plan

A typical negotiation will go something like:

"Ryan, I want a turn."

"It's MINE."

"But, I'm not done yet!"

"It's MINE." (He's nothing if not crystal clear on this particular issue.)

If the kids aren't negotiating so much as they are just disagreeing, I'll remind them: "Remember, you guys need a plan. What's your idea for how you can take turns with this toy?"

Morgan: "Well, I want to finish my turn. Can I have 5 more minutes?" (Note: "5 more minutes" means "extra time." Neither of them has any real sense of how long 5 minutes actually is.)

Now, Ryan might agree to this, or work her down to 3 minutes. (Three is her favorite number because she is three. I wonder if she'll change to 4 in a couple of weeks.)

Or he might say: "No! I want it right now!"

So I can say, "All right--you don't want to let her take 5 minutes. What's YOUR idea for a plan with this toy?"

Ryan: "I think she should ask me for a turn next time."

Mom: "So would it be okay if she finished her turn now, if she promised to ask you for a turn next time?"

Ryan: "Yes."

Mom: "Morgan, is that agreeable to you? Will you ask him next time?"

Morgan: "Yes."


Making Sure Everyone is Clear

Mom: "Okay, so it sounds like your plan is that Morgan can finish her turn since she has promised to ask next time, right?"

If everyone agrees, then you're set! Until the next time. :o)


WHY?

Now this entire process takes a while to complete. Way more time than just me saying "Give the toy back to Ryan." or "Just let her have a turn!" But there are many, many advantages to taking the time to help them learn how to handle their conflicts independently.

First and foremost--they solved their problem. The conflict didn't just go around in circles until somebody's (okay, my) head exploded. An actual solution was reached, a solution that everyone could live with.

Solving problems this way requires good communication skills. Morgan tends to just "Blllaaaarrgghhh!" when in a fight with Ryan and my helping her find appropriate words to say is giving her skills and tools she can use the rest of her life. Ryan tends to barrel over anyone in his way, and the back-and-forth style of the negotiations helps him practice listening to what others have to say, which will (I hope) eventually help him discover that it's only fair that others get to have a say in how things are handled.

Since each child had actual input into the solution, they are much more likely to stick to the agreement. If someone tries to alter the agreement, then the other child (or I) can say, "But you agreed to do XYZ." And that reminder usually helps them go back to the original agreement.

Inherent in the conflict resolution process is using one's mind--the faculty of reason. Just like any other muscle in the body, the brain needs exercise, too. Excellent practice for burgeoning minds.

Anger and resentment aimed at Mom is lessened to a great degree. Because they're kids, they still mistake my assistance for interference and might feel mad at me, but I know from having accidentally reverted to Old School methods, that the "loser" will usually be terribly mad at me for imposing a disagreeable judgment upon them.

The kids are motivated to solve their own problems when they know it's their problem to solve. Nobody can play with the toy until there is a plan. If you don't have a plan for watching movies (such as who gets to pick the next one), you don't watch movies. If you can't agree on who gets to sit where on the couch, then you don't sit on the couch.

Putting the onus for problem-solving on the kids helps them learn to be independent in this realm. They also get practice pursuing their selfish values, while learning that others have selfish values, too. There's that Trader Principle again!


The Downside

This method takes LOTS of time and repetition before the kids can do it on their own. But wait! Didn't I say at the top of this post that Mom has a lot to do already? Yes, yes I did.

But like any good parenting technique, the time and effort you put into it at the beginning pays off in spades later. I do not have to help the kids negotiate their problems to the level of detail described above. Often, I simply need to remind them that they need a plan, watch out to make sure Morgan is getting a fair chance to say what she wants, remind her to use words. In other words, I watch to make sure that the negotiations are playing out in a fair manner.

The other downside is that both kids need to be at least 2-3 years old before the negotiations can really begin to be effective. This doesn't mean that you can't begin until the kids reach that age. You can walk them through the process, especially if there is an older chlid you are trying to teach. Often, I'll speak for the younger child. I'll say "It sounds like Sean wants a turn with that toy. When can he have a turn?" That also helps everyone begin to see the baby as someone with valid needs and wants, too.

An unanticipated downside for me is when the kids are playing with other children who expect adults to handle their problems, and haven't been taught negotiation skills. What I do when conflicts arise is walk them all through the negotiation process as described above. The other child is often bewildered at this process, and I've been told a couple of times that they just want me to make a judgment. A good reply to this request is "Oh, I'm not going to solve your problem for you. But I will help you two solve your own problem." And then forge ahead in the conflict resolution process.


