the natural-to-logical consequences continuum

Can we talk a little more about this?

some good points were touched on in this thread:

http://www.gentlechristianmothers.co...topic=117853.0

like the difference between cause-and-effect and logical consequences, which I think assume the child will internalize a lesson and be able to predict events and apply the less to a future situation. but I sort of need to think through it in a bit more detail.

I sometimes get the impression from our discussions that logical consequences are "off limits" until that magical age/stage where you see your child using logic (or when he's "old enough") and then suddenly they're fine. Maybe that IS what's being said... or maybe there's more of a gradual transition that just not fleshed out each time we talk about it. Prior to the age of logic, everything is supposed to be varying degrees of natural consequences--which by definition must happen without any implementation from the parent.

Can we clarify the continuum... the process.... a little more? How, exactly, do you distinguish between cause-and-effect and an imposed consequence? The line seems a little blurry to me at the moment. Can you flesh out the "ramp up" to using logical consequences, for those of us who have trouble picturing it? (or is it really just a point-in-time thing when you can start using them)

Joanne mentioned once (a while back) that her children go through a progression with experiencing logical consequences... I wish I could remember her exact quote, but I understood it as: none in infancy--> a hint in the preschool years --> light use in pre-logic age --> full understanding when the age of logic sets in.

[The Tickle Momster]

[SouthPaw]

awww, you linked to my thread!

Yeah, DixieKitten... I've been rolling this around in my head lately, but I didn't want to hijack the other thread.

an example might help...

Today we went to McDonald's playland. It was a treat cause we haven't been in quite a while. 15 min. in the boys got into an altercation up in the tubes and C. bit L...HARD. He had a clear set of teethmarks and it the skin was abraded. I was pretty shocked, tbh... it's not that they don't have their squabbles, but C. doesn't bite unless he's *really* worked up about something. L. came out and I checked him, comforted him, etc. C. came out and sat for a few minutes then said he was sorry. I told him he couldn't go back up in the tubesat all today. He was sad and disappointed, and kept looking at me mournfully... asked again a couple of times to see if I'd changed my mind... but he didn't really fight me on it--which also surprised me.

SO:

Was that cause and effect? or a logical consequence?

L. kept asking for C. to come back in with him and I explained it as: "I won't let C. go and play where I can't see him unless I know I can trust him to stay in his own space and respect other people's bodies. He didn't do that today so he has to stay out." and that sounds very cause-and-effect....

but I always used the phrase "you lost the privilege of playing in the tubes" to C.--which sounds very logical consequence.

And I could easily frame my response as either.

[Amber]

One thing that I have encountered in talking about logical consequences etc, is that many people think that any sort of consequence (cause/effect, logical or natural) are pretty much all the same thing and they get easily confused with being punitive. Does that sentence acutally maek sence outside of my head My dh thinks that taking putting up a toy that is being thrown (after a warning etc) is a punsihment...I think it is just protecting myself from have hard projectiles being chucked at my head.

I think the example you gave is more of the cause and effect relationship. Oh, and I think you handled the situation well.

[ellies mom]

I think semantics get involved which makes it kind of confusing to have these conversations. See in my world, regarding my 3.5 yo DD, a logical consequence is what happens when I can't or won't allow the natural consequence to occur. It is a consequence that is logical to the situation. So putting away her toy after she throws it would be a logical consequence. Making the child wash the dishes or not letting her watch TV are not logical because they aren't related. And spanking her or putting her into timeout would be punishment because it goes the "extra step" So to me, at this point a logical consequence and "cause and effect" are very similar. I'm sure as DD gets older, my interpretation of "logical" will change. So I don't automatically view a logical consequence as bad.

In your example from McDonalds, I'm going to go with the "cause and effect" end of the spectrum, even if you used the words "you lost the privilege". It was still basically "you hit, you sit". And considering the circumstances, attaching an "I need to be able to see you playing" was appropriate.

ok.. so maybe ya'll can give me some examples that illustrate the difference between cause-and-effect (appropriate for pre-logic children) and a logical, related consequence (not appropriate for pre-logic children)

I'm working on the concept as a whole and I'm just not sure I know what the difference is, other than the intention or expectations of the parent. :scrat

[SouthPaw]

Originally Posted by palil

ok.. so maybe ya'll can give me some examples that illustrate the difference between cause-and-effect (appropriate for pre-logic children) and a logical, related consequence (not appropriate for pre-logic children)

I'm working on the concept as a whole and I'm just not sure I know what the difference is, other than the intention or expectations of the parent. :scrat

i thought that WAS the difference

i thought that WAS the difference

wellll... Maybe it is.. ? I'm truly asking... trying to sort it out in my own mind.

