Can we talk about coercion and learning?

[DevaMajka]

I've thought for a while that coercion interferes with learning. And I'm talking about discipline type learning- why you shouldn't hit people, why to pick up toys, why to eat healthy foods, etc.

I can't put it into words though. It's just a deep down feeling, and something that I see often with ds.

I'm not talking about the rightness or wrongness of coercion. Just the effect it has on actual real-world learning.

[WhaleinGaloshes]

One of the most valuable insights to me that I took away from reading Unconditional Parenting was the idea that coercion, whether through positive or negative reinforcement, has the potential to damage the development of a child's own, intrinsic motivation.

To me, this means something like: if the reason I give DD to do something is "do it because if you do I'll do/say something nice for you" or "do it because if you don't I'll do/say something unpleasant to you" the focus I'm steering her toward is completely self-centered. The criteria for "should I do something?" becomes "what will happen to *me* if I do?" And this has definite potential to interfere with learning the 'whys' of any situation IMO.

That's my amateur take on the subject, anyway. Is that sort of what you were getting at or have I missed your point? It is definitely something that interests me.

[Dragonfly]

I agree and have always seen that with my own son. I have no evidence whatsoever to back this up, but I strongly believe that it interferes with learning because, at least in part, it causes the child to focus on your reaction (and react accordingly - usually by pushing back, which would be the typical human response to coercion) rather than what's naturally occurring in the situation.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but that's what comes to mind immediately.

I've found modeling and talking through a situation without imposing judgment or correction to be a very effective means of helping DS learn to function in society; along with letting society do its work and helping him recognize the natural consequences, of course.

[msiddiqi]

Could you give a hypothetical example of what you mean?

[Elvirnon]

I think it depends on the child, and it also depends on what one considers coercion. I know, for example, that the TCS definition of coercion goes beyond the realm of what most people consider to be coercion.

To give some concrete examples, I know many children who don't do well with food rules and restrictions. OTOH, a number of them do really benefit from a "one bite rule"; for these kids, that initial bit of coercion is what they need in order to eat various foods that they genuinely enjoy. Some kids also have a need for that sort of approach towards trying out new activities. For other kids it would be completely counterproductive and would hamper their learning.

Now in terms of something like hitting, I don't know. Given the young age at which most children first start experimenting with hitting, I don't think that purely natural consequences are the best way for a toddler to learn that hitting isn't ok. In fact, I think that parents do a disservice to their very young children by refusing to enforce certain boundaries; a toddler that young is not developmentally ready to piece together that the reason nobody wants to have a playdate with him anymore is because he's hitting other kids.

There's also the fact that there are a number of things that kids - and adults - need to do at one point or another that they aren't going to have any intrinsic motivation to do. And that's fine, and normal. I don't think that every single thing we do in life needs to stem from a heartfelt desire to be doing it, or even to achieve the end result.

So basically, I think that the effect of coercion is subjective.

[anne+arun]

Originally Posted by Deva33mommy

I've thought for a while that coercion interferes with learning. And I'm talking about discipline type learning- why you shouldn't hit people, why to pick up toys, why to eat healthy foods, etc.
I can't put it into words though. It's just a deep down feeling, and something that I see often with ds.
I'm not talking about the rightness or wrongness of coercion. Just the effect it has on actual real-world learning.

sounds like you are a closet "unschooler"

in my experience ive found coercion interferes with learning and also the ability for me to connect with my children.

arun

[DevaMajka]

Originally Posted by easy_goer

To me, this means something like: if the reason I give DD to do something is "do it because if you do I'll do/say something nice for you" or "do it because if you don't I'll do/say something unpleasant to you" the focus I'm steering her toward is completely self-centered. The criteria for "should I do something?" becomes "what will happen to *me* if I do?" And this has definite potential to interfere with learning the 'whys' of any situation IMO.

That's my amateur take on the subject, anyway. Is that sort of what you were getting at or have I missed your point? It is definitely something that interests me.

Definitely what I was talking about. It's funny, too, because I've posted the same thing about punishment: that at best, it makes kids behave for self centered reasons. I guess I never widened that thought to include coercion in general.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

I agree and have always seen that with my own son. I have no evidence whatsoever to back this up, but I strongly believe that it interferes with learning because, at least in part, it causes the child to focus on your reaction (and react accordingly - usually by pushing back, which would be the typical human response to coercion) rather than what's naturally occurring in the situation.

I think part of why I'm thinking so much about this is because my ds doesn't really push back in response to coercion in a single situation. I think he would start pushing back in general if I were to become more coercive in general, if that makes sense. But in any given situation, I can *make* him do something, and he'll do it, without any obvious problems stemming from it. I feel I have to be especially careful, because it makes it easy for me to coerce.
Ironically, he's also the child who responds very well to non-coercive tactics most of the time. So why I'm prone to coercion is beyond me. lol (well, not really- I'm sure it comes from my childhood).

Originally Posted by msiddiqi

Could you give a hypothetical example of what you mean?

If a child is hitting the window with a stick, for example. If you got them to stop through threats/consequences or bribes, or physically taking the stick away, what is being learned by the child in that situation? What information is actually being internalized?
And compare that with the same situation, where noncoercive ideas were used- redirection, explaining, etc.
(I'm really asking- I don't know the answer.)

Now, I agree that if something/someone is in danger of being harmed, that I'm not opposed to coercion (and I do not allow ds to harm others). But even in those situations, is learning being hindered by coercion? It seems to me that it is. They'll still figure it out, of course.

[LynnS6]

OK, this has developed into an academic exercise for me here (i.e far too long, and somewhat argumentative), but I'm working with the ideas, so please don't take this personally.

I think I agree in principle, but mostly about 'big' things such as morals, work ethic, interests...I think there is a place for coercion for discrete skills. There may also be a place for it for a child who isn't developmentally ready to regulate their own behavior/actions. (In a way, you might view baby-proofing as 'coercion' -- we're preventing the child from gaining access to things that might cause trouble. Are we preventing them from learning skills in self control by not giving them access to sharp/breakable objects?)

Discrete Skills
We definitely used "coercion" in the form of a reward system to get ds to wipe his own bottom. He was 6, and not internally motivated at all to acquire this skill. For a variety of reasons (his going to school, our not always having time to drop what we're doing and wipe his bottom, and the fact that I was absolutely tired of wiping poop off his bottom after 6 years of doing so), we set up a reward system for learning to wipe himself. I broke the task down into steps, he got a sticker for each day he tried a step, and at the end of the week, a bus ride. So week 1, he wiped after us; week 2, we alternated; week 3, he wiped and we checked.

I am completely, thoroughly, unabashedly OK with this kind of coercion. It was a specific skill. It was a limited amount of time, and it was affecting my relationship with him.

I also found out that he really loves to be able to mark things off to see progress. So for him, the stickers worked because he could "see" his progress. He's a very visual learner.

Developmental Readiness
If a child hits a window with a stick, I will first explain and redirect. If they do so again, I will do so the same thing.

But the third time, I will explain that if they cannot control their use of the stick, I will have to take it away. At that point in time the child has demonstrated to me that s/he does not have the self-control yet to stop. My taking the stick is not preventing the child from learning the skill at that point in time. They had a chance to try out the skill, and couldn't do it. By not taking the stick or preventing them from hitting the window in some way, I'm setting them up for continued failure. Developmentally, not all children are able to stop something that's really appealing.

Personality
Ds, although sometimes highly unmotivated (can you be highly unmotivated?) to learn specific skills, is highly motivated for 'following the rules' and always has been. He's a pretty easy child to parent without coercion.

Dd is a whole different story. She's highly motivated to learn specific skills (she potty trained on her own with no external reinforcers, ds needed a lot). She is not (currently) highly motivated to follow any rule, unless she's made it! I have had to physically remove her from kicking our windows. Remove brooms being twirled above her head. Threaten to remove the stomp rocket to the garage if she did it in the living room (where both dh and I keep our laptops for work!). Part of it is her personality. Part of that's because she's 3. Stomp rockets should be stomped on, even in the house.

Other random thoughts
I've discovered that ds is highly motivated by stickers -- we had a 'workbook' that I bought to keep him entertained on the plane. There were stickers that came with it, and a place to put stickers each time you finished a page. Ds was in heaven! He loves putting a sticker on to mark his progress.

I've always believed that sticker/reward charts are coercion and that they are preventing a child from using their own internal motivation. And yet ds clearly loves them. There's no "prize" at the end of these stickers, he just likes to mark them off. Is this coercion? How does it differ from reward?

[AndVeeGeeMakes3]

:

I completely agree with pretty much everything that you say, Lynn. I think it comes down to a question of whether or not you engage sufficiently with your child to know what makes him/her tick. Fact of the matter is that children do need to learn to navigate the "real" world, and part of that is learning to bounce against boundaries. Seems to me, our job is to make that "bounce" as soft as possible and to, as I said, engage with our child to make sure that the "bounce" results in learning.

And then again, I may not have any idea what I'm talking about.

[pleasantstreets]

I love this idea that it's not so much about taking *away* the boundaries, which to me seems to fly against what I know about children, and the realities of my life, but to make their "bounce" against the boundaries as soft as possible! I can reduce the boundaries, taking away the unnecessary ones, and helping to explain the necessary ones, and then when my kid hits up against one of them, I can help them by talking them through it as much as possible, helping them learn how not to hit so hard next time, etc. I love it! I guess it's the metaphor-lover in me, I just really resonate with this idea of making their bounces as soft as possible (as opposed to them running full speed into hard boundaries with no-one to fall back on or to catch them)

Thanks!

[The4OfUs]

As usual, I agree with Lynn.

This specifically resonated with me:

Originally Posted by LynnS6

Developmental Readiness
If a child hits a window with a stick, I will first explain and redirect. If they do so again, I will do so the same thing.

But the third time, I will explain that if they cannot control their use of the stick, I will have to take it away. At that point in time the child has demonstrated to me that s/he does not have the self-control yet to stop. My taking the stick is not preventing the child from learning the skill at that point in time. They had a chance to try out the skill, and couldn't do it. By not taking the stick or preventing them from hitting the window in some way, I'm setting them up for continued failure. Developmentally, not all children are able to stop something that's really appealing.

And this??

Originally Posted by LynnS6

Personality
Ds, although sometimes highly unmotivated (can you be highly unmotivated?) to learn specific skills, is highly motivated for 'following the rules' and always has been. He's a pretty easy child to parent without coercion.

Dd is a whole different story. She's highly motivated to learn specific skills (she potty trained on her own with no external reinforcers, ds needed a lot). She is not (currently) highly motivated to follow any rule, unless she's made it! I have had to physically remove her from kicking our windows. Remove brooms being twirled above her head. Threaten to remove the stomp rocket to the garage if she did it in the living room (where both dh and I keep our laptops for work!). Part of it is her personality. Part of that's because she's 3. Stomp rockets should be stomped on, even in the house.

Do you have a spy cam in my house? Your DS is my DD, and your DD is my DS. Two completely different personalities with two completely different motivations for doing (or not doing) things. Has made me feel like a first-time parent all over again...all the things that "worked" with DS I have had to refigure with DD, and things that never "worked" with DS are easy as pie with DD. One of the few things they have in common is their persistence and single-mindedness once they get an idea in their head. Lucky me.

[DevaMajka]

Originally Posted by LynnS6

OK, this has developed into an academic exercise for me here (i.e far too long, and somewhat argumentative), but I'm working with the ideas, so please don't take this personally.

If you know me at all, you know I love me an academic argument
And I really appreciate all your thoughts.

