Teen Parents/ Parenting

[Nihilianth]

Maybe there is help for these guys.

EXACTLY! Cesar Milan always does that to dogs. "Nipping them in the neck." Dogs do it to each other in the wild as well.

 

[Piscivore]

I see many words, but none that are directed at the content of my posts .

These guys are good at that.

 

[Piscivore]

EXACTLY! Cesar Milan always does that to dogs. "Nipping them in the neck." Dogs do it to each other in the wild as well.

So you are content to treat children like housepets?

 

[Emet]

You're wrong. It works. As I have said, I do it all the time. The dogs are always perfectly well-trained and happy as they grow.

Yes you can hit and smack a dog--that doesn't make it right or advisable. You have no evidence to support your claim. Beating dogs into submission is also often successful.

EXACTLY! Cesar Milan always does that to dogs. "Nipping them in the neck." Dogs do it to each other in the wild as well.

Millan is an ass. He is loathed by veterinary behaviorists, and subscribes to a long ago discredited theory of canine behavior.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

EXACTLY! Cesar Milan always does that to dogs. "Nipping them in the neck." Dogs do it to each other in the wild as well.

It's funny you should bring him up in this conversation:

Personally, I love my dogs too much to listen to Cesar Millan's way of training. I will not use adverse training on my dogs by any means. Positive reinforcement is a much more efficient and reliable way to train a dog, and to the dog it is a much more fun way to train. And, there are more than one ways to skin a cat, meaning there are more than one way to positively train your dog.

Generally, you will find that adversive dog training is focused around fear and intimidation, and if you ask the top behaviorists, veterinarians, and specialists, you'll find that they will generally all agree that there are better means of training than negative dog training.

Linky.

Actually, IRL, I've yet to meet a vet or dog trainer who encouraged hitting a dog.

 

[Meadmaker]

I see many words, but none that are directed at the content of my posts . Of the four parenting styles recognized in psychology, which do you feel you identify with most closely?

Obviously, any attempt to break all styles into just four categories will have some imperfections, but of the four, authoritative is most accurate.

My biggest objections is that they characterized it as "democratic", which I don't agree with. I do all those things they described, but there isn't a vote taken.

Also, there are situational differences. There is a huge difference between how to deal with a kid who wants to stay up later than you think is appropriate, and a kid who is running through a bookstore screaming. My response to the latter would appear quite authoritarian, but only because we had long ago established that that was not appropriate behavior, and he was fully aware of it. (For the record, my kid does not run screaming through bookstores, and I cannot recall him ever doing so since he gained the power of speech. However, I happened to be near such a child yesterday. Her parents were exercising the "permissive" style of parenting.)

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't recall that, but I'll assume for the moment you are correct about Piscivore's stance on allowances.



Can you explain your rational for why money ties into chores? (it's a sincere question).

It's analogous to having a job. You work. You get paid. No work, no pay.
I've read others expressing the point of view you have described, and they're entitled to their opinion. I don't think there is one, right, way to do things. It is the way I do things, and a lot of other people do things.

One of the things that has always struck me as odd about that point of view, though, is that people will say that kids need to have an allowance in order to learn to manage money, and that need to learn to manage money should be separate from doing chores around the house. That's all well and good, but it seems to me the very first element of money management is that you have to get it before you can manage it, and you have to work to get it.


In the context of this discussion, the important thing, in my opinion, is that when it comes to money, kids should know what to expect. They should know the rules, know what is expected from them, and know how much freedom they have in getting it all done and in reaping the rewards of their labor.

 

[Nihilianth]

So you are content to treat children like housepets?

Why not? Is that somehow "undignified?"

In case you are wondering, the short answer to your question is: "Not necessarily."

 

[Nihilianth]

Yes you can hit and smack a dog--that doesn't make it right or advisable. You have no evidence to support your claim. Beating dogs into submission is also often successful.

"Beating dogs" into submission is rarely ever successful, and is disgusting behavior.

Millan is an ass. He is loathed by veterinary behaviorists, and subscribes to a long ago discredited theory of canine behavior.

