I have a question, I want to see if anybody else has experience this

[conuly]

Several people today online have commented that they do time-outs with their under-5 children, and that the kid had any number of time-outs just this morning, and it "has to work eventually".

I've found that, while time-outs are useful in some circumstances (like when the kiddo has just stolen her sister's doll and pinched her, or when they've deliberately thrown all their food on the floor and refused to help clean it up and called you mean, that sort of thing), it is very, very, *very* easy to go overboard on them.

And once you do that, the behaviour doesn't get better, it just gets worse. The kid gets crankier and crankier and moodier and moodier and more and more high strung, prone to crying at little things. And they do more and more little things - things which, on their own, aren't that bad (and that the kid normally wouldn't do anyway), but which, in this bad day you're having, really start to add up - they say they aren't hungry, then whine that you didn't give them a snack, they stomp their foot and glare at you, they ask for their mom/dad/whoever a lot (and that gets old real fast), they do things as you're telling them not to do them, that sort of thing.

And it can take a whole day to snap the kid out of a morning of this moodiness. A day rapidly turns into two days, or more - especially if, unlike me, you have to deal with a sleepless kid.

I have found other ways of stopping minor misbehaviour (not major stuff, which is in a different category), and it doesn't solely consist of playing with them until they cheer themselves up (would that I could to that all the time, but I don't know that their parents would approve, nor that it'd always work)... but what I want to know is if anybody else has seen this happen when time-outs get used too much.

Comments

[jedirita.livejournal.com]

The padawan is still too young for time-outs, but I'd love to hear more about your alternate approaches.

And since we're on the subject, if you don't mind me asking - what is your situation exactly with these kids that you care for? Are they all related to you? Do you provide care for other kids too? Do you do this on your own - you're not with some kind of day care center, are you? I have vague ideas about what you do, but I'm not exactly sure.

[conuly]

Angelique and Evangeline are my nieces, so you hear about them a lot. I watch them during the week, for the low low price of... well, not enough. But it's family, so what can you do?

Sometimes I'll watch another girl, Su, as a favor for her family, but I haven't done that regularly since September, since she's in preschool now. I occasionally have done babysitting during the day for other kids I know, but as favors.

I also see a number of other children during the day, and have all sorts of butting in commentary on them, but I don't watch them, their adults are with them.

[conuly]

See meaning "say hi to" not "in some sort of professional capacity", of course.

[sayga.livejournal.com]

Kira's really sensitive, so we hardly ever give timeouts (about 2 a week, if that). Counting at her is usually enough to motivate her to listen. I really wish daycare hadn't done negative counting with her (1, 2, 3... PUNISHMENT!) because now I can't even say, "can you clean up in 10 seconds?" because as soon as I start to count, she just cries. I have never believed in counting to get a kid to behave for that very reason. Anyway, timeouts. Yeah, once we give one time out, Kira is upset enough that we just have to try really hard not to give her a reason/opportunity to misbehave. We treat her the same way as we would if we know she's very tired, grumpy or hungry. Otherwise she will end up with another timeout. I've never given her more than 2 timeouts in one day.

[conuly]

As for what else I do... it depends.

I... Oh, I'll make a post.

[conuly]

Get a timer, or ask if she can do whatever it is before you finish singing a certain song.

[sayga.livejournal.com]

you're so SMRT. i will do that.

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

Repeated time-outs works on dogs.

I know children aren't dogs, but I don't have any of the former.

What you say makes sense, though, and even with dogs you basically have to use it for a specific thing. We used it for jumping and mouthing. It took about three days to cure her of jumping in the house and another two weeks to cure her altogether (well, she still jumps, just not *on* people).

[conuly]

No, children aren't dogs. Would repeated time-outs work on two month old puppies, who are, in dog terms, more or less the same as three and four year old humans?

[jedirita.livejournal.com]

Okay, that was more or less what I thought. Are Angelique and Evangeline sisters, or cousins?

[conuly]

Sisters. They're my sister's kids. We all live in the same house - they're upstairs, my mom, Elise, and I are downstairs (Elise is... Elise), and 'dul and Asa have the first floor apartment.

[conuly]

That's totally not defensive, by the way - I'm honestly curious.

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

Well, the whole rationale behind it is a bit different. Dogs punish each other by temporary (or permanent) banishment from the pack.

It's been a long, long time since i had a puppy that young, but from seeing Scout interact with them [Scout being the mature older dog—ha!] other dogs would be more likely to tolerate puppies' bad behavior until it got really dangerous, then smack them down—literally, often, by raising a paw and pinning the puppy to the floor briefly—if they got too rough.

