Stubborn 4 year old boy.

Banty wrote in
:

In article ehrebeniuk-A017D7.22520120022008@news, Chookie
says...

Waaaaayyyy back when I did psychology, one of our lecturers
told us that smacking works well for young children in a
behaviourism-like context -- for very simple things, like
trying to stick their fingers through a fan grille or the
old fork-in-the-power-point trick.

Fork in the power-point?!? What, you import a picture of a
fork into a presentation?? :-D

Seriously - what's "fork in the power point"?

my older brother actually did stick a bobby pin (fork = any
metal object) in an outlet (British powerpoint) when he was a
toddler... but something like that isn't going to kill a kid &
it *will* teach them far more effectively than a swat on the
rump that sticking objects in outlets is pretty stupid.
i didn't use "outlet covers" when Boo was a baby/toddler.
first, IME, they *attract* kids to the outlet, & second
they're a PITA to put in & remove all the time & they don't
work if the outlet is actually in use. a toddler can & will
pull out the plug if they want to get at the outlet.
lee
--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

On Feb 19, 2:33*am, Dom wrote:

This happened after the visit to the speech
therapist. We told him he could play the Nintendo in the afternoon if
he was good, then when we left he wanted to play the Nintendo, and we
said no, not until he's completed the assesment, which hopefully will
be next Monday.

You might experiment with refining your reward technique a bit? To be
required to "be good" for a whole hour-long session could feel
overwhelming for him.

It might work better to break it up into small chunks, say five or ten
minutes, or per activity. For each little chunk that he does well with
the therapist - he tries to do what the therapist asks, doesn't talk
back, doesn't throw a tantrum, completes a task, or whatever, etc, he
gets a sticker and some praise. And you make up the sticker chart so
he can see how many he has to earn, and when enough stickers are on
the chart, he gets to play with the computer afterwards.

He should not need to win *every* possible sticker in order to win the
reward. Ten out of twelve, say, or fewer, it doesn't matter. A few
cross naughty moments wont lose him the whole reward, otherwise the
instant he starts to go wrong he'll have nothing left to lose and you
wont be able to stop him tantrumming.

And try to time things so that if you've set him a target of ten
stickers (say) he wins the tenth one right at the end of the
session :-)

When asked if he will cooperate with the speech therapist next time, the answer is a stubborn
"No!" with arms crossed, and a grumpy look on his face.

I guess he's telling you that he's already failed to be good for a
whole session once and he's afraid that he wont succeed next time
either. Maybe he'll feel better if you break it up for him so that
*he* understands that he can succeed. At least he might do *some* of
the activities?

If this behaviour wasn't so common it would be quite funny.

I know what you mean :-) My husband and I used to watch "House of Tiny
Tearaways" (do you have that?) and we'd be sneering "call *that* a
tantrum? Put some *effort* into it, child!" :-) Our son could give any
of the toddlers on HoTT a run for their money.... well, with one
exception. There was one little girl who kept a serious tantrum going
for three hours straight, and my son never managed that!

Though my son turned out to have some underlying problems which caused
his rigidity and trantrumming - now we manage those properly, he's a
lot easier to live with!

Good luck to you,

Cailleach


Rosalie,

Trying to enforce our directions normally result in tantrums. *We can
handle them and back each other up emotionally. *He will usually give
up crying and screaming after an hour or so, and will often fall
asleep from exhaustion. *This happened after the visit to the speech
therapist. *We told him he could play the Nintendo in the afternoon if
he was good, then when we left he wanted to play the Nintendo, and we
said no, not until he's completed the assesment, which hopefully will
be next Monday. *This prompted severe protests, screaming, kicking,
crying etc. *He kept this up for an hour, then tried it some more on
the following day, though for not as long. *I expect there will be
more over the coming week. *When asked if he will cooperate with the
speech therapist next time, the answer is a stubborn "No!" *with arms
crossed, and a grumpy look on his face. *If this behaviour wasn't so
common it would be quite funny.

Dom.

Jeff wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

I would agree, with the caveat that there *are*
some differences. People who assume that children are
miniature adults also have significant challenges. There
are developmental stages kids go through, and the same
behaviors can mean very different things from a preschooler,
and older child, and an adult.

Adults go through stages, too.

Yes, but a normal, healthy adult is typically considered
to have achieved some degree of cognitive "maturity" (for lack
of a better word).

For instance, lying is never
a good thing, but if you imagine that a 3yo is lying for
the same reasons as an adult

Adults lie too. Sometimes they're called "white" lies. Other times like
with secret wire taps, they just say, "We can't tell you."

Adults lie and fail to tell the whole truth, quite commonly.

I am not suggesting they don't. I am suggesting
that the individual's ability to understand what it *means*
to lie is different depending on developmental stages.
Therefore, an appropriate reaction to the situation differs.

Best wishes,
Ericka

enigma wrote:

Banty wrote in
:


In article ehrebeniuk-A017D7.22520120022008@news, Chookie
says...

Waaaaayyyy back when I did psychology, one of our lecturers
told us that smacking works well for young children in a
behaviourism-like context -- for very simple things, like
trying to stick their fingers through a fan grille or the
old fork-in-the-power-point trick.

Fork in the power-point?!? What, you import a picture of a
fork into a presentation?? :-D

Seriously - what's "fork in the power point"?


my older brother actually did stick a bobby pin (fork = any
metal object) in an outlet (British powerpoint) when he was a
toddler... but something like that isn't going to kill a kid &
it *will* teach them far more effectively than a swat on the
rump that sticking objects in outlets is pretty stupid.
i didn't use "outlet covers" when Boo was a baby/toddler.
first, IME, they *attract* kids to the outlet, & second
they're a PITA to put in & remove all the time & they don't
work if the outlet is actually in use. a toddler can & will
pull out the plug if they want to get at the outlet.
lee

I used the outlet covers with my first child, but abandoned them when
she came running to me one day, obviously holding something in her
mouth. I fished around, and pulled out ... an outlet cover! Yes, I
saved her from electrocution but put her in danger of choking to death.
I never bothered with my 2nd child.

My little nephew stuck a key in an outlet one time. It was pretty
impressive - made a loud "pow" and left a black streak on his hand. He
probably didn't do that again.


Clisby

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

I would agree, with the caveat that there *are*
some differences. People who assume that children are
miniature adults also have significant challenges. There
are developmental stages kids go through, and the same
behaviors can mean very different things from a preschooler,
and older child, and an adult.

Adults go through stages, too.

Yes, but a normal, healthy adult is typically considered
to have achieved some degree of cognitive "maturity" (for lack
of a better word).

For instance, lying is never
a good thing, but if you imagine that a 3yo is lying for
the same reasons as an adult

Adults lie too. Sometimes they're called "white" lies. Other times
like with secret wire taps, they just say, "We can't tell you."

Adults lie and fail to tell the whole truth, quite commonly.

I am not suggesting they don't. I am suggesting
that the individual's ability to understand what it *means*
to lie is different depending on developmental stages.
Therefore, an appropriate reaction to the situation differs.

Best wishes,
Ericka

I know. I was just looking at this a different way.

Jeff

In article I9Wuj.55145$we5.28789@trnddc02, Jeff
wrote:

Fork in the power-point?!? What, you import a picture of a fork into a
presentation?? :-D

Seriously - what's "fork in the power point"?

Banty

I think a power point in this case is an electric outlet (like where you
stick the power plug from your computer).

Correct -- the canonical electrocution method for the pre-school set. I had
no idea you called them something else (or why would M$ call their product
that?).

I suppose with safety switches these days, it's far less dangerous than it
used to be.

Back to the OP: when DS1 was in the Dodgy Day Care, he became aggressive at
home because he was bored. There are any number of reasons to become
stubborn, aggressive, etc. An example of what happens would be really good --
and feedback on the ideas presented in this thread.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/

In article ehrebeniuk-E8168A.16334221022008@news, Chookie says...

In article I9Wuj.55145$we5.28789@trnddc02, Jeff
wrote:

Fork in the power-point?!? What, you import a picture of a fork into a
presentation?? :-D

Seriously - what's "fork in the power point"?

Banty

I think a power point in this case is an electric outlet (like where you
stick the power plug from your computer).

Correct -- the canonical electrocution method for the pre-school set. I had
no idea you called them something else (or why would M$ call their product
that?).

You can make your (presentation) points with power? Al la "An Inconvenient
Truth".

I call what you call "powerpoints" "electrical outlets". Check alt.home.repair.

Banty

On Feb 19, 9:12 am, Banty wrote:
In article , enigma says...







Beliavsky wrote in

oups.com:

On Feb 18, 7:43 pm, Dom wrote:
Any ideas? We have had professionals tell us they have
never seen a child as stubborn. How can we make him more
compliant, but not break his spirit?

You have not mentioned spanking as a punishment, so it
seems you have ruled that out. I don't think non-abusive
spanking of a child for severe misbehavior will have bad
long-term consequences.

i don't think you think much at all. you form an opinion &
then look for *anything* that supports your opinion, even if
you have to deliberately misread it to validate your thoughts.
the OPs child is not severely misbehaving, he's *stubborn*.
there's a huge difference. since they are having him eveluated
by a speech therapist, there are, most likely, communication
difficulties that the child is having. you may have no idea
just how frustrating that can be to a child, and it's a
frequent cause of acting out behavior.

