Parents with screaming kids...

[mike_v_s]

Wow, way to blow things out of proportion.

I was mainly countering your statement that psychology isn't really a "hard science." I take a bit of offense when people say that, seeing as it's a very large part of what I'm majoring. It makes me furious when physics and biology majors hear me say I'm a behavioral neuroscience major and scoff at me for not pursuing a "real" science. Psychology is just as real of a science as any other science.

If Harvard Medical School publishes an article saying an alternative to thorazine has been found that works as a more efficient treatment for schizophrenia, I'm going to take that just as seriously as the reports that will be coming out of CERN in the coming years.

In fact, even medicine has as much open to interpretation as you say psychology does. Bi-polar disorder manifests in several different ways, sometimes very inconsistently. So does cancer. So do conditions as "simple" as a staph infection.

My wife is in the medical field and her brother majored in some aspect of psychology or another. While they might have worded their respnse differently, the message would be similar to mine.

So, you want to drop an apple 100 times and look at how consistent the results are? Fine. I'll do the same with a Skinner box. I can guarantee all 100 of my rats will fall within normal tolerances.

I have no doubt your kids have proved to evolve differently than a psychology textbook says they would. But here's the thing: you have intervening variables getting in the way. Your five year old is not, in fact, obliterating the work of some of the most brilliant minds in the field. You may as well drop that same apple in a 200mph gust of wind and say "oops, looks like Isaac Newton was wrong. The End."

That's really a large part of my point. The "interveneing variables" in psychology are more numerous and much more unpredictable. I can construct a situation that eliminates most, if not all of the variables for the apple drop. You will never be able to do that with psychology. Keeping with the same example, I can announce with a good bit of certainty (and some prior calculation) the steps that need to be taken to put that apple in a situation where it is at terminal velocity.

The same bit of certainty CANNOT be said for this quote: "When punishment must be applied, these guidelines should be kept in mind: 1. It should not involve physical abuse; instead, parents can use time-outs and negative punishers; 2. it should be accompanied by information about what kind of behavior would be appropriate; and 3. it should be followed, whenever possible, by the reinforcement of desirable behavior."

A child cannot be easily plugged into an equation to produce the desired result. Not unless you plan on drafting countless equations...and then you land where I began. I'm terribly sorry if this offends you, but it is what it is.

Mike

 

[Scarlet Fire]

Research studies have found that punishment is effective in suppressing or eliminating unwanted behavior. . . . Most current promoters of punitive discipline in the United States espouse nonphysical forms of control, such as the use of reinforcements, logical consequences, or penalties. With children, behavior modification techniques such as time-out have proven very effective in modifying disruptive behaviors such as hitting, grabbing, talking back, or tantrums.


McCord, Joan, ed. Coercion and Punishment in Long-Term Perspectives. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.



Nearly every description of punitive discipline (what I've been calling "punishment") by reputable psychologists says that it is effective but only conditionally. It must be used in conjunction with positive reinforcement, it must me consistent, it must be administered properly and it must be sufficiently unpleasant without being abusive.

I contend that the bad reputation it gets is from the inherent difficulty in adhering to these conditions and the negative effects that result from improper application. The blanket condemnation of all use of punitive discipline is misguided.

I look at punitive discipline as one tool of many, to be used only under the proper circumstances and with careful consideration and it's like the hammer in your toolbox-- people misuse them all the time and great damage results. But when you really need to pound some nails a hammer is the correct tool for the job.

The problem with punishment is it often leads to avoidance, or merely not doing the behavior when the disciplining figure is present. Or, even worse, it can lead to resentment of the disciplining figure.

And here's the killer. Sometimes, punishment winds up acting as a reinforcement (see: rebellious teenagers).

Can punishment work? Absolutely. I never said it couldn't. But to use it as the sole means of trying to alter behavior is ludicrous, as so many of the people in this thread seemed to be advocating.

 

[Baryonyx]

So many childless "experts" here, I love it.

I don't think having children qualifies your opinion to have more worth than someone who doesn't. You can have your principles of parenting and stick to them. I don't have kids, but if I do, boy they won't be getting away with giving me any trouble.

 

[Scarlet Fire]

My wife is in the medical field and her brother majored in some aspect of psychology or another. While they might have worded their respnse differently, the message would be similar to mine.

Good for them. I'm a pre-med, but I still see psychology as just as much a science as physics. So does my pre-med adviser.

That's really a large part of my point. The "interveneing variables" in psychology are more numerous and much more unpredictable. I can construct a situation that eliminates most, if not all of the variables for the apple drop. You will never be able to do that with psychology. Keeping with the same example, I can announce with a good bit of certainty (and some prior calculation) the steps that need to be taken to put that apple in a situation where it is at terminal velocity.

So why does that make it unscientific?

The same bit of certainty CANNOT be said for this quote: "When punishment must be applied, these guidelines should be kept in mind: 1. It should not involve physical abuse; instead, parents can use time-outs and negative punishers; 2. it should be accompanied by information about what kind of behavior would be appropriate; and 3. it should be followed, whenever possible, by the reinforcement of desirable behavior."

I absolutely disagree. The reason most people agree with that idea is that they're improperly applying punishment, and that leads to unexpected changes of behavior, or results that were the opposite of what was intended. You especially should know this already.

A child cannot be easily plugged into an equation to produce the desired result. Not unless you plan on drafting countless equations...and then you land where I began. I'm terribly sorry if this offends you, but it is what it is.

Mike

Your pointing out the methodology of psychology isn't what offends me. Trust me, I know that much. But to say it's not scientific? I'm sorry, my friend, but I have to say bull**** to that.

 

[Relic]

The problem with punishment is it often leads to avoidance, or merely not doing the behavior when the disciplining figure is present. Or, even worse, it can lead to resentment of the disciplining figure.

And here's the killer. Sometimes, punishment winds up acting as a reinforcement (see: rebellious teenagers).

Can punishment work? Absolutely. I never said it couldn't. But to use it as the sole means of trying to alter behavior is ludicrous, as so many of the people in this thread seemed to be advocating.

I'm in 100% full agreement with this.

 

[Baryonyx]

punishment can lead to resentment of the disciplining figure.

Boo hoo. At least one day you can be glad that the kid will grow up and realise how stupid it was to resent someone who only wanted the best for him/her.

 

[Relic]

I don't think having children qualifies your opinion to have more worth than someone who doesn't. You can have your principles of parenting and stick to them. I don't have kids, but if I do, boy they won't be getting away with giving me any trouble.

I do, absolutely.
That said, it's not that I don't respect your opinion or the opinion of others without kids, I am listening to you.
I simply know from my own experience that there is a LOT to learn when it comes to raising kids. I have 3 and am still learning.
If/when you have kids, your methods will be your own and I won't have a place to tell you what is right or wrong, I can only tell you what has worked for me and my kids. I will tell you this with 100% accuracy and with no doubt in my mind - you will learn an awful lot and some things that you were sure you had in the bag, you will realize that you were wrong.

Would you listen to a non bass player who tells you that the best way to play bass is with a pick? Or would you pay more attention to the seasoned bass player who tells you that playing with a pick works best for him? Silly comparison but it's early and I havent had coffee yet.

 

[Baryonyx]

I understand and agree with your comparison, what I'm doing is saying "I'm going to learn to play bass with my fingers, but I'll work on my pick chops too incase the Anthony Jackson gig comes up".

If you catch my drift!

 

[Relic]

I understand and agree with your comparison, what I'm doing is saying "I'm going to learn to play bass with my fingers, but I'll work on my pick chops too incase the Anthony Jackson gig comes up".

If you catch my drift!

That's a good analogy. It's kind of fits for my idea behind parenting - you learn to play with a pick, with your fingers, slap style, thumb style and upright because eventually you're going to need them all.

 

[stylonpilson]

I don't think having children qualifies your opinion to have more worth than someone who doesn't. You can have your principles of parenting and stick to them. I don't have kids, but if I do, boy they won't be getting away with giving me any trouble.

You're entitled to your opinion. It's completely wrong, but you're entitled to it.

Here's a fun game to play - next time you are in the company of a woman who has gone through natural childbirth, say to her "it is my opinion that childbirth isn't that painful." When you've done that, please report back on the subsequent position of your testicles relative to your body.

S.P.

 

[dlloyd]

I don't think having children qualifies your opinion to have more worth than someone who doesn't.

I used to think this too. Until I became a parent and realised that many of my preconceptions were extremely naive, and the reality of the situation was that I knew very little about children and parenting because I had no practical experience of it. Experience and observation of other peoples children (including younger siblings) is no substitute for the real thing.

 

[Baryonyx]

You're entitled to your opinion. It's completely wrong, but you're entitled to it.

Here's a fun game to play - next time you are in the company of a woman who has gone through natural childbirth, say to her "it is my opinion that childbirth isn't that painful." When you've done that, please report back on the subsequent position of your testicles relative to your body.

S.P.

Well thanks for adding nothing to this thread except for disrespecting me. Were you a member of more than 67 posts standing, I might have been moved to report your post to a moderator. Funny isn't it, how everyone else in this thread, even those who disagree with each other, have managed to treat each other with respect and insight to further to conversation?

