Church behavior - Page 6 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-15-2006, 01:44 AM
 
heartmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In the bat cave with Irishmommy
Posts: 5,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I would keep putting him back on the blanket and wait for him to figure it out.
What is the "it" here the baby should figure out? You said you begin training at 8 months, right?

I think people are really having a problem with two things:

1)When the 8 month old, new to the concept, crawls off the blanket, and you continue to put him back on it, while repeating "Please stay on the blanket", this is a negative reinforcement.

A positive reinforcement would be you waiting until the baby crawled onto the blanket, and rewarding him each time he did it.

2)Using negative reinforcement to condition an 8 month old looks and feels excessive. Conditioning him not to move off a blanket after mama walks away from him seems counter to the very nature of attachment. It is a conditioned repression of the natural and healthy desire of the baby to stay near mama, to have her in sight, and to follow her if she moves out of reach. Putting the baby at conflict with such a basic desire is profound.

I think this bears repeating:

Conditioning him to to stay on the blanket when you move out of reach is counter to the very nature of attachment.

If you want to understand why people are having a hard time with your idea's, I think that is one important reason.

Mother is the word for God on the hearts and lips of all little children--William Makepeace Thackeray
heartmama is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-15-2006, 02:18 AM
 
heartmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In the bat cave with Irishmommy
Posts: 5,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
For example, both of my children were very oral babies--if it went in their hands, it went in their mouths. As an adult, I knew that they could catch germs or possibly choke from this. They didn't know that, though, they just thought "this is a cool-looking thing, I wonder what it tastes like." But I would have been irresponsible to let them do this, because they weren't making an informed choice. And this is where I think ap and respectful parenting comes in--instead of just taking away things they wanted to taste or punishing them, I gently corrected them and gave them access to things they *could* put in their mouths (teething rings, binkies, my fingers...)
I'm not sure what you mean by "gently corrected instead of taking away"?

So I will give a straightforward example~baby puts something in his mouth and starts to choke. Mama gets it out of his mouth. Baby reaches to put it back in his mouth. Mama takes it out again and baby starts to cry and pull it towards his mouth again. Mama keeps it away from his mouth, comforts his cries, and helps him find something safe that satisfies his need to explore.

That is gd/attachment parenting.

Negative reinforcement looks like this:

Mama takes the trinket out of the baby's mouth. She puts it in reach. Baby waits. He reaches. Mama says "No" and puts his hands down by his side. Baby reaches again. Mama says "no" and puts his hands by his side again". Repeat, repeat, repeat. Baby finally stops reaching. Mama discovers that she can now leave him near trinkets for a short time and he will not reach if she says "No".

Blanket training sounds like the second, not the first approach. Negative reinforcement to accomplish a conditioned response.

These are very different approaches. They are not the same. I think almost everyone in this thread see's the difference. It seems obvious but if it isn't to you, please say so, because I'd be very willing to talk about it some more.

Mother is the word for God on the hearts and lips of all little children--William Makepeace Thackeray
heartmama is offline  
Old 04-15-2006, 02:21 AM
 
artgoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Suburban hell
Posts: 12,661
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartmama

I think this bears repeating:

Conditioning him to to stay on the blanket when you move out of reach is counter to the very nature of attachment.
You're right it does. So I bolded mine.
artgoddess is offline  
Old 04-15-2006, 03:14 AM
 
Brigianna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: who knows?
Posts: 7,939
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartmama
What is the "it" here the baby should figure out?
That I want him to stay on the blanket.

Quote:
You said you begin training at 8 months, right?
Yes, but maybe I should clarify--my kids played on blankets on the floor from as soon as they could hold their heads up. So sitting or lying on a blanket on the floor was not new to them even at 8 months. But that was when they really started scooting and crawling around, and so that was when I started teaching them about staying on the blanket. Also, this wasn't a tiny blanket; they had room to move around.

Quote:
I think people are really having a problem with two things:

1)When the 8 month old, new to the concept, crawls off the blanket, and you continue to put him back on it, while repeating "Please stay on the blanket", this is a negative reinforcement.

A positive reinforcement would be you waiting until the baby crawled onto the blanket, and rewarding him each time he did it.
Maybe it's a mental block on my part but I really don't see how asking him to stay on the blanket and putting him back if he gets off is negative reinforcement. Hitting him or yelling at him or putting him in time-out or taking something away from him--those would be negative reinforcement/punishment. But putting him back on the blanket is just reinforcing and reminding him that I want him to stay on the blanket. I'm not trying to make him suffer for "disobeying" me, I'm trying to teach him to stay in one place.

