'Spanking Your Liver-Spotted Ass' - Tiger Mother Parenting Part 2

[mizerydearia]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVrCSAMnf6I

I get this question a lot, which is why children, you can't reason with children so you have to use some kind of force to control them, to restrain them, they don't know what's best for them, they basically have cognitive deficiencies which necessitate the use of parental aggression in order to keep them safe and happy and on the right path and so on.  And to my mind that is not a reasonable or good argument.  And the way to best understand that is to understand that the principal is not parent to child.  The principle is more cognitively efficient to less cognitively efficient.  In other words, if it's just parent to child then it's bigger and strong and the key ingredient there is bigger and stronger not cognitive deficiency.  But if we accept that parents have good brains and children have relatively not so good brains, then it is the good brains to not so good brains that really counts. In other words, if you can think better or more clearly or more efficiently than somebody else, then you can use force or bullying or aggression or abuse in order to help them to think better.  Now, of course, the science clearly shows that stress inhibits the development of brain cells and impairs cognitive efficiency.  Just try doing a quadratic equation while you're running away from a bear and see how well that goes.  But, the reality is that if this is a universal principal like better better brain can bully worse brain in order to make worse brain better then it's a universal principal.  It has nothing to do with parent child.

[1714025421]

1714025421

[genjix]

That text was a bit dense and badly written, but all cognitive research currently shows that restricting the freedom of children and use brute aggression to shape their behaviour is ineffective. But reasoning with children is not feasible either. Parenting methods instead make parents establish firm boundaries and non-aggressively (calmly and unemotionally) enforce them. It's the same with dog teachers- by reacting to their challenge, you are bringing yourself to their level and losing status. Instead you want to quietly and firmly assert yourself.

[em3rgentOrdr]

I enjoyed that youtube a lot.

That text was a bit dense and badly written...

Keep in mind that that text is a transcription of verbal spoken youtube video spoken word, so it makes much more sense when watching it as a video rather than reading it on paper.

[mizerydearia]

Instead you want to quietly and firmly assert yourself.

It is my understanding that assertion != use of force.

I wonder how 'broken record' is considered: Is it assertion even if one were to repeat themselves hundreds of times?

e.g. consider these two scenarios:

scenario one, repeat infinitely:

burglar: May I burglarize your home?
homeowner: (assertively)no.

scenario two, repeat infinitely:

daughter: Daddy, may I eat now?  I'm hungry.
father: (assertively)no.

[FreeMoney]

Sorry if this is a little off topic. Force on children is terrible. 

Stef says frequently that we have no unchosen obligations. I completely agree.

He says we've chosen to have children so now we have an obligation to feed, clothe, educate, whatever. Even if this is true what does it mean? That they can punish us? That anyone can? Does this mean that we have to meet someone's definition of minimum care?

I have a son and I don't feed him, play with him, keep him safe, or anything out of obligation. So far there hasn't been a day where I haven't wanted to do these things; there have been minutes, and I don't do those things in those minutes.

What I'm saying is that I don't understand what obligation means here or why you would need it. Doing things out of obligation sucks, everything is better if you do things out of a real desire to do them.

[FreeMoney]

scenario two, repeat infinitely:

daughter: Daddy, may I eat now?  I'm hungry.
father: (assertively)no.

Convincing someone that they need permission from you in order to eat is bad imo. My boy doesn't ask permission to eat, he asks for help getting food down from the cupboard.

This isn't a semantic thing. If a father says "no you can't eat now" and a kid goes to ask mom then daddy gets all hot and bothered about having his authority circumvented. But if daddy says "I'm not going to get you any food now" and then mommy does it then daddy can just be glad that someone else met the child's need.

So the difference I see in your two scenarios is that in the first you are telling someone that they can't do something to your property, and in the second you are telling someone that they cannot satisfy their own need even independently of you.

[mizerydearia]

Hmm, that's a good question FreeMoney.  I don't mean to agree or disagree by the following response, but I thought of the following when reading and thought I'd share.

Let's say you are a Father or Mother and have a newborn child.  If you are uncertain what level of obligation is required if any at all, then it may be possible for an individual to establish birth of a newborn human species existence and due to lack of sense of obligation or desire for relation with the creature (*grin*), you simply allow it to establish itself in its new environment, providing it freedom to 'be the best it can be' without any positive, negative or neutral influence from yourselves, perhaps acceptably considered creators.  In this instance, I can understand that many human species existences will indicate that this is wrong, unacceptable or whatever, but for various species, this concept exists or occurs.  Why should humans be subject to not allowing for such opportunities?  Anyhow, humans have established sense of societally accepted obligations differing slightly or greatly throughout various [cult]ures (similarly to the differences spanning across various species).

Nice wording: Instead of examining these long-winded platonic derivatives, look at what happens in practice.

[mizerydearia]

So the difference I see in your two scenarios is that in the first you are telling someone that they can't do something to your property, and in the second you are telling someone that they cannot satisfy their own need even independently of you.

Mm, I do agree that food is an established want|need to satisfy the preserved health and continued existence of the individual asking for food.
However, this may be comparable to the established want|need to satisfy the preserved and continued effort of the individual asking for burglarization.

Food and burglarization are different things and in our minds and understandings we recognize these things as different and therefore apply different expectations or responses.

In the case with the request for food, the food potentially fed to the daughter may be the property of the Father's.
In the case with the request for burglarization, the home potentially burglarized may be the property of the Father's.

btw, I do not mean to blatantly troll, as I do not necessarily agree myself with the direction of my posts, but I am curious about the ideas.

[FreeMoney]

So the difference I see in your two scenarios is that in the first you are telling someone that they can't do something to your property, and in the second you are telling someone that they cannot satisfy their own need even independently of you.

Mm, I do agree that food is an established want|need to satisfy the preserved health and continued existence of the individual asking for food.
However, this may be comparable to the established want|need to satisfy the preserved and continued effort of the individual asking for burglarization.

Food and burglarization are different things and in our minds and understandings we recognize these things as different and therefore apply different expectations or responses.

In the case with the request for food, the food potentially fed to the daughter may be the property of the Father's.
In the case with the request for burglarization, the home potentially burglarized may be the property of the Father's.

btw, I do not mean to blatantly troll, as I do not necessarily agree myself with the direction of my posts, but I am curious about the ideas.

Even stipulating that the burglar has as genuine a need for whatever he intends to get from you as a child has for food it is still a different question.

If the child says "Can I eat?" and you say "No" that is to claim that you will prevent the child from getting anything at all from anyone. If the child says "Can you get me some food?" saying "No" only means that you aren't going to or can't get food for the child (and usually only for some limited amount of time). If you forcedly keep your child away from other then you are aggressing for sure.   

If the potential burglar says "Can I take your lawnmower?" you don't respond "No you can't have a lawnmower from anyone" or just say "No, I won't give you a lawnmower".

[ribuck]

He says we've chosen to have children so now we have an obligation to feed, clothe, educate, whatever. Even if this is true what does it mean? That they can punish us? That anyone can? Does this mean that we have to meet someone's definition of minimum care?

Stephan's philosophy (sorry I don't have a link) is simply that if you don't wish to care for your children, you should allow others to do so. There's no need for punishment, or an arbitrary minimum standard of care.

Doing things out of obligation sucks, everything is better if you do things out of a real desire to do them.

For sure, any obligation sucks, and I would not support any obligation. It cannot be a moral imperative to let others care for your children if you don't want to (or cannot) care for them.

However, children do not choose to be born, and harm to children or neglect of children is such a terrrible thing that I expect a free society would evolve the strongest of social pressures to ensure that unwanted children were looked after by people who do care about them.

[FreeMoney]

He says we've chosen to have children so now we have an obligation to feed, clothe, educate, whatever. Even if this is true what does it mean? That they can punish us? That anyone can? Does this mean that we have to meet someone's definition of minimum care?

Stephan's philosophy (sorry I don't have a link) is simply that if you don't wish to care for your children, you should allow others to do so. There's no need for punishment, or an arbitrary minimum standard of care.
 

That does seem right. I don't want to misrepresent his position. I certainly shouldn't have implied that he advocated using force against people for not meeting his standards of care.

I would say that even if you are caring for your children you should let others care for them as well. On what grounds could you stop it? It's disappointing that it's so hard to find people who won't abuse out of habit and without knowing what they are doing. That's not to say there aren't people who do know that they are abusing or even that that is a black/white issue.

[genjix]

Let's say you are a Father or Mother and have a newborn child.  If you are uncertain what level of obligation is required if any at all, then it may be possible for an individual to establish birth of a newborn human species existence and due to lack of sense of obligation or desire for relation with the creature (*grin*), you simply allow it to establish itself in its new environment, providing it freedom to 'be the best it can be' without any positive, negative or neutral influence from yourselves, perhaps acceptably considered creators.  In this instance, I can understand that many human species existences will indicate that this is wrong, unacceptable or whatever, but for various species, this concept exists or occurs.  Why should humans be subject to not allowing for such opportunities?  Anyhow, humans have established sense of societally accepted obligations differing slightly or greatly throughout various [cult]ures (similarly to the differences spanning across various species).

Instead of examining these long-winded platonic derivatives, look at what happens in practice. Firstly you reason with the child as an equal. If that doesn't work then you set clear reasonable boundaries which can't be crossed. You calmly enforce these non-aggressively.

If a child is constantly breaking your rules, then you must have shit rules or too many.

You can read some books on child care to inform yourself. Shouting and screaming like a lunatic, making constant demands of your child is a straight path to disobedience and a bad relationship. Whenever a parent loses emotional control they're handing power over to the child by reacting, and rewarding them with a piece of their valuable attention for bad behaviour you don't want to reinforce. An effective parent is one who doesn't need to scream, shout and use violence to submit the child into getting their own (the parent's) way.

[kiba]

Instead of examining these long-winded platonic derivatives, look at what happens in practice. Firstly you reason with the child as an equal. If that doesn't work then you set clear reasonable boundaries which can't be crossed. You calmly enforce these non-aggressively.

If a child is constantly breaking your rules, then you must have shit rules or too many.

You can read some books on child care to inform yourself. Shouting and screaming like a lunatic, making constant demands of your child is a straight path to disobedience and a bad relationship. Whenever a parent loses emotional control they're handing power over to the child by reacting, and rewarding them with a piece of their valuable attention for bad behaviour you don't want to reinforce. An effective parent is one who doesn't need to scream, shout and use violence to submit the child into getting their own (the parent's) way.

Father: Clean up your room now or I'll sit in your room until you do it.

Me: I'll clean my room if you leave.

(Waiting game)

Father left the room as his patience is less than his son.

[ribuck]

Father: Clean up your room now or I'll sit in your room until you do it.

The child's room should be a place where the child isn't required to clean up. They need a space of their own, and it's good for them to discover and learn for themselves the advantages and disadvantages of cleaning.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Father: Clean up your room now or I'll sit in your room until you do it.

The child's room should be a place where the child isn't required to clean up. They need a space of their own, and it's good for them to discover and learn for themselves the advantages and disadvantages of cleaning.

+1

Indeed, computer CPU cache's work on the principle of not cleaning up.  Basically instead of putting modified data back in memory after it is last used, they instead wait for that cache space to be used before putting the modified data back.