Natural Consequences - Please explain
I've been reading threads here and am a bit confused. People talk about using natural consequences but the things they describe doing don't seem natural to me. The term "natural consequences" to me implies whatever happens without another person's input. So, for example, parents taking away toys because they are misused does not seem like a natural consequence because, if the toys are misused when no one else is around, they don't take themselves away. Seems to me the true natural consequence of misusing something is that it becomes broken or lost and unusable.
What would be a natural consequence to throwing a toy at another person? Maybe the person leaves rather than the toy leaves?
Please tell me if I'm way off here. Just trying to understand.
^_^:
Yes, you're right about what a natural consequence is. People misuse that phrase a lot. Often, what they're actually talking about is a "logical consequence" - e.g. toy is misused, toy gets taken away. People misuse "logical consequence," too. There are books that recommend using natural or logical consequences "instead of punishment" (though of course they are really punishments - just not particularly harsh or unfair ones.) Some people seem to have picked up the "consequence" terminology without really understanding what it means.
^_^:
Theres a great book on the subject.....KIDS ARE WORTH IT. You can probably find it at your library.
We use natural consequences bc we really believe (when used effectivly) its a great learning tool....and something we all need to know as adults about our choices in life....not just how we treat others.
^_^:
OK, I see the difference between a natural consequence and a logical consequence. I can also see how people might get these confused or just use one phrase to cover it all.
So, if the only natural consequence to throwing a toy at someone is the someone gets hurt, which the child may not seem to care about, what would you do?
^_^:
I would use a logical consequence then, as well as the natural consequence.
Natural: Hurt person chooses not to play with the person that hurt them for some time.
Logical: Toy that was thrown is put on top of the fridge for a while.
^_^:
a book called Children the Challenge based on theories from alfred adler discribes this. i did alot of schooling on this and we used this parenting book as a text. (child and youth counsellor)
Logical: child hits with stick=stick gets taken away
natural: child puts hand in fire=gets burned
natural consiquenses are not staged or decided as dicipline, they just happen, but you can learn from them too. (dont touch fire again ;) )
^_^:
I too use a few logical consequences, but not many. I WILL take a toy away if it is truly being used to harm another child, but not beause the toy was not put away. The consequence (?logical, natural?) of not putting away the toy is that Mama is kind of annoyed with you.
^_^:
mama annoyed=natural
toys taken away=logical
you got it ;)
^_^:
Hmm. I totally agree about natural vs. logical consequences. But I was talking to DH about it, and he said he thinks (for example, DD has never bitten us) if DD bit, it would be "natural" for her to get a "swat" or get bitten back. He doesn't actually advocate us doing that, he just thinks "natural" or "logical" consequences are a silly idea, as it would be natural, is his opinion, to be angry when hurt, and want to lash out. angry when hurt is the natural part
wanting to lash out is also natural
lashing out to disipline is logical (thought out)
i see where it all can start to feel minotinus (my sp is hideous :LOL)
^_^:
But... I don't think lashing out is logical or good, do you?
^_^:
Hmm. I totally agree about natural vs. logical consequences. But I was talking to DH about it, and he said he thinks (for example, DD has never bitten us) if DD bit, it would be "natural" for her to get a "swat" or get bitten back. He doesn't actually advocate us doing that, he just thinks "natural" or "logical" consequences are a silly idea, as it would be natural, is his opinion, to be angry when hurt, and want to lash out.
I think that "consequences" of any kind are simply not appropriate at all in this situation except calmly (yet sternly) telling him that biting is simply not allowed. I think that even "mainstream" (non right-wing) experts will tell you this is actually what has been proven to work the best with biters. Avoid a reaction while making the rule clear.
I think that as parents we sometimes must be "above" our "natural" reactions because we owe more to our children than that.
^_^:
I disagree that the natural consequence of biting is to be hit or bitten back unless it's a matter of someone attacking and the other person having to defend himself. I can sort of see how someone might think this, though. This may be the case with other animals but I don't know many humans that go around biting and hitting each other. If someone bites me, I don't immediately have the desire to bite them back. I am usually hurt and angry and don't want to be around that person anymore. That's what I think the natural consequence of that type of behavior is.
