Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Providing the occasional negative reinforcement for outright defiance can be part of teaching. It’s not mutually exclusive.

And the teaching will be quicker, more effective, and ultimately more pleasant for everyone than spending weeks in an extended game of taking away toys.

Negative reinforcement should never be physical punishment.

How confusing- so a toddler cant take away the of of another person for taking his toy or any other infarction but you can take away his toy because he threw a toy? Is it because you are older? Because you are the adult? Because why? Why wouldnt that reasoning- since you think toddlers can reason/actively defy- mean that you just mean that they can take away the toy of someone younger or smaller etc.

Follow your own rules.

You can use that same argument against any other adverse consequence, including every single suggestion offered thus far.

And to answer the rhetorical question, yes, you are allowed to impose adverse consequences as the parent and proper authority.

Well considering you use the word "adverse" we are already going to be in disagreement because it literally means hostile, unfavorable, harmful. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adverse

Also if you are ACTUALLY interested in research then https://news.utexas.edu/2016/04/25/risks-of-harm-from-spanking-confirmed-by-researchers/ along with suggestion on alternative means of discipline http://gwe.sequimschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_1013707/File/Our%20School/Counseling/Newsletter/Spanking%20and%20Alternative%20Discipline%20Strategies.pdf

I used formula and, at times, gave my kids spankings as described on this thread. Call CPS. They’re doing superbly as teens/tweens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with what’s been suggested. Give that a chance. If he keeps throwing it, he’s choosing to be defiant, and here’s what I’ve done that ultimately works.

“I told you not to throw toys. Now you’re going to get a spanking when you throw things.”

It’s not angry, it’s matter-of-fact.

Pick him up, pull down his pants, put him across your lap and give three swats.

Heretic! Don't you know we let kids watch two hours of TV a day, eat yogurt and cereal for dinner, potty train 5 seconds before preschool and push them in strollers until their knees are up to their ears here!?!?

Yes PP, and we gave them formula too. Because we wanted to. Call CPS.

But unlike you, we don't beat our kids because we don't know how to parent without using physical force. You can make all the homemade, gourmet meals you want, and avoid screens until they're 10, but you're just a garden variety mediocre-to-crappy parent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day you still get the same result but one takes longer because you are building something not just fearing them into behavior.

This is simply not true. My kid is the best behaved kid I know. Furthermore, I actually like my kid and spend time with him. Very often we are the only ones at the park when I know there are multiple houses with kids (probably in front of screens) and I didn't shove him in "preschool" for
"socialization" the first chance I got because I can't stand being around him.

NP I’m not sure what you’re advocating here.

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day you still get the same result but one takes longer because you are building something not just fearing them into behavior.

This is simply not true. My kid is the best behaved kid I know. Furthermore, I actually like my kid and spend time with him. Very often we are the only ones at the park when I know there are multiple houses with kids (probably in front of screens) and I didn't shove him in "preschool" for
"socialization" the first chance I got because I can't stand being around him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Providing the occasional negative reinforcement for outright defiance can be part of teaching. It’s not mutually exclusive.

And the teaching will be quicker, more effective, and ultimately more pleasant for everyone than spending weeks in an extended game of taking away toys.

Negative reinforcement should never be physical punishment.

How confusing- so a toddler cant take away the of of another person for taking his toy or any other infarction but you can take away his toy because he threw a toy? Is it because you are older? Because you are the adult? Because why? Why wouldnt that reasoning- since you think toddlers can reason/actively defy- mean that you just mean that they can take away the toy of someone younger or smaller etc.

Follow your own rules.

You can use that same argument against any other adverse consequence, including every single suggestion offered thus far.

And to answer the rhetorical question, yes, you are allowed to impose adverse consequences as the parent and proper authority.

Anonymous wrote:Providing the occasional negative reinforcement for outright defiance can be part of teaching. It’s not mutually exclusive.

And the teaching will be quicker, more effective, and ultimately more pleasant for everyone than spending weeks in an extended game of taking away toys.

Negative reinforcement should never be physical punishment.

How confusing- so a toddler cant hit another person for taking his toy or any other infarction but you can spank him because he threw a toy? Is it because you are older? Because you are the adult? Because why? Why wouldnt that reasoning- since you think toddlers can reason/actively defy- mean that you just mean that they can hit someone younger or smaller etc.

Follow your own rules.

I would:

(1) take the toy away on the first throw. Put it away until at least the next day.

(2) take all the toys away on the second throw.

(3) keep explanations short. "Throwing toys could hurt. We don't throw them. Now the toy has to go away." And stay calm. He gets no big emotional reaction, just a very matter-of-fact loss of toys.

(4) prepare for the inevitable tantrums. Ignore them utterly.

Anonymous wrote:take it away on the first throw. He is 2. If you take it away sometimes (2nd throw) and not others (first throw) that is too complicated for him. He throws, it goes in timeout.

And I would stop with the "we only throw balls" because a) you don't want him throwing balls at the baby either and b) that categorizing is hard for a 2 year old too. I'd switch to "we only throw when we're outside in the open."

I would take most of the toys out of where he plays and only leave softer things or things that are too heavy for him to throw. Add things back slowly.

+1

Think of them like little cavemen. Quick short explanations and immediate consequences.

Savannah Guthrie opens up about eye injury after accident with son's toy train.

"Charley threw a toy train right at my eye and it tore my retina.''

https://www.today.com/health/savannah-guthrie-opens-about-eye-injury-after-accident-son-s-t168502

Take it away first throw. ""Toys go away when you throw them."

Keep it out of sight for a few days.

If he continues put them all away. Play time is over.

Providing the occasional negative reinforcement for outright defiance can be part of teaching. It’s not mutually exclusive.

And the teaching will be quicker, more effective, and ultimately more pleasant for everyone than spending weeks in an extended game of taking away toys.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with what’s been suggested. Give that a chance. If he keeps throwing it, he’s choosing to be defiant, and here’s what I’ve done that ultimately works.

“I told you not to throw toys. Now you’re going to get a spanking when you throw things.”

It’s not angry, it’s matter-of-fact.

Pick him up, pull down his pants, put him across your lap and give three swats.

Heretic! Don't you know we let kids watch two hours of TV a day, eat yogurt and cereal for dinner, potty train 5 seconds before preschool and push them in strollers until their knees are up to their ears here!?!?

Sorry no. Youre being lazy.

If a mouse is in a maze and you give it a choice to go left or right but you want it to go R(learned behavior) then you can shock the mouse when they go left with no shock when they go R (thereby causing pain and fear) or erect a barrier a bit down the line so that if they go left they get stopped but if they go right they continue (no fear and no pain) or use a piece of cheese as incentive to go R or any other means. The mouse will learn the first one faster but it has repercussions (documented not just b/s) OR you can ACTUALLY parent/discipline, which is teaching. At the end of the day you still get the same result but one takes longer because you are building something not just fearing them into behavior.

OP- one warning. take toys if not listened to. put them away for the day. the next day is a new day. try to intercept before the behavior but toddlers dont have impulse control. provide toys they can throw.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with what’s been suggested. Give that a chance. If he keeps throwing it, he’s choosing to be defiant, and here’s what I’ve done that ultimately works.

“I told you not to throw toys. Now you’re going to get a spanking when you throw things.”

It’s not angry, it’s matter-of-fact.

Pick him up, pull down his pants, put him across your lap and give three swats.

Heretic! Don't you know we let kids watch two hours of TV a day, eat yogurt and cereal for dinner, potty train 5 seconds before preschool and push them in strollers until their knees are up to their ears here!?!?

I agree with what’s been suggested. Give that a chance. If he keeps throwing it, he’s choosing to be defiant, and here’s what I’ve done that ultimately works.

“I told you not to throw toys. Now you’re going to get a spanking when you throw things.”

It’s not angry, it’s matter-of-fact.

Pick him up, pull down his pants, put him across your lap and give three swats.