Hey,
I am still plugging away at this book. There have been a couple of "ah ha!" moments, one of which is the obvious oldie but goodie - 'practice what you preach.' Your child will model your behaviour, so ask yourself is your response to challenges one you want them to emulate? Are you modeling good problem solving and conflict resolution skills?
Also, I wanted to mention that none of the anecdotal information is about toddlers, some of the children are preschoolers. So for me this book is a little foreshadowing and a little preemptive. Which is a good thing in my opinion, but if you are looking for an instructional book on parenting toddlers, this isn't it. This is more holisitic and thoughtful.
Some parts are annoying though, like the way they are constantly using the word 'we'.... I know it was written by two people, but the counseling they provided the families in the book must have been done jointly too because everything is 'we did this' and 'we felt that.' I am not sure why it irritates me, but it does. Also they use the word 'impressed' even when something is bad. For example: "We were impressed by his inability to recognize the true issue." That may be correct, but it seems weird to me.
Anybody got the book in hand yet?
not me :-( But I will tomorrow
ReplyDeleteI'm halfway through the book and so far I have mixed feelings about it. I have taken a few good points away from it, which is good, and there are some important common- sense reminders. I like that they differentiate between 'discipline' and 'punishment'. I like the point that discipline should teach the child something. I like the division of the chapters into how to teach your child (through discipline) various life-skills such as: how to "take control", "solve problems", "show that s/he is competent", "how to react to mistakes", etc. I also like the ideas presented about the "solving problems process" (pg 94), the attribution theory (pg 120), and "islands of competence" (pg 122). These are all good things overall and I'm glad I'm reading them now when my daughter is just a toddler. As she grows, I will be able to implement positive discipline techniques from the start and can come back to the book if I want to remind myself of something.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem I have with the book is that it hasn't clearly shown how "resilience" and "self-discipline" are related or how they are influential to each other, exactly. The authors talk a lot about their previous book which was about raising a resilient child and this one seems to spring from it, which is fine, but resilience is not the same as self-discipline yet they seem to use the terms interchangeably. At times, it even seems that they focus more on resilience than self-discipline, as if this book is merely a repetition of their first one, with an imposed different focus. A more theoretical introduction examining the two concepts (resilience and self-discipline), how these concepts relate to each other and influence each other, as well as how each chapter's focus relates to SELF-DISCIPLINE (the topic of THIS book) would have been nice.
Also, I totally agree with you, Erica, about the "we" thing. It is annoying. Also, when they write about their conversations with parents, it's annoying that they give the conversation word for word on the parent's part, and then summarize what they said in response. Do we really need to hear the whole conversation? Do we need to know their strategies for counseling the parents? Can't we just get the synopsis?
Which leads me to my last point - does anyone else feel that the book is a bit patronizing? I feel that it is written by someone who thinks the general readership is a bit on the stunned side... Hard to find an example of this, it's just how I feel as I read it.
I'm almost finished chapter 5. Overall, most points seem like common sense and it's good to be reminded of them. I look forward to reading more... I'll just kinda skim the 'counseling the parents' parts!
Good analysis, Heather. I agree with you about the references to the previous book and there is a sort of patronizing tone about the whole thing. At times I find the tone and language like a charicature or stereotype of a psychatrist. However, I wonder sometimes if there is an audience that appreciates this tone and the simplified approach. As you said - there are some good things to keep in mind - but don't you wish they didn't call them "Islands of Competence" - what's next - "Mountains of Incompetence?" :)
ReplyDelete