The Naked Scientists
The Naked Scientists
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Answers to Science Questions
Do an Experiment
Ask a Question
Meet the team
Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
16/02/2016 04:57:03 »
A thanks for offering a platform based upon verification where others give meaningful solid input.
Thanked: 58 times
Reply #1 on:
25/02/2016 12:48:47 »
In my experience, grounding works for some children but it does not work for all children. Grounding is like putting someone in jail, where you hope solitary confinement will give them time to contemplate their crime, and turn over a new leaf. In the modern prison system, time out does not rehabilitate 100%, but it does help some.
Rehabilitation does not always happen, if the child is not reflective, but rather is impulsive and reactive. The reactive and impulsive child learns better from a quick environmental cause and affect reaction; righteous slap. They will not reason and abstract that the dog might bite if you tease him. They will be drawn to the dog in an impulsive way wanting to tese him. If the dog bites, they learn to be careful next time. It is quick learning.
As an example, say there is a burner on the stove. You see your child about to play with it, but you catch the child before they touch the flame. A more reflective child might be able to piece together the cause and affect between flame, hurt and your reaction, if given some time to think it over. The impulsive child will not think that deep for that long. He learns better from running a field test, instead of ruining a simulation in his imagination. The next time, one child will respect the fire, even if they never touch the flame, while the other will be attracted to the flame like a moth, attempting to see what the big deal is all about. A quick burn will be the lesson they need. The flame has to slap him, immediately, as soon as he is acting, for him to equate cause and affect.
A child with ADD, does not have the attention span for long winded grounding contemplation. One wold need to work within the range of their attention span, which may be seconds. This is where a quick action reaction allows then to learn. Impulse learns from impulse. The A student, who has a long attention span, and may benefit by solitary confinement since his brain will keep working trying to make logical sense of this situation. If he trusts the parent, he will look to justify.
Let me give another scenario. Say the child wants to swim with their friends at the local pond. He has done this for weeks and has become a good swimmer who can swim across and back, easily. The parents, who are afraid of water to a neurotic degree, find out and punish him. This is an example of protecting the child based on irrational fears in the parents. Are contemplative children expected to smart enough to psycho analyze mom and dad, and come to a conclusion, based on the best course of therapy for the parents? Or will he try to reason the irrational conclusion of the parents, and then become rehabilitated by being afraid of water? in his equation he may assume his parents are smart and not neurotic and therefore reach the wrong conclusion.
The child that is slapped, to take advantage of their brief attention span, will not reason that deep. He went swimming and he paid the price, so it is over for now. He will go back and learn to swim while weighting whether this fun is worth the slap. He will come out healthier in the long run by not making an irrational connection centered on an erroneous assumption about his parents.
Some times parents are stressed from work and life, such that the rule will change based on the mood. Solitary confinement for a victimless crime can lead to smart child to conclude improperly. The ADD child, who sees the quick slap, may not get the slap each time. This allows then to avoid making a permanent internal irrational connection because the environment is more like a lottery.
The neurotic or stressed parent is the side of the equation that is never addressed. This was the reason slapping is considered taboo. But we never address the impact of solitary confinement on an irrational causality by the parents. If the child wears black shoes on brown shoe Wednesday, and gets a time out, how does this impact the child who will attempt make sense of this during solitary confinement. Can they get a permanent flaw to their ability to reason reality? If we extrapolate the neurotic parent to the neurotic culture, do they just go along by habit thereby corrupting their ability to reason?
Last Edit: 25/02/2016 13:01:20 by puppypower
There was an error while thanking