Gifted Tribe/ Discipline Chat

[Encinalien]

I decided to apply this The Stanford Marshmallow Experiment 1960’s to how it actually applies to PTGC AP style. I.e. advocating that a child be appropriately challenged. ( I have personal reasons for exploring this line of reasoning.)

Nobody can completely change the world, but neither can the world change you. Only you can control the way you react to what you see and you also control the way you feel about it by creating your own perception. In this case the topic is co-operation, ambition, self-restraint, should we try to inspire it? Does this work in the long term or is it wasted effort?

[Encinalien]

Did the link work on this?

[Encinalien]

I know I didn't post in the form of a quiestion. But doesn't anybody have any thoughts?

[VisionaryMom]

I am interested in gifted children's issues & discipline, but I haven't had a chance to look over the link yet. I will when I'm off deadline for work, but I definitely think it's worth discussing the differences between gifted and NT kids and how they respond.

[Encinalien]

K. ty

[tm2840]

I just read the first two pages and found it very interesting. But I also didn't think I felt quite up to an intelligent discussion of it yet!

Definitely some food for thought, and I look forward to reading the remaining four pages of the article.

[Encinalien]

Alright I’ll think out loud here. I’m having this one-sided conversation inside my head anyway, so if no one ends up joining my “conversation” here that’s fine. Well I find it interesting in this link that the kids who succeeded looked away. I just saw in the “Happiest toddler on the block” DVD that when your kid asks for a cookie and you want to give them a cookie you should say “here’s a cookie baby. Wait. (count to five) ok. Here you go.” That this positively and gently teaches them patience and self-control, according to the DVD. According to this Stanford test the kids who learned patience looked away, the kids who failed never took their eyes off the prize.

I guess “guidance” could go in the “gentle discipline” forum, since really you’re correcting problems years before they happen so they might not exist at all.

[Encinalien]

Trying to work out my long-term goals and approach.

[Encinalien]

Bump. I wanna talk about this one a little more since this is relevant to my short term parenting decisions.

[Encinalien]

Is preventative discipline gentle discipline approved?

[Encinalien]

Did anyone follow the link to the stanford marshmallow experiment? I thought it was pretty cool and I wander if anyone has given it any thought yet?

[mamazee]

Originally Posted by hablame_today

Is preventative discipline gentle discipline approved?

What do you mean by preventative discipline? Can you give an example?

[physmom]

Sorry, I'm a little confused exactly what you want to talk about here. I read the link that you posted and found it pretty interested. Just in the microcosm that is my own life I've seen this to be pretty accurate. DH and I are both intelligent adults but he has WAY more self discipline than I do and I can see that reflected in his work.

So I take it that you are asking if self-control should be taught or encouraged? Of course. I don't see how this is exactly a gifted related issue, though. It seems like it could affect numerous areas in your child's life. For instance, considering the obesity crisis that the US is going through, it's good to encourage your children to learn self-control when it comes to eating. Speaking of which, I had to wonder if maybe some of those kids in that study were health conscious and just ate 1 marshmallow because they knew the extra sugar wasn't good for them.

[Encinalien]

Originally Posted by mamazee

What do you mean by preventative discipline? Can you give an example?

Well, I don't want to go as far as like a church would in "training" a kid. But dh has said (and it's true) if you see something, for lack of a better word, let's say disadvantageous (he said "wrong with" but I don't want it misconstrued and taken out of context) in ds's attuitude, now's the time you can "fix it" with guidance, re-direction, or "training", while he's young, and it will never have been a problem for him.

Yeah maybe the kids just didn't like sugar. LoL. The test didn't mention the researchers asking how the parents were raising them. I thought the interesting part was how the kids acted differently who waited the whole time. Kicking their feet, looking at the ceiling, distracting themselves. It reminded me of reading a pleasure book in school while the teacher was talking because I could still hear and process the lesson. I think the "marshmallow lesson" is to teach the kids to distract part of their mind so they have the patience to finish a task.

That's why I was saying. I didn't really know a specific quiestion to ask about the article. I mean there's really no way to know if parental guidence affects this trait or not.
Mothers of toddlers are encouraged to instill this trait. Even the Popular DVD "the happiest toddler on the block" endorsed by Dr. Phil and recommended in several different threads in this forum suggests we teach this to cut down on temper tantrums. He said "when your kid's being good, everythings fine, and he asks for a cookie, and you want to give him a cookie. Use this as a lesson in waiting. Say "ok baby, here's your cookie. (hold up index finger. Smile). Wait. (count a few #s). Ok. Here u go.

