Freakonomics: Game Theory and Child-Rearing
freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com
freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com
From simplistic game theory B should accept any offer (for example $99 for A, $1 for B) since B would have more money than he had before, which was nothing.
In practice with real people, anything below a 60-40 split gets rejected. People will indeed give up gain in order to punish anti-social behaviour. You don't have to think very long to see why we have evolved that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
With kids there is an even bigger factor in play - control. Normally, a child is not able to punish its sibling. Under this adult-administered scheme, the child actually has the power to send its sibling to its room! If you know how kids crave to be able to control their situation, you realise this must be like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny rolled into one.
A long-winded way to say: I am so not surprised, and mildly confused as to why the Freakonomics blog would be.
Whither free will? Some people will not give up personal gain to punish someone’s "anti-social behaviour", have they not also evolved? I think they just make a decision based on their point analysis.
Add a couple of zeroes on to it to see how a 'westerner' might feel about it. Of course, the researchers aren't going to be able to offer too many people a split of 10 or 100 grand in a western city before they are stampeded to death...
I know if I was in this game and they had to split 50 grand and 'only' offered me 10 grand I'd think a lot harder about turning it down than an 80:20 split of $100.
On the other hand, I wonder if there is a link in western society between how good the person is at handling their own finances, and how even the split has to be before it would be accepted. I can think of a few examples of 'angry and poor because of it' people who would demand nothing less than 50:50, and would grumble even at that, they always believe that they deserve more than everyone else. It seems to me the very epitome of the poverty mentality.
And btw, there are plenty of opportunities for a child to punish its sibling by manipulating an adult proxy or by themselves
"Our kids played upstairs in a bonus room. If I heard fighting I’d go upstairs and break it up, then proceed to find all kinds of things that needed to be cleaned. The bonus room was always a mess.
It didn’t take many iterations of that process before I started hearing fighting, then “shhh! Do you want dad to come up here and tell us to start cleaning up?!"
There isn't some secret to raising kids. Just create good/bad consequences for good/bad behavior. Make sure they understand you love them, and your goal is to teach them to be good. Their behavior is simply choosing the method in which they are taught.
This sounds like an empty aphorism to me. I don't want my kids to be just good adults I want them to be good kids too. I don't mean good in the sense of undemanding behaviourly or conforming or that sort of thing I mean I want them to be fulfilled as much as possible in their childhood too, happy.
Someone just accused me of being unnecessarily argumentative so I'm wary of that. But, really one does have to define what a good adult is and consider what you mean to obviate by "not [raising] good kids".
Raising good adults does not preclude raising good kids, so I do find your response to be a bit combative. Just because you have one clear goal in mind does not mean that other goals are not achieved along the way.
I don't really want to get into details of how I apply this concept to my parenting -- my reason for posting was exactly the opposite. I want parents to stop (for a moment) focusing on the details, stop worrying about specific techniques, and look at the bigger picture - what are you really striving for over the next 5, 10, 20 years with your kids? And are your current actions supporting that?
It's the "not to raise good kids" part that turns me off. Surely it should be "to raise good kids _and_ good adults"?
It's also rather vague, while effective parenting is distressingly high on specifics. The "secret" (if you would call it that) described here would appear to fit your description — there's a bad consequence for fighting and a good consequence for apologizing.
Gaining power over your sibling wouldn't be described as a bad consequence to most children.
I always wonder that when I see someone handing out simplistic child rearing advice. The truth is always more complex. And most parents come to understand that.
First piece of complexity. We don't want kids to just follow the rules. We want them to understand them. Which means that you don't just train them to follow your rules, you need to explain your rules.
Second piece of complexity. Small kids have non-obvious needs around learning about boundaries by crossing them repeatedly. It is not as simple as "the kid is behaving badly". This is a necessary learning process. Therefore you need to deliberately set up boundaries that you expect to be violated repeatedly. Crossing those should have very reliable consequences (this helps the kid learn where the boundary is), but not serious ones.
Third complication. Adults have limits as well. As much as we might wish we were perfectly patient people whose tempers never fray, we aren't. And kids will discover those buttons. Part of good parenting is finding ways to keep yourself from being pushed too far. (Big, big hint. Most really big blow-ups happen when one or all parties are short on sleep. Be aware of this and compensate.)
I could go on at length, but I hope I've made my point. Just training kids with operant conditioning is not sufficient to be a decent parent.
I disagree with this but it is giving me pause for thought. It sounds like you're lying to them about what is acceptable behaviour?
