Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If it means, "Explain why broccoli is healthier, and the child has to eat broccoli, and then provide no cookies until broccoli is eaten", then we're really not arguing for anything different except that I'm including this under "Because I said so", and I can explain why, if you'd like.

And this is where be come to what I have a problem with. The rational explanation is not something that should be asked for if the child rejects the argument from authority, it should be the default reasoning in any situation. This teaches critical thinking and rational inquiry as the default manner of thinking about a situation, something that should be instilled in all children to prepare them for life in an enlightened society.

[Bauglir]

Obviously. I agreed with that already! The argument from authority is your response when the child rejects the reasoning, which will happen, and often.

EDIT: Unless you're dealing with a particularly mature child with a good grasp of logical reasoning and long-term consequences. This is rare, but sometimes happens, and I mean no offense to people who actually demonstrated foresight as children. You are the more awesome for it.

EDIT AGAIN: Look, if I need to be any clearer, I'm not arguing that "Logic is hopeless, therefore let us abandon it and just use authority!" If that's what you're getting out of my posts, please, take a step back and read the last couple again.

[Heron TSG]

I distinctly remember being irrational about such things a decade ago, and my parents did use the 'because I said so' argument many a time. You know what I learned from that? That I should eat the broccoli. Later I found out it was actually good for me. (It wasn't just an excuse to get me to eat it, as I had assumed.) Side effects of such treatment? Broccoli eaten.

I could be wrong, but it looks win-win to me.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Obviously. I agreed with that already! The argument from authority is your response when the child rejects the reasoning, which will happen, and often.

When your child rejects your reasoning, the response should never be the argument from authority. Ever. You are more powerful, as you are the child's parent. If they reject rationality, the correct response is not to say "Because I said so", but to simply make them do what you have already explained the reasoning for. Those words, "Because I say so", are poison. They should never, ever be said to a child lest you plant a seed of blind obedience in their otherwise rational mind, waiting to be exploited by someone in the future.

[Heron TSG]

1. I don't consider myself to be blindly obedient to anyone.

2. How are you going to make the child eat something without convincing them with words?

[Criptfeind]

Because I said so and a argument they do not understand and reject as false are the same thing. Only in one the kid things you are lying.

[Duke 2.0]

EDIT: Unless you're dealing with a particularly mature child with a good grasp of logical reasoning and long-term consequences.

Learned that through spanking.

 So... yeah.

 There seems to be the usual fear over the absolute worst case scenario that is causing stonewall opposition. It's quite clear that we all support the idea of beginning with logical reasoning, telling the child why they have to do stuff and making them understand what they are doing. A number of influences can cause the child to just not care or require more effort than a parent can muster every day all the time. At those times some tools like authority enforcement may be used.

 The child knows the reasoning and knows you ultimately have authority to enforce this. They are doing the action because you forced them, but they know why you are forcing them. If the child decides to follow the reasoning then the enforcement is not necessary.

 And ultimately hearing "You can't have a cookie because I say so" and "You can't have it because it's not healthy for you" is irrelevant to the child. They are both pretty much saying the same thing. The decoded message varies little to them.

[Siquo]

And ultimately hearing "You can't have a cookie because I say so" and "You can't have it because it's not healthy for you" is irrelevant to the child. They are both pretty much saying the same thing. The decoded message varies little to them.

This is true. Until they reach a certain age, at least.
I always try to explain stuff, but there's more "why" in a child than 20 Nobel-prize-winners can answer. And in the end, you still have to eat your vegetables, young lady.

[Bauglir]

If they reject rationality, the correct response is not to say "Because I said so", but to simply make them do what you have already explained the reasoning for.

There's no difference. The child still gets the message that they don't get to make their own decisions, that responsibility lies with you. There's nothing special about the words. And really, "simply" does not belong in that sentence.

[kaijyuu]

And ultimately hearing "You can't have a cookie because I say so" and "You can't have it because it's not healthy for you" is irrelevant to the child. They are both pretty much saying the same thing. The decoded message varies little to them.

This is true. Until they reach a certain age, at least.

Replace "certain age" with "certain level of maturity" and you're right.

Has nothing to do with age, but when they finally start to really consider other people's views and opinions, and not so much run on raw emotion. We're all born selfish brats, pretty much. Age doesn't directly change that; experience does.


Anywho, using the relevant word choice instead of "because I said so" is valuable once they do start comprehending. Not good parenting to take the easy way out and just claim your authority is law, imo.

[Willfor]

Not good parenting to take the easy way out and just claim your authority is law, imo.

Nobody is advocating that it is.

[G-Flex]

Not good parenting to take the easy way out and just claim your authority is law, imo.

Except for when you actually, you know, need to. Your child isn't exactly going to agree with you all the time.

[MonkeyHead]

My children eat broccoli when told to. This is as if they do, they then get a cookie and some time on the Wii with me. Children respond well to being given a choice, especially if the right choice offers some kind of positive reinforcement, and the wrong one a consequence. Not eating thier brocolli results in early to bed and no playing on the Wii with Daddy...

You cant argue or negotiate with someone when they have no power in the situation and nothing to lose.

Source: Being a parent and professional experience of working with a range of ages from children to young adults.

[G-Flex]

I've always been wary of transactional/reward-based conditioning like that. It does bad things to people's motivations in other contexts (e.g. school), and I feel like it sends the wrong message in the long-term, but I'm not really sure what else works with young children.

[Frumple]

From what I understand, you use it largely the same way you do with dogs. Start with it, wean them off of it. Presumably, it's primarily a stopgap until they're capable of conceptualizing and/or internalizing the actual reasons behind the behavior you're conditioning them into. I.e. re: School: If the student can't grasp that the education is its own reward, there's not a damn thing you can do anyway (that's going to do more than make a superficial difference, anyway. Grades can go up, but it often means jack shit for actual knowledge retention).

It's pretty fair to be wary of that sort of conditioning, I'd say. From what I've seen most (at least a fair minority, if nothing else) people that use it, use incredibly clumsily. Still a bloody sight better than 'do it or get th'crap knocked out of you,' though Clumsy version's about on par with simple authority conditioning, though. Both have problems.

This isn't exactly a surprise, though. Most parents are completely freaking unprepared for raising a child, and usually in a pisspoor situation (time being the biggest restraint, from what I've seen. You can't work a 40-60 hour workweek and have the time you really need to do right by a child. Certainly not as a single parent, and it's pretty damned suboptimal with two, even if one's a full domestic.) to do it, to boot. It speaks wonders for humanity as an animal that more of us aren't stark raving mad.