Quote:
2)Using negative reinforcement to condition an 8 month old looks and feels excessive. Conditioning him not to move off a blanket after mama walks away from him seems counter to the very nature of attachment. It is a conditioned repression of the natural and healthy desire of the baby to stay near mama, to have her in sight, and to follow her if she moves out of reach. Putting the baby at conflict with such a basic desire is profound.

I think this bears repeating:

Conditioning him to to stay on the blanket when you move out of reach is counter to the very nature of attachment.

If you want to understand why people are having a hard time with your idea's, I think that is one important reason.
But "attachment parenting" doesn't mean literal constant physical attachment. And being momentarily physically separated while he's on the blanket is no different from being momentarily physically separated at any other time. Also, when I started teaching them I alternated between being on the blanket with them and being off the blanket. At 8 months they didn't mind a little momentary separation. They had slept alone in a bassinet since they were born so it wasn't totally strange to them (although we kept the bassinet in our room). And I wouldn't call it "conditioning."

I guess I'm surprised at the intensity of the reaction because neither of my kids *minded* being blanket-trained. They didn't cry, throw a fit, or anything like that. Maybe scowled a little in that baby way, but nothing like being really upset. Now the carseat? That was taking a trip to meltdown-land. And I *hated* doing it to them, and I tried to make it as painless as possible, but it was the law. But I don't think anyone here would say I was wrong to do that. Of course that was a safety issue, but for us, so was blanket-training.
Brigianna is offline  
Old 04-15-2006, 03:28 AM
 
Brigianna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: who knows?
Posts: 7,939
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartmama
I'm not sure what you mean by "gently corrected instead of taking away"?
I would gently correct and also take it away. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Quote:
So I will give a straightforward example~baby puts something in his mouth and starts to choke. Mama gets it out of his mouth. Baby reaches to put it back in his mouth. Mama takes it out again and baby starts to cry and pull it towards his mouth again. Mama keeps it away from his mouth, comforts his cries, and helps him find something safe that satisfies his need to explore.

That is gd/attachment parenting.
I would try to avoid letting it get to that point. I would be right there while he was holding the object and as he went to put it in his mouth, I would say "please don't" while pulling his hand away from his mouth. Then I would give him a teething ring or something like it and say "you can chew this."

Quote:
Negative reinforcement looks like this:

Mama takes the trinket out of the baby's mouth. She puts it in reach. Baby waits. He reaches. Mama says "No" and puts his hands down by his side. Baby reaches again. Mama says "no" and puts his hands by his side again". Repeat, repeat, repeat. Baby finally stops reaching. Mama discovers that she can now leave him near trinkets for a short time and he will not reach if she says "No".
I wouldn't do this because I wouldn't be sure that baby really understood that he was not to put the trinket in his mouth. It doesn't seem safe to assume that he understood just because he stopped reaching for it one time. I would take the thing out of reach and give him something else.

Quote:
Blanket training sounds like the second, not the first approach. Negative reinforcement to accomplish a conditioned response.
I think it's more like a combination of the two approaches. There is verbal direction ("please stay on the blanket") but there's also physically moving him (analogous to taking the trinket out of reach) and an alternative (staying on the blanket).

Quote:
These are very different approaches. They are not the same. I think almost everyone in this thread see's the difference. It seems obvious but if it isn't to you, please say so, because I'd be very willing to talk about it some more.
I can see the difference, but I don't think the line between them is as clear as you're suggesting.
Brigianna is offline  
Old 04-15-2006, 03:33 AM
 
Fuamami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,375
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna
I guess I'm surprised at the intensity of the reaction because neither of my kids *minded* being blanket-trained. They didn't cry, throw a fit, or anything like that. Maybe scowled a little in that baby way, but nothing like being really upset. Now the carseat? That was taking a trip to meltdown-land. And I *hated* doing it to them, and I tried to make it as painless as possible, but it was the law. But I don't think anyone here would say I was wrong to do that. Of course that was a safety issue, but for us, so was blanket-training.
I'm surprised, too, Brigianna. I think it sounds like a great idea, and I don't see it as any different from picking up a baby about to crawl into something they shouldn't, or stopping a toddler from going into the street. Or teaching your child not to put their hand in the poopy diaper. Or stand up in the tub.

Since I'm jumping in late, I wanted to remark on the OP.

You say you don't feel that frowning and saying "No" is punishment, but it is inarguably scary for your child, as evidenced by her crying. Especially because you had taken her out and were then expecting her to understand that when you were sitting down, you expected her to "be quiet". That's just too, too much. No way is she going to understand what you're talking about.

Sure, you can start to teach her no, but make life easy on yourself. The less you use it, the more powerful it will be. It will work much, much better if you need to tell your child no because they're heading for something unsafe if you haven't already told them no 57 times that day for every little infraction, IME.

Mommy to kids

Fuamami is offline  
Old 04-15-2006, 03:50 AM
 
Brigianna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: who knows?
Posts: 7,939
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Going back to the original topic, we went to church tonight and about halfway through my ds started jumping on the pew. I asked him to please be quiet, but he didn't, so I went outside with him for a few minutes, he ran around a bit, and we went back inside, no harm done. Usually he's okay for sitting through the service but tonight he was a bit more energized (maybe related to going in the evening vs. morning). Anyway, there wasn't any expectation that he had to stay still the entire time and he's 3.
Brigianna is offline  
Old 04-15-2006, 12:15 PM
 
annettemarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the Restricted Section
Posts: 34,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by natensarah
I'm surprised, too, Brigianna. I think it sounds like a great idea, and I don't see it as any different from picking up a baby about to crawl into something they shouldn't, or stopping a toddler from going into the street. Or teaching your child not to put their hand in the poopy diaper. Or stand up in the tub.
There's a huge difference. There's a reason for a child not to go into the street or put their hands in their diapers or crawling where they shouldn't. There is absolutely no reason to pin a child to a blanket by a mother's disapproval. We're not talking about stopping a child from doing something unsafe; we're talking about training a child to do something unchildlike.

Flowers, fairies, gardens, and rainbows-- Seasons of Joy: 10 weeks of crafts, handwork, painting, coloring, circle time, fairy tales, and more!
Check out the blog for family fun, homeschooling, books, simple living, and 6 fabulous children, including twin toddlers

annettemarie is offline  
Old 04-15-2006, 12:27 PM
 
annettemarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the Restricted Section
Posts: 34,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna
Because we need to stay safe. And when they're old enough to understand the examples you gave, they're probably old enough not to need the blanket.
But staying on the blanket to "stay safe" will only work if you are right there in the room with them. And if you are right there in the room with them, there is no need for the blanket, unless you are constantly otherwise occupied, in which case in hardly seems fair to punish the baby for your interests by confining them to a blanket.

Quote:
I am against behaviorism, especially with regards to children. I don't punish them or reward them (I do occasionally bribe them, but that's a bit different). Asking someone to do something isn't behavioristic. I'm not conditioning them to stay on the blanket, I'm teaching them. There's a difference.
You are engaging in operant conditioning. Teaching can only occur in so far as an individual can understand. I don't think your baby understands the concept of blanket training. You are presenting a behavior (staying on the blanket) and a consequence, however benign you might feel it is (putting baby back on the blanket with a word from mommy). Another reason it isn't teaching? The child has absolutely no choice. According to you, she'll stay on the blanket, her own will be darned, unless you decide to reevaluate the situation and deem her too young.

Quote:
Maybe not completely, but you can teach them some self-control. By your standard, why should we bother teaching them anything? Why would you say "We don't throw food because it's wasteful and messy," etc. if they aren't capable of learning self-control?
I am certainly not opposed to teaching. I teach my babies from the day they come out into the world. I teach them about love and grace and mercy, and how to latch on, and how to keep their fingers away from their poo, and how I'll always come when they're crying (I guess I've been conditioned ) It's (a) your subject matter ("blanket training") and (b) your method ("training") that I take issue with. In the case of the baby learning to eat throwing food, I am right there beside her, gently reminding her that we don't throw food and, if necessary, taking the food away and giving her something we can throw. I don't "train" her out of throwing her food, and then set her up with with a trayful of food and walk out of the room, expecting her not to throw it.

Quote:
And I'm not *trying* to train my kids' natural inclination to explore out of them. I teach them to explore *in appropriate ways.* The same as you teach them (I would hope) that it's not okay to explore the sharp knives, or it's not okay to explore some things by putting them in your mouth. That doesn't mean you're training their inclination to explore out of them.
I wouldn't have knives anywhere where they could get to them, and if they did happen to find something inappropriate to mouth, it would be on me, not them. Babies do not stay primarily orally-fixated forever.

