Can we talk about coercion and learning? - Page 2

[Magella]

I guess I think that it isn't so much that coercion interferes with learning as it is that what one learns through coercion is different, in some way and to some degree, from what one learns through collaboration.

We strive to collaborate a lot, and I think this allows the kids to learn things that they don't learn as well through coercion. Things like critical thinking, perspective-taking, communication, problem-solving, self-control, empathy, creative thinking, and so on (not only do the kids learn it, so do we). Plus, we're more relaxed and have far fewer power struggles when we're working together (which I love). And it's not that I think that collaborating is the only way to learn these things, I just think it's a particularly valuable and effective way to learn them. Collaboration itself is an excellent skill to learn. And even if a child is only 3, I think it's possible to begin to learn these things to whatever extent the child is able (which is, obvioiusly, going to be different for different kids).

I do think that there are times when collaborating on a solution just isn't practical-usually in the midst of a problem. If one of us is too upset to participate in problem-solving, or if one of us doesn't have the skills to participate, or if one of us doesn't want to participate at that moment, or if there simply isn't time (due to safety or other circumtances) then we won't engage in that process at that time. Sometimes it does work better for our family to coerce in the heat of the moment-sometimes the decision needs to be made or the action taken, and we parents do it. I don't think that makes us bad parents or prevents the kids from learning or negates our efforts at collaboration. We do find, though, that if this happens a few times that taking the time to address the problem at some calm time outside the moment, collaboratively, really helps us find durable solutions. And, too, there have been times that an issue has arisen and we've coerced a couple of times, and then the issue is over.

I also suppose that how and to what extent coercion vs. collaboration affect a child depends on how much of each they experience and in what way they experience them.

Originally Posted by LynnS6

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.

We've had very similar experiences, with the little one agreeing to something and then being upset about it. I think that she *is* learning when this happens, but the results aren't immediate. Learning is a rather long process (as is development). Nowadays, it's very common to hear our kids (even the 4 year old who is quite strong-willed and stubborn) trying to resolve problems in ways that work for all of them. The phrases "I prefer," "do you prefer...?," "what about if we...?," "do you mind if...?," and "would you be willing to...?" are becoming more and more common around here, even out of the little one who just turned 4. So, yes there are times when an agreement or solution we come to just doesn't really work out. But even then, there is some really good learning going on even though it isn't always obvious at the time.

[LynnS6]

Originally Posted by sledg

I do think that there are times when collaborating on a solution just isn't practical-usually in the midst of a problem. If one of us is too upset to participate in problem-solving, or if one of us doesn't have the skills to participate, or if one of us doesn't want to participate at that moment, or if there simply isn't time (due to safety or other circumstances) then we won't engage in that process at that time. Sometimes it does work better for our family to coerce in the heat of the moment-sometimes the decision needs to be made or the action taken, and we parents do it. I don't think that makes us bad parents or prevents the kids from learning or negates our efforts at collaboration.

OK, this makes me feel better. I think my "issue" with collaborative solutions is that they don't work in the heat of the moment, and very often that's when we need a solution.

I think this an issue that's often not addressed in some of the discussions on collaboration/mutually agreeable solutions. When people write "there's always a mutually agreeable solution" my first response is :, not with my 3 year old!

Originally Posted by sledg

We do find, though, that if this happens a few times that taking the time to address the problem at some calm time outside the moment, collaboratively, really helps us find durable solutions. And, too, there have been times that an issue has arisen and we've coerced a couple of times, and then the issue is over.

Yes, this resonates with me too. I can see that this is an area where I probably need to work a bit harder. I tend to deal with things in 'crisis mode' and then let them drop.

We've had very similar experiences, with the little one agreeing to something and then being upset about it. I think that she *is* learning when this happens, but the results aren't immediate. Learning is a rather long process (as is development).

OK, yes, you're right. It just feels like we're in a very, very rough spot right now and that she's not learning at all. The daily 45 minute tantrum over whatever it is that she can't do (and we're talking half the time of things that would require changing the laws of nature - like somehow putting the pee back in her body so her dress stayed dry!) is getting old.

[LynnS6]

OK, and I keep forgetting my question (which is probably a loaded one):

What is coercion? How would you define it?

