As a parent, I generally try to let my kids make their own choices when all of the potential consequences are clearly understandable to the child and a mistake would not be catastrophic. For example, I will let young children risk bruises and scrapes, but not brain injury or broken bones. This lets them learn through trial and error when the stakes are low. It also lets them learn through experience that it's generally wise to listen to advice from more experienced people.
However, sometimes the risks are too high to allow experimentation. Asking a child to anticipate the risks of a head injury is asking something outside their developmental capability. For that reason, helmets are mandatory. Refusing to wear a helmet results in lack of wheeled toys. Is that a punishment? Maybe. I honestly don't care if my children are intrinsically motivated to wear helmets, as long as they wear them. I have worked with people trying to recover from a head injury. I'm fine using a bit of coercion to spare my child that suffering.
I will also use imposed consequences to create shorter feedback loops, especially for something that involves immediate discomfort and long term benefit. Humans are not good at those kinds of decisions, and kids have even more trouble with those kinds of choices. A 3 foot tall child generally needs help getting something off a 6 foot shelf. In the same way, a ten year old child cannot be reasonably expected to anticipate how decisions today will open or restrict their options in adulthood.
In other words, I use influence whenever possible, because the long term benefits are spectacular. However, I'm not going to completely throw out the coercion toolbox. Those aren't needed often, but they're still useful.
Overall, this has resulted in teens and young adults who make carefully considered decisions and are willing to consult me for advice. It's been a journey, but I am proud of who they have become.
"sometimes the risks are too high to allow experimentation" Absolutely! I would say if you've set a boundary of helmet-wearing while on wheeled toys and the child understood that was what demonstrated readiness, then to remove those toys from use for awhile if that guideline wasn't followed would be an example of holding a boundary. It still sounds more like "controlling the environment" rather than "controlling the kid" to me. You're not doing it to make your child suffer for their disobedience but to keep them safe. Readiness is an important aspect of this approach and is hopefully common sense for most.
Could you share an example of what you mean by "imposed consequences to create shorter feedback loops"?
Sounds like you have really healthy attachment with your children. Well done, Mama!
Example of imposed consequences to create shorter feedback loops, sure!
A very simple example would be breaking a habit/addiction. (The distinction between the two is often a matter of degree. It can get fuzzy.) Even if the child agrees that this behavior has become destructive in the big picture, the immediate impulse to indulge is too strong. And sometimes a child will not and cannot recognize that something that feels good is going in a destructive direction. Restrictions and immediate prizes/penalties can help break the cycle. I'm always very clear with my kids on WHY I am using this strategy. And I don't take it personally when they're upset.
A few months or years later they look back and go "Eek! The decisions I thought were clever at the time would have made my life miserable in the long term. Glad mom didn't let it get that bad.' Furious kids who hopped up and down calling me extremely bad names at high volume come back a few years later with a sheepish "You were right and I'm sorry I was such a brat about it. Thank you."
Same applies to unpleasant medical procedures or therapies. I always try explaining, enthusiasm, and a positive attitude first. But outright bribery remains in the toolbox.
As explained beautifully in "Punished By Rewards", external motivation destroys intrinsic motivation. That's a serious problem and should be avoided whenever possible.
But sometimes it's not reasonable to expect a child to understand the big picture or achieve intrinsic motivation. It's outside their capabilities at the time. And when that's the case, an astute parent needs to bring out the tools of control.
It happens quite a lot when kids are toddlers. As kids get older, I rapidly taper off the use of control strategies. My goal is to be on 100% influence strategies by the time a kid is 15 or 16. That gives me 2-3 years in which I still have legal authority to protect them if they're getting themselves into serious trouble, and they have 2-3 years in which they manage their own lives secure in the knowledge that I will stop them if they're doing something spectacularly dangerous. It makes that transition to adulthood much easier. Much less scary.
Hi! As I was reading this, I thought I’d mention the Alfie Kohn books to you—but of course you got to that! I’m a big fan of not undermining anyone’s intrinsic motivation! :)
Thank you for this comment! I love seeing your name here since I'm a fan of your amazing essays. I hadn't heard the term "plundering class" before I read it in your latest. I've adopted it as I'm sure you noticed in this one. ;)
Wonderful essay! It doesn’t hurt that it supports my own parenting/educational philosophy (that I thank the collective works of John Taylor Gatto and Sandra Dodd for introducing me to).
“Humans are amazing creatures who are naturally curious and creative, with a drive to contribute to a community in satisfying and meaningful ways.” Dodd says the same thing: humans are designed to LEARN; schools were designed to beat that essential function out of us.
It’s so heartening to discover like-minded people from all over the political spectrum. It gives me great hope that the more of us who can pry ourselves awake from our lifelong brainwashing (after all, most of us endured at LEAST 13 years of “formal schooling” if not considerably more), the faster we will discover we share common goals, politics be damned!
Good question. I hadn't thought about putting my readers in this position to choose one or the other. How about a 2-fer? If you purchase an annual subscription to one, I'll comp the other. I may offer this to all StoicMom readers...
Done. :) You now have access to Reflections from the Trenches over at the main newsletter, too. This series is really about some of our unschooling adventures. Let me know what you think when you get a chance. <3 I read some of them as podcasts.
Thank you! I am loving the content and the guests on the podcasts. You’re really helping fill in some (big) gaps in my knowledge. I’m so happy I found you!
As a parent, I generally try to let my kids make their own choices when all of the potential consequences are clearly understandable to the child and a mistake would not be catastrophic. For example, I will let young children risk bruises and scrapes, but not brain injury or broken bones. This lets them learn through trial and error when the stakes are low. It also lets them learn through experience that it's generally wise to listen to advice from more experienced people.
However, sometimes the risks are too high to allow experimentation. Asking a child to anticipate the risks of a head injury is asking something outside their developmental capability. For that reason, helmets are mandatory. Refusing to wear a helmet results in lack of wheeled toys. Is that a punishment? Maybe. I honestly don't care if my children are intrinsically motivated to wear helmets, as long as they wear them. I have worked with people trying to recover from a head injury. I'm fine using a bit of coercion to spare my child that suffering.
I will also use imposed consequences to create shorter feedback loops, especially for something that involves immediate discomfort and long term benefit. Humans are not good at those kinds of decisions, and kids have even more trouble with those kinds of choices. A 3 foot tall child generally needs help getting something off a 6 foot shelf. In the same way, a ten year old child cannot be reasonably expected to anticipate how decisions today will open or restrict their options in adulthood.
In other words, I use influence whenever possible, because the long term benefits are spectacular. However, I'm not going to completely throw out the coercion toolbox. Those aren't needed often, but they're still useful.
Overall, this has resulted in teens and young adults who make carefully considered decisions and are willing to consult me for advice. It's been a journey, but I am proud of who they have become.
"sometimes the risks are too high to allow experimentation" Absolutely! I would say if you've set a boundary of helmet-wearing while on wheeled toys and the child understood that was what demonstrated readiness, then to remove those toys from use for awhile if that guideline wasn't followed would be an example of holding a boundary. It still sounds more like "controlling the environment" rather than "controlling the kid" to me. You're not doing it to make your child suffer for their disobedience but to keep them safe. Readiness is an important aspect of this approach and is hopefully common sense for most.
Could you share an example of what you mean by "imposed consequences to create shorter feedback loops"?
Sounds like you have really healthy attachment with your children. Well done, Mama!
Example of imposed consequences to create shorter feedback loops, sure!
A very simple example would be breaking a habit/addiction. (The distinction between the two is often a matter of degree. It can get fuzzy.) Even if the child agrees that this behavior has become destructive in the big picture, the immediate impulse to indulge is too strong. And sometimes a child will not and cannot recognize that something that feels good is going in a destructive direction. Restrictions and immediate prizes/penalties can help break the cycle. I'm always very clear with my kids on WHY I am using this strategy. And I don't take it personally when they're upset.
A few months or years later they look back and go "Eek! The decisions I thought were clever at the time would have made my life miserable in the long term. Glad mom didn't let it get that bad.' Furious kids who hopped up and down calling me extremely bad names at high volume come back a few years later with a sheepish "You were right and I'm sorry I was such a brat about it. Thank you."
Same applies to unpleasant medical procedures or therapies. I always try explaining, enthusiasm, and a positive attitude first. But outright bribery remains in the toolbox.
As explained beautifully in "Punished By Rewards", external motivation destroys intrinsic motivation. That's a serious problem and should be avoided whenever possible.
But sometimes it's not reasonable to expect a child to understand the big picture or achieve intrinsic motivation. It's outside their capabilities at the time. And when that's the case, an astute parent needs to bring out the tools of control.
It happens quite a lot when kids are toddlers. As kids get older, I rapidly taper off the use of control strategies. My goal is to be on 100% influence strategies by the time a kid is 15 or 16. That gives me 2-3 years in which I still have legal authority to protect them if they're getting themselves into serious trouble, and they have 2-3 years in which they manage their own lives secure in the knowledge that I will stop them if they're doing something spectacularly dangerous. It makes that transition to adulthood much easier. Much less scary.
Hi! As I was reading this, I thought I’d mention the Alfie Kohn books to you—but of course you got to that! I’m a big fan of not undermining anyone’s intrinsic motivation! :)
Thank you for this comment! I love seeing your name here since I'm a fan of your amazing essays. I hadn't heard the term "plundering class" before I read it in your latest. I've adopted it as I'm sure you noticed in this one. ;)
“Plundering class” is a useful comment, I find!!
Wonderful essay! It doesn’t hurt that it supports my own parenting/educational philosophy (that I thank the collective works of John Taylor Gatto and Sandra Dodd for introducing me to).
“Humans are amazing creatures who are naturally curious and creative, with a drive to contribute to a community in satisfying and meaningful ways.” Dodd says the same thing: humans are designed to LEARN; schools were designed to beat that essential function out of us.
It’s so heartening to discover like-minded people from all over the political spectrum. It gives me great hope that the more of us who can pry ourselves awake from our lifelong brainwashing (after all, most of us endured at LEAST 13 years of “formal schooling” if not considerably more), the faster we will discover we share common goals, politics be damned!
Alright, woman--when I’m finished reading, I’m subbing! 👍🏼
Should I sub to this Substack or your other one? Which do you suggest?
Good question. I hadn't thought about putting my readers in this position to choose one or the other. How about a 2-fer? If you purchase an annual subscription to one, I'll comp the other. I may offer this to all StoicMom readers...
You GOT it!!
Done. :) You now have access to Reflections from the Trenches over at the main newsletter, too. This series is really about some of our unschooling adventures. Let me know what you think when you get a chance. <3 I read some of them as podcasts.
Thank you! I am loving the content and the guests on the podcasts. You’re really helping fill in some (big) gaps in my knowledge. I’m so happy I found you!
Oh, this is wonderful to hear! <3 Thanks for taking the time to drop this note. It made my day!