The Payoff

My older kids and their friend Livy are all very good at working through their problems without too much adult intervention. For reference, Ryan will be 7 years old next month and Morgan is 2 weeks away from turning 4. Livy is 5.5, right in between my oldest two kids.

Since they expect to handle their own problems, they will begin stating the problem and coming up with solutions without input from any adult. As I said, I'll watch to make sure things are proceeding in a fair way, especially where Morgan is concerned, since she's younger and still needs more assistance than Livy or Ryan. Parents only get involved if the emotions are running too hot or if they can't agree on a solution.

The solutions they come up with are so creative. One day, the three of them were disagreeing on the use of a particular toy, which has many parts of varying shapes and colors. Instead of coming up with a plan to take turns as I expected them to do, they agreed to divvy up the toy according to color, and each child took pieces of a certain color and went off to do their own thing with them. Blissful peace! Also, extra time to write super long blog posts!

No, they don't do it perfectly every time, but they are improving their technique every time there's a conflict. Since this happens several times a day, they get lots of practice! And you know what? So do I. Having been raised Old School, I have learned better ways to handle my own conflicts with others and have become more confident in solving problems with others in rational, respectful ways.

Kids & Money

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

Money is a Good Thing (my recent obsession with Twitter makes it hard not to precede "Good Thing" with a #).

Oh yes, money is dead useful if you need to buy something or do something fun or eat, and we seem to go through an awful lot of it around here.

Beginning a couple of years ago, Ryan (now nearly 7) developed a keen interest in money of all kinds , and quickly grasped two key principles concerning money: More Money = Better; and My Money = MINE. Morgan is not quite there yet, but she is beginning to discover that we hand over money to cashiers at stores and we then get to bring items home. So she'll get there.

So Brendan and I began to discuss ways in which to help Ryan get the money he yearned for while making sure that we help him understand just where money comes from. Easy discussion, right? Ha! This money issue turned out to be the only major disagreement Brendan and I have ever had about parenting. (Tip: try to avoid major philosophical disagreements while one of the parties is pregnant or newly post-partum. I know it sometimes can't be avoided, but try.)

There seem to be two main schools of thought about how to teach kids about money: the Allowance School and the Chores School. There are many different combinations of the two ideas. When we first started talking about Ryan and his desire for money, I was very pro-allowance and Brendan wanted Ryan to get his spending money solely through earning it. It became clear that we had different ideas about kids and money, partly because of our own childhood experiences. What we ended up doing is defining some of the goals and thoughts we had about money, our principles, and have developed a way for us to satisfy all of them. I think. :o)

Ryan's Goal

To have money of his own!


Brendan's and My Goals

To help our kids understand:

• How wealth is created
• That earning money is tied to hard work
• Money management skills, including budgeting and planning
• The value of saving

Brendan was, and to a certain degree remains, very much in the Chore camp. Any and all money ought to be directly earned by the child working to do something meaningful around the house.

I also like the idea of the kids earning money through chores. Because of course it reinforces the concept that wealth is earned, and the Trader Principle, too. So what was my problem? It was all in the execution.

We tried the Chore route for a while last summer and it was really darn hard for me to keep up with. Now I have no problem paying kids (or anyone!) to do extra jobs around the house (especially the Cruel and Unusual kind, such as tax preparation and yard work and window-washing), but coming up with daily tasks that a kid could get paid to do was a big pain for me. Which tasks? How much should I pay? How much did I pay last time? What if I'm short on cold hard cash at the moment the task is/needs to be completed? (I often don't have tons of cash lying around. Uh, in case you were wondering.)

Not only were there administrative issues which I didn't enjoy and took up more of my time than I wanted to contribute, Ryan seemed to be unable to grasp the distinction between jobs we would pay for and things everyone needs to help out with as part of living in a family (aka responsibilities). So he was beginning to say things to me like: "You owe me a dollar. I just took my plate to the sink!" or my very favorite: "How much will you pay me?" when asked to do things such as clean up a mess of his own making or brush his teeth. Charming.

So I brought up the idea of a regular allowance again. I had received an allowance as a child, but Brendan never did. I liked having money of my own and being able to count on adding a certain amount to my stash each week. I still had the option of earning extra money if I wanted to by doing extra work around the house. Getting a regular allowance helps a person learn all of those money management skills such as planning and budgeting and tracking expenses. It's easy to administer and eliminates the Pay-For-Existing revenue model that Ryan was using.

Brendan's primary objection to an allowance was that simply giving money over to the child without explicitly tying it to industrious effort will result in an adult who somehow thinks money and wealth do not need to be earned and created, or worse, that it somehow comes from the government. He doesn't want our kids to think that money somehow magically appears. And of course, I agree.

But how to address the idea that wealth is earned and not a handout?

We can do this in two ways. First, we own two businesses, and the older kids understand that "Dad works for his clients in exchange for money that we use to buy things." They do the happy dance with me when we receive a check from the company that manages our cabin rentals for us, and accompany me to deposit the check in the bank. We always talk about how people give us money in exchange for getting to stay at our cabin, and that we use that money to pay for electricity at the cabin and other things, too. I really think that Ryan at least has a solid grasp (for a kid) about how we get our money--through our thinking and efforts. I really don't see how the kids wouldn't connect our earning money with our efforts, unless we tried to hide it from them for some reason.

The second way is to continue to pay them for Cruel and Unusual Work, as referenced above. This is how my parents did it with us, and I think there is room for both schools of thought in our house, too. It's similar to earning a bonus at work for doing an extra project.

But Brendan was still a holdout on the allowance issue, despite my well-reasoned and airtight arguments attempts to demonstrate that a child receiving an allowance would not necessarily guarantee that he will end up on welfare.

Brendan views allowance as a "handout." So I suggested that we instead look at a weekly allowance as a way to turn over to Ryan a very small portion of the money we already spend on him. We spend money on him all the time: we share our food and share our home and electricity and cars: why not share our money, the means with which we acquire those things we share with them? Brendan was worried that they would somehow get used to having money handed to them; the fact of the matter is that kids are necessarily dependent on us. They can't go get jobs, at least not yet, and rely on us to take care of their needs. In giving Ryan some control over a bit of money, we can provide him with experience in handling financial matters, and as he grows, the money and responsibilities will grow, too.

So we decided to try the allowance plan, to the tune of $3 a week, and have been on the plan since about October. I win! We reached a mutually beneficial agreement, which we can revisit later if things aren't working out according to plan.

We have a few parameters around his allowance.

Ryan is in complete control of his money. He can spend it or save it however he wants. I think this is important because it's his property. That means he is responsible for his good and bad decisions. There is no savings requirement and certainly not a charitable donation requirement, as many websites about kids and money seem to suggest.

He can buy whatever he wants to with it: toys, candy, books, etc. (subject to general restrictions like movies we don't think are appropriate, for example). Ryan seems to enjoy saving up for specific things, but he also splurges, too (he's a sucker for vending machine rubber balls). If he wanted to give all of his money to a charity, we wouldn't stop him--we'd probably have a chat about it, just to see why he wanted to do it; but we wouldn't make him do it either.

He is in charge of keeping track of it. As Brendan is fond of saying, "What can you buy with Lost Money? Nothing." Since Ryan has been responsible for his own money, he is very careful to put his allowance in his wallet and treasure box.

But, as a condition of us turning over some of the money we spend on him, we have told him, and he has agreed, that Brendan and I will no longer buy him LEGO or souvenirs on vacation. As he gets older, he'll receive more money, but will also be expected to be responsible for other kinds of purchases. For example, at some point, I don't know exactly when, he'll get a clothing budget and make all of those decisions for himself. The reason we started with LEGO and souvenirs is that those are two general expense categories where Ryan always, always wants us to buy something for him, and until recently he has had very little concern with how much those kinds of items cost.

Extra money can always be earned by working on household projects for a mutually agreed upon price. This includes all of those jobs I mentioned before, and I'm sure we'll think of others that fall into the category. Picking up one's toys and putting one's laundry in the laundry room is a responsibility, not a revenue opportunity.

His allowance is not tied to any punishment or reward. This was a hard idea for Brendan and me to work through, but once we did we renewed our commitment to non-punitive discipline techniques (PD). The allowance is shared with him, provided for him--in the same way we provide a home. It is not a reward for good behavior. And just as we would not withhold food from our kids as punishment, or take away a toy they love, money should be no different. I would hate to remove money or other property because it would give them the wrong impression that property rights can be violated at the parent's discretion.

I think the solution Brendan and Ryan and I reached is a good one for our family. It reinforces our values: property rights, responsibility, independent decision-making, learning about money management. It gives him the opportunity to earn more money if he wants--he's planning to do a bunch of yard work as soon as the weather clears up. It lets Brendan and me off the hook for certain optional spending--LEGOs, which are really pricey!

And we are of course still continuing our family conversation about how Daddy (and sometimes Mommy) earns money, why he earns it, the hard work that goes into it, what happens to the money we get, where the money that we spend goes, etc. The kids have always been involved in our work; it's just how we do things. We take them to meetings concerning the cabin; Brendan takes them to work with him; they help mail out bills and invoices; they go to the bank. And one day Ryan will get a job and get a more personal perspective!

