If we know we have the mature view and our child has the immature one, it is very natural for us to attempt to persuade our child of the superiority of our view. We may think that by striving to get our child to agree that only our view is reasonable we are being democratic, but this is a travesty of democracy. Real democracy has to allow for more than one outcome. If we are really being democratic, we have to allow for the outcome that we don't want but for parents some outcomes just cannot be allowed and, if the child refuses to accept this have to become non-negotiable. This is a uncomfortable parenting fact that many parents refuse to admit. In certain areas only a benign and loving dictatorship will provide children with the safety and the security they need. But we are reluctant to dictate to our children when they still do not accept our reasons. We are reluctant dictators. This makes us vulnerable because dictatorship is the primary and most natural state for the baby and for Mercury's Child. If the parent does not dictate and take the lead in key areas, then the child is more than happy to fill the vacuum.

Mutual Agreement?
Men and women may be from Mars and Venus but children are very definitely from Mercury. They are mercurial, developmentally designed to be interested in now - this precise moment. This is as true for difficult teenagers as it is for 4-year-olds. As parents we love our child so much we are sure that they know it. We are sure that they will understand why we have to disappoint them. When we have to tell them…

· now is the time to go to bed

· no, you can't have the cake two minutes before dinner

· you have to stop what you are enjoying and come in now

· your homework needs to be done now

· you cannot go to the party at a place and with people I do not know.

· what you just said was rude and must not be repeated

We are sure they will trust us enough to accept disappointment of not being able to do these things. But Mercury's children are inexperienced and egocentric. They are never going to be convinced that our bedtime for them on a school night is reasonable and it is dishonest to hint that we will ever accept theirs unless it accords with our own. Functioning families only appear to get mutual agreement in these areas. Mutual agreement in these areas would mean that a child's view that was unhealthy and unsafe had a real chance of being accepted when it clearly hasn't.

Expecting them to want to do it

When you listen to the conversations parents have with really difficult children it quickly becomes apparent that they are striving for something that will always be impossible. They do not just want the child to comply they think it is just as important that their child should want to comply. This is often at the heart of their fruitless conversations. They don't just want compliance from their children they want assent. It is natural for Earth parents to use reason with their children and to want their children to agree with their reasoning in areas of dispute. It is right that they explain their reasons to their children, but only up to a point. This desire becomes counter-productive when Earth parents think the child's agreement with their reasons needs to come first or is more important than their child's 'agreeing' to comply or at least allowing themselves to comply. Even when Mercury's child appears to accept our argument or says that they agree, they have just accepted that they cannot change the outcome and parents should be perfectly happy with this. Mercury's Children are as reluctant to accept our long-term reasons as we are accept their now reasons. The Mercurian view of the world does not coincide with ours and even when it does, to get their own way, they will pretend that it doesn't. Whilst it is always possible to get our children to agree to do it, in many cases is completely unfair and unrealistic to expect them to agree, against all their Mercurian instincts, that they should want to do it. In fact although parents strive for this for the noblest of reasons for Mercury's Child it often becomes a cruel, hypocritical and unnecessary goal.

Look at the difficulties this parent gets into by attempting to get agreement:

My son will be eleven this year. The problem we have is at home with his defiance! For example, he doesn't think it is fair that he has to do homework, as he works for six hours at school and doesn't see why he has to do more work in his free time (his words!). He finds it difficult to do his homework, and his concentration span is approximately five minutes. If we try to force him to do it we are looking at least two hours of battling and then he gets himself in a state and doesn't do it properly anyway.

This parents has foolishly had a discussion with his eleven-year-old about whether doing homework is 'fair'. After two hours of verbal battling with this Mercurian child, the parent is no nearer to getting this problem resolved. It is clear, since he quotes his son's reasons, that this father does not just want his son to do his homework or to agree to do his homework's; he wants his son to want to do his homework. He is listening to his son's arguments against doing homework and countering them - the two hours must contain lots of words, lots of reasons and counter-reasons, lots of frustration and anger, lots of feeling important for the child, lots if rewarding attention and a clear challenge to leadership in this - and therefore in related - areas of dispute. His father does not just want his son to know his parental reasons for insisting he do his homework he wants his son to agree with them. He does not just want his son to perform the right actions he want his son to have positive thoughts associated with those actions. Whilst this is not an unreasonable goal for this parent it needs to be dropped the moment discussions concerning it begin to take the place of the homework. Clever children often deliberately manufacture these discussions as a tried and trusted avoidance mechanism.

