Anonymous wrote:Do they understand the concept of repurcussions? Even if it’s not right away?

Anonymous wrote:Yes. My 2.5 yr old does. At around two we started “We only throw balls and if you throw anything else it gets taken away for the day”. It cut throwing toys down to about 90% and when he does throw a toy now he says, “no impulse control” and hands it to me.

Kids understand so much more than we give them credit for.

We have very few rules which helps. Pretty much just no throwing toys or hitting/pushing the baby.

Anonymous wrote:I did instant time out at that age. Sit on the floor and don’t move for 2 minutes. Once she sat down in Giant in timeout cos she was losing her shit I’ve not getting something. She sat there, did her time, I carried on with my shopping.

Find a park without sand or wood chips. Take them to an open grassy areas and bring toys/bubbles. There are solutions. Your 2 year old is not old enough to respond to threats/consequences yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsmith123 wrote:I believe they do understand. But they lack the ability to control their impulses.

This is where discipline comes in, but in the sense of discipline as "teaching", versus discipline as punishment.

Example: You need to teach your child that she cannot throw sand at the park. The first time she does it, you hold her hand and gently say: "You cannot throw sand at the park".

Your 2 year old understands this completely. And now it's her job to see if you mean it.

So she throws more sand. And you calmly say: "Uh oh, it's not okay to throw sand at the park. We need to leave now."

And then you leave. Your DD may cry, pout, tantrum, promise to do better with another try etc, and you shouldn't listen to any of it. You should take her home.

You teach her there are rules. You teach her they apply to her. You teach her that you mean what you say. And you do it in the spirit of being gentle and helping her learn, not in the spirit of anger and punishment.

My 2 yo would definitely not understand that we were leaving the park because of the sand throwing.

My 2 year would understand. When we are out of the park and I ask her, why did we have to leave? she would say, because I threw sand. My problem is, that doesn’t stop her from doing it again and again and again and.....even if it’s the same consequences every time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsmith123 wrote:I believe they do understand. But they lack the ability to control their impulses.

This is where discipline comes in, but in the sense of discipline as "teaching", versus discipline as punishment.

Example: You need to teach your child that she cannot throw sand at the park. The first time she does it, you hold her hand and gently say: "You cannot throw sand at the park".

Your 2 year old understands this completely. And now it's her job to see if you mean it.

So she throws more sand. And you calmly say: "Uh oh, it's not okay to throw sand at the park. We need to leave now."

And then you leave. Your DD may cry, pout, tantrum, promise to do better with another try etc, and you shouldn't listen to any of it. You should take her home.

You teach her there are rules. You teach her they apply to her. You teach her that you mean what you say. And you do it in the spirit of being gentle and helping her learn, not in the spirit of anger and punishment.

time and consistency, they can and will learn, they just don't "learn" as fast as we do
My 2 yo would definitely not understand that we were leaving the park because of the sand throwing.

My 2 year would understand. When we are out of the park and I ask her, why did we have to leave? she would say, because I threw sand. My problem is, that doesn’t stop her from doing it again and again and again and.....even if it’s the same consequences every time.

Anonymous wrote:

jsmith123 wrote:I believe they do understand. But they lack the ability to control their impulses.

This is where discipline comes in, but in the sense of discipline as "teaching", versus discipline as punishment.

Example: You need to teach your child that she cannot throw sand at the park. The first time she does it, you hold her hand and gently say: "You cannot throw sand at the park".

Your 2 year old understands this completely. And now it's her job to see if you mean it.

So she throws more sand. And you calmly say: "Uh oh, it's not okay to throw sand at the park. We need to leave now."

And then you leave. Your DD may cry, pout, tantrum, promise to do better with another try etc, and you shouldn't listen to any of it. You should take her home.

You teach her there are rules. You teach her they apply to her. You teach her that you mean what you say. And you do it in the spirit of being gentle and helping her learn, not in the spirit of anger and punishment.

My 2 yo would definitely not understand that we were leaving the park because of the sand throwing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsmith123 wrote:I believe they do understand. But they lack the ability to control their impulses.

This is where discipline comes in, but in the sense of discipline as "teaching", versus discipline as punishment.

Example: You need to teach your child that she cannot throw sand at the park. The first time she does it, you hold her hand and gently say: "You cannot throw sand at the park".

Your 2 year old understands this completely. And now it's her job to see if you mean it.

So she throws more sand. And you calmly say: "Uh oh, it's not okay to throw sand at the park. We need to leave now."

And then you leave. Your DD may cry, pout, tantrum, promise to do better with another try etc, and you shouldn't listen to any of it. You should take her home.

You teach her there are rules. You teach her they apply to her. You teach her that you mean what you say. And you do it in the spirit of being gentle and helping her learn, not in the spirit of anger and punishment.

My 2 yo would definitely not understand that we were leaving the park because of the sand throwing.

This is a great example of natural/inherent consequences though. The child is acting unsafely or doing something that could negatively impact the wellbeing of others present. The patent has a responsibility to mitigate. Removing the child from the environment is appropriate. It’s not discipline; removing the child doesn’t need to be done with an accompanying “I told you so... “ lecture. Eventually the child will become old enough to make the association that behaving safely/appropriately means they get to stay at the park.

Sure, stopping them is one thing or removing them from the sand. But leaving the park altogether would mean my 2 yo, who desperately needs exercise, would never get to spend more than 2-3 minutes at the park (because within 2-3 minutes he will throw sand/wood chips/run away from me/grab another kids toy/screech loudly/etc).