I just posted it because the theme is recurring. It's not relevant to any problem I've observed yet. I just wander if theory has merit.

[mamazee]

Originally Posted by hablame_today

Well, I don't want to go as far as like a church would in "training" a kid. But dh has said (and it's true) if you see something, for lack of a better word, let's say disadvantageous (he said "wrong with" but I don't want it misconstrued and taken out of context) in ds's attuitude, now's the time you can "fix it" with guidance, re-direction, or "training", while he's young, and it will never have been a problem for him.

I guess for me this depends on the specifics. Some things kids just naturally outgrow and I don't think it would make any difference. Like tantrums. I think tantrums are a case where we should empathize, and just get through them. I don't think punishment, or even distraction, helps. Some kids have to go through it. I think sometimes parents want to feel like they're doing something, so they do something, but it doesn't have any affect on the end result, so IMO it's a waste of time and just creates bad feelings between the parents and kid, and is therefore potentially even counterproductive. Save the work for where it'll do some good. On the other hand, some things can be helped by repeatedly talking about them early and often. Like saying, "Let's be gentle" to a baby who hits, who can't understand yet, but will eventually pick up on the concept of "gentle" just like she picks up on the concept of "blue".

[Encinalien]

Yeah, that's thing. Both the DVD and the article seem to advocate "programming" positive traits when no problem has manifested itself yet. For example the DVD guy said "when everything's good, do (delayed gratification training). And it will curb temper tantrums from the future, way before the kid really reaches the tantrum age, you can ingrain this skill that will help keep them from even going there in the first place. That same skill has been shown to make adults happier and more successful when they're older. It's not really a corrective step, it's suggesting implanting a positive trait.

Yeah I know you know about the headbanging thing, but this isn't over that. Actually ds is over that. And personally, I have the feeling that anything that bothers you about your kids behavior is a phase they'll outgrow. The boundries are honestly more to placate dh.

But I was just exploring the boundry between "train up a child in the way he should go". Which is bible based which I am definately opposed to. But this article and the DVD are similarly suggesting to teach the kid a coping trick to have in their toolbox and it will serve multiple uses over their lifetime. (reducing tantrums they were selling as a side effect). This is one of the greyer areas of my parenting theory.
Dh and I agree- teach him as much aa he wants to learn. Answer his quiestions honestly, if we don't know the answers, help him find it. Don't that thing that adults do to kids "I'll tell you when you're older mi jito.". If he's old enough to ask a quiestion, he's old enough to hear the answer.
So far the things I've been teaching him is like reading, righting, and 'rithmatic. Things we all living here are learning anyway. It won't really have a big impact on his personality. Just stuff he's going to learn anyway. So my heart is in a common place for mothers, just assume he'll outgrow any undesirable phase unless and until it goes on long enough to prove otherwise, then deal with it.
Dh has a classic dad's heart. Defending ds right to have every need met fiercly. We're not sparring with the diapers, a little squirt, an instant changing. He doesn't get ignored ( I don't mean not just not neglected, I mean if if ds says something we stop and answer him immediately). Dh, like many dads, values discipline. "you're not special. The rules apply to you too."
I guess we got it worked out pretty good on the obvious stuff. But this "extra curricular" positive behavioral training- ie, delayed gratification practices. Well it's a new area. I'm trying to weigh the benefits in my mind.
I guess I'm surprised there wasn't much conversation here about the post. I mean, isn't Gentle Discipline more about teaching them what they should do and less with less emphasis on what they shouldn't do.

Of course one reason the conversation might not have taken off right away is maybe all the mothers here are busy with the immediate situation of what they shouldn't do and the article is kind of long.

[heartmama]

I think you are asking the difference between letting children learn lessons needed to succeed indirectly through interaction from environment, trusting them to discover reasons to adapt, or whether the benefits of certain traits are so important, parents should make an effort to directly instill them in children as early as possible.

When I was a very young mother I would have said the former, but after raising one child into the teenage years, I would say there is no clear cut answer.

I remember knowing moms who would put in countless hours walking a toddler through tasks such as making the bed, putting dishes in the sink, often half-exhausted from the effort of herding a toddler through those motions. I thought "That is so pointless, why not wait until they are older, when it will all happen naturally?".

I had the right answer for a mom of one child who had all the time in the world to 'do for him' until he could do for himself. However, if I had 5 or 6 kids and other major responsibilities to juggle, I think my answer would be very different. Although my son learned very well without a lot of direct 'training', that was partly because he was given almost round the clock interaction and attention, and as an only child he had no example but my own to follow.