I'm certain that there are many different solutions to the money question. We haven't encountered some things yet, since our oldest is just getting into the money thing. One day I imagine that we'll open bank accounts and show them how to balance a checkbook and do a budget. Right now, the main concept that Ryan is having trouble with is the idea of "making change." But since he has just cottoned on to the subtraction idea recently, I think we'll make some good headway there pretty soon.

How do you handle money with your kids?

Resources

For some interesting pro-allowance essays, see Kids Money.
Clark Smart Parents, Clark Smart Kids, by Clark Howard.

Positive Discipline and the Trader Principle

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

Positive Discipline techniques are excellent for teaching and reinforcing what Objectivists know as The Trader Principle:

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

In other words, The Trader Principle is a way of dealing justly with other people, recognizing their right to their life (and therefore, body, property, ideas, decisions) and expecting--and hopefully receiving--the same in return.

Obviously, children are going to need help learning some ways to deal with other people--negotiation tactics, interpersonal skills--and some of the ideas I've learned from the PD literature offer excellent ways to do so in a manner that is also just and respectful.

Sharing and Taking Turns

One way we use PD to reinforce the Trader Principle concerns Sharing, that bane of toddlers and preschoolers (oh, okay--even grownups) since the dawn of time. It's hard to let something interesting go into the hands of another. It's even harder to be told that it's better (as in, morally right) to give that something up to someone else rather than to play with it yourself. Of course, I disagree with that altruistic idea.

But I also think that learning to share and take turns is generally a good idea--because ultimately, you'll have to do that quite a bit as a grownup if you choose to live with and/or near other people. I take turns with Brendan all the time--we take turns driving the cars or reading books or picking out which movie to watch next. We share lots of things, too--yummy food at a restaurant (or home!), our money, things for the house. Sharing and taking turns happens outside the home, too: waiting for your turn to check out at the grocery store, sharing the road with other cars, etc. (I'll leave government-required "sharing" out of this post, for what I hope are obvious reasons.)

PD proponents recognize that sharing and taking turns are not easy for a child, and that they need help from adults to learn to do these things, and how to do them in a kind and gracious way. The attitude of my parents and many parents I see seems to be: children need to learn to share, and be forced to share and sometimes be made to feel guilty when they don't do it (or do so graciously). PD techniques help the adult acknowledge the child's (often) negative feelings associated with sharing/taking turns while being respectful of the child's individuality, property rights, and need for independence. There is also a focus on negotiation techniques that are pretty darn useful in other areas, too. And now of course it's . . .

Example Time!

Take the all-too-typical situation of: somebody wants a toy that somebody else is playing with.

Some OS ways to handle it (mostly directed at the kid who has the toy):

• "Give her the toy. She's younger/sad/other Mom-determined reason."

• "You really need to learn to share." (I remember this one from my own childhood.)

• "You don't really want that toy anymore."

• "You have to share or you'll be punished."

• "What's the big deal? It's just a truck. You have thousands of trucks." (to one or both kids)

• "Why are you crying?" (to one or both kids)

• Mom takes toy away and gives it to the other kid.

• Mom sets the kitchen timer for 5 minutes without input from either kid.
  

Some PD ways to handle it:

With the kid who wants the toy:

• "You'd like a turn. Can you ask for a turn in a polite way?"

• "Do you need my help asking for a turn?"

• "It's hard to wait for a turn sometimes. I know just how that feels."

• "Your turn will be in 3 minutes [after negotiations have occurred]. What would you like to do while you wait?"

With the kid who already has the toy:

• "Morgan would like a turn with that toy. How much longer do you need for your turn?"

• "I know it's a special toy."

• "When we have friends over, we let them play with our toys--they let us play with their toys when we visit them."

• "Ryan asked politely for a turn. What can you say back to him?"

• "It's hard to let someone else take a turn with a toy you're interested in."

• "Will you let us know when you're done with that toy so that Morgan can have a turn?"

There are many differences in the styles, of course. One of the things I like about the PD method is that it places the onus for getting the problem solved on the children--with Mom there to walk them through the steps, help them find appropriate words and offer sympathy. There is no arbitrary Mom-imposed time limit or other determination from someone else that the turn is over. I have an idea for a future post about how we handle negotiating (between children, and between the adult and child). For now, I'll just say that I have no interest in being Judge, Jury, and Executioner. (Although I still often fall back into this bad habit.) In the long run, they'll have negotiation skills from practicing these techniques and will not become second-handed about letting someone else determine how problems are solved.