Can you give examples of these sort of arbitrary limits that you put in place and expect to be broken? How do you punish them when you don't really consider the actions to be wrong?
>Just training kids with operant conditioning is not sufficient to be a decent parent.
I assume you mean parent in the limited sense of social educator else this is something of a truism; could you expand on this? Operant conditioning closely describes my behaviour in this area of parenting I think.
No lying at all. You're just taking a concrete rule and setting soft and hard boundaries. Expect testing of the soft boundaries. But set them so that hard boundaries aren't reached.
For instance you have a set of stairs and an exploratory 3 year old. Successfully getting on to area around the top of the stairs gets the kid told to come back. If the kid doesn't come back right away, the kid gets picked up and carried away. If the kid tries to go to the stairs, the kid gets a time-out.
With these rules, you can expect to see exploration of how far over the line the toe can go before being told to come back. Expect fetching to become a game. But your kid won't actually go down the stairs. (Of course in this simple case a gate makes more sense.)
>Just training kids with operant conditioning is not sufficient to be a decent parent.
I assume you mean parent in the limited sense of social educator else this is something of a truism; could you expand on this?
I'm going to suggest the book Parenting From The Inside-Out for an exploration of the ways in which our interactions with our children shape their ability to integrate their emotional and logical responses of the world into a useful, coherent, whole.
Ah, when you said boundaries I thought you meant [hard] boundaries not soft limits.
>But set them so that hard boundaries aren't reached.
If they test the boundaries and can't reach the hard boundary then the hard boundary is somewhere else isn't it? I realise you said "aren't" but that appears to require more mental agility and less will than I remember of a 2-3yo.
>you can expect to see exploration of how far over the line the toe can go before being told to come back
If the toe is over the line then that's not acceptable, for me the line represents the point at which the apparent danger becomes too large. I'm not letting them over the line but they can stand and look at "danger". My 20-ish month old has just started copying an older sibling and attempting to stand on the arms of chairs, standing on the seat (at home) is fine, on the arms isn't. He puts his foot up, I say "no" and he takes it down (mostly; learned response from other situations). 3yo can manage stairs all right can't they (it's been a couple of years).
My attitude is to try and allow behaviour which isn't negative. Singing at the meal table, fine. Singing with mouth full at meal table, not fine (splattered food that needs cleaning up). FWIW I find this very hard to live to.
I think we've compressed the grey area, there must be one still but because it's small I have a hard time imagining situations that match your descriptions.
Thanks for the book recommendation, if I had money I'd buy it. Was there a specific aspect of the book you felt I should take on board?
And yes, she can navigate the stairs just fine. But they are steep and large for her, so the rule is that she is only allowed to do it under close adult supervision, holding on to the railing, etc.
As for the book, I have no idea which aspect of the book would benefit you. For me, personally, the biggest piece is that it taught me a lot about how attachment works, and I discovered that one of my deficiencies is that I didn't listen enough to how my kids want to engage me (rather than having me actively engage them).
Many will retreat in the face of a tantrum, and advance on kids that behave. Consider the parent that pushes their straight A student for "another" extra curricular activity, or the parent that helplessly offers bribe after bribe as their child runs wild in a public setting. I've even seen the consequences entirely dependent on the mood of the adult, and the behavior of the kid is secondary.
Both your first and second point agree with the focus of my comment. (First point) Teach the rules by (Second point) having consequences. Third point is easily inferred, because I focus on the child's behavior determining consequences, not parental behavior.
Who said anything about complex rules?
My opinion is that there are a lot of factors, a lot of subtle trade-offs, and figuring out how you actually want to raise your children is not at all simple. Anyone who thinks it is is just repeating what their parents did. (This is not necessarily bad if you like the way that you were raised.)
However in daily life the rules you wind up with should be pretty simple - simple enough that your children readily understand them. But the reasoning behind those rules is another matter entirely.
I don't have kids, but I thought maybe if they tied each child's reward to how well their siblings did. Does anyone have any experience with this sort of incentive structure?
The "game" she wanted to play with me last night was to give me timeouts.
I simply challenge their dislike, if I am wrong (illogical, false premise, unnecessarily tedious, or whatever) then I apologise and we continue. Generally they do not want to listen to [my] reason as it compels them to accede although I am [shock horror] proven wrong occassionally (at this stage it tends to be on matters of fact). I guess I could get in trouble when they argue for a democratic right or somesuch at which point they learn about parental autocracy ...
The Case Against Time-Out http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/peter_haiman.html
22 Alternatives To Punishment http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/22_alternatives.html