Not a big fan of him myself, but are you denying the effectiveness of his tactics? He is incredibly successful with some of the worst offending animals in an incredibly short period of time. I have used many of the same tactics as he does before I ever even heard of the guy. It works. All of my dogs have always been extremely well-behaved, fiercely loyal, and incredibly happy, healthy animals.

 

[Emet]

"Beating dogs" into submission is rarely ever successful, and is disgusting behavior.

Well, since I've seen dozens of dogs beaten into submission as long term patients in 27 years of clinical practice, I know it's been successful. I agree it's disgusting, but it's also a poor training technique to hit or smack dogs.

Not a big fan of him myself, but are you denying the effectiveness of his tactics? He is incredibly successful with some of the worst offending animals in an incredibly short period of time.

Yes, I'm telling you his training methods, especially for aggression, are ineffective, and downright dangerous. At least according to my behavior textbooks, the hundreds of behavior articles I've read (written by board certified veterinary behaviorists), and the hundred or so continuing education hours I've attended in canine behavior, including 12 hours this year.

Then there's the thousands of patients I've seen, and the dozens of dog trainers I've worked with.

 

[Nihilianth]

It's analogous to having a job. You work. You get paid. No work, no pay.
I've read others expressing the point of view you have described, and they're entitled to their opinion. I don't think there is one, right, way to do things. It is the way I do things, and a lot of other people do things.

One of the things that has always struck me as odd about that point of view, though, is that people will say that kids need to have an allowance in order to learn to manage money, and that need to learn to manage money should be separate from doing chores around the house. That's all well and good, but it seems to me the very first element of money management is that you have to get it before you can manage it, and you have to work to get it.


In the context of this discussion, the important thing, in my opinion, is that when it comes to money, kids should know what to expect. They should know the rules, know what is expected from them, and know how much freedom they have in getting it all done and in reaping the rewards of their labor.

Yes. When I was a young kid at the age of 8, my parents told me to get my little behind in the kitchen, and begin to learn to cook and bus tables. They gave me an allowance, though they were not obligated by law to do so. (Small family-run businesses are allowed to employ their children at any age, and they don't HAVE to pay them.)

But my parents decided to treat these chores as a job. They paid me a certain amount of money that wasn't a whole lot. I was allowed to do certain things with this money, but they wanted me to "save" a certain amount with each allowance. They taught me about decimals using my money, as well as percentages. They told me to save a certain percentage (starting with 50% at the age of 8, as that was the easiest to figure out.) I got my allowance every week, ($10) and my "objective" was to not have spent $60 at the end of 90 days. In other words, I was to have $60 in my bank account after 90 days. The other money, they told me I could do what I wanted with.

I actually had a hell of a lot more money than they expected. To tell the truth, I didn't even know WHAT to do with the money at that age. So I just simply didn;t really use it.

My parents opened a saving's account, and placed the money in there, until I understood the concept a little better. But they continued patiently to teach me using the same tactic, until I finally became smart enough to realize what I could spend my money on, and what it's value actually meant. (I ended up buying a whole ton of baseball cards over the years, starting around age 12. lol.)

Needless to say, I have always been good with money. Good enough to run the financial aspects of the business when an uncle of mine who handled it was in the hospital for something or other.

By the time I got to college, I was SHOCKED to learn that many of my 20 year old classmates have NEVER held a ob in their lives. I was also very shocked to learn just how precious few knew how to so much write a a check.

I was helping this one kid to find a job, since he was short on cash, and his parents couldn't support him from so far away. (Yeah, he lived in the dorms, and had a meal plan with flex dollars. So financial aid took care of all of his most basic needs. But he had a car he wanted to be able to drive around, and needed gas money. He also wanted to go out with us, but nobody wanted to constantly cover him.)

I FINALLY convinced him to look for a job. I told him the Dunkin Donuts down the street was hiring. He said "Oh man, I am NOT working in a fast food place." Which shocked me even more! "Why the F not!?" Damn.

So we went to the mall. He wanted a job at Hot Topic. Didn't even know how to approach the manager on his own and inquire about a job, rather than just simply fill out an application. So I approached the manager for him. The manager was a bit interested, and asked what kind of work experience he had. Well, my buddy said "none." The manager seemed just as shocked as me, for he was quite perplexed. "20 years old, and never held a job?" is what I read on her face. What she actually said was "Well, without prior work experience, I am not at all inclined to hire you. Sorry. But I can suggest you should probably start looking at getting a job at McDonald's, or the Dunkin Donuts down the street that I heard was currently hiring." I laughed.

But yeah, money management and social skills are one of my top priorities of teaching my kids starting at a young age.

 

[Nihilianth]

Well, since I've seen dozens of dogs beaten into submission as long term patients in 27 years of clinical practice, I know it's been successful. I agree it's disgusting, but it's also a poor training technique to hit or smack dogs.

Hitting or smacking a dog is not the same as "beating into submission."

Yes, I'm telling you his training methods, especially for aggression, are ineffective, and downright dangerous. At least according to my behavior textbooks, the hundreds of behavior articles I've read (written by board certified veterinary behaviorists), and the hundred or so continuing education hours I've attended in canine behavior, including 12 hours this year.

Then there's the thousands of patients I've seen, and the dozens of dog trainers I've worked with.

How are they "dangerous?"

 

[Emet]

Hitting or smacking a dog is not the same as "beating into submission."

I never claimed it was.

 

[Rasmus]

I don't think there is one, right, way to do things. It is the way I do things, and a lot of other people do things.

There might well not be.

However, as an argument that sound bite fails epically.

Just because there might not be just one way of teaching doesn't make any particular approach to teaching good or acceptable, much less optimal.

Assuming there is a number of really good ways of teaching, with none of those being explicitly better than the others, there is still room for lots of not so good ways of teaching and a few very bad ways of teaching. (Read "bringing up kids" for teaching here.)

Also, how many people pick a particualr way should not be confused with an argument for the quality of that particualr way.

One of the things that has always struck me as odd about that point of view, though, is that people will say that kids need to have an allowance in order to learn to manage money, and that need to learn to manage money should be separate from doing chores around the house. That's all well and good, but it seems to me the very first element of money management is that you have to get it before you can manage it, and you have to work to get it.

That depends on what you think "first" means here. Yes, in the real world this is the order in which things happen. That doesn't mean that it should be the order in which things are best taught.

There are other benefits for children if they have money: It encourages independence. They are free to make their own decisions. They are empowered to take care of their own needs and desires.

I see no obvious reason why one type of "lesson" should depend on having mastered another. Yes, you will eventually have to work to earn money - but that doesn't mean you'll have to work for everything all your life. (You fed your children when they were babies, right? Did they earn their food? If they work for an allowance now, do they earn even a fraction of what they consume?

In the context of this discussion, the important thing, in my opinion, is that when it comes to money, kids should know what to expect. They should know the rules, know what is expected from them, and know how much freedom they have in getting it all done and in reaping the rewards of their labor.

As an aside, I seem to remember that a poster elsewhere in the forum said their children would not get money for doing chores - chores are part of life and nobody gets paid for them, but they need to be done. Living alone, you have to do them all, living in a family, you have to do some of them - without compensation.

This strikes me as a much better and more precise point than "one has to work to get money." In the end, the things children do for money aren't worth the money they are getting for it, are they?

 

[Meadmaker]

There might well not be.

However, as an argument that sound bite fails epically.

If it were an argument for doing things one way or another, then the fact that if failed would be relevant. It's not. It's a simple statement of what I do.

The fact that a lot of parents do it that way was a simple response to Emet's question. In the post which contained the question he stated that "most parents" do certain things. I was noting that I don't, and a lot of other people don't. I haven't seen any actual data that would confirm or refute whether the characterization of "most" is accurate.

Also, how many people pick a particualr way should not be confused with an argument for the quality of that particualr way.

Which is why I'm not all that concerned with what "most parents" do.

As an aside, I seem to remember that a poster elsewhere in the forum said their children would not get money for doing chores - chores are part of life and nobody gets paid for them, but they need to be done. Living alone, you have to do them all, living in a family, you have to do some of them - without compensation.

This strikes me as a much better and more precise point than "one has to work to get money." In the end, the things children do for money aren't worth the money they are getting for it, are they?

When all is said and done, kids will be fed, clothed, and have some quantity of consumer goods, all at the parents' expense. Exactly how that happens varies from family to family, and I don't think one method is "right". Each person or couple with children has to choose a method that feels right for them. As long as the kids somehow contribute to the functioning of the home and as long as somewhere along the line they pick up on the clue that they have to work for a living, everything will be fine.

Let's not lose track of how this came up. RPG suggested that rules should be "negotiated" with kids. I think that's daft. Kids can't actually negotiate anything, because they have no power. We, the parents, hold all the cards. Our allowance agreement was an example of a pseudo-negotiation. I've watched parents who seem to have forgotten who holds the cards, and who really seem to think they have to negotiate with the child to get him to practice good behavior, and I'm really embarrassed for them. Other parents like to feel like they are negotiating with kids, when in reality they are just forcing the kids to come to them with every single need, which makes the parental control feel less explicit. It allows them to keep kids under their thumbs, but it doesn't feel like that's what they are doing.

 

[AmandaM]

If they disobey and act like a jerk about it, I'll smack them to get their attention.

Much like how you give a puppy a good whack to grab their attention. (Yes. You can hit your pet dog, especially if they are a puppy. I have had several dogs I have raised from puppies. Two rottweilers, and a couple of retrievers. None of my dogs ever bit anyone, never jumped on anyone or anything, and ALWAYS obeyed and stayed at my side.)

You have GOT to be kidding me.


(recovers from shock) Ok, I come from a family of dog and cat lovers. We had no fewer than 20 dogs when I was growing up (Mom was a softie and took in strays all the time.)

NEVER -- NEVER in my experience with animals have I EVER seen an animal hit, whipped, smacked, or had its nose "rubbed in it" or had any kind of physical punishment applied to it. And all of our dogs were loving, wonderful companions.

The dog we have now (Husky-Beagle rescued as a 5-week old puppy) doesn't know anything about violence and he's just as well-behaved as we could ever want. When he starts to exhibit any kind of inappropriate behavior, a stern No and withdrawal of affection for a few minutes puts him back in line. My husband has a way of just looking at him and pointing his finger that brings the dog in from chasing squirrels (and for a beagle mix, that might as well be some kind of magic!)

I cannot imagine ever hitting a dog, whether with a newspaper or a smack on the butt. I can't imagine why anybody would choose to do that. We get the exact same results without physical punishment AT ALL.


And as for Cesar, I think he's a dork and his show is ridiculous, but I'm no expert. These people, however, are:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=90029578219&id=44964919559&ref=share

http://www.esquire.com/features/esquire-100/ESQ1006-ESQ100_20-21.FINAL.rev_1

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0612FE355A0C728FDDA10894DE404482

http://www.urbandawgs.com/luescher_millan.html

http://www.dogwhispererdvd.com/faq-national_geographic_dog_whisperer.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/15/CMGPHL9D1N1.DTL

(most of these articles are a few years old because that's when the controversy started brewing, but as far as I can tell, he hasn't changed tactics any.)

QUOTES FROM EXPERTS:
World-renowned dog trainers, behaviorists and veterinarians had all warned National Geographic that Millan’s methods had the potential for disaster. Below are quotes from noted experts:

Dr. Nicholas Dodman - Professor and Head, Section of Animal Behavior
Director of Behavior Clinic, Tufts University - Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine
“Cesar Millan's methods are based on flooding and punishment. The results, though immediate, will be only transitory. His methods are misguided, outmoded, in some cases dangerous, and often inhumane. You would not want to be a dog under his sphere of influence. The sad thing is that the public does not recognize the error of his ways. My college thinks it is a travesty. We’ve written to National Geographic Channel and told them they have put dog training back 20 years.”

Jean Donaldson, The San Francisco SPCA-Director of The Academy for Dog Trainers
“Practices such as physically confronting aggressive dogs and using of choke collars for fearful dogs are outrageous by even the most diluted dog training standards. A profession that has been making steady gains in its professionalism, technical sophistication and humane standards has been greatly set back. I have long been deeply troubled by the popularity of Mr. Millan as so many will emulate him. To co-opt a word like ‘whispering’ for arcane, violent and technically unsound practice is unconscionable.”

Dr. Suzanne Hetts, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist
Co-owner of Animal Behavior Associates, Inc., Littleton, CO
"A number of qualified professionals have voiced concern for the welfare of pet dogs that experience the strong corrections administered by Mr. Millan. My concerns are based on his inappropriateness, inaccurate statements, and complete fabrications of explanations for dog behavior. His ideas, especially those about “dominance”, are completely disconnected from the sciences of ethology and animal learning, which are our best hope for understanding and training our dogs and meeting their behavioral needs. Many of the techniques he encourages the public to try are dangerous, and not good for dogs or our relationships with them ."

Vyolet Michaels, CTC, CPDT (Certified Dog Trainer and Behavior Counselor)
Owner of Urban Dawgs, LLC of Red Bank, NJ
"Cesar Millan employs outdated methods that are dangerous and inhumane. Using a choke chain and treadmill to treat fear of strangers and dogs is completely inappropriate. Hopefully the National Geographic Channel will listen to the scientific community and discontinue production of The Dog Whisperer."

Janis Bradley, Instructor at The San Franciso SPCA Academy for Dog Trainers
Author of the book, "Dogs Bite"
"On his TV show, the main method Millan uses for aggression is aversives (leash jerks, kicks, snaps of the hand against the neck, and restraint, among others) applied non contingently. The aversives are non contingent because they are so frequent that they're not connected to any particular behavior on the part of the dog—the dog gets popped pretty much constantly. This results in a state called learned helplessness, which means the animal hunkers down and tries to do as little as possible. This is what Millan calls "calm submission." It's exactly the same thing you see in a rat in a Skinner box that is subjected to intermittent shocks it can do nothing to avoid. This can happen quite fast, by the way, shall we say in ten minutes? The dangers to the dog are obvious, ranging from chronic stress to exacerbating the aggression, i.e., some dogs fight back when attacked. This latter is the simplest reason that aversives are a bad idea in treating aggression. Even used technically correctly as positive punishment for specific behaviors like growling and snarling, aversives do nothing to change the underlying fear or hostility, so the best you can hope for, in the words of famed vet and behaviorist, Ian Dunbar, is "removing the ticker from the time bomb." Thus such methods substantially increase the risk to humans of getting bitten."

Excerpt of letter from Lisa Laney, Dip. DTBC, CPDT, CBC
to National Geographic before airing “The Dog Whisperer”:
“The intended program depicts aversive and abusive training methods - treatment for some serious anxiety and fear based issues - being administered by an individual with no formal education whatsoever in canine behavioral sciences. The "results" that are shown are more than likely not long lasting changes, but the result of learned helplessness, or fatigue, neither of which impact behavior to any significant long term degree - at least not in a good way. For those of us who are pioneering the effort to end the ignorance that drives the cruel treatment administered upon our canine companions, it is disappointing to see that this programming will reach the masses - especially on the NG Channel. The ignorance that this program perpetuates will give equally ignorant people the green light to subject their dogs to abuse. In turn these dogs will react even more defensively, will bite more people - and end up dead.”