You cannot Insist that a child should want to do something

The terms insist and agree I'm right are not compatible. This father cannot insist his son agree with him and crucially while he is striving for this goal he cannot provide consequences for his son's refusal since he certainly cannot sanction his child for not agreeing with him. Children must be left free to think what they like. If we do not allow them this freedom we slip into George Orwell's vision in 1984 and the ludicrous position of trying to coerce, threaten, bully children into accepting our view. What form of democracy would we be demonstrating? Discussions in other contexts about beliefs may well be laudable but battles about beliefs with defiant children are immoral and unhealthy. Children defy us by doing something inappropriate not by thinking something inappropriate. If we make the mistake of trying to insist they think what we want them to think then their defiant behaviour is probably the child's healthiest response. There is even some evidence that in extreme cases getting this wrong may be associated with schizophrenia. Battles about beliefs with children are undemocratic and unhealthy, but more important, they not winnable. The moment we insist on belief in our view - rather than the child carry out an action we require performed - then the child is perfectly right to fight us. We are now not morally entitled to win because, clearly, you cannot use coercion to get agreement to a view. If agreement with our view is the target, then an obstinate child becomes invincible, and the parent is stripped of the moral right to provide consequences.

The real target is not agreement with the view but agreement to comply. We want the child to made the decision to do what we ask. The father in the example fails to make clear what the consequence will be if his son does not complete his homework, perhaps because at some level he realises that morally he can't even mention consequences while his goal is to get his son's agreement with his reasons.

"If we try to force him to do it, we are looking at least an hour or two of battling, and then he gets himself in a state and doesn't do it properly anyway."

The father equates "an hour or two of battling" with "forcing." Parents often see these long verbal battles as sanctioning (punishing) for the child. This could not be further from the truth. Children in dispute are interested only in outcomes. The outcome for this child is that he has had a whole evening of attention centred on him. Attention is the child's biggest reward, bar none and nothing gives them more attention than combat and heightened parental emotion. Of course, this type of attention it is an immature and pernicious reward but Mercury's Child is immature and will strive endlessly for it. A never-ending cycle of explaining or telling-off will not convince the child of your point of view it will merely provide the fuel the child needs for more combat. He feels important because of his refusal, being evenly matched and 'holding your own' when arguing with an adult gives children a considerable "buzz". If he were to quietly do his homework he would be lucky to receive 10% of the attention which he gets and all without any unwanted consequence (sanction) being applied by his father.

This father wants his son to perform the physical action of homework, but has spent nearly two hours talking about the principal of whether or not he should want to do it. This father ends up fighting two battles when he should only be fighting one. He wants his child to comply and agree he is right when all he should want is for his son to allow himself to comply. There is no point, there is no contest; Mercury's child never lets beliefs get in the way of what he or she wants. Admit dad is right and forfeit getting his own way and all this attention? The process of trying to convince him itself becomes a reward that is withdrawn the moment he complies. Therefore the chance of convincing him is nil and all our efforts continually reward the very behaviour that we want to change.

Still Making Up Your Mind

Mercury's children gain confidence from verbal battles because the angry interactions tell them that their view is equal in status to their parents and therefore all is not lost and they may still get their own way.

Doing or not doing homework should be in a non-negotiable area, but it is the father, not the son, who continues to negotiate. It is the father who has not accepted that homework is non-negotiable, and this is the sole reason the father is frustrated. He cannot work out if the fault lies with his ability to explain or his son's willingness to understand. Truth is, there is no fault - at least not here. If you look you will see that the father states exactly his son's position but does not accept that his son is allowed to have this view. This is why the interactions are never-ending. The son is perfectly entitled to believe he should not have to do homework and the father should respect his view. His son should be allowed to have his view about homework but not allowed, without consequences, to not to do homework. All this counter-productive talk is about why his son should not have a view, to which he is entitled, when his son only really needs one piece of information - what the consequences will be if he does not comply.

When parents continue to discuss the reasons why the child, for instance, should go to bed now, they think they are explaining a decision already made but, for the child, the discussion is about whether it should be made or not. Discussion just makes a child think the decision can still be changed.

Every moment parents spend discussing a categorical decision it becomes less and less categorical. By responding, by all the nagging, reasoning, asking, interrupting, telling, we are not just wasting our time we are providing the child with the reward that perpetuates the behaviour. We think we will convince the child of the rightness of the decision but all we do is convince the child that the decision has not yet been made, that we are still making up our mind.