We definitely used "coercion" in the form of a reward system to get ds to wipe his own bottom. He was 6, and not internally motivated at all to acquire this skill.

I coerced (sticker chart) ds for potty training. Yeah, I'm ok with that. I was getting frustrated. But then, I'm not opposed to coercion (as long as it's not punishment). As in, I don't think it's inherently harmful.
But did that interfere with learning? It doesn't seem like it did. He was potty trained quickly, and had maybe 2 accidents since he *started* potty training. I was getting super tired of changing diapers. So I agree with you on those types of things.

Developmental Readiness
If a child hits a window with a stick, I will first explain and redirect. If they do so again, I will do so the same thing.

But the third time, I will explain that if they cannot control their use of the stick, I will have to take it away. At that point in time the child has demonstrated to me that s/he does not have the self-control yet to stop. My taking the stick is not preventing the child from learning the skill at that point in time. They had a chance to try out the skill, and couldn't do it. By not taking the stick or preventing them from hitting the window in some way, I'm setting them up for continued failure. Developmentally, not all children are able to stop something that's really appealing.

I most likely do the same thing (including taking the stick away after a number of times). But I'm not entirely sure I agree that it's not interfering with learning in the situation.
Because even if they can't learn the skill of self control, there are other ways to resolve the conflict. So by simply taking the stick away, the opportunity to search for a common solution is gone. So they lose THAT learning opportunity. kwim? They lose the opportunity to feel that they contributed to the solution.

Here's one from last night- ds wanted to take balloons to a neighbor's house. The neighbor kids were here, so they all wanted to take a balloon. I was babysitting, so I'd be the one to have to blow them up when we got there. Either that or clean them up. So I said one balloon each. Ds wanted more. You could say I coerced the situation, because I didn't leave any other option.
And ds, after a few attempts to change my mind, went along with it. But I just really feel like there was a lot of learning that could have been done in that situation (by both of us probably) that I totally short circuited by forcing my way.
And, maybe the biggest thing isn't what he *didn't* learn, perhaps it's what he DID learn- that I can force my solution on any given situation.

And I'm not talking about coercion vs. let them do whatever they want. I'm talking about coersion vs. agreeable solutions. kwim?

And perhaps what a pp said, about navigating the real world, applies.
In the "real world" we don't really have people telling us what we may and may not do. We're not allowed to assault people, damage/steal property, etc. But we have an awful lot of freedom. We don't have someone standing over us telling us we need to wear out coats outside, or that we can't eat 5 pieces of candy before breakfast. lol.
A true life skill is to be able to find agreeable solutions to interpersonal situations. (I'm thinking, family and friends. Conflicts between partners, etc.) To be able to work through situations, and see the other person's side, and even to realize that the other person HAS a side, has reasons.

But...I don't know. I guess it's one of those things that has it's place, but we have to be careful not to overuse. And I'm guilty of overusing it!

[DevaMajka]

Originally Posted by anne+arun

sounds like you are a closet "unschooler"

The more I think about it, the more the two have in common. Hmmm...I'm amazed at what ds learns because he wants to. We don't do any "teaching" unless ds shows interest, and actively wants us to teach something. I'm amazed at how much he learns on his own!

[The4OfUs]

Originally Posted by Deva33mommy

I most likely do the same thing (including taking the stick away after a number of times). But I'm not entirely sure I agree that it's not interfering with learning in the situation.
Because even if they can't learn the skill of self control, there are other ways to resolve the conflict. So by simply taking the stick away, the opportunity to search for a common solution is gone. So they lose THAT learning opportunity. kwim? They lose the opportunity to feel that they contributed to the solution.

<snip>
A true life skill is to be able to find agreeable solutions to interpersonal situations. (I'm thinking, family and friends. Conflicts between partners, etc.) To be able to work through situations, and see the other person's side, and even to realize that the other person HAS a side, has reasons.

But...I don't know. I guess it's one of those things that has it's place, but we have to be careful not to overuse. And I'm guilty of overusing it!