[Magella]

Originally Posted by LynnS6

OK, this makes me feel better. I think my "issue" with collaborative solutions is that they don't work in the heat of the moment, and very often that's when we need a solution.

I think this an issue that's often not addressed in some of the discussions on collaboration/mutually agreeable solutions. When people write "there's always a mutually agreeable solution" my first response is :, not with my 3 year old!

I agree, this is something frequently not addressed in discussions regarding collaboration/mas. I do think that theoretically, there probably is always (or at least usually) a solution--whether we're rational, skilled, calm and proactive enough to find it in any given moment or for any given situation is the question. And we aren't always. At least not at first. And I think that's okay. I'm not stressing about not being able to find a mutually agreeable solution every single time.

There is almost never a mutually agreeable solution with my 4 year old if we're in the heat of the moment. (Proactive is the key with my girls. It is getting easier lately.)

Originally Posted by LynnS6

The daily 45 minute tantrum over whatever it is that she can't do (and we're talking half the time of things that would require changing the laws of nature - like somehow putting the pee back in her body so her dress stayed dry!) is getting old.

BTDT in spades. It really is so hard, so tiring, so exasperating.

Originally Posted by LynnS6

OK, and I keep forgetting my question (which is probably a loaded one):

What is coercion? How would you define it?

This is a tough question, and I'm curious about what others think. I am lately going by defining it more or less as imposing my will upon my child without their consent or input, despite their disagreement with that decision. So I think if my child is very much enjoying on banging on a window with a stick, and I end up removing the stick from their possession even if they're protesting-I think that's coercion. I think of coercion as using threat of punishment or intimidation to get someone to do what you want, but also as simply knowingly using power over another person (you know, when you have the power but they don't and you make the decision using your position of power-which is different, I think, from having authority which others willingly respect). I think it could be fairly called coercion when I made the decision to send my kids to school (rather than homeschool) because I believe that's what's best for our family--I did not invite their input because I believe that the kids are not yet capable of understanding and considering, in the same way we adults can, many of the factors that are a part of this particular decision. eta And going to school has not always been easy or desirable in the kids' eyes, and there have been protests at times despite the fact that they generally like school.

I do think there are gray areas, when it isn't clear (at least to me) if it's coercion or not. None of which I can easily and concisely give examples for at the moment. My thoughts are getting muddy now.

[kindacrunchy]

this is a good thread! my ds doesn't respond to coercion at all and i hate to admit it but it frustrates me. i've realized that i use coercion quite a bit, most likely because that is how i was brought up, and i'm flabergasted when my son doesn't respond. i don't want to use it, i'm learning how not to. sometimes i wish he would cooperate with certain things just because it is the "right" thing to do. again, i was a huge rule follower, i didn't want to get in trouble. that's not how i want my child to grow up. i want him to learn how to make good choices and be a good person but not because he is catering to what everyone else thinks he should be doing. anyway, you learn from your kids. you learn a lot. this probably has nothing to do with the thread. just wanted to share.

[The4OfUs]

Originally Posted by LynnS6

OK, and I keep forgetting my question (which is probably a loaded one):

What is coercion? How would you define it?

I'd like to tag onto your question:

Do you believe coersion always negative, in day-to-day situations? Obviously no one would argue that grabbing a resistant toddler out of the way of an oncoming truck is coersive but positive cause the kid lives to see another day, so we don't have to go there.

[DevaMajka]

The TCS definition of coercion is (http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/node/50)

By “coercion” we mean:
1.the psychological state of enacting one idea or impulse while a conflicting impulse is still active in one's mind.

A year ago, or even a few months ago, I might have thought that was a little extreme. But I definitely see this with my ds. My saying "no" to ds is coercion, because then he won't do it (most of the time), even though he still wants to.

Originally Posted by The4OfUs

I'd like to tag onto your question:

Do you believe coersion always negative, in day-to-day situations?

I don't think it's always negative, no.
For me, at this point in my development as a parent, using coercion occasionally KEEPS me gentle. It keeps me from getting overly frustrated and yelling/shaming/being punitive.

I also wouldn't feel a bit bad about coercing in order to keep someone from being harmed. I'm not talking about the running in the road thing, more like keeping my dog or another kid safe from being hit. Or, if a child was holding a door shut, and a child on the other side was scared, I would without a doubt forcibly open the door. I would certainly talk about it, and work with the child later, but I wouldn't spend a minute trying to work with him while the kid on the other side was scared. (these are hypotheticals, btw).

Smaller interactions, I don't know. Is it 'negative' to refuse ds another cookie? Or to make a child leave the playground, when Mom is hungry and just really tired of being there? Or to not let my ds use the back of my couch as a slide? (this one's real- I'm worried it will rip the seams. He's still allowed to sit up there.)

I don't know. That's what I'm trying to figure out. lol

[msiddiqi]

Originally Posted by Deva33mommy

Smaller interactions, I don't know. Is it 'negative' to refuse ds another cookie? Or to make a child leave the playground, when Mom is hungry and just really tired of being there? Or to not let my ds use the back of my couch as a slide? (this one's real- I'm worried it will rip the seams. He's still allowed to sit up there.)

This is where I get confused too. Overall, I try to work with DS, and in general, I am trying to say 'yes' to most things and let go because I realize some of the things that bother me are really issues that I need to get over. But when it comes to expensive things getting broken (he just broke our blinds, and now I am looking to replace them) or more importantly, my needs not being met I'm not quite sure how to work it. Mornings can be tough trying to meet all his needs, and many times ends in a disaster because I get really cranky when I'm hungry (especially now that I'm nursing DD).
He's kind of in the "my way or the highway" mode right now so even when I try to help him or encourage him to find solutions we can both agree on, he sticks to his guns and wants what he wants (at least 80% of the time, I do need to admit that it's not always like this).
I don't want to be coercive because it leaves him feeling negative and by the end of the day all those negative feelings start to snowball.

[kindacrunchy]

how does setting limits work into all of this or does it?

[Magella]

Originally Posted by Deva33mommy

I don't think it's always negative, no.
For me, at this point in my development as a parent, using coercion occasionally KEEPS me gentle. It keeps me from getting overly frustrated and yelling/shaming/being punitive.

I also wouldn't feel a bit bad about coercing in order to keep someone from being harmed. I'm not talking about the running in the road thing, more like keeping my dog or another kid safe from being hit. Or, if a child was holding a door shut, and a child on the other side was scared, I would without a doubt forcibly open the door. I would certainly talk about it, and work with the child later, but I wouldn't spend a minute trying to work with him while the kid on the other side was scared. (these are hypotheticals, btw).

Originally Posted by Deva33mommy

Smaller interactions, I don't know. Is it 'negative' to refuse ds another cookie? Or to make a child leave the playground, when Mom is hungry and just really tired of being there? Or to not let my ds use the back of my couch as a slide? (this one's real- I'm worried it will rip the seams. He's still allowed to sit up there.)

The way I see things is this (taking your couch example): I don't think it's negative to refuse to let a child slide down the back of the couch when the parent has concerns about allowing that to happen, and allowing it to happen would not address those concerns. I think it can be done with respect, and while looking for other ways to honor that impulse/address the child's need or concern. All I'm doing in saying no is saying "sliding down the couch works for you, but it doesn't work for me. Let's find another thing to do that works for both of us." I think the same could be said for the cookie or the playground. And as previously said, if saying 'no' in these circumstances is something that's going to prevent a parent or a child from being overly frustrated or reaching the point of meltdown then I don't think it's at all negative. I have been at the park with a full bladder and hungry to the point of getting pretty cranky (having no food b/c either I forgot, or the trip was spur of the moment while we were already out), and in those circumstances it's better for all of us if I just say "okay, it's time to go." (And next time, we can plan differently.)

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the TCS definition of coercion (By “coercion” we mean:1. the psychological state of enacting one idea or impulse while a conflicting impulse is still active in one's mind.. ). One one level it makes sense, but I also think we humans (even children) can willingly agree to something even as another impulse is active in our minds. I also think there's a difference between coercion and the natural authority a parent has, and which a child naturally respects. I think it would drive me completely nuts to be concerned about coercing my child every time I make a request which they apparently willingly agree to, knowing that they might still want to do something else. There are times we agree to a request or accommodate another person's preferences not because we are coerced, but because we care and/or because we trust that other person's guidance and experience.