Again, thanks for an utterly useless and unelightened post.

 

[Relic]

I used to think this too. Until I became a parent and realised that many of my preconceptions were extremely naive, and the reality of the situation was that I knew very little about children and parenting because I had no practical experience of it, and experience and observation of other peoples children (including younger siblings) is no substitute for it.

Right. Until you have kids of your own, the only other truly major thing that you can really go on is your own childhood. But even that is flawed because you are only seeing it through your own eyes and not from your parent's perspective.
back to a bass analogy, I'm full of 'em today - listening to a song with a great bassline is a lot different than playing that song with the great bassline.

 

[Marlat]

Whilst I think that theoretically its possible for someone who doesn't have kids of their own to have an opinion that is equally weighted with someone who does when it comes to matters of direct parenting, I think it would be a fairly rare instance and certainly isn't demonstrated in this thread. That person would probably need to be working with children on a regular basis or perhaps be qualified in child psychology. Again, not something I am seeing in this thread. Falling short of that, I just can't see how on matters of direct parenting, someone's opinion should be given equal weight if they don't have kids. They may have an opinion on the situation, but on the "how to", you would be deluding yourself if you thought that your position of "little to no experience" gives you the same weight of opinion as someone with "years of experience". That applies in almost all areas of life, not just raising kids.

I should add, that the opposite should also be considered. Parents experience with raising kids is experience with raising their kids. It shouldn't be assumed that this is directly applicable to all kids or that what works for their kids will (or will not) work in other situations. Its opinion that should be given weight based on experience, but the level of that experience, relavent to the topic at large, should also not be put out of mind.

 

[stylonpilson]

Well thanks for adding nothing to this thread except for disrespecting me. Were you a member of more than 67 posts standing, I might have been moved to report your post to a moderator. Funny isn't it, how everyone else in this thread, even those who disagree with each other, have managed to treat each other with respect and insight to further to conversation?

Again, thanks for an utterly useless and unelightened post.

Sorry man, I thought I was being cute. What I was trying to say was words to the effect of: people who haven't studied astrophysics probably don't know anything about astrophysics.

S.P.

 

[Relic]

Whilst I think that theoretically its possible for someone who doesn't have kids of their own to have an opinion that is equally weighted with someone who does when it comes to matters of direct parenting, I think it would be a fairly rare instance and certainly isn't demonstrated in this thread. That person would probably need to be working with children on a regular basis or perhaps be qualified in child psychology. Again, not something I am seeing in this thread. Falling short of that, I just can't see how on matters of direct parenting, someone's opinion should be given equal weight if they don't have kids. They may have an opinion on the situation, but on the "how to", you would be deluding yourself if you thought that your position of "little to no experience" gives you the same weight of opinion as someone with "years of experience". That applies in almost all areas of life, not just raising kids.

I should add, that the opposite should also be considered. Parents experience with raising kids is experience with raising their kids. It shouldn't be assumed that this is directly applicable to all kids or that what works for their kids will (or will not) work in other situations. Its opinion that should be given weight based on experience, but the level of that experience, relavent to the topic at large, should also not be put out of mind.

All true. And this goes back to what (I think it was mike_v_s) was saying about parenting not being an exact science. It's not. And even proven methods that work on a particular child may eventually stop working. This has been my point all along - you cannot look at a single method and say "that's what this mother has to do because it worked for me", there are far too many variables. As a parent, I admit again that I'm still learning.
I think the one thing that may be tainting a lot of opinions here is the fact that we've all seen the stereotypical parent who just doesn't give a damn what their child does or who their child annoys. It's really easy to confuse a parent who is delibaretely ignoring their kid's tantrum as to not empower his/her behavior, to those who are ignoring the child because they just don't care.

 

[TheXym]

Jumping in late here. My kids do behave pretty darn well in public. A lot of it has to do with how they've been brought up at home, and the other was how I handled the one time they DID push things too far. We were in a fairly nice restaurant (Cooper's in Scranton for those in the area) for a meal and they started acting up - just being too noisy. We told them to stop and use their inside voices. They did for a bit then they went at it again. Told them again, strike two. They calmed down again, then it flared up when they couldn't share the crayons they had.

I told them strike three. Fortunately the entrees hadn't been started yet, so we were able to pay for our drinks and leave - (if they had been, we'd have gone to the car until they were finished and taken them to go). I apologized profusely to the waitress for my kids refusing to act civilized, and for her inconvenience and for that of the other diners. The kids were very quiet when we headed to the car. Once there, I let them stew for a couple of minutes then, more importantly, I explained to them that that sort of behavior is grossly unacceptable in a public place, and that they're much better than how they were behaving.