I see what you're saying, and I think a lot has to do with the individual child. DS went through a period of time where he was unable/unwilling to come up with his own solutions....so I would toss our several different options, and ask him if he had any thoughts, and he would just stare at me blankly. He had no input on the situation - and this happened a lot. So I would throw out suggestions, and if he didn't take an interest in any of them, I'd just pick one and often he wouldn't be thrilled - but if I woudl then ask him if he had another idea, he would just say, "I don't know." So, in the window situation. I don't want him hitting the window with a stick. He ONLY wants to hit the window with a stick and does not want to do any of the other numerous suggestions I've come up with, AND has no suggestions of his own other than hitting the window with a stick (just to kep the window/stick theme going). You can't come up with a mutual solution if the other person isn't willing to participate, so in instances like this I would remove the stick. He isn't in a place to learn anything anyway, so I don't feel like I'm inhibiting anything in a situation like that.

As he has gotten older, he has become more capable and interested in being part of the solution and meeting both of our needs - but for a considerable period of time he didn't seem to *want* to be part of the solution...so a lot of the consensual discussions here didn't resonate with me, because my son wasn't interested in finding any solution other than his original idea a good deal of the time. It was just where he was developmentally. He is still there sometimes.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that while I think mutual problem solving is great and I strive for it whenever we can, sometimes the individual child isn't able or willing (developmentally) to have a dialogue with you for whatever reason - and that once you get to that point, I don't know that any other lessons or skills could be imparted at that point anyway.

Hopefully I wasn't just horribly redundant -I have to get back to work and can't check this over right now.

[msiddiqi]

Originally Posted by Elvirnon

Now in terms of something like hitting, I don't know. Given the young age at which most children first start experimenting with hitting, I don't think that purely natural consequences are the best way for a toddler to learn that hitting isn't ok. In fact, I think that parents do a disservice to their very young children by refusing to enforce certain boundaries; a toddler that young is not developmentally ready to piece together that the reason nobody wants to have a playdate with him anymore is because he's hitting other kids.

When DS hits me, I tell him I don't like it and if he continues I move myself out of the way. If we are at a playgroup and he hits someone I would explain to him that it's hurting that child and he/she doesn't like it. If he continues, I'd remove him from the situation. I don't punish etc, but would that be considered coercion? I'm just trying to grasp what coercion is.

[msiddiqi]

Originally Posted by Deva33mommy

If a child is hitting the window with a stick, for example. If you got them to stop through threats/consequences or bribes, or physically taking the stick away, what is being learned by the child in that situation? What information is actually being internalized?
And compare that with the same situation, where noncoercive ideas were used- redirection, explaining, etc.
(I'm really asking- I don't know the answer.)

Now, I agree that if something/someone is in danger of being harmed, that I'm not opposed to coercion (and I do not allow ds to harm others). But even in those situations, is learning being hindered by coercion? It seems to me that it is. They'll still figure it out, of course.

I agree, threats do make a child more self-centered because instead of not hurting someone because it hurts them, they would stop out of fear of being punished. If a child is hitting a window with a stick, I would try to explain to them that the window might break, they might get hurt... try to distract and if it doesn't work I would remove them from the situation. But I'm in the same boat as The4OfUs. If I try to find mutually agreeable solutions he just looks at me blankly. What does work sometimes would be to give him something else to hit with a stick, in this example. But otherwise I can only explain to him why I think hitting the window is a bad idea and if I fear for his safety or because I'd have to shell out $400 for a new window, which I can't, I would remove him if he persisted. I love the idea of finding a MAS but it doesn't quite seem to work yet.

[LynnS6]

Originally Posted by Deva33mommy

I most likely do the same thing (including taking the stick away after a number of times). But I'm not entirely sure I agree that it's not interfering with learning in the situation.

Because even if they can't learn the skill of self control, there are other ways to resolve the conflict. So by simply taking the stick away, the opportunity to search for a common solution is gone. So they lose THAT learning opportunity. kwim? They lose the opportunity to feel that they contributed to the solution.

But no matter what solution you reach, "something" is lost. If you take the stick, the child looses the opportunity to search for a common solution. But they gain the opportunity to learn that they can deal with frustration. If you do the reverse, they gain the solution, but lose the opportunity to learn to deal with frustration.

And do they always have to feel like they've contributed to the solution? A lot of my job involves reaching mutually agreeable solutions (about 50% of my job is student advising/thesis advising, and it's a delicate dance). Our department is governed by consensus. I'm not objecting to either; that's how it should be. But it's exhausting. Sometimes it's freeing to not have to participate in a solution! It took dh a long time to realize that when I came home from work and it was his turn to cook for dinner, I did not want to have a discussion about what we were going to have for dinner. I'd been discussed out.

I think kids sometimes don't want to have to participate in the solution or can't do it because of where they are developmentally or with their personality. My ds was like The4ofUs's son - his response is to simply not respond. (I know this trait well, my dh has it, my brother has it.)

My redirection often involves some opportunity for negotiating or common solutions (where can you beat the stick so that nothing gets broken?), and so if my kids aren't responding to that, I'm not going to prolong the agony.

A true life skill is to be able to find agreeable solutions to interpersonal situations. (I'm thinking, family and friends. Conflicts between partners, etc.) To be able to work through situations, and see the other person's side, and even to realize that the other person HAS a side, has reasons.

I agree completely, and we're working on that. But this is where I think development comes in. A 3 year old is rarely able realize that a person has another view (remember, these are the kids who play hide and seek by hiding their eyes!). Now that doesn't mean I don't encourage that kind of thinking, but I'm not going to lose any sleep about not spending lots of time working toward mutually agreeable solutions with an irrational 3 year old. And my 3 year old seems to be particularly irrational these days.

Example: We had hamburgers tonight for dinner. Dd usually eats about 1/2 a small hamburger. Tonight she must have been hungry because she ate a full one, and then asked for more. There was only one hamburger left and dh wanted part of it. So, he cut it in half, and offered her half. When we eat meat for dinner, we cut small pieces off for the kids (neither is going to eat a whole chicken breast on most days) and they can have more if they want. He didn't do anything different from what we normally do.

Dd had a complete and total meltdown. She wanted the entire hamburger. She wanted the entire hamburger whole. Dh showed her the hamburger, offered her to choose part, and she threw it at him. She was not able to see that Daddy was hungry too and wanted more food, she didn't understand that she needed to articulate her ideas for Daddy as she was asking for more, and she wasn't able to see that we couldn't 'fix' the hamburger for her.

She ended up storming for a bit, and then sitting on my lap and calming down. Did she learn about mutually agreeable solutions? Nope. Did she learn anything? Maybe that the world does not end if you do not get your hamburger in exactly the way you wanted it.

But...I don't know. I guess it's one of those things that has it's place, but we have to be careful not to overuse. And I'm guilty of overusing it!

I agree it's easy to overuse coercion. But I think it's also possible to 'overuse'/'misuse' the common solution -- and to reach a point where what you're doing is trying to keep anyone in the situation from being disappointed/frustrated/angry. But in the process, no one is really happy either.

another example and then I'll end my novel and go to bed:
Our kids had enough time before dinner to watch one TV show. Dd wanted to watch the Berenstain Bears, ds wanted to watch Arthur. One solution available to them was to watch a 3rd program that neither was as interested in. They rejected this solution out of hand. They eventually settled (with a lot of grumbling on ds' part) with the Berenstain Bears, with the understanding that the next day they would watch Arthur.

BUT, the next day, dd was dismayed to hear that they'd be watching Arthur. She'd forgotten her 'promise' to watch Arthur and wanted to go back to her beloved Bears. So, while she experienced coming to a common solution, she also experienced utter disappointment the next day when I let ds watch Arthur. So, did she learn anything from coming to a common solution? It doesn't look like it to me.

