Katherine

ok... thanks Crystal... I'm processing what you said...

What I'm understanding from it is this:

Young children are capable of internalizing something that *IS*--something that is a proven reality in their lives. When they experience a *consistent* response from a parent in one specific area, it has the effect of defining their reality *in that area* , and that is why it can be both effective AND age appropriate. They are *not*, however, capable of experiencing a cause-and-effect response, then internalizing the underlying principle or the reasoning that drives it, and transferring that principle to other circumstances.

Is that about right?

And, wrt to my original question about the "ramp up" or process... Am I correct in thinking that in the pre-logic years you are teaching principles (which they will be able to conceptualize later) by offering simple explanations, answering questions, illustrating, vocalizing your own thought processes, and defining their reality with boundaries, etc... so that as a child approaches the age of logic, he's already been hearing and thinking about those principles, even if he couldn't fully understand/apply them? That as he approaches the age of logic and develops more impulse control, you address problems less by defining his reality with your boundaries, and more by referring him back to the principles you've been teaching, and expecting him to govern his behavior according to those principles. ? That you gradually allow him to experience not just natural but imposed (logical and related of course) consequences when he does not govern his behavior according to those principles?

Am I also correct in thinking that this is not something that just "starts" at a magical age/stage, but a gradual process--like learning to swim--where teacher holds you up less and less as you begin to use your abilities and trust the water? That parents need to understand *general* stages of development, but use their own intuition and observations of *their* child to determine when he is ready to take a step away from simple enforcement and toward a state of self-governing?

So, another example... 5yo son loses his temper and hits 3yo son several times, by his own account. We were on the way out the door to a friend's house to see his new birthday present. I told him he would have to stay home with his Dad. I didn't want to cancel the trip for the whole family, b/c 3yo was looking forward to it, the friend had been asking us to come for days, and I had already called and told his grandmother when we would be there. (although dh had initially agreed to watch him and then sort of backed out, so I ended up having to take everybody. :/ )

An objective observer might say that was an arbitrary consequence, b/c I just imposed it *in the moment* and might feel my intention was to make him "suffer" for what he'd done.

Another observer might say that I was defining his reality with my boundaries if we have a rule that "family gets your best or no one gets the rest" and I was enforcing that rule.

The net action is the same... so in some cases, does "age-appropriate and effective" really depend on the parent's intentions? On whether the parent's response flows from the position of upholding a known household standard versus making a point to the child?

I guess I have understood "logical consequences" as a label which applied to particular types of parental responses. (e.g. "Well that's a natural consequence b/c you didn't initiate it--that's ok." "That's a boundary, b/c you were defining something only for yourself--that's ok" "That's a logical consequence, b/c you made it happen in response to a bad behavior--that's not ok" ) That's obviously an over-simplified and limiting way to parent, which is why I've been feeling frustrated and confused by it.

I'm thinking that it's not really about how we define "logical consequences" versus other kinds of consequences (although I understand how learning the distinction is helpful and necessary at certain stages of the parenting process) Allowing natural consequences can be punitive if it's done inappropriately--if it is not guided by an understanding of childhood development; if it flows from a place of frustration, immaturity, or vindictiveness; if it is more than the child can handle. Personal boundaries can be harsh and unhealthy if they are set in selfishness, anger, or without consideration for the needs of others. So it's not about logical vs. natural vs. cause-and-effect....

It's more about... <insert summary statement>

It's a cliff-hanger post! ROTFL

ok.. I'm gonna have to think about how to encapsulate what it *is* about in my own words... and baby just woke up, so I'm done for now.. but I'll be back.