Echoes of the past

One of the more frustrating things about being a parent is learning just how little control you really have. Despite your best laid plans, there are just going to be things you can't change. This is especially true when it involves your children.

We do our best to mold our kids. We'd like for them to learn from our mistakes and live their lives without the hard lessons we might have picked up along the way. Despite our best efforts, our children are actually unique human beings on their own. While they may have at least 50% of our genes, there are no guarantees that they will approach issues in the same way that we would. Or, for that matter, the way that our spouses would!

It's a minor frustration, but it's there all the same. In private, our boys are lively and imaginative. They are playful and rather creative in their conversations. All of that flair seems to disappear the moment we introduce others into the equation. They are generally polite (although your interpretation may vary depending on when you catch them), but they are a shell of their normal selves. It's rare to get more than a handful of words out of them--and each of them are given grudgingly along the way. This obstinate performance is especially infuriating when you are with your friends or family. You want to impress them with the bright, charming young men that you have dutifully raised. Instead, you get the sullen or withdrawn lumps that could be anyone's progeny.

And then the memory struck. Out of nowhere, I suddenly flashed back to a scene from my own childhood. It was my exasperated mother looking at me with sadness in her eyes. "Why don't you ever talk to your Aunt Phyllis?" She had expected me to be my bright, charming self with her sister and I had withdrawn into that pre-teen shell just like my boys are now doing.

Maybe they are learning from me after all. I guess the only saving grace is that they may yet evolve into more enlightened forms--later.

Cultivating behavior

An interesting article in the Atlantic discusses parenting. The basic idea is that punishment does not actually mold proper behavior.

"Not so, says Alan Kazdin, director of the Yale Parenting Center. Punishment might make you feel better, but it won’t change the kid’s behavior. Instead, he advocates for a radical technique in which parents positively reinforce the behavior they do want to see until the negative behavior eventually goes away."

Kazdin recommends a three-part approach.

What it amounts to is an area of research that's called applied behavior analysis, and what it focuses on are three things to change behavior: What comes before the behavior, how you craft the behavior, and then what you do at the end.

....

And now the behavior itself. When you get compliance, if that's the behavior you want, now you go over and praise it ... very effusively, and you have to say what you're praising exactly.


Based on his experience, Kazdin believes that this can work even on teens.

The basic fundamental approach is, what is going on before the behavior that you can do to change it? Can you get repeated practice trials? Can you lock it in with praise? What happens is that parents think of discipline as punishing, and in fact, that's not the way to change behavior.

This works for all ages. Let’s say you have an adolescent daughter and she says to you, “Mom, you are such a bitch. What have you ever done for me? You only think of yourself.”

That makes parents want to jump out of their windows, because their whole life has been devoted to that damn child. So how do we get rid of teen attitude? We call it positive opposites: Whenever you want to get rid of something, what is it that you want in its place? Because getting rid of it is not going to do it.

....

You proceed from easy to more complex behaviors, and soon you have Marion outside the dinner table, staying nice things. We train parents to jump on those occasions that will build it up, and pretty soon you don't get the, “you're a bitch,” anymore, you build positive opposites. You don't try to suppress— “Don't give me attitude for all I've done for you!” What research shows is that it will lead to escape behavior on the part of the child. It will lead them to avoid you as soon as they get home from school and it will model negative interactions toward you.

One interesting idea:  you should always give a choice. The choice itself isn't important, it's simply the appearance of choice that makes the difference.

Here is the link to the full article:  http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/03/no-spanking-no-time-out-no-problems/475440/

Compared to what?

Original post:  June 25, 2015

One of the great controversies in parenting is the continuing debate over screen time for kids. The official line from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is that children under two should have none at all. In their opinion, they suggest limiting older children to an hour a day.

If your children are anything like mine, it's difficult to pry them away from screens. Whether it's the amazing allure of the television or the irresistible pull of the iPad, it's a struggle to keep them from that zombie-like state of complete absorption. At the same time, electronic babysitting also becomes something of a godsend at certain points in the day. How much is too much?

At points, I have to admit that the intense focus my boys can have for the TV is comical. They stare so intently at the TV that you can walk directly in front of them and they hardly notice (unless you stand still in their line of view and they shift to peer around your obstruction). This is even true for the commercials!

