SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Dayuhan who wrote (9168)3/20/2001 12:23:05 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 82486
 
They agree that
most of the behavioral problems treated in the US with drugs could be
managed without drugs, if the parents were sufficiently involved.


I read this column occasionally in the Tucson paper although I have no kids to rear. Today's installment is about discipline. I don't read him that closely, but I always get the impression that he has a problem with the parenting guidance in vogue today.

<<Tucson, Arizona Tuesday, 20 March 2001

Legitimate uses of corrective
discipline are worth pursuing

By John Rosemond

This week, I offer two true stories that illustrate the
compelling nature of "psychologically incorrect discipline,"
or PID - any corrective discipline of which many, if not
most, mental health professionals would strongly
disapprove. Their claim, without a shred of evidence, is that
such discipline, while it might stop the misbehavior in
question, causes psychological harm.

While I am not suggesting that any and all examples of PID
are justifiable, I am most definitely suggesting that
legitimate uses of PID are more powerfully corrective than
most examples of the "correct" sort (example: timeout).
Furthermore, they result in immense psychological benefit.

The first true tale of psychological incorrectness involves a
5-year-old girl who was having emotional meltdowns
whenever her parents did not cater to one of her whims. The
parents had tried numerous "correct" approaches, including
"therapeutic conversation" (attempts at talking a child into
behaving properly), timeout, taking away privileges for
short periods of time, ignoring the child's tantrums, and
rewarding her when she went for a time without one.

Nothing had worked. They were ready to try PID. They
began by redefining the problem, telling their daughter that
only spoiled children threw tantrums; therefore, they must
have spoiled her by giving her entirely too many things.

"So," they informed her, "from now on, when you have a
tantrum because we will not give you your way, you will
have to put one of your toys in a charity box we are going
to put in the back hall. It must be a good toy, one that you
still enjoy playing with. If it doesn't meet with our approval,
you'll have to find another one that does. When the box is
full, we'll take it to a charity. They'll see to it that children
who are not spoiled receive these toys - children who will
be grateful for them."

Two weeks, two-dozen toys and one trip to a local
ecumenical charity later, the tantrums stopped, and since the
charity box still sits in the back hall, this little girl is
constantly reminded of the advisability of keeping them
under wraps. And does it not go without saying that a child
who does not throw tantrums is happier than a child who
does?

The protagonist in the second story is a 9-year-old who was
a perennial behavior problem in school. His teachers had
thrown up their hands and were now telling the parents they
were certain he had attention deficit disorder. They were
encouraging the parents to have him tested and put on
medication. Note, the teachers were not interested in the
results of these completely unnecessary and expensive tests;
they just wanted the boy drugged.

Instead, the parents decided to "go" PID. While their son
was at school, they stripped his room of everything except
furniture and clothing and school materials, thus turning it
into a "military" environment. When he discovered his new
circumstances, they told him they were going to ask his
teachers for a report every week.

If he had not misbehaved at all during the previous week,
they would give him back an article of their choosing,
meaning he would be working on his school comportment
for a relatively long time before he was able to enjoy his
most prized possessions. Caveat: A major "at home"
misbehavior would cancel even the most glowing report
from the teachers.

It should surprise no one that this youngster turned into a
"model" student within two weeks, not to mention his
behavior improved at home as well.

Ten weeks later, he was still on track and reclaiming his
possessions at the dazzling pace of one per week.

* John Rosemond has a master's degree in psychology
from Western Illinois University. Questions can be sent to
him at Affirmative Parenting, 9247 N. Meridian,
Indianapolis, IN 46260. >>
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext