CHAPTER 5

Making Categorical Statements

The father of the son with the homework problem in Chapter 3 quotes his son's remarks - about having to work all day at school etc - and you sense that he secretly thinks that his son has a point, and of course, children often do. But does the fact that the boy has a point alter the fact that homework has to be done or weaken the strength of the father's categorical insistence on it? The answer has to be 'no'.   The problem for parents is that anything less than absolute categorical certainty and their children will immediately sense that they are not certain enough and so begin their inexorable push to persuade or intimidate or wear their parents down. Mercury's Child will never accept that a statement is categorical unless the parent is 100% certain in their own mind. Many times I have seen a smile appear on the faces of parents with serious behaviour problems as they describe something outrageous that their child has done or said. I always point out that they have to decide: either their child is a "cheeky chappy" and his or her actions are humorous and good-natured and the behaviour is acceptable or the behaviour is inappropriate and needs to change. They cannot have it both ways. If the child sees a smile, the chance of changing the behaviour will be nil. Getting serious about it afterwards will just give the child a mixed message. Parents cannot reward the behaviour some of the time and expect the child to leave it behind. Parents know they are succeeding when a "bad" behaviour decreases in its frequency and/or intensity; a single smile could add weeks on to the whole process or stop it in its tracks.

Mercury's Children cannot cope with indecision they are very precise creatures. It is completely unfair to them when parents are nearly categorical. Lots of behaviour problems come about because battles are fought in a categorical no mans land, where parents really, strongly, indicate what they would like their children to do but at no point tell the child that they have to do it or indicate the consequences if the don't.

Either, the child has a genuine choice and the parent accepts what they do completely 100% without bad feeling or grumpiness, or they 100% categorically do not allow the behaviour and warn and sanction the child when the categorical is ignored. It is unfair to the child if the behaviour sits in a middle ground, where so many of my clients locate it, dissatisfied with the child for what they have done but not thinking it is bad enough to insist on it or sanction it. Dissatisfaction, as we will see later, is a sanction but a very counter-productive one. It is hypocritical to allow the child to choose a course of action and then be dissatisfied with their choice; it is a tainted, hypocritical freedom that we allow them. Yet, parents often give strong hints about what they don't want instead of either accepting the child's choice wholeheartedly or saying categorically that it is unacceptable and that, if continued, it will be sanctioned.

Getting hooked on "no"

Parents who's decisions are continually challenged by their children unfortunately have not great difficulty in saying "no", just in sticking to it. They often feel they are being tormented by their children and do not want to say "yes". "No" is often their answer of choice, the answer they instinctively start with. But because they often start with it for emotional rather than logical reasons they are, with constant lobbying, less liable to stick to it. Some parents actually think that by not giving in straight away and making their child "work" for the change to "yes" they teach them a good lesson or "spoil" them less. They think this is better than giving in straight away. In truth, if they would only say "yes" right at the beginning they would not be giving in at all and they would not undermine their "no".

"No" is a concept that is vital for all families and essential for emotional growth in children but it should be used sparingly. If there is even a small possibility that the parent may eventually say "yes" then they should say "yes" right at the beginning. This will prevent them from training their child that determination is all that is needed to get their own way.

Some parents actually enjoy the sense of power and importance that "please" "please" from their children gives them. Invariably if parents are taking this amount of time to make up their minds, then their children know that they are eventually going to say "yes". Delaying and allowing the child to canvas for a reversal completely undermines the strength of all future categoricals. Sadly, it also undermines the ability to make decisions free from the child's input which they will regret on every day that follows. Categoricals only remain categorical if they are also non-negotiable. Delay undermines fairness and consistency because it tempts parents to settle old scores or base their answer on their current mood. Delay encourages backing down, if you aren't sure then there clearly is not a good reason so say 'no'. Therefore you clearly need to say 'yes'.

Make the decision before any discussion

But a reluctant "yes" is completely unfair. The decision has to be a wholehearted "yes" or wholehearted "no", and it cannot be avoided and it should be made quickly. A decision has to be made by the parent before any discussion with their child. It is common, and fatal, for parents to use the interactions with their children as a process within which they make up their minds. Their children are entitled to think

well if they are not sure whether to say "yes" or "no" then their cannot be a good reason to say "no"

They are absolutely right.

Parents who hesitate are just teasing or disappointing their children without good reason. If they are not sure then the correct answer is "yes". As a loving parent your instinct should always be to say 'yes' and to have clear reasons for a negative answer since it has to stay "no". From the moment the child begins to question "no" it can no longer be changed since even if you changed your mind for your own reasons your child will always believe they have persuaded you. If you never change your answer once you have said "no" then, with no history of being able to reverse decisions children will rarely second-guess any of your decisions.

Children can quickly get into the habit of treating every decision as if it were "up for grabs." If the parent is not decisive and quick then how they are feeling and their tolerance levels become the determining factor. Decisions based on what you can put up with today will be different next time and will create children who continually monitor their parents' mood but have no objective idea about what is acceptable and what is not.

Parents need to be 100% certain that they intend their decision to be categorical; 100% certain that the child knows this and what the consequence will be for ignoring it.

The standard of Perfection

We have seen that the first reason why parents allow a middle "no mans land" column between what is acceptable and unacceptable to come into existence is because they have not actually decided into which column the particular behaviour fits. The second is that parents often believe that it is reasonable to tolerate just a little unwanted behaviour. They say things like

I just want to stop him hitting me I don't think it is reasonable to expect him to be perfect

They are right that it would be foolish if we were to expect our children to be perfect but the standard we use to decide what behaviour we should correct cannot be anything less than perfect. Staying silent clearly states that behaviour is acceptable and explaining to a child the point at which mild becomes too much is impossible.

If we no do not correct poor behaviour because we judge it to be mild we also inhabit the column between 'good' and 'bad' behaviour that is impossible to delineate called "tolerated 'bad' behaviour"

Allowed Tolerated Not allowed Fig.2 Of course, it is unrealistic to expect children be perfect, but this does not mean that we should let them think that a lesser standard for their behaviour is acceptable. In fact a standard that allows a little bit of 'bad' behaviour is bound to fail because it is impossible to define this in any meaningful way for the child. It again creates a middle column between completely acceptable behaviour and unacceptable behaviour. A "no mans land" that is impossible to describe to the child.

The behaviour that both the child and the parent think is in this middle column will change dependent upon their emotional states. If a child was "just a little rude" yesterday and did not get corrected or sanctioned, and today he gets back from school where one of his peers was giving him a hard time and tries to find the exact level of 'acceptable' rudeness that he showed yesterday he will fail. He will be unaware of the effect of his mood on his level of rudeness and be confused. He will not understand when his father now corrects or sanctions him. It is also impossible for a less than perfect standard to stay the same for the parent. In fact, even if the level of rudeness was exactly the same as the previous day the father may have had a problem at work and sanction what he previously allowed. A subjective standard just will not work. Even the same level of rudeness constantly repeated is liable to suddenly become the last straw for the father and receive a sanction. The standard has to be perfection simply because it is impossible for a less than perfect standard to stay the same for the child or the parent. Perfection is the only standard that stays the same for everybody.

Sanction them for not accepting correction for what they do

Parents should try not to sanction too quickly children need a warning so that in effect parents are not sanctioning 'Badly' behaved children for the 'bad' behaviour but rather only if they do not accept correction for it. The continuous monitoring by the parent that this involves has the added benefit of continually reminding the child of their status relative to their parent and trains them to accept that parents have a teaching role.

When parents mistakenly place behaviour into a "no mans land" between what is acceptable and unacceptable it becomes impossible for them to influence it. We have seen that the first reason that parents do this is because they have not actually decided into which column the particular behaviour fits and the second reason is that parents mistakenly believe that it is possible for children to understand the concept of "a little rude" of "a little naughty" or "a little defiant". This brings us to the third common reason.

Not my child's fault

It is very difficult to be categorical and provide consequences for "bad behaviour" if parents believe that the child can enact a behaviour without having responsibility for it. Look at what this father says

I was away this weekend and I returned home this evening to hear there had been an 'incident'. Michael had lost his temper and pushed his mother who decided to hit back. Michael responded by pushing her along a hall, up against a solid timber door and pushed so hard that the doorframe split and splintered and the door broke open. When I arrived home and tried to speak to Michael he refused to respond but it was clear that he was very upset. Eventually he started to cry and was visibly ashamed and very low. We had a very open chat and I asked him about what had happened and he repeated something that he has said since he was a boy. He said that he has no control over his actions when he is in a temper, that he never plans to hurt anyone or to lose his temper but he has absolutely no control, that it is something that just 'comes over him'. It became very clear that this is something, which not surprisingly genuinely worries and saddens him. Since he was about 2 years old I have described his outbursts as a fit or attack rather than a child who is actively trying to be disobedient. Michael has always insisted that he has absolutely no control over his temper and having watched him for 14 years I can confirm that his whole personality changes and his actions appear to be uncontrollable. In addition to this his Grandfather, who had a famously bad temper, looks at Michael and comments on how he was exactly the same. He says he was unable to control his violent temper when he was the same age and got in trouble with the police because of it.

This parents needs to be clear exactly what he is saying here, what his assessment is of the possible reasons for his son's behaviour and what follows from that assessment. The first choice is that his son has got into the habit of enacting this tantrum behaviour when he wants his own way or is disappointed but he could be trained to leave it behind if the current rewards given to him for it are limited and modest sanctions introduced. The second choice is that his son has no control, and cannot be trained to get control over these violent outbursts, therefore he cannot be held responsible for them and it would be unfair and pointless to attempt to train him using consequences. There is also a third option - indecision - the real position of this parent. He cannot decide between the first two positions. It might be "bad behaviour" that perhaps needs consequences but then might not really be controllable by the child making consequences unfair. The problem is that his son has been allowed to be party to the family's belief that this type of behaviour cannot be controlled. What the boy says he believes is largely based on what his father believes. Then, once this father lets his son know that he accepts the son's account of what is happening it becomes almost impossible for his son to put any effort into changing it. Parents always massively underestimate the influence of what they believe about their children on their children. The son knows that his father accepts his tears and contrition as proof that he cannot control his behaviour "this is something, which not surprisingly genuinely worries and saddens him". He know that his father "Since he was about 2 years old" has "described his outbursts as a fit or attack rather than a child who is actively trying to be disobedient". Two years old is the typical time when tired toddlers behave in this way and he was probably right that at this age his son had very little control over this behaviour but he made the fatal mistake of thinking that it would help his son to know that this was what he thought. It was because his son had limited ability to control this reaction that he needed to be trained to do so and needed a clear message that he would not get what he wanted or any sympathy if he behaved in this way. His father says I can confirm that his whole personality changes and his actions appear to be uncontrollable. Surely for the child that is exactly the point, temper tantrums are intended to be intimidatory, how would his son intimidate if he looked as if he were in control?

He says having watched him for 14 years I can confirm that his whole personality changes and his actions appear to be uncontrollable. He says I can confirm and this is exactly what he has done. He has effectively defined the behaviour in a way that makes it almost impossible for his son to change it. He tries to avoid what has to be an obvious conclusion if his belief that his son has a fit or attack that his son is medically or mentally ill. He does not really believe this he wants to allow his son the excuse without the logical conclusion it entails. The fact that his son says he cannot help this behaviour is of no real diagnostic significance, in his situation children seek to avoid culpability, all children do this, and clever children find any means that gullible parents will swallow. Parents train their children that their lies and tears and contrition are "get out of goal" cards. When parents believe them the excuse or lie can gain credibility even for the child who concocted it. The fact that his grandfather still uses the same excuse so many years later cements the behaviour even more.

This is why children and adolescents and those mentally ill should never be present when adults, especially professionals, give reasons why they should not be expected to control their behaviour. This is just common sense but is almost universally disregarded.

We saw a Child psychiatrist. She diagnosed possible Asperger's with Oppositional Defiancy Disorder. The label wasn't conclusive because I found the whole experience very intrusive and negative for my daughter as every appointment she had to sit and listen to me unravelling all her negative behaviour since birth

The question that always needs to be asked is 'has this child's normalness ever been tested? It makes no sense treating children as exceptional without first making sure they have been trained normally as ordinary children. Does the angry boy ever have to worry about the consequences for this behaviour? The answer is clearly "no". If this father wants to help his son he cannot afford to stay in middle ground. He worries "what if he is unable to stop", "what if he has a condition or illness?" These worries are self-fulfilling. The only way to avoid this and get to the truth is to treat his son like a normal child. He has never done this, not even years ago when this was common behaviour for a tired 2-year-old.

Words that deny culpability

I have a little boy aged 3.5 who is generally well mannered, polite etc. However, there are times when he just "snaps", and becomes very aggressive.

This parent uses word "snaps" which may suggest that she thinks that no decision has been made to behave badly. Although allowances should be made, in terms of the parents patience and calmness, for things like the child's immaturity or for tiredness "bad" behaviour must always signalled as "bad" behaviour to the child if a precedent is to be avoided. The child probably only "snaps" when he is not getting his own way or is disappointed in some way and if the parent allows a mitigation to prevent a sanction he is unlikely to understand exactly what this is and will repeat the behaviour expecting to get away with it even when the particular mitigation is absent.

My son is 13 and having "trouble adjusting" to several changes: new home; new school; new baby. He continues to ignore rules and requests from me or his father

It is important that parents do not define behaviour in ways that will make it impossible for them to change. This mother is almost certainly right that her son is finding "trouble adjusting" to all the changes she mentions and if this analysis helps her and his father to stay calmer when challenged by him then all to the good. However if analysing in this way means that she signals to her son that she 'understands' or is sympathetic when he behaves 'badly' or if it prevents her correcting him or sanctioning him when he does not accept that correction then her analysis will become part of the problem. Thinking that the ''bad' behaviour is understandable is helpful but signalling to the child that it is understandable is not. It just creates uncertainty as the child will now have no idea at what point in the future you will decide that your excuse for his behaviour no longer applies or at what point the inevitable escalation in the behaviour will make it too extreme for your excuse. Whatever trauma the child is suffering, having a flexible standard of behaviour that cannot possibly be maintained will just add to his problems. If this mother's worries are strong enough perhaps this child would benefit by working through these issues with a skilled professional but his need to take responsibility for his own actions is not mitigated neither is her need to continue to calmly provide consequences if he refuses to be corrected. Parents' analyses always underestimate how much more dependent children are on current parental responses than they are on current or historical traumas. A week may be a long time in politics it is an even longer time for a child or teenager. This means that an inconsistent or new mitigated standard is often far more unsettling for children than the reason for the mitigation. Even the most convincing excuse of all, the loss of a parent, is not a real excuse. The child needs their remaining parent to restores the order that existed before, not to make allowances for their child's 'escape' into blame hurtfulness and chaos.

The myth of the "terrible teens"

With all behaviour, even behaviour that we 100% sure is emotionally based, we should never signal to the child that we do not expect them to control it.

In the week that I write this I watch this exchange in a Soap on TV.

Woman: How is Jack

Man: As he is a teenager it is difficult to tell. But beneath the raging hormones, I think he is doing O.K.

Like all bogus reasons for children's bad behaviour the myth that teenagers are at the mercy of their developmental stage is convenient because it means that parents do not have to look at the effects of their own interactions on them. Often the reality is just that behaviour allowed to go unchecked in the child is far harder to ignore from a pre-adult. This myth has the benefit that it probably prevents parents from thinking that their children are bad or damaged, but it also prevents them from believing that teenage behaviour can change. At a single bound it reintroduces the middle ground, of semi-acceptable behaviour, a category that will prevent parents being clear about what is or is not acceptable or being categorical.

This myth is not just a 21st Century phenomenon. The lightest historical research shows it to have a strong historical heritage but the problem with the 'hormone' excuse is that it does not work outside the home. Those outside the home they will not have any hesitation in sanctioning 'hormone ravaged', variously traumatised, children who are uncooperative or violent. If they want to stay in school teenagers will have to accept the school's social and disciplinary standards and behaviour and the courts see no mitigation for their behaviour in the fact that they are teenage, the same statutory or mental health consequences are applied as they are to anyone else. Whatever the starting point or emotional state children will eventually be held accountable for the consequences for their behaviour. If parents put off training them because of one mitigating circumstances or another then these consequences will still come, but from outside the home and without the love and sensitivity that parents can provide. There is never a reason that can be strong enough to leave this training to the world at large, there is never a good reason for parents to allow a categorical no-mans-land.

The sad thing is that 'Bad' teenage behaviour is very simple to change. The key to changing can be explained right here in a few words - firstly it is simply not to respond, when the teenager is being rude, to the content, the point being made rudely; talk only about the rudeness and that it is not acceptable and sanction if this correction is not accepted. Secondly it is not to allow yourself to be tricked into discussing categorical decisions that would be accepted as non-negotiable by your teenager if only you would keep quiet.

Why does this have the power to transform teenage behaviour? The answer is also simple, it is because teenagers are eminently practical people and will only continue with behaviour that works.

Without sanctions no statement can be categorical

We have seen that parents suffer a loss of categorical conviction because they do not decide precisely enough which behaviours are unacceptable or because they mistakenly believe that it is possible for children to understand the concept of "a little rude" of "a little naughty" or "a little defiant" or because they believe that the child enacts the behaviour but is not actually responsible for it.

The fourth reasonx why parents allow a non-categorical middle "no mans land" is a practical one, because they lack tangible sanctions. Without the potential to use a sanction no statement can be completely categorical. It is the inevitability that a sanction will ultimately be deployed for non-compliance that makes the statement categorical. Yet, many parents either do not want, or do not know how, to use them. See Chapter 22 Sanctions - Your 4 rules - Their 9 ploys

Previous Page

Next Page