[LynnS6]

Originally Posted by The4OfUs

Do you have a spy cam in my house? Your DS is my DD, and your DD is my DS. Two completely different personalities with two completely different motivations for doing (or not doing) things. Has made me feel like a first-time parent all over again...all the things that "worked" with DS I have had to refigure with DD, and things that never "worked" with DS are easy as pie with DD. One of the few things they have in common is their persistence and single-mindedness once they get an idea in their head. Lucky me.

I must! I too feel like we flounder with the two different personalities. We're awash in single-mindedness here too, though manifest in very different ways. Ds just ignores you/stares at you blankly and does what he planned on doing. Dd announces loudly what she is (not) going to do and why.

[DevaMajka]

Originally Posted by msiddiqi

When DS hits me, I tell him I don't like it and if he continues I move myself out of the way. If we are at a playgroup and he hits someone I would explain to him that it's hurting that child and he/she doesn't like it. If he continues, I'd remove him from the situation. I don't punish etc, but would that be considered coercion? I'm just trying to grasp what coercion is.

I think that if you physically move him when he wants to stay, it would be coercion. But Imo, it's definitely preferable to letting a child hit someone. Actually, I think it is not good for a child's development to LET them keep hitting.

Originally Posted by LynnS6

But no matter what solution you reach, "something" is lost. If you take the stick, the child looses the opportunity to search for a common solution. But they gain the opportunity to learn that they can deal with frustration. If you do the reverse, they gain the solution, but lose the opportunity to learn to deal with frustration.

Good point.

I agree completely, and we're working on that. But this is where I think development comes in. A 3 year old is rarely able realize that a person has another view (remember, these are the kids who play hide and seek by hiding their eyes!). Now that doesn't mean I don't encourage that kind of thinking, but I'm not going to lose any sleep about not spending lots of time working toward mutually agreeable solutions with an irrational 3 year old. And my 3 year old seems to be particularly irrational these days.

It's so interesting to me to have these discussions, because even though I KNOW that all kids are different, it's hard for me to remember just how different they can be!
Ds is open to finding solutions most of the time (not all the time, he is 3 you know. lol). And he's at least somewhat aware of the other side, at least on some level. One of ds's most used phrases is "It doesn't mind to me" (meaning it doesn't matter).
And it probably helps that we all are similar, personality wise. We're all pretty laid back. I'm the most high-strung out of all of us, for sure.

I did just have a very interesting (to me) thought, though. I realized that, because it's so easy to 'get my way,' I tend to do so more often than I really have to. Even though I'm doing something that I know I shouldn't do (I use guilt sometimes, etc). Taking advantage, if you will.
And the correlation is kids who 'take advantage' of a parent when it is easy to get their way, even if they know they shouldn't. hmmm...

[The4OfUs]

Originally Posted by Deva33mommy

One of ds's most used phrases is "It doesn't mind to me" (meaning it doesn't matter).
And it probably helps that we all are similar, personality wise. We're all pretty laid back. I'm the most high-strung out of all of us, for sure.

That is SOOO cute.

And I'll tell you this: DS had me snookered for the first 18-24 months or so because he was the most easygoing baby and young toddler.....shortly after he hit two it was like some kind of HUGE switch went off and he went from easygoing and laid back to intense!!

DD has been INTENSE!!!! since she was born.


As I said before, lucky me. I almost hate to post this because it's like I'm blaming them, but I was a LOT more easygoing years ago - it's almost like I resent being the only easygoing one in the family and feel like if I don't 'stand up' for myself, I'm going to get walked all over by the three other PITAs in the family (DH is pretty high strung) . Ooooh, now that I type that out it makes me sound horrible. Maybe I just found a little issue to work on on myself. I don't like feeling so on edge so much, I'd much rather be the more relaxed person I used to be. I think I need to start meditating or something. EPIPHANY!!!!!!