NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/bit/listserv/csgl/949

Text File | 1992-09-08 | 8.5 KB | 159 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!ASUACAD.BITNET!ATEDF
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:13:54 MST
Sender:       "Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)" <[e-mail]>
From:         Ed Ford <[e-mail]>
Subject:      control and children
Lines: 148

from Ed Ford (920906:1415)

Rick Marken (920906)

>The parent has no choice, right?

I have no idea what you mean by this statement.

>You don't have to tell a control system (the parent in this case) to
>control.

Like any group of people organized to live or work together such that
they can cooperatively get along, many parents seek help and
instruction (I was one of them) on the best way to set standards in
such a way that everyone would cooperatively get along.  Control
systems naturally control, but in any community or between any two
individuals, part of growing and maturing is to learn to control in
such a way that you do no harm to yourself and that you learn to
respect the rights of those in your environment.  That is not something
we do naturally, and thus, in a family setting, I believe it is the job
of the parent to teach their children in as patient and loving way as
possible how to use their control systems to their greatest advantage
and with the least amount of violence to anyone's system.

>They are "natural consequences" only if the kid's behavior is part of
>what the parent is controlling; the parent can't help but "naturally"
>take action (ANY action) in an effort to move the kid's behavior back
>to the parent's reference on it.

There is a big difference between trying to "move the kid's behavior
back to the parent's reference on it" and trying to teach children in
conflict to look for (reorganize safely) a better way of solving
their internal conflict which is reflected in their actions that
violate the rights of others.  For example, hitting, screaming,
yelling, cursing by children violates the rights of others in their
community.  I believe their social contact ought to be reduced to a
point where they harm no one (sent to a smile chair or their room)
until they make the choice to work things out within the community in
which they live.  That would be the natural consequence of such action.
Beating the kid, spitting in his face, chaining him up, all that is
punitive.  Just like the natural consequence of speeding is for a
policeman to give you a ticket.  Pulling you out of the car, shooting
you through the foot that operates the accelerator, that's punitive.
Once children have a reference for working things out, then they
PERCEIVE THE PARENT AS A TEACHER who teaches them how to make an
effective plan, namely, establish an alternative way of work at solving
the problem they had in the first place in a satisfactory manner.

>How do you "non-punitively" get a kid to produce a perception for
>themselves (and, incidentally, for you) that they have no intention of
>producing?

You don't.  You can only work with those who are willing to work with
you, or who are willing to set a reference for your help.  What I do is
first try to find a reference within children that they are willing to
deal with which will lead toward the solving of a problem.  I don't
call this manipulation.  In working with the juveniles in lock up,
which aren't exactly your nicest people to work with, I first ask (if
they're upset) if they want to talk or should I come back later.  If
they say they want to talk and I then ask them what they want.  If they
express confusion or they're upset, and they say they don't know what
they want, I might ask if they are satisfied with the way things are.
If they are ticked at someone, perhaps a guard or case manager, I'll
ask them if they'd like things to be better.  I just keep going till I
can achieve something with the juvenile, some kind of a plan,
something.  I don't call that punitive, or permissive.  And I'm
certainly not manipulating what you call his behavior.  As long as the
juvenile has a reference or willingness to work with me, I can deal
with him/her, but I'm not controlling his behavior.  I'm teaching him
(providing he is willing) how to deal with his internal world in such a
way that his/her life becomes better.  You'll never help people unless
they perceive you as someone from whom they want help and secondly,
they perceive you as someone that can help you, they perceive you as a
teacher.

I think when you use the word manipulation you have to consider how
each person perceives the other person.  If a juvenile perceives me as
someone who can help them, someone who can teach them a better way of
dealing with their life, and they submit to that person's help, I don't
see that as manipulation any more than I see Bill Powers manipulating
me when I seek his counsel or help.  I think the same is true of our
children.  If they perceive me as a loving parent who cares and
believes in them and believes in their ability to succeed in life, and
I ask them if they want my help and they say yes, I don't see that as
manipulative.  With children who really refuse help or don't want to
deal with me at the time of the problem, sending them to their room (or
to a smile chair) is trying to teach them at a time they may not want
to be taught.  But later on, assuming a close relationship, they
generally are appreciative of my actions.

You keep talking about controlling behavior as if it can be controlled.
What I am talking about is something entirely different.  I'm talking
about TEACHING RESPONSIBLE THINKING.  It is how we think that
determines our actions.  It is how we focus on our various references,
how we perceive a variety of things, only a small part of which are the
actions we take.  I really don't think I can control how a person
thinks through a problem.  I can ask questions in such a way that help
them (if they have a reference for it) or teach them how to focus in
areas about which they may want to reflect on, to evaluate, etc.  But
first they have to want to think through a problem before they are
willing to deal with me.  Forcing an upset child to a room doesn't
force their thinking, it is only the non-punitive consequence of the
violation of another's rights.  Their thinking is what is going to
ultimately determine their actions and their future happiness.

>How do you non-punitively" get a kid to produce a perception for
>themselves (and, incidentally, for you) that they have no intention of
>producing?

You don't.  I don't think you'll ever get someone to produce a specific
perception.  First place, you haven't any control over getting anyone
to produce a perception or a reference.  Secondly, you wouldn't know
what they produced because they would be explaining it to you through
their words and you would be perceiving their words, reflecting on what
you'd perceive to be their thoughts and what you'd create in your own
world would be different from their world.  As I said above, all you
can do is help them deal with their own internal world, the only world
they'll ever know.

>The alternative to manipulative child rearing is not to become a
>doormat.  It's to become a TEACHER.  The goal is to help the kid learn
>to control more skillfully -- ....so that it's activities don't have
>unfortunate side effects...

That's exactly what I've been talking about.  Perhaps you've perceived
what I've been suggesting as manipulative, but it isn't.  Or, what is
teaching, if it isn't teaching a person how to recognize, think
through, use, and evaluate the areas within their system where thinking
is done, namely the various references, at different levels, what and
how they perceive various areas within their perceptual system,
compare, etc.  I'm not making anyone do anything.  If my children or an
employee or a juvenile in a detention center doesn't want to work with
me, he'll have to live with the consequences of that choice.  But he
does have that choice.  And I can't force him to allow me to teach him.

As you've said before, it's all perception.  If a person perceives you
as someone with whom they want to interact, concerning no matter what,
they'll set a reference to do just that.  If they perceive you as
someone they dislike, don't trust, or whatever, they'll probably reject
your offer.

All I see myself as is a teacher, which is someone who cares and who is
willing to help others make a better world for themselves.  But I can't
do a thing unless they set a reference for me to help.  That to me is
what it is all about.

Ed Ford [e-mail]
10209 N. 56th St., Scottsdale, Arizona 85253            Ph.602 991-4861