Notice - his source is from an institution that proudly touts itself as
providing "biblically based education". And the link is taken from a compiled
list of "critiques of anti-spanking research".

I don't think that shows the research is bogus. The papers listed
there were written or co-authored by Robert Larzelere, and searching
for "R Larzelere" at http://scholar.google.com shows that he has
published many papers on the topic in legitimate journals.

Why is linking to a web site with a definite point of view worse than
expressing that view directly? People often do this. In the "allowance
for 9 year old" thread featuring criticism of Walmart, toto made
several links to http://walmar****ch.com/ , which clearly has an anti-
Walmart agenda. That did not bother you. Your outrage is pretty
selective.

Judith Rich Harris in the book "The Nurture Assumption" surveyed the
research on spanking and found no convincing evidence that non-abusive
spanking is harmful. She was asked about this in an interview
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/harr...harris_p7.html .

JB: I take it you don't think spanking makes kids more violent?

HARRIS: I used to but I don't anymore. Look, in the early part of this
century, American parents routinely spanked their kids. They
considered it their duty to spank a kid if the kid did something
wrong. That's where we got the expression, "This is going to hurt me
more than it's going to hurt you." What the parent meant by this
bizarre statement was, "I don't really want to spank you, but the
experts tell me I'm supposed to." In those days, the advice-givers
didn't warn parents against damaging their child's self-esteem -- they
warned against "spoiling" the child. Too much attention and affection
were thought to be bad for kids.

The know-it-all tone of voice hasn't changed a bit, but the current
crop of advice givers are giving advice that is almost the exact
opposite of what parents were being told two or three generations ago.
Since a large number of parents actually listen to the advice, kids
today are being raised very differently from the way their
grandparents were raised. They're getting more praise and kisses,
fewer smacks and scoldings. Now ask yourself this: Are children today
less aggressive than they were two or three generations ago? Are they
nicer? Are they happier? The answer is no. Rates of violence, of
depression, and of suicide have gone up, not down.

JB: So why haven't the advice-givers noticed that their advice is not
having the predicted effects?

HARRIS: Good question. I suppose they'd say, if pressed, either that
parents aren't following their recommendations carefully enough, or
that changes in the culture as a whole have outweighed the changes in
parenting styles. But shouldn't the culture as a whole have become
more benevolent if parenting styles have become more benevolent?

In article ,
Beliavsky says...

On Feb 19, 9:12 am, Banty wrote:
In article , enigma says...







Beliavsky wrote in

oups.com:

On Feb 18, 7:43 pm, Dom wrote:
Any ideas? We have had professionals tell us they have
never seen a child as stubborn. How can we make him more
compliant, but not break his spirit?

You have not mentioned spanking as a punishment, so it
seems you have ruled that out. I don't think non-abusive
spanking of a child for severe misbehavior will have bad
long-term consequences.

i don't think you think much at all. you form an opinion &
then look for *anything* that supports your opinion, even if
you have to deliberately misread it to validate your thoughts.
the OPs child is not severely misbehaving, he's *stubborn*.
there's a huge difference. since they are having him eveluated
by a speech therapist, there are, most likely, communication
difficulties that the child is having. you may have no idea
just how frustrating that can be to a child, and it's a
frequent cause of acting out behavior.

Notice - his source is from an institution that proudly touts itself as
providing "biblically based education". And the link is taken from a compiled
list of "critiques of anti-spanking research".

I don't think that shows the research is bogus. The papers listed
there were written or co-authored by Robert Larzelere, and searching
for "R Larzelere" at http://scholar.google.com shows that he has
published many papers on the topic in legitimate journals.

Original cites are always better. I'm not sure what you mean by 'legitimate
journals'; increasingly journals are popping up to publish fringe articles, with
'peer review' from a very select group.

I'd look for an established medical, pediatric, or psychology association for
more credibility.



Why is linking to a web site with a definite point of view worse than
expressing that view directly? People often do this. In the "allowance
for 9 year old" thread featuring criticism of Walmart, toto made
several links to http://walmar****ch.com/ , which clearly has an anti-
Walmart agenda. That did not bother you. Your outrage is pretty
selective.

And I think when she does that she shows *her* biases, and I put less weight on
the statements thereby. I'm rather wary of advocacy websites in general, even
when I agree generally with the line of advocacy.

That I don't always object here in misc.kids to stuff can be from different
factors (vacation, even). Or that people do talk about their opinions and point
to other people with the same opinion. In toto's case, it was part of a
metadiscussion (thread had drifted far from the question of allowance) and was
not giving someone poor advice that could be harmful. In *your* case, you
advised specific parents of a possibly oppositional child to consider spanking
him. Yes indeed, that advice is scrutinized more closely than a discussion
about pricing in chains stores is!