Steve Dale
"I have serious concerns because his methods are often intimidating rather than motivating. On TV, the dogs do comply but often they're being forced to - you can tell by their body language: tail down, mouth closed, ears back, eyes dilated... I argue that motivating leadership is far more effective than leading through intimidation."
Steve Dale is the author of the twice weekly syndicated newspaper column “My Pet World” (Tribune Media Services). He’s also the host of syndicated radio programs Steve Dale’s Pet World, The Pet Minute with Steve Dale; and Pet Central, at WGN Radio, Chicago. Steve is a contributing editor at USA Weekend, special correspondent/columnist Dog World and editor-in-chief of PawPrints (a newsletter for veterinarians). His books include “American Zoos” and “DogGone Chicago.” Steve’s appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show; National Geographic Explorer; Pets Part of the Family on PBS; several Animal Planet Shows; Fox News Channel, and Balance TV (Canada). He was a regular on WGN-TV Chicago. Touted as reaching more pet owners than any other pet journalist, Steve’s a frequent guest expert on radio shows all over America and Canada; he’s been quoted in dozens of newspaper and magazine stories, including the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and Redbook. He's certified as a Behavior Consultant by the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants, and the recipient of many awards including the prestigious AVMA Humane Award.

From the Urbandawgs website.

 

[AmandaM]

Let me go over my philosophy as a parent, First what attributes make a "good" parent. I can think of three that I think are very important.

Consistency, decisiveness, and believability. If you are inconsistent, the kid never knows what to expect, and lives with anxiety as a result. If you are indecisive, then everything is subject to negotiation, and your home is full of constant strife. By "believability" I mean that if you say something is going to happen, good or bad, you have to go through with it. This is more important for "good" things, but if you say there will be trouble, and there isn't, that's also bad. As with consistency, the kid doesn't know what to expect if he can't trust you, and that creates stress.

I was never spanked or slapped as a child, and my parents had half a dozen other foster kids who were also not spanked. I think what my parents did RIGHT are the 3 things you mentioned here.

Now I have adult friends who I almost can't stand to be around because they are forever telling their children, "you do that one more time and you'll be in trouble." Obviously "one more time" translates into "keep going until I explode" and what the heck does "be in trouble" mean? There is no consistency.

It just seems logical that the rules should be explicit. You don't need to be a lawyer to be a parent, but if the rule is "Be in the house by the time the streets lights come on," there's not a lot of wiggle room there. "Be in bed by 8pm." Very easy to follow.

The rules in our house were like those giant sawhorses with orange lights you see in road construction. This is a barrier between what you can do and what you can't do. And the punishments for breaking rules were pretty spelled out. If you stay out past curfew, you don't get to go out the next night. If you ditch school for ANY reason, you get some important (to you) privilege taken away. I did it once, and not only got yelled at by the teacher, but I also lost the privilege of going to a Rick Springfield concert with my friend. (Kind of a big deal when you're a 15-year-old girl.) None of the rules were really that ridiculous either -- even as a 10-year-old I thought I had it pretty good compared to other kids who weren't allowed to watch movies, or go dancing, or whatever.

Basically my parents set up house rules in the same fashion as state and local laws. Here is the rule, and here is the punishment for breaking that rule. I know if I speed, I get a $175 ticket. I knew as a kid if I broke a rule, there was a consequence. You learn to decide if it's "worth it" to you to break the rule. I really don't know why my adult friends now can't figure out that setting boundaries is actually EASIER on kids -- they know exactly what's expected of them.


Question - for those of you who weren't spanked or slapped as children, what prevented you from being a horrible brat and getting in trouble all the time? If you didn't fear being beaten, what did you fear? Loss of privileges? Disappointing mom and dad? What?

 

[Nihilianth]

I never claimed it was.

Then why did you state that specifically?

 

[Emet]

Then why did you state that specifically?

Well, since I've seen dozens of dogs beaten into submission as long term patients in 27 years of clinical practice, I know it's been successful. I agree it's disgusting, but it's also a poor training technique to hit or smack dogs.

..

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Funny you should mention that, this thread was more of an experiment more then anything =p. I was debating if i should write my English research paper on Teen Parenting, or Parenting. Both are two controversies that my English teacher likes. Also serving another purpose to find out what would be the best method. The method I know, or whatever method someone else says. Though I didnt get any good research at all, ironic because this is an educational site.
Never started anything personal, was mainly trying to get information a different way, which didnt work out.

Ran into people more interested in putting down a younger person.

I see Steve has not been at the site since then.

At least he has that much brains.