Originally Posted by kindacrunchy

how does setting limits work into all of this or does it?

For me, and again our goal is more and more collaboration with our kids (and less simply imposing our will), the limit setting is part of the process of collaboration, it's in ensuring that our parental concerns are addressed along with the child's. It's not letting them do what they want, despite the fact that we have concerns about it, because we want to avoid coercion. It's saying "this solution works for you, but not for me. This one's off the table because it doesn't work for both of us" and "this solution works for both of us, let's try it," as much as it is "this solution works for me but not for you, it's off the table because it doesn't work for both of us."

[monkey's mom]

Originally Posted by sledg

I agree, this is something frequently not addressed in discussions regarding collaboration/mas. I do think that theoretically, there probably is always (or at least usually) a solution--whether we're rational, skilled, calm and proactive enough to find it in any given moment or for any given situation is the question. And we aren't always. At least not at first. And I think that's okay. I'm not stressing about not being able to find a mutually agreeable solution every single time.

I've participated in lots of these discussions and I've been pretty open that we haven't *always* found a non-coercive solution--heck, I haven't always found a *gentle* solution. But I don't think that it means they aren't there. It's just that I'm human, and my kids are human and sometimes people loose their "s" and do stuff that isn't in keeping with their ideals. But, I don't think it's terribly helpful to tell people, "Yeah, sometimes I just hit--there isn't a gentle discipline solution to EVERY situation." Because for those mamas who HAVE found a way to be gentle and never hit each and every time, that's just not true. Same with non-coercion and finding mutually agreeable solutions, I think.

Originally Posted by msiddiqi

This is where I get confused too. Overall, I try to work with DS, and in general, I am trying to say 'yes' to most things and let go because I realize some of the things that bother me are really issues that I need to get over. But when it comes to expensive things getting broken (he just broke our blinds, and now I am looking to replace them) or more importantly, my needs not being met I'm not quite sure how to work it.

I find just stating what my needs are and asking my family to consider them works better and better. As my kids grow older and more secure in this process of cooperative living, they are becoming better able to consider and honor my preferences, wants, and needs. It's pretty cool!

Originally Posted by sledg

The way I see things is this (taking your couch example): I don't think it's negative to refuse to let a child slide down the back of the couch when the parent has concerns about allowing that to happen, and allowing it to happen would not address those concerns. I think it can be done with respect, and while looking for other ways to honor that impulse/address the child's need or concern. All I'm doing in saying no is saying "sliding down the couch works for you, but it doesn't work for me. Let's find another thing to do that works for both of us." I think the same could be said for the cookie or the playground. And as previously said, if saying 'no' in these circumstances is something that's going to prevent a parent or a child from being overly frustrated or reaching the point of meltdown then I don't think it's at all negative. I have been at the park with a full bladder and hungry to the point of getting pretty cranky (having no food b/c either I forgot, or the trip was spur of the moment while we were already out), and in those circumstances it's better for all of us if I just say "okay, it's time to go." (And next time, we can plan differently.)

Yes!

Originally Posted by sledg

For me, and again our goal is more and more collaboration with our kids (and less simply imposing our will), the limit setting is part of the process of collaboration, it's in ensuring that our parental concerns are addressed along with the child's. It's not letting them do what they want, despite the fact that we have concerns about it, because we want to avoid coercion. It's saying "this solution works for you, but not for me. This one's off the table because it doesn't work for both of us" and "this solution works for both of us, let's try it," as much as it is "this solution works for me but not for you, it's off the table because it doesn't work for both of us."

Exactly!

And when they are wee-bitty and want to nurse around the clock and all that "inconvenient" baby stuff, or when they are toddlers and can't hang for certain outings or events, then it is less about parental needs/wants/concerns--it IS imbalanced in that sense. And that stage, for me, is REALLY hard--b/c it is so much about the baby's needs and not mine. But as my kids are getting out of those years (which felt like they would never end and now somehow seem to have flown by ) the balance is shifting in a really, really pleasant way. My needs and wants and concerns are much more considered and able to be met.

Anyway, I hope that wasn't too off-topic for this thread--I haven't had a computer and a week and darn did I MISS you all!!!!