I think semantics get involved which makes it kind of confusing to have these conversations. See in my world, regarding my 3.5 yo DD, a logical consequence is what happens when I can't or won't allow the natural consequence to occur. It is a consequence that is logical to the situation. So putting away her toy after she throws it would be a logical consequence. Making the child wash the dishes or not letting her watch TV are not logical because they aren't related. And spanking her or putting her into timeout would be punishment because it goes the "extra step" So to me, at this point a logical consequence and "cause and effect" are very similar. I'm sure as DD gets older, my interpretation of "logical" will change. So I don't automatically view a logical consequence as bad.

I do understand what you're saying... I'm trying to grasp whether it is *ALL* a matter of semantics, or if there is some crucial element that distinguishes appropriate cause-and-effect responses to a pre-logic child from inappropriate logical consequences to a pre-logic child.

Not allowing a natural consequence to happen is what I consider blocking natural consequences or protecting something/one. That's different from generating an "effect" as a disciplinary response to a child's behavioral "cause."

(still mulling... thanks for the responses and I'm continuing to read/think)

[SouthPaw]

i get what youre saying now. ill be back. feeding baby applesauce at keyboard

[ellies mom]

Originally Posted by palil

wellll... Maybe it is.. ? I'm truly asking... trying to sort it out in my own mind.

I do understand what you're saying... I'm trying to grasp whether it is *ALL* a matter of semantics, or if there is some crucial element that distinguishes appropriate cause-and-effect responses to a pre-logic child from inappropriate logical consequences to a pre-logic child.

Not allowing a natural consequence to happen is what I consider blocking natural consequences or protecting something/one. That's different from generating an "effect" as a disciplinary response to a child's behavioral "cause."

(still mulling... thanks for the responses and I'm continuing to read/think)

OK let's see...

For pre-logic children, cause and effect and logical consequences should be the same. If a pre-logic child needs "cause and effect" consequences than a consequence that is not related is not logical, and is most likely inappropriate.

If Ellie colours on the wall, she helps me clean the wall and we put away the crayons and move on to something else. It is related and appropriate. She can make the connection between "I colour on the walls means I can't colour". Now say Ellie coloured on the walls and I told her she had to turn off the TV for the night. It is unrelated. There is no cause and effect. It would be an inappropriate logical consequence for a pre-logic child because they aren't going to make the connection. Now say it was an older child capable of a basic level of logic, it might be appropriate. It is still unrelated but the child can make the connection.

Ok, I need to come back to this, a certain pre-logic child is convinced she is going to starve and I can't think.

She can make the connection between "I colour on the walls means I can't colour".

ok.. this is where I see disagreement. I know you were speaking specifically for *your* child, but as a general concept, many toddlers, 2yos, and even older are *not* (according to some) developmentally capable of making that connection. They may not have the recall memory to pull up that previous sequence of events... they may not be able to think cognitively enough to predict that the same thing will happen again... and they may not have the impulse control to stop themselves even if they *could* do those first two things.

As for the issue of a consequence being related... let me see if I can articulate what I'm thinking here... a consequence must be related in order to truly BE logical. But that doesn't speak to the issue of whether related, logical consequences are appropriate and effective for pre-logic children.

You said earlier there is very little difference between cause/effect and logical consequences, and indeed that is where I keep going around in mental circles--they seem like the same approach (age-modulated, of course) with different labels and intentions. The reason I am experiencing confusion is because I've always understood "logical consequences" as being considered punitive (under the GBD umbrella, at least) when they are used before around age 8.

[SouthPaw]

dangit it's all mixing around in my head but it's not words yet. i'm percolating. there's something to this and it's important but i can't quite put my finger on it.

I've got time. Keep percolating, girl!!

(and completely off topic... anybody remember REAL perclating coffee pots? My Papa wouldn't drink coffee any other way, and I remember waking up early in the morning to the aroma of coffee and the gentle plop-plopping of the percolator... ahhhh )