The Trader Principle

The other terrific thing about this PD method for handling sharing issues is that it reinforces the Trader Principle! Of course, negotiation skills are part of teaching the Trader Principle--rational adults don't just snatch things out of the hands of others. They discuss the terms of their deal and do it respectfully until an agreement that each can live with is reached. They know that each has a right to his property and approaches trading situations (like sharing and taking turns) with that in mind.

I don't muscle my way past little old ladies at the check out lane. I recognize that others have a rightful spot ahead of me in line and respect their right to that spot. If I only have a few items, I might ask the person to trade spots with me. If she refused, then I'd just have to wait some more. I don't demand that my neighbor lend me her garden rake. I know that it's hers, and if I would like to borrow it, then I think of a polite way to ask her. She is free to say no, of course.

We respect the right of the child to decide what happens to his property, which extends to his right to play with our general toy stockpile. Generally, our toys ARE for sharing--meaning that any child who wants to play with a toy gets a turn. But we don't set arbitrary limits on the length of turns. So if you want to play with a toy, your turn lasts as long as you want. (My understanding is that this is how it works in a Montessori classroom, too, although correct me if I'm wrong about this.) Also, you must take reasonable care of the toy, protecting it from damage. Accidents do happen, but that's a different context, of course.

However, if you know that someone else is waiting for a turn with a particular thing, then there is a problem that needs to be worked out. Conversely, if you'd like a turn with something, then rudely demanding or grabbing the toy is not appropriate. There is a problem that can be named (often by Mom): Two children want to play with the same toy right now. Time for both children to work on solutions for the problem. Working with the other person to find a solution to the problem is what's expected.

This is how adults deal with each other, too. If I need the phone and Brendan is on it, I might ask him "How much longer are you going to be?" He, knowing that I'm waiting, might hurry up his conversation. Or he might say "It's a work call and I'm going to be a while." We might think that a Fight to the Death (or to the Pain) over ONE LEGO is ridiculous--and we might be right. But it's enough to recognize that it's important to THEM, and embrace this excellent opportunity to help the kids learn how to work with each other according to the Trader Principle. Because one day, they might want to borrow something from someone else. :o)

There is an exception to our general toy rule: Special Toys. Some things are too special to share--for sentimental reasons (like loveys), or because they are unique, or because you bought them with your own money. Actually, the child needn't have a "good" reason (by my standards) for declaring a toy "Special." It's enough for me to know that for whatever reason, This Toy is Special (Today). Special Toys do not have to be shared ever. We use the strategy of taking Special Toys up to their rooms before having guests over, lest our guest--innocently unaware of the Specialness--accidentally provoke an international incident by touching them. Also, it's no fair to confer Specialness upon a toy that someone else has been playing with for a while, just because you're not in the mood to share that day. Now, we can't keep all of our Special Toys hidden from siblings, who, alas, must share our house--but they are very good about respecting each other's Special Toys--because they know that their Special Toys are also respected.

Again--adults have special things that are not for sharing, too. My treasured dragon collection--not for sharing. Brendan's insulin needles--only for him. I have a Mommy Flashlight that I don't share, because I got tired of never being able to find a flashlight. So I bought my own, told everyone it was Too Special for me to share, and they respect that (usually).

Consequences

But are there any consequences to not sharing? Of course! We do not punish or make the kid feel guilty about not sharing a toy or being rude about letting another have a turn. But I will point out the consequences of his actions, if I think it might be appropriate. Or I might let him experience the consequences directly.

The consequence is this: If you never share or let anyone have a turn; or if you're a jerk about it; or if you don't take proper care of somebody else's things, then nobody will want to share with you. The Trader Principle again.

If I DEMAND my neighbor lend me her rake, she might say no simply because of my demeanor, even if she had been previously inclined to let me borrow it. If I help myself to her rake without asking, she might be angry and keep her garage locked. If I don't take care of her rake while I'm using it, she might be hesitant to lend me something else.

So I explain to my kids:

• "If you'd like to play with her toys when you're at her house, you should share your toys with her."

• "If you break that toy that he's letting you play with, then he might not let you have a turn next time."

• "You spoke so rudely to her that I'm not sure she's going to want to share that with you. Can you think of a way to ask that will make her WANT to share?

Sometimes they make good decisions when I point this stuff out to them; other times, they don't. But experiencing the good and bad results of those decisions gives them knowledge in a way I simply can't if I always step in and solve the problem for them.

That's all I have about the Trader Principle for now. I'm interested in your thoughts and how you handle such issues. I'm always looking for new ideas!