The logical consequence to that I would think would be that the child is isolated. If the child can't play safely with others, than the child may have to be removed from the situation.
More Topical:
What would be a natural consequence to throwing a toy at another person? Maybe the person leaves rather than the toy leaves?
Please tell me if I'm way off here. Just trying to understand.
^_^:
Yes, you're right about what a natural consequence is. People misuse that phrase a lot. Often, what they're actually talking about is a "logical consequence" - e.g. toy is misused, toy gets taken away. People misuse "logical consequence," too. There are books that recommend using natural or logical consequences "instead of punishment" (though of course they are really punishments - just not particularly harsh or unfair ones.) Some people seem to have picked up the "consequence" terminology without really understanding what it means.
^_^:
Theres a great book on the subject.....KIDS ARE WORTH IT. You can probably find it at your library.
We use natural consequences bc we really believe (when used effectivly) its a great learning tool....and something we all need to know as adults about our choices in life....not just how we treat others.
^_^:
OK, I see the difference between a natural consequence and a logical consequence. I can also see how people might get these confused or just use one phrase to cover it all.
So, if the only natural consequence to throwing a toy at someone is the someone gets hurt, which the child may not seem to care about, what would you do?
^_^:
I would use a logical consequence then, as well as the natural consequence.
Natural: Hurt person chooses not to play with the person that hurt them for some time.
Logical: Toy that was thrown is put on top of the fridge for a while.
^_^:
a book called Children the Challenge based on theories from alfred adler discribes this. i did alot of schooling on this and we used this parenting book as a text. (child and youth counsellor)
Logical: child hits with stick=stick gets taken away
natural: child puts hand in fire=gets burned
natural consiquenses are not staged or decided as dicipline, they just happen, but you can learn from them too. (dont touch fire again ;) )
^_^:
I too use a few logical consequences, but not many. I WILL take a toy away if it is truly being used to harm another child, but not beause the toy was not put away. The consequence (?logical, natural?) of not putting away the toy is that Mama is kind of annoyed with you.
^_^:
mama annoyed=natural
toys taken away=logical
you got it ;)
^_^:
Hmm. I totally agree about natural vs. logical consequences. But I was talking to DH about it, and he said he thinks (for example, DD has never bitten us) if DD bit, it would be "natural" for her to get a "swat" or get bitten back. He doesn't actually advocate us doing that, he just thinks "natural" or "logical" consequences are a silly idea, as it would be natural, is his opinion, to be angry when hurt, and want to lash out. angry when hurt is the natural part
wanting to lash out is also natural
lashing out to disipline is logical (thought out)
i see where it all can start to feel minotinus (my sp is hideous :LOL)
^_^:
But... I don't think lashing out is logical or good, do you?
^_^:
Hmm. I totally agree about natural vs. logical consequences. But I was talking to DH about it, and he said he thinks (for example, DD has never bitten us) if DD bit, it would be "natural" for her to get a "swat" or get bitten back. He doesn't actually advocate us doing that, he just thinks "natural" or "logical" consequences are a silly idea, as it would be natural, is his opinion, to be angry when hurt, and want to lash out.
I think that "consequences" of any kind are simply not appropriate at all in this situation except calmly (yet sternly) telling him that biting is simply not allowed. I think that even "mainstream" (non right-wing) experts will tell you this is actually what has been proven to work the best with biters. Avoid a reaction while making the rule clear.
I think that as parents we sometimes must be "above" our "natural" reactions because we owe more to our children than that.
^_^:
I disagree that the natural consequence of biting is to be hit or bitten back unless it's a matter of someone attacking and the other person having to defend himself. I can sort of see how someone might think this, though. This may be the case with other animals but I don't know many humans that go around biting and hitting each other. If someone bites me, I don't immediately have the desire to bite them back. I am usually hurt and angry and don't want to be around that person anymore. That's what I think the natural consequence of that type of behavior is.
The logical consequence to that I would think would be that the child is isolated. If the child can't play safely with others, than the child may have to be removed from the situation.
More Topical: