Parents with screaming kids...

[mike_v_s]

biologically a child is born with our anatomy. mentally your still dealing with a beast that needs taming. this is why the harshness of life must be applied.

"Biology" is more than "anatomy". As far as "taming a beast", I'll still go with: I don't take advice on dog training from people who have never owned a dog. You guys are out of your league on this one. Sorry. I know being told that you don't have enough life experience to make an informed comment sucks, but it applies here.

Mike

 

[Relic]

So many childless "experts" here, I love it.
It will change when you have kids of you own. You wont understand or comprehend that right now and will even maybe take exception to me typing that, but I absolutely guarantee it.

 

[mike_v_s]

Dr. Nancy Snyder, Professor of Psychology, Northeastern University.

"...most psychologists believe that punishment, especially severe punishment, is a poor way to eliminate unwanted behavior. In special cases, for example when mentally disabled children are in immediate danger of seriously injuring themselves, temporary physical restraint may be necessary. But even in these cases, alternatives to punishment are now preferred. ...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."
Wade, Carole, and Carol Tavris. Psychology. Nine ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2008. 259-60.

Also keep in mind, negative reinforcement is not punishment.

I love psychology. So much interpretation of data accepted as fact. It's like the science that's not.

Mike

 

[fdeck]

So you'd willing to accept me playing the crazy frog ring tone on my phones speakers repeatedly for half an hour on a bus that we might share. Because you were prepared to accept those consequences...

Non sequitur.

 

[D.Don]

I hate kids, correction, I hate when parents don't bother to raise their kids teaching basic respect for other people, and the rules of the civilization ...

But in general, I dislike kids, and luckily the woman I fell in love with and live together with doesn't find kids interesting at all either (we are both around 35 years old).

To quote her upon the question a friend asked to provoke us when we told him that we where thinking of getting a Jack Russel, and that we don't want kids, (he asked why we didnt skip the safe lane with the dog first and get kids direct ..) .. she answered instantly "Coz if a dog get nuts youre allowed to kill it" ...



D.Don

 

[Relic]

I hate kids, correction, I hate when parents don't bother to raise their kids teaching basic respect for other people, and the rules of the civilization ...

But in general, I dislike kids, and luckily the woman I fell in love with and live together with doesn't find kids interesting at all either (we are both around 35 years old).

To quote her upon the question a friend asked to provoke us when we told him that we where thinking of getting a Jack Russel .. (He asked why we didnt skip the safe line with the dog first but got kids direct ..) .. she answered instantly "Coz if a dog get nuts youre allowed to kill it" ...



D.Don

I hate your Jack Russel terrier. They smell, are noisy and I don't accept them. You should kill it to make me happy.

(the world revolves around me and my opinions you know)

 

[theshadow2001]

Non sequitur.

Both are incredibly annoying. I think it does follow.

So do parents actually give a hoot that their kids are annoying the surrounding public when it has a some sort of obnoxious fit?

 

[D.Don]

I hate your Jack Russel terrier. They smell, are noisy and I don't accept them. You should kill it to make me happy.

(the world revolves around me and my opinions you know)

But if we tell it to lie still and keep quiet, it wont mess with us ...

D.Don

 

[Scarlet Fire]

I love psychology. So much interpretation of data accepted as fact. It's like the science that's not.

Mike

All sciences are interpretations of data. There are no absolutes in psychology, biology, chemistry, or physics. Only generally accepted principles.

 

[Relic]

Both are incredibly annoying. I think it does follow.

So do parents actually give a hoot that their kids are annoying the surrounding public when it has a some sort of obnoxious fit?

First of all a kid is a HE or SHE and not an IT. Just my own idiosyncracy here but calling a kid "it" bugs me. It's as though they are some sort of creature or object.

Secondly yes, it does bother me and I usually apologize to folks if/when my kid is acting up, but it still doesn't change how I chose to discipline my child. I'm not going to turn around and smack my kid to make some stranger happy, though I may say "sorry" and explain to you that we're working through tantrums at the moment. All my kids are well-behaved but that required some creative thinking.

 

[Relic]

All sciences are interpretations of data. There are no absolutes in psychology, biology, chemistry, or physics. Only generally accepted principles.

Try parenting if you want to test theories, challenge absolutes, interpret data and overturn accepted principles!

I'm being melodramatic here for sure, but what I'm trying to say is that a child's behavior is a truly bizarre and unpredictable thing and as a parent, you have to keep on reinventing yourself on the fly constantly. I took many years of Psychology and still think that I've learned far far far more empirically than I had in the classroom.

 

[theshadow2001]

First of all a kid is a HE or SHE and not an IT. Just my own idiosyncracy here but calling a kid "it" bugs me. It's as though they are some sort of creature or object.

It is athird-person,singularneuter pronoun (subject case) in Modern English

Using "it" means the gender doesn't have to be defined.

 

[Relic]

It is athird-person,singularneuter pronoun (subject case) in Modern English

Using "it" means the gender doesn't have to be defined.

Understood, but go back and read the original post in this thread. The gender was defined then the OP continued to call the little girl an "it". It seems to me as though it's some sort of dehumanizing tactic used by those who just can't stand kids, but then again that's just me and my opinion.

 

[fdeck]

So do parents actually give a hoot that their kids are annoying the surrounding public when it has a some sort of obnoxious fit?

I actually give a hoot when it are annoying the surrounding public.

 

[mike_v_s]

All sciences are interpretations of data. There are no absolutes in psychology, biology, chemistry, or physics. Only generally accepted principles.

Sorry. I should have pre-empted with "I finished college and don't need a refresher on anything I type".

As far as lumping psychology in with physics....uh....well, you know. If I drop an apple 100 times. We all know the result. If I attempt to discipline a child 100 times, the result will not be so consistent. Such is the way of psychology.

So, back to my exact quote: interpretation of data accepted as fact. Psychology leaves the door of interpretation wide open. Moreso than the other sciences you mentioned. Dr. Joe Blow can print whatever they want about what works. It means a bit less than when Stephen Hawking prints a trajectory for an asteroid right into Earth.

Before I had kids I read a few books on them. Discipline, especially. I even took child psychology once, making me an expert. You know what? I've got two kids. A full 50% of my offspring don't fit into any of the discipline molds that were drafted by geniuses in the field.

Please don't take me as a redneck that doesn't trust "them educated folk". I have a college education. Most of my friends do. Some are doctors, lawyers, entreprenuers, members of MENSA, etc, etc, etc. No, I value an education and put a good bit of faith in those that do also. BUT, I'm at a point in my life where I can physically see one person's "scientific" findings rendered useless by a 5 year old. The end.

Mike

 

[theshadow2001]

Understood, but go back and read the original post in this thread. The gender was defined then the OP continued to call the little girl an "it". It seems as though it's some sort of dehumanizing tactic to me used by those who just can't stand kids, but then again that's just me and my opinion.

My question was open to all parents on the board. I wasn't specifically referring to the child or parent mentioned in the OP.

When someone mentions they have a new baby, a common question phrased as so is often asked:Is it a boy or a girl?

Using "it" is just a simple function of English.

 

[theshadow2001]

I actually give a hoot when it are annoying the surrounding public.

well hasn't this turned into quite the english lesson. I maintain the grammar is fine

The intial part of the sentence implies multiple instances of a parent and child. The rest denotes one of those specific instances

 

[::::BASSIST::::]

Its obvious who the parents are in this thread. Children throw tantrums. I agree that perhaps letting the child scream for 30 minutes is excessive, but we do not know the child. This could be status quotient for her. She could be emotionall disturbed. She could be in physical pain... can you be sure she is just being a brat? Often with such behaviour, ignoring it, as the mother was doing, is THE best thing to do. Giving any kind of attention to it is exactly what the child wants. You cannot reward that behaviour.

As for annoying people around her... well, I say tough nuts to them. Children are our future and as members of a given community sometimes they are a burden we must bear. If you must ride public transit, and kudos to those that do, bring an MP3 player and close your eyes. Problem solved. People need to take responsibility for themselves and quit being whiny babies... how ironic!

 

[Scarlet Fire]

Sorry. I should have pre-empted with "I finished college and don't need a refresher on anything I type".

As far as lumping psychology in with physics....uh....well, you know. If I drop an apple 100 times. We all know the result. If I attempt to discipline a child 100 times, the result will not be so consistent. Such is the way of psychology.

So, back to my exact quote: interpretation of data accepted as fact. Psychology leaves the door of interpretation wide open. Moreso than the other sciences you mentioned. Dr. Joe Blow can print whatever they want about what works. It means a bit less than when Stephen Hawking prints a trajectory for an asteroid right into Earth.

Before I had kids I read a few books on them. Discipline, especially. I even took child psychology once, making me an expert. You know what? I've got two kids. A full 50% of my offspring don't fit into any of the discipline molds that were drafted by geniuses in the field.

Please don't take me as a redneck that doesn't trust "them educated folk". I have a college education. Most of my friends do. Some are doctors, lawyers, entreprenuers, members of MENSA, etc, etc, etc. No, I value an education and put a good bit of faith in those that do also. BUT, I'm at a point in my life where I can physically see one person's "scientific" findings rendered useless by a 5 year old. The end.

Mike

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.

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."

 

[hbarcat]

Dr. Nancy Snyder, Professor of Psychology, Northeastern University.

"...most psychologists believe that punishment, especially severe punishment, is a poor way to eliminate unwanted behavior. In special cases, for example when mentally disabled children are in immediate danger of seriously injuring themselves, temporary physical restraint may be necessary. But even in these cases, alternatives to punishment are now preferred. ...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."
Wade, Carole, and Carol Tavris. Psychology. Nine ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2008. 259-60.

Also keep in mind, negative reinforcement is not punishment.

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.