Since then, we've had several people compliment our kids when we're out. They know the expectation is to be civilized. If they want something, they can ask. They may get it, they might not. If it's a no, they know it's a no and that it won't change.

My kids are by no means perfect (though our daughter comes pretty darn close at times), and being the step dad is tough (biological fathers are out of the picture, and always will be, but I'm not going to go off about the felons right now), but when I walk in the door and the kids tell me they love me, and call me dad and give big hugs, it's more than worth the travails of going from bachelor to stepdad of three - it's nice to be a daddy.

It takes time, lots of love, but it is worth it. Yes, I have spanked them on the rare occasion. But when that happens, it's deserved. If warnings, then loss of other priviledges don't work, coupled with an explanation of why they were punished doesn't work, then they'll get the spanking. Knowing that there will be consequences for their actions makes a huge difference.

Even more so when they know that good decisions by them will be rewarded. It's not bribery. Just seeing the look in their eyes when we say we're proud of them is priceless. Our oldest is a freshman this year, and has had some academic issues (he has a learning disability in math and was pushed through a few things in elementary school he should have repeated, depsite our input). As of today, he needs to bring 2 class grades up a point to make first honors on the honor roll, with much less time in the learning support room than junior high or elementary school (where he was lucky to pull C's across the board). We're making a huge deal out of it, and being supportive in the process. He's really liking it much more than being hounded for being lazy with his homework and not studying. His younger brother is seeing it and is also starting to get it. Too many times people only focus on what kids do wrong. Catch them doing something right and give that as much attention as the disciplining for the negatives and it makes a huge difference. If you're willing to show consequences for negative actions, go to a farther extreme with it for positive decisions.

 

[baalroo]

This has become an interesting discussion, but parenting technique is still mostly irrelevant to the OP. The crux of the situation is that I'm sure in the 27 minutes that the child was screaming the mother could have exited the bus with the child. The problem is the mother was apparently more concerned with being inconvenienced than with inconveniencing others.

Like it or not, if your child is being obnoxious it IS your fault. You chose to have the child, you chose your methodology of raising said child, and you chose to bring that child into public. How you deal with it is your own business, as long as you do whatever is within your power to stop it ("it" meaning the actions, not the child).

I'm not saying don't bring your child into public, nor am I saying that a "properly" raised child will never act up in public. What I AM saying is that every parent needs to take resposibility for their actions even if that means YOU must be inconvenienced and exit the bus, discipline the child (in WHATEVER manner you see fit), and wait for the next one.

Many people are saying, "don't take the bus if you can't handle screaming kids" and I agree with that on a simply pragmatic basis. However, an obvious retort is "don't have children if you are not prepared to take responsibility for their actions."

 

[mambo4]

Parents posting here are making some important points about the challenges of raising a child, and I do think a degree of tolerance/patience toward kids acting up is wise to maintain; however, I think a lot of the parents posting here to defend the P.O.S.C.I.P.(Parent Of a Screaming Child In Public,) are sort of missing the OP's point.

To me, the nature of the OP's complaint was not that the child was screaming in public, but that s/he was screaming in public for 30 minutes while the parent did nothing to control it.

I would call that inconsiderate, and assume the family to be dysfunctional and lacking decent parenting skills. But that's just my ignorant non-parent's opinion.

How many minutes of your child screaming in public would you honestly tolerate, as a parent, before trying to do somethingto control your little bundle of joy?

 

[MakiSupaStar]

Whilst I think that theoretically its possible for someone who doesn't have kids of their own to have an opinion that is equally weighted with someone who does when it comes to matters of direct parenting, I think it would be a fairly rare instance and certainly isn't demonstrated in this thread. That person would probably need to be working with children on a regular basis or perhaps be qualified in child psychology. Again, not something I am seeing in this thread. Falling short of that, I just can't see how on matters of direct parenting, someone's opinion should be given equal weight if they don't have kids. They may have an opinion on the situation, but on the "how to", you would be deluding yourself if you thought that your position of "little to no experience" gives you the same weight of opinion as someone with "years of experience". That applies in almost all areas of life, not just raising kids.

I should add, that the opposite should also be considered. Parents experience with raising kids is experience with raising their kids. It shouldn't be assumed that this is directly applicable to all kids or that what works for their kids will (or will not) work in other situations. Its opinion that should be given weight based on experience, but the level of that experience, relavent to the topic at large, should also not be put out of mind.

+1. I hate agreeing with Latimour. It feels dirty in a bad way.