Oh, she was still fascinated by them. She just didn't go near them in the box, because she knew pins would hurt her.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

As an aside there was something I learned in Master Chief Gaylor's Petty Officer Academy that applies in a lot more situations than just military is:

Never give an order you know won't be obeyed. That only hurts you.

__________________
Gimme a minute to read through Jay's latest observations...

I found this whole anecdote kind of interesting within the context of this thread (with the rather large caveat that you, as a babysitter, were not a true authority figure and somewhat limited in what you could actually do regarding her).

You are quite right that a young child will try to do things unless they know that they will, in some way, regret doing it. This child, at three years old, should (IMHO) have already learned that she would regret trying to play with the pins the first time you told her not to do it. Not because the pins themselves would cause her that regret, but because you (or her parents) would cause her regret for doing something she was told not to. Did this child not ever face consequences for disobeying?

I'm sure, Gillianren, that you brought up this anecdote as a defense of your position, but I tend to think it illustrates the other side. Once you establish that you will explain the reasons, then you will have to explain the reasons - every time.

What if they hadn't been pins? What if they were something that would most likely not cause any harm to her, but would still create a hassle for you in having to clean up afterwards? How would you convince her not to play with them then?

And, more importantly, why should you have to convince her? "Because I told you 'No.'" really ought to be sufficient.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

I do not have children (by court order ... just kidding), but I do have neices. The youngest turns one at the end of the month, so she doesn't really apply to this conversation. The oldest is four, and she very much does.

I find that I always explain "why" when I tell her things (either to do, or not to do). Now, they might not always be the real explaination--or at least, not the full explaination, but I give a why. I think it's because I find that kids are extreemely inquisitive, but also they absorb things like a sponge. Why not teach a kid something?

For instance, she went fishing with me over the summer. When I caught a bass, she wanted to hold it. Instead of just saying "no", I explained that the fish has sharp fins that help keep it from being eaten by birds and other animals.

Now the real reason I didnt want her to hold it was because it was nearly two pounds of pure muscle--there was no way she'd be able to hold it, and it'd end up on the ground, damaging the fish (ontop of the possibility of it pricking her with it's dorsal fins).

Now she knows that fish have spikey fins that help protect them from animals.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

By "explaining yourself to children" I was referring to when adults have to make excuses, or sit kids down and explain to them the rules or whatever in which the necessity for rules or a rule becomes an argument, where you are left having to justify etc- NOT simple little warnings that one gives.

Saying, "Don't touch that, it's sharp" is not quite the same as having to stop what you're doing and sit them down justify why touching sharp things is bad- having to argue whether or not they can handle sharp things etc. Then you have just opened up the existence of your authority to debate.
You say, "Don't touch it, that is sharp" but if you have to justify that reasoning beyond that- That is explaining yourself to children.

Children don't understand sharp until they've cut themselves or hot until they've touched something that's uncomfortably hot.

One idea of parenting I've seen it that it's the parent job to warn, make sure the danger cause discomfort rather than harm, then be ready to provide comfort while saying I told you so.
Preventing the experience is failing the child, allowing it makes the short form "it's sharp" work.

__________________
It would be hard to imagine an uglier building that hadn't won a major architectural award.
Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Children are notorious for being able to put adults on the spot with tough little innocent questions.

"Mom, why does God take babies away?"

These questions can be very difficult for some people to answer, because sometimes, those answers lack true meaning or authority to a childs mind.
Many consequences are subtle. Not like the classic hot stove example.
In trying to explain those subtleties to the mind of a child, which is young and inexperienced, guess what happens?
The rule loses authority. They begin to think it doesn't apply to them. Or they think that the consequences don't sound all that bad.

How do you explain to a child something that MIGHT cause them harm in 30 years? They don't care about 30 years away! To a child, that may as well be forever, it most certainly isn't tomorrow and it loses all meaning.
This is why parents resort to immediate rewards for good report cards.
Because getting into a Good College 10 years from now isn't an immediate reward that a child really understands. It's just too far away and too subtle.

How do you explain to a five year old that smoking MIGHT cause cancer in 40 years?
They will ask what cancer is, ask why it's bad, 40 years is too far away- what do you mean by "might"? Doesn't this also mean I Might Not!? Etc.
Suddenly, the child has now gained control. Your authority has weakened because not only are you answering to them, but you are also giving Weak Answers in their mind. They can now Debate the Merit of your claims.
But if you simply tell them, "Put Down that Cigarette RIGHT NOW OR I'LL KILL YOU!"
That's immediate.
To a kid, there is this Mystery about it that though alluring, is also Very Scary. Plus, they are now in Big Trouble. Moms gonna KILL 'EM!
THAT they understand!
In their mind, that mysterious "scary" can become far far worse than anything you ever try to explain to them.
To kids, it's hard to explain that breakables cost money to replace.
They know that money comes from dad or moms pocket and it seems to have an endless supply. They have never struggled for money or had to hold a job or had to account for bills.
Now, instead of just saying no- You COULD have them work out the bills and see for themselves how tough bills can be on a checkbook- IF you can get them to pay attention long enough to do it. But the default route is to say "No. Because I said so. I am KING. You obey ME." It works prior to ten years of age, and it creates that bond that kids have with their parents.

To Nick- I am the Ultimate Hero.
I am the most manly man. I can beat up Anyone elses dad, handle every problem, To him, I jump buildings in a single bound and pick up the truck.
As he gets older, and I get balder, he will come to understand that I am, in fact, human. But that bond created of Hero Dad in childhood will last the rest of our lives.
He knows I'm always right. I always know the answer and I always know best.
When he's fifteen- He will question those things. But having lived his entire lifetime believing that I am Hero Dad will weigh heavily against the possibility of screwing up too.
He hates how I look at him when He disappointed me or let me down.

Now if I was always explaining myself to him when he was growing up- THEN he can justify- he can work around having let me down. Because then the rules were arbitrary growing up, subtle and based on nuances he can refute.
He will be more open to disappointing me as long as he can justify doing it.

By not having explained myself to him growing up, he knows I am Hero Dad, who's always right. He knows he may not yet fully understand why I am so disappointed in him, but he knows I have a good reason and he is going to wish he hadn't screwed up.

I do strongly agree with this line of thought.

It's like when two 6 year olds get into a fight over a toy. They WILL resolve it amongst themselves Most of the Time.
But these days, parents and educators Rush in and prevent their learning and do it for them. They don't have that opportunity to learn and grow and settle disputes.
Plus, it's a bit odd to a child that they are made to share things that belong to them. They shouldn't have to. You end up explaining and explaining until you're tired from explaining so much, the kids still question the authority or merit of those explanations, their learning process of settling disputes was interupted and they become dependent on adults to do their learning work for them.
Then- later in life, they are thrust out into the world to fend for themselves in an unfair world. Then they fall on their faces for a long time. Now- that can be a learning experience but too little - too late. Oftentimes, the damage is done that can have lasting effects like Legal troubles, arrest records, drugs or other lasting issues that can continue to plague them even after learning how to overcome their faults or issues.

But in this age of Lawsuit Happy Filings, it's just Easier on schools and daycares to intervene immediately Just In Case a parent tries to sue them for little billy's black eye. It's ridiculous.