Flowers, fairies, gardens, and rainbows-- Seasons of Joy: 10 weeks of crafts, handwork, painting, coloring, circle time, fairy tales, and more!
Check out the blog for family fun, homeschooling, books, simple living, and 6 fabulous children, including twin toddlers

annettemarie is offline  
Old 04-15-2006, 12:32 PM
 
annettemarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the Restricted Section
Posts: 34,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna
Going back to the original topic, we went to church tonight and about halfway through my ds started jumping on the pew. I asked him to please be quiet, but he didn't, so I went outside with him for a few minutes, he ran around a bit, and we went back inside, no harm done. Usually he's okay for sitting through the service but tonight he was a bit more energized (maybe related to going in the evening vs. morning). Anyway, there wasn't any expectation that he had to stay still the entire time and he's 3.
That's great. Sometimes I need to get up and move around a bit myself.

Flowers, fairies, gardens, and rainbows-- Seasons of Joy: 10 weeks of crafts, handwork, painting, coloring, circle time, fairy tales, and more!
Check out the blog for family fun, homeschooling, books, simple living, and 6 fabulous children, including twin toddlers

annettemarie is offline  
Old 04-15-2006, 07:00 PM
 
Brigianna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: who knows?
Posts: 7,939
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by annettemarie
There's a huge difference. There's a reason for a child not to go into the street or put their hands in their diapers or crawling where they shouldn't. There is absolutely no reason to pin a child to a blanket by a mother's disapproval. We're not talking about stopping a child from doing something unsafe; we're talking about training a child to do something unchildlike.
There is a reason, which is to stay safe. Look, I'm a big believer in having reasons for things we ask our kids to do, and "because I said so" doesn't count as a reason. I always explain my requests to my kids if they ask, and if I can't sufficiently explain it, I don't make the request. But we are talking about *babies* and young toddlers, not verbal, conversational, logical children. If they are old enough to understand the rational examples you give, they are for the most part old enough not to need the blanket. And it is our job as parents to keep them safe, even against their will, until they have the knowledge and rational skills to keep themselves safe.

Aren't all those examples teaching a child to be unchildlike? It is childlike to run indiscriminately, put their hands in their diapers, etc. It isn't wrong, they just have no idea why they shouldn't. That's why we have to teach them.

Quote:
But staying on the blanket to "stay safe" will only work if you are right there in the room with them. And if you are right there in the room with them, there is no need for the blanket, unless you are constantly otherwise occupied, in which case in hardly seems fair to punish the baby for your interests by confining them to a blanket.
No, that's the point--I taught them to stay on the blanket and then when I had to leave the room for a minute or so I knew I could trust them to stay safely on the blanket. And I did also ask them to stay on the blanket while I was there in the room if I was doing something else, especially something dangerous, but putting them on the blanket isn't punishing them; it's protecting them. And I've said this over and over, but the point still seems to be getting missed--I never kept them on the blanket when it wasn't their choice for more than a few minutes. I didn't keep them on the blanket all day, as an alternative to learning or exploring or being attached to me.

Quote:
You are engaging in operant conditioning. Teaching can only occur in so far as an individual can understand. I don't think your baby understands the concept of blanket training. You are presenting a behavior (staying on the blanket) and a consequence, however benign you might feel it is (putting baby back on the blanket with a word from mommy). Another reason it isn't teaching? The child has absolutely no choice. According to you, she'll stay on the blanket, her own will be darned, unless you decide to reevaluate the situation and deem her too young.
I agree that teaching can only occur if the person can understand, which is why the logical examples you gave wouldn't work (or rather wouldn't constitute teaching) for a baby or young toddler. But the baby can and does understand blanket training in the sense that she figures out that I want her to stay on the blanket, which is why she does it.

As I have said I do believe in giving children as much choice about their own lives as possible, but for babies we sometimes have to make choices for them for their own safety, or because they are incapable of making their own choices.

Quote:
I am certainly not opposed to teaching. I teach my babies from the day they come out into the world. I teach them about love and grace and mercy, and how to latch on, and how to keep their fingers away from their poo, and how I'll always come when they're crying (I guess I've been conditioned ) It's (a) your subject matter ("blanket training") and (b) your method ("training") that I take issue with. In the case of the baby learning to eat throwing food, I am right there beside her, gently reminding her that we don't throw food and, if necessary, taking the food away and giving her something we can throw. I don't "train" her out of throwing her food, and then set her up with with a trayful of food and walk out of the room, expecting her not to throw it.
But why bother "gently reminding her that we don't throw food" unless you expect her eventually to catch on that she should not throw food? And what is the difference between gently reminding her not to throw food and redirecting her to something she can throw, and gently reminding her to stay on the blanket and redirecting her back onto the blanket (other than the fact that you think there's a good reason for one but not the other)?

Quote:
I wouldn't have knives anywhere where they could get to them, and if they did happen to find something inappropriate to mouth, it would be on me, not them. Babies do not stay primarily orally-fixated forever.
No, it's not forever. But it does last several months and it is awfully frustrating when you're alone in the house with a baby in the oral stage and she's just learned to crawl and scoot really fast and then walk, so you have to watch her constantly, and you can't answer the phone or go to the bathroom or get something out of the kitchen, let alone do any work, because she *will* find a way to injure herself, and if you take her with you she throws a fit. Mainstream people use playpens, cribs, baby gates, and high chairs for this purpose. I happen to believe that it is much more respectful to teach the child to safely stay in one place. If watching baby with your full undivided attention 100% of the time worked for you, I'm glad it did. Really. But I don't think it's realistic for most people.
Brigianna is offline  
Old 04-15-2006, 07:34 PM
 
Fuamami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,375
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by annettemarie
There's a huge difference.
Well, I don't see it. And I don't see how saying, "Please stay on the blanket," in a calm and quiet manner displays any sort of "disapproval" whatsoever. Frowning and "scolding", that's how I envision disapproval. I don't see how you can argue that the child does it because they fear disapproval any more than they eventually learn to sit down in the bathtub or not run into the street. They learn it because we calmly and patiently repeat the requests and physically help them.

This is how I see it. She taught them that occasionally she will ask them to stay in one place, a place that is easily defined, and she will quickly return. I think it's clear that her babies trusted her and felt very strongly attached to her, otherwise it wouldn't have worked without corporal punishment. They trusted that she had a good reason to ask that of them, that she didn't expect them to stay there longer than their attention spans could take it, and that she wasn't abandoning them. AND that she wouldn't plop them down in a little cage and disappear. I think a child would be MORE reassured by the fact that they could, if necessary, toddle or crawl after her, whereas the concrete barrier of a baby gate closes off that option completely.

I just can't see what's not GD about this. I think it's a great idea.

Mommy to kids

Fuamami is offline  
Old 04-15-2006, 07:41 PM
 
Brigianna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: who knows?
Posts: 7,939
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I started a new thread to discuss blanket-training and alternatives so we could let this thread go back to the original topic. My blanket-training thread is here: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=438203
Brigianna is offline  
Old 04-15-2006, 08:08 PM
 
annettemarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the Restricted Section
Posts: 34,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna
No, that's the point--I taught them to stay on the blanket and then when I had to leave the room for a minute or so I knew I could trust them to stay safely on the blanket. And I did also ask them to stay on the blanket while I was there in the room if I was doing something else, especially something dangerous, but putting them on the blanket isn't punishing them; it's protecting them. And I've said this over and over, but the point still seems to be getting missed--I never kept them on the blanket when it wasn't their choice for more than a few minutes. I didn't keep them on the blanket all day, as an alternative to learning or exploring or being attached to me.
You cannot trust an eight-month-old baby to make wise choices. Or a one-year-old. Or even a two-year-old. It doesn't matter how well you think you've trained them.

Flowers, fairies, gardens, and rainbows-- Seasons of Joy: 10 weeks of crafts, handwork, painting, coloring, circle time, fairy tales, and more!
Check out the blog for family fun, homeschooling, books, simple living, and 6 fabulous children, including twin toddlers

annettemarie is offline  
Old 04-15-2006, 11:48 PM
 
georgia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: tl;dr
Posts: 25,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thank you, Brigianna

I have retired from administration work, so if you have a question about anything MDC-related, please contact Cynthia Mosher. Thanks!
 
georgia is offline  
Old 04-15-2006, 11:55 PM
 
Rainbow Brite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Snuggled with dd
Posts: 1,402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I couldn't even sit quietly through a church service. I would never expect a baby too
Blanket training- OMG :
Rainbow Brite is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off