Re: the natural-to-logical consequences continuum
 

it's not working. I'm going to go play Morrowind :pout Think of something brilliant while I'm gone :mrgreen

Re: the natural-to-logical consequences continuum
 

:listen

Re: the natural-to-logical consequences continuum
 

the problem that I have with "logical consequences" is that, imo, if you are trying to come up with logical consequences you aren't being proactive but reactive which is already setting yourself up for failure in parenting. I prefer, with my young children, to think in terms of "limits" and good old common sense. What you did at the McDonald's biting incident is both :tu

A 3.5 yo can learn, with consistency, "If I color on the walls it means I can't color". The thing is, she doesn't necessarily understand why, can't always anticipate it (though she gets it after the fact) and can't apply this to other things--she won't have the logical thought, "If I color on the walls it means I can't color . . . sooooo . . . I wonder if that means the same thing will happen if I paint on the walls" :think :giggle At this age the things they *get* are the things that happen every single time--it's more a pattern than an understanding. in their minds "if I color on the walls it means I can't color" is on par with "nap time comes after lunch". But the idea of a "logical consequence" is to drive the lesson home and make it stick. A 3.5yo isn't learning from "driving the lesson home and making it stick", they are learning the patterns and limits.

We have lots of common sense limits. If you use something as a weapon it will go away. you hit, you sit. pee goes in the toilet or you go in a diaper. food is for eating--if you play you are done. And *my* motivation is about regulating family life more than "driving home a lesson". As family life is consistently regulated the children find their way in it and learn to accept the limits put on them. As they get older they challenge them less and embrace the standard more easily and with less help.

Re: the natural-to-logical consequences continuum
 

ok... thanks Crystal... I'm processing what you said... :think

What I'm understanding from it is this:

Young children are capable of internalizing something that *IS*--something that is a proven reality in their lives. When they experience a *consistent* response from a parent in one specific area, it has the effect of defining their reality *in that area* , and that is why it can be both effective AND age appropriate. They are *not*, however, capable of experiencing a cause-and-effect response, then internalizing the underlying principle or the reasoning that drives it, and transferring that principle to other circumstances.

Is that about right?

And, wrt to my original question about the "ramp up" or process... Am I correct in thinking that in the pre-logic years you are teaching principles (which they will be able to conceptualize later) by offering simple explanations, answering questions, illustrating, vocalizing your own thought processes, and defining their reality with boundaries, etc... so that as a child approaches the age of logic, he's already been hearing and thinking about those principles, even if he couldn't fully understand/apply them? That as he approaches the age of logic and develops more impulse control, you address problems less by defining his reality with your boundaries, and more by referring him back to the principles you've been teaching, and expecting him to govern his behavior according to those principles. ? That you gradually allow him to experience not just natural but imposed (logical and related of course) consequences when he does not govern his behavior according to those principles?

Am I also correct in thinking that this is not something that just "starts" at a magical age/stage, but a gradual process--like learning to swim--where teacher holds you up less and less as you begin to use your abilities and trust the water? That parents need to understand *general* stages of development, but use their own intuition and observations of *their* child to determine when he is ready to take a step away from simple enforcement and toward a state of self-governing?

So, another example... 5yo son loses his temper and hits 3yo son several times, by his own account. We were on the way out the door to a friend's house to see his new birthday present. I told him he would have to stay home with his Dad. I didn't want to cancel the trip for the whole family, b/c 3yo was looking forward to it, the friend had been asking us to come for days, and I had already called and told his grandmother when we would be there. (although dh had initially agreed to watch him and then sort of backed out, so I ended up having to take everybody. :/ :doh )

An objective observer might say that was an arbitrary consequence, b/c I just imposed it *in the moment* and might feel my intention was to make him "suffer" for what he'd done.

Another observer might say that I was defining his reality with my boundaries if we have a rule that "family gets your best or no one gets the rest" and I was enforcing that rule.

The net action is the same... so in some cases, does "age-appropriate and effective" really depend on the parent's intentions? :think On whether the parent's response flows from the position of upholding a known household standard versus making a point to the child?

I guess I have understood "logical consequences" as a label which applied to particular types of parental responses. (e.g. "Well that's a natural consequence b/c you didn't initiate it--that's ok." "That's a boundary, b/c you were defining something only for yourself--that's ok" "That's a logical consequence, b/c you made it happen in response to a bad behavior--that's not ok" ) That's obviously an over-simplified and limiting way to parent, which is why I've been feeling frustrated and confused by it. :O

I'm thinking that it's not really about how we define "logical consequences" versus other kinds of consequences (although I understand how learning the distinction is helpful and necessary at certain stages of the parenting process) :yes Allowing natural consequences can be punitive if it's done inappropriately--if it is not guided by an understanding of childhood development; if it flows from a place of frustration, immaturity, or vindictiveness; if it is more than the child can handle. Personal boundaries can be harsh and unhealthy if they are set in selfishness, anger, or without consideration for the needs of others. So it's not about logical vs. natural vs. cause-and-effect.... :think

It's more about... <insert summary statement>

:lol It's a cliff-hanger post! ROTFL

ok.. I'm gonna have to think about how to encapsulate what it *is* about in my own words... and baby just woke up, so I'm done for now.. but I'll be back. ;)

Re: the natural-to-logical consequences continuum
 

paula,

you are asking some really great questions....giving me good stuff to chew on, and articulating some of the things i've wondered as well.....thanks, mama friend :hug

lauren

Re: the natural-to-logical consequences continuum
 

:popcorn

Re: the natural-to-logical consequences continuum
 

I'm going to wait for your "summary" post because I'm excited to be blinded by the lightbulb--to everything you have said in that last post . . . an emphatic :yes You have got it!!!

Re: the natural-to-logical consequences continuum
 

Well, this is probably going to be anti-climatic then... :giggle b/c it's been said before and it's pretty simplistic. I've even said similar things before, and Joanne has a very eloquent sticky that hits on it... I just hadn't really understood how to superimpose this idea onto the nature vs. logical consequences discussions.

I think the summary is:

Good parenting isn't about using the "right" tool. It's about how you wield your chosen tools, and which goals/intentions are driving your actions.

The "how" must be done in a way that respects, models, protects and enables... a way that reflects the likeness of Christ, that honors the image of God in both parent and child, that accounts for the child's developmental abilities and maturity and factors in special circumstances or inherent limitations.

The goals and intentions should be centered around discipling, nurturing, comforting, teaching age appropriate lessons (when possible), and building connected, trusting relationships. (Controlling outward behaviors or gaining approval from others are goals that will inevitably, IMO, require us to depart from the description of "how" that I listed above)

You could take out the word "Good..." and substitute many other descriptors, and it would still hold true.


Gentle/positive/attached parenting isn't about using the "right" tools. It's about how you wield your chosen tools and which goals/intentions are driving your actions. There are certain tools that *cannot* be used in a way that supports the goals of this paradigm, and those are disqualified based on their failure to fit in with the big picture.

Punitive/controlling/detached parenting isn't about using the "wrong" tools. It's about how you wield your chosen tools and which goals/intentions are driving your actions. Even the most wonderful ideas and techniques can be contaminated by the goals and motivations of the parent using them, and can do great harm.

With specific reference to the cause-and-effect versus logical consequence discussion:

A pre-logic child can internalize and respond to what *is* based on a parent's consistent response to particular stimuli. This is why punitive parenting produces the desired behavorial results for many families. Using cause-and-effect responses with a pre-logic child is appropriate when it is used as a way to define the child's reality, and applied with the age-appropriate level of expectation (e.g. knowledge that repetition and consistency are necessary and normal.... no expectationis that the child will absorb a principle and apply it to future situations or different circumstances) Or in other words.... THey are appropriate when the goal is to aclimate a child to what will be reality in a certain family or situation, or when they flow from a principle that is taught alongside the cause-and-effect AND when the "how" respects, models, protects, and enables.

Using cause-and-effect responses with a pre-logic child is not appropriate when it is used to drive home a point, to make the child feel "sorry" or the parent feel "in charge". They are not appropriate when unrealistic expectations are attached to them. They are not appropriate when they are used as a tool to elicit behavior modification.

or as I said earlier:

Is that about it? Anything I'm still missing... ?

Re: the natural-to-logical consequences continuum
 

You've got it :clap

Re: the natural-to-logical consequences continuum
 

Palil, I love the way you broke that down. Do you mind if I print it off to let my dh read it. I think it explains what I have been try to tell him much better than my muddled brain has been able to get across :shifty

Re: the natural-to-logical consequences continuum
 

and may we sticky this???

Re: the natural-to-logical consequences continuum
 

yes and yes. :lol

only took me 4 years to figure it out. :giggle