Puppies mostly get a free ride, unless they're causing actual pain, until they reach about 9-10 months of age (about the age when we got Scout), which is mid-teens in its human equivalent. And that's when they really start testing authority. Much like teenagers.

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

Wait, now I'm confused. I thought 'dul was the niecelings' dad? And was with (in a fairly permanent way) the niecelings' mom? Did I miss something? If so, pardon the buttinskyness.

[conuly]

They're together. They just have separate apartments, but that doesn't stop them from sleeping together, or sleeping together.

Okay, to be honest, I don't understand their relationship, but as long as it works for them, I don't much care, either.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Yeah that is something my son's speech therapist did to help teach him time and waiting.

We don't know how much he comprehends (PDDNOS and mildly mentally retarded, limited language skills) so timers don't often work, even visual ones. Schedules do, but for the length of time for a task, a song works nicely. He knows that it's over when the song is over. Helps too with real life. When we have to do theraputic type stuff outside the home (like at a store or whatever) I dont have to stop and look for my phone or a watch to help time how long I should do x, y, z. Just have to sing.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Never heard anything about too many time outs.

[conuly]

Fortunately, I'm not asking what people have heard, merely what they've experienced :)

And your icon has been disturbing me a bit. I think it's the pumpkin.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Well I never experienced a problem with too many time outs, no. This is the first time I've even seen that phrase. I haven't had to do a time out thing in a while though. (Didn't with T, and F is already eight.)

And yeah, it is a bit disturbing, I'm such a sheeple. Here is some Eloise instead. :D

[conuly]

I don't know if anybody else has ever noticed it before, is all - it's becoming clear to me that time-out burnouts (like that phrasing?) happen with the niecelings, but I only know about me.

[gingembre.livejournal.com]

Details of our relationship aside, the living arrangement can best be descirbed as: he lives with us, but has his own space downstairs as well. It functions as his studio and the equivalent of a den, and also our workout room is on that floor. Really Connie, it's not that different than any family with a 2- or 3-story home and a room that is "dad's" or "mom's" craft/den/computer/etc. room. :-)

[noodles-morgyn.livejournal.com]

Hang on, what about Ana?

[noodles-morgyn.livejournal.com]

Oh, wait. Ana = Angelique?

[conuly]

Yes. I'm trying to call her by her real name.

[leora.livejournal.com]

There are some really important differences between humans and dogs (also a lot of similariities, but...). First, there's the whole pack mentality that dogs have moreso than humans, although humans are pack animals. But more importantly, when you're trying to train a dog, you generally want to train a dog to be in a subordinate position for life. You want to teach a dog to behave in certain ways, and you want that training to last. And you generally want to do it by convincing the dog that you are an authority.

With a child... well, you can do the same thing, although the kid will grow up and become bigger and stronger. But if you're a good parent, you don't even want to do that. You shouldn't want to do that. Far too much parenting is that, but it's awful. Instead, you want to get the kid to behave when you're young, but generally by trusting that you know what you're talking about and it's in their best interests to do so. But you want to shift from obedience to getting the child to behave the way you want them to because they want to behave that way. There is a huge difference between training a behavior to happen because you are an authority and training a behavior so that the child internalizes it as the way to behave.

Rewards and punishments work great on dogs or humans for getting them to do what you say, so long as someone stays there to keep rewarding and punishing. A dog will lose its training if people start rewarding and punishing it differently. And a child, being a fairly clever creature that tends to get cleverer, will start to behave that way less often when nobody is watching. And when they get more powerful, they have no reason to keep behaving that way unless society continues to reward and punish them that way. Plus, it won't really make them all that happy if they keep living in a particular way out of fear and a desire for gain.

Mimimal rewards and punishments, the smallest amount needed to get the job done make it more likely that they will internalize the behavior and start viewing themselves as the sort of person who acts that way and wants to act that way. This makes human teenagedom much, much easier for the parents. And for behaviors they are already exhibiting that you want to maintain, not rewarding it at all is best. Don't punish it either, and you can, now and then, make it clear that you approve or think it's good, but don't go out of your way to reward it.

I like a lot of Conuly's approach with kids. And I like the link with stuff to make housework easier for kids. Little kids like doing chores. They like learning how to maintain the house. And making it possible for them to do it decently seems like a massive win: they develop skills, you get some help around the house, they develop feelings of pride for helping out, they get into good habits, and they can even have some fun. There were certainly some household tasks I enjoyed doing when I was younger, not all of them, but the ones I enjoyed, there was little reason for me not to do them.

Now I'm rambling on to a broader topic. And I don't want to make it all sound too easy or simple: it's not. The day to day task of raising a child is hard, and even with great caretakers, kids will do all sorts of troublesome things.

I just think it's important to not just get children to behave well, but to get them to want to behave in ways you think of as good.