And even as an only child, I can see that it might have been good for me to have started working on certain skills earlier--just as parents who err on the side of 'training' often look back and think "I should have chilled out and not been so strict". Reflective parents will usually see room for improvement.

The marshmallow experiment was repeated in a different form with infants of 19 months and already there was a sharp difference in reaction, suggesting both biological and environmental factors shape our behavior at the earliest age.

What I take from all this is that it seems reasonable to believe there can be benefits to active teaching, grounded in awareness of age appropriate behavior, and adjusting expectations to match the temperment of each child. Some two year olds will skillfully wash their own cup and plate. Others will not be ready to do this well until perhaps 3 or 4 years old. So if you don't care if your kids wash dishes and trust they will figure it on their own eventually--that is fine, because most likely, they will. But if you think it is important that your kids learn this as early as possible, for their own good as well as yours, I think it can be taught in a positive way, as long as you take into account the above factors, and depending on the situation, it may in fact be best for some children to learn these kinds of skills sooner rather than later--however for most of us this is a choice, rather than a necessity.

[Encinalien]

Wow. Yeah, I guess that's why it's such a "grey area" for me, because it's a choice not a necessity. It's so far down the list of "worries" that it's not a worry at all. That's a good suggestion,to weigh it in the context of the child's temperment and thier family dynamics.

Honestly, the reason I put in in the context of a "gifted issue". Because in my mind it seemed mixed up with the issue of my son's education. I tried to address this in the "gifted forum" but they suggested I address it here. And I think they're right. "guiding" children is "disciplining" them, technically. And all kids have the same issues reguardless of giftedness.

The benefit I thought of with this "delayed gratification training" was that it sounded like what gifted kids do in school. Maybe this was the difference in success, the ability to distract part of your own attention.

The reason I mentioned "delayed gratification" had to do with "not skipping grades" is because I know where I live.
If you read my other post in this forum, so you can see where I live. I plan on sending ds (turned 2 in October) to the local public elementary school. Ds doesn't talk in full sentances yet, doesn't like to use his words- likes to point and say "nyeaaah". To communicate instead. He knows how to a lot of words, even occasionally says a complete sentance perfectly clear. But he doesn't talk yet. Well. Sometimes.
But he has read random words or counted or named letters to a few people in town and at least four people have told me they don't let kids go to pre-k who already know their alphabet (he knows both their names and phonics sounds already. He's going to be reading writing adding adding and subtracting by kindy) which has made me consider why they don't want kids who know their abc's in with the other kids- boredom, disruption... Why do they normally skip these kids ahead grades?

Well I want him in the regular k-4th here. It's a cultural thing. We live on the boarder of mexico. It's a cultural immersion childhood experience we want for him. He's already controling a pair of scissors, stringing pony beads on leather... Anyway I was going to send him, I'm going to talk the teachers into not skipping him, I'll tell them for social development (really I just want him to experience childhood, and his dad wants to give him some of this culture). But I was just going to tell him "yeah I know you know it, but show the teacher how you can do it her way"

we're planning on saving between now and then to move somewhere with more educational oppertunities after that. But we have actually three locations in mind as possible states we might want to move to. And we're open to new possibilities. and we might not move at all.

Can you tell the little guy's the pride and joy. We'd do anything for him. I'm 31, thought I was barren.

Yeah, so. If the article needs a context for discussion. That's it. Start now or see if he figures it out on his own. How to "kick his feet or look up at the ceiling" in Kindergarten so he won't disrupt the class since I'm already going to have to be asking the school to do us a favor and let him I can't have him making extra work for the teacher.

However. I know anybody can change anything about themselves anytime they set their mind to it (part of my gift for understanding faith- see short bio in pleased to meet you) so I'm not one of those "Omg- there's such a short window of oppertunity here-mamas)

[Encinalien]

Well I see someone just suggested that maybe these concerns belong in the "learning at school" forum, since it's education I have in mind. Maybe. I just didn't think of posting in that forum since he's not in school yet.

[Encinalien]

I think maybe people who spend exaustive efforts "herding them through the motions" do so because they think it will teach the to responsibility. I guess I'm just a silly keeping up with his educational interests, keeping a running list in my head of his level of development and following his interest around the information carosel. I honestly think if dh stayed home all day he would be the parent you're describing "alright son, wash your cup and put it away.". And I just let him stand in a stool and sponge off a dish I'm holding when he's just too fascinated with the sink to let me finish in peace.
There really wasn't a great need that the article met, but I did think of a practical way to apply it IRL because it caught my interest.
And your answer is interesting Because, yes, I only have one child. He's young. I'm an excited new mother. And he's not a difficult child.