I personally have less of an issue with the iPad. Even if they are gaming, it's at least forcing them to have some interaction. I also try to justify their TV watching by forcing them to mix in a variety of quasi-educational shows instead of just a steady diet of cartoons or sports. I must admit that the quality of documentaries has improved tremendously over the years. I've personally learned a few things about such diverse topics as psychology, history, and manufacturing just from watching with them.

This article by Emily Oster at FiveThirtyEight discusses the issue. In her estimation, "'Screen Time' For Kids is Probably Fine." Here is her summary of the main line of attack against the practice:

The AAP statement on media seems opposed to screens per se (quote: “young children learn best when they interact with people, not screens”) without really differentiating among various uses and types of screens. But, not surprisingly, when you look at the research, the screen matters less than what you do with it.

Of all the possibilities for screen time, television watching clearly gets the most negative attention. It’s not hard to see why. Unlike educational games on a tablet, which at least can be argued to have some interactive value, television and movie watching are largely passive. Those who oppose TV for children worry about many downsides, but chief among them are declines in test scores (or other cognitive ability) and increases in obesity.

The article parses the studies that seem to show these correlations. It finds a major flaw in those that seem to tie screen time to negative outcomes:

....In the general population, kids who watch a lot of TV — especially at young ages — tend to be poorer, are more likely to be members of minority groups and are more likely to have parents with less education. All these factors independently correlate with outcomes such as executive function, test scores and obesity, making it difficult to draw strong conclusions about the effects of television from this research.

The article goes on to show that there doesn't seem to be any real data that link screen time to any major negative outcome. It may be a factor, but it isn't the only one and other factors may have far more impact. The author goes on to explain:

To judge what impact TV has on children, we have to think about tradeoffs — what would kids be doing with their time if they weren’t watching television? There are 24 hours in a day. If your kid watches one less hour of TV, she does one hour more of something else. The AAP guidelines imply that this alternative activity is something more enriching: reading books with dad, running on the track, discussing current events with grandma, etc.

But a lot of kids and families may not use an additional hour in these ways. An hour of TV may be replaced by an hour of sitting around doing nothing, whining about being bored. Or, worse, being yelled at by an overtired parent who is trying to get dinner ready on a tight time frame. If letting your kids watch an hour of TV means you are better able to have a relaxed conversation at the dinner table, this could mean TV isn’t that bad for cognitive development.

In my own opinion, screen time can be a force for intellectual stimulation if used the right way. I'll just have to work harder to moderate the time and keep my kids from turning into couch potatoes. I think I'm going to go home and force them to go outside and play for an hour!

Here is the link to the full article so you can decide for yourself:  ‘Screen Time’ For Kids Is Probably Fine | FiveThirtyEight

It's not about me, it's about we

Original post:  Mar. 26, 2012

Yesterday, I was at a friend's house. As our sons played together, we started discussing parenting skills. As the world continues to evolve around them, we both agreed that the ability to work in teams would be critical in the future.

That led me to thinking about life in our company. On a regular basis, we are often a member of multiple teams. There is a very interesting dynamic to groups. Even if you are the leader, you often are unable to declare a specific direction for the team. There are bound to be competing points of view and many other persons who will eventually have some say in the matter. They may not agree with what you think or how you perceive a problem. Inevitably, there are going to be compromises along the way.

Sometimes the problem is internal. I know that there have been situations in my own life where I felt very strongly that the team should take a particular direction. I was unable to convince the larger group and we headed down another path. It is extremely difficult to separate out the personal feelings of disappointment from the professional demeanor we are encouraged to maintain at all times. Still, I had to remember that the group was the decision maker in this situation, not me.

One of the key lessons I learned in the military was that it is the job of every team member to make the larger group as strong as possible. When you are in charge, you are supposed to take charge. When you are following, you are supposed to provide active input and do nothing to undermine the leadership. You are free to disagree up until the point a final decision is made. At that point, you accept the decision and do your best to make that decision work positively for everyone involved.

I'm not sure exactly how to teach that type of skill. I guess the easiest way for now will be to practice it myself.