As far as *my* bias - I already told you I'm not opposed to all spanking. I've
used the smack to get quick attention myself. But there is a serious concern
that a parent, with unrealistic expectations focusing on sheer compliance, will
use spanking poorly with disasterous results.


Judith Rich Harris in the book "The Nurture Assumption" surveyed the
research on spanking and found no convincing evidence that non-abusive
spanking is harmful. She was asked about this in an interview
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/harr...harris_p7.html .

JB: I take it you don't think spanking makes kids more violent?

HARRIS: I used to but I don't anymore. Look, in the early part of this
century, American parents routinely spanked their kids. They
considered it their duty to spank a kid if the kid did something
wrong. That's where we got the expression, "This is going to hurt me
more than it's going to hurt you." What the parent meant by this
bizarre statement was, "I don't really want to spank you, but the
experts tell me I'm supposed to." In those days, the advice-givers
didn't warn parents against damaging their child's self-esteem -- they
warned against "spoiling" the child. Too much attention and affection
were thought to be bad for kids.

Is the below part of Harris's statements or your statements??


The know-it-all tone of voice hasn't changed a bit, but the current
crop of advice givers are giving advice that is almost the exact
opposite of what parents were being told two or three generations ago.
Since a large number of parents actually listen to the advice, kids
today are being raised very differently from the way their
grandparents were raised. They're getting more praise and kisses,
fewer smacks and scoldings. Now ask yourself this: Are children today
less aggressive than they were two or three generations ago? Are they
nicer? Are they happier? The answer is no. Rates of violence, of
depression, and of suicide have gone up, not down.

I don't think one can support that. Overall crime rates have dropped. I don't
think it has much to do with spanking either way. Even if crime rates *had*
risen, this would be an example of the post hoc fallacy.


JB: So why haven't the advice-givers noticed that their advice is not
having the predicted effects?

HARRIS: Good question. I suppose they'd say, if pressed, either that
parents aren't following their recommendations carefully enough, or
that changes in the culture as a whole have outweighed the changes in
parenting styles. But shouldn't the culture as a whole have become
more benevolent if parenting styles have become more benevolent?

Banty

In article , Banty says...

In article ,
Beliavsky says...

On Feb 19, 9:12 am, Banty wrote:
In article , enigma says...







Beliavsky wrote in

oups.com:

On Feb 18, 7:43 pm, Dom wrote:
Any ideas? We have had professionals tell us they have
never seen a child as stubborn. How can we make him more
compliant, but not break his spirit?

You have not mentioned spanking as a punishment, so it
seems you have ruled that out. I don't think non-abusive
spanking of a child for severe misbehavior will have bad
long-term consequences.

i don't think you think much at all. you form an opinion &
then look for *anything* that supports your opinion, even if
you have to deliberately misread it to validate your thoughts.
the OPs child is not severely misbehaving, he's *stubborn*.
there's a huge difference. since they are having him eveluated
by a speech therapist, there are, most likely, communication
difficulties that the child is having. you may have no idea
just how frustrating that can be to a child, and it's a
frequent cause of acting out behavior.

Notice - his source is from an institution that proudly touts itself as
providing "biblically based education". And the link is taken from a compiled
list of "critiques of anti-spanking research".

I don't think that shows the research is bogus. The papers listed
there were written or co-authored by Robert Larzelere, and searching
for "R Larzelere" at http://scholar.google.com shows that he has
published many papers on the topic in legitimate journals.

Original cites are always better. I'm not sure what you mean by 'legitimate
journals'; increasingly journals are popping up to publish fringe articles, with
'peer review' from a very select group.

I'd look for an established medical, pediatric, or psychology association for
more credibility.



Why is linking to a web site with a definite point of view worse than
expressing that view directly? People often do this. In the "allowance
for 9 year old" thread featuring criticism of Walmart, toto made
several links to http://walmar****ch.com/ , which clearly has an anti-
Walmart agenda. That did not bother you. Your outrage is pretty
selective.

And I think when she does that she shows *her* biases, and I put less weight on
the statements thereby. I'm rather wary of advocacy websites in general, even
when I agree generally with the line of advocacy.

That I don't always object here in misc.kids to stuff can be from different
factors (vacation, even). Or that people do talk about their opinions and point
to other people with the same opinion. In toto's case, it was part of a
metadiscussion (thread had drifted far from the question of allowance) and was
not giving someone poor advice that could be harmful. In *your* case, you
advised specific parents of a possibly oppositional child to consider spanking
him. Yes indeed, that advice is scrutinized more closely than a discussion
about pricing in chains stores is!

Actually, reading back, it's worse than that - it's advising spanking to fix the
behavior of a child that may be having behavioral difficulties due to
communications difficulties.

Banty