Larsy wrote "Our reasons why we do things, our theories about our actions, matter very much. I see people's theories/reasons as the basis for action. Unless a person gives up their autonomy, and does what others tell them to do, not knowing what their own theories/reasons are. "
You are re confirming what I already responded too, no? That our reasons matter to ourselves. Our actions are what matter to a TCS family.
Larsy wrote: "Prior agreements: my experience is that it is good to be flexible and to plan ahead and have contingency plans. "
And why is that necessary? Do TCS families have that tough a time following through with prior agreements?
Larsy wrote :Their reason for not wanting to go is the crux of the matter, isn't it? That is part of any problem that needs to be solved. The theories behind the action are important. "
I'll respond to this below....
Larsy wrote: "I don't understand what you mean by 'qualify the child's decision due to their "reason" '. "
"Understanding a person reason for doing what they want to do- like stay home- helps everyone meet their preferences. The person's reason might turn out to be a mistaken theory about what was going to happen that day, and by getting more information, that person might change their preference to 'let's get going!' If the others involved never took the time to listen to that person's reasons, they can't have the opportunity to supply more information and everyone misses the opportunity to learn and problem-solve non-coercively and effectively."
Larsy, your comments here illustrate the critical importance of communication to better understand one another. I agree this is vital, and in fact, one of the most important factors in family life.
We agree with that.
What I need to separate, so that we don't go in circles, is that our past posts to each other focused on the issue of a family making a prior agreement, and upon the hour of it's being followed through, a family member changes their mind. Especially where cohesiveness was critical to success in the agreed upon activity (in other words, without dad to drive, the trip would not happen, or with son being only 8, and no sitter to stay for the week, mom/dad must give up trip to stay home) the *reason* for that person to back out, in my opinion, and in the opinion of most people, can be fairly judged by the family as either acceptable or unacceptable. Generally speaking, an acceptable excuse would be one beyond the persons control (illness), and unacceptable would be something self centered reflecting their own desires (doesn't want to travel after all). If the excuse is unacceptable, that person is expected to hold to the prior agreement.
Our entire discussion up to now has centered on this:
With TCS, it does not matter *why* the person has gone back on their word, there is *no* reason that is "unacceptable". Any and all reasons validate the decision to ruin the trip for others, and stay home. Assuming the family fails to find a common preference, the solution is to cancel the trip, instead of forcing the reluctant traveler into the car.
This is where we are at Larsy. That is what I refer to when I say "the reason does not matter." Once a member of a TCS family makes a decision (action) there is no room to disqualify (or qualify) it. You have to take it as a fixed condition and re arrange your life accordingly.
That is all I am trying to debate with you, and we seem to be wandering back to where we started. What I am asking for is confirmation of this reality as acceptable for a TCS family. Others have asked about it, and we go in circles. Why? If this is how a TCS family works, then so be it. But don't make it so difficult to get a confirmation! Please? Because it is impossible for me to bring anything to this discussion if you continue to challenge the dynamics I assume of TCS family life in order to illustrate a criticism of TCS theory. If I assume something wildly off base, call me on it, but if I assume a scenario that is at all possible within TCS theory, could we just move forward with it and discuss what point I might be trying to debate within that scenario?