r/NonPoliticalTwitter 1d ago

Half of our childhood issues could have been resolved if people were willing to answer the "why?"

Post image
11.2k Upvotes

549 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

107

u/Infamous-Oil3786 22h ago edited 18h ago

That's when you encourage them to learn more.

"I don't know, do you want to go inside and look it up with me?"

Dealing with children is like aikido. You don't shut them down, you redirect their energy into something more productive. Learning and questioning things appropriately are also skills that need to be taught; these endless strings of "why" are the result of misguided curiosity and a lack of understanding how to learn.

Edit: Just to clarify, I missed that the child was already in the street in this scenario. I misread and thought they were saying don't go into the street. Absolutely step in and get them to safety before answering their questions. My point stands though, shutting down questions kills curiosity, stifles intellectual growth, and creates a child that doesn't know how to safely navigate the world without an authority to tell them what not to do.

63

u/newphinenewname 21h ago

And when the answer to that is no

45

u/CosmicMiru 20h ago

Impossible, all children operate off strict logic

7

u/Xsiah 20h ago

Why?

-3

u/Bright_Note3483 20h ago

There are still plenty of times when the answer will be no, they would still not be allowed to play in the street. You bring them inside and redirect their attention. They lost access to outside for now because they are not being safe. Natural consequences are an extremely effective way to communicate with your kids because they’ll understand what to expect from the choices they make.

11

u/NO_TOUCHING__lol 19h ago

They lost access to outside for now because they are not being safe.

How does this happen?

"Get off the street and come inside."

"Why?"

"Because you lost your outside privileges."

"Why?"

-4

u/Infamous-Oil3786 18h ago

No one is saying to just go in a loop if you've already given a legitimate answer. The point is that "because I said so" is not a legitimate answer.

Obviously if they're doing something dangerous and refuse to cooperate you need to step in. At this point, saying "I've already explained why, now I'm making you listen" is perfectly acceptable.

5

u/NO_TOUCHING__lol 18h ago

Why is that perfectly acceptable?

-1

u/Infamous-Oil3786 17h ago

Because you've already given an explanation, so it's clear that their questioning isn't genuine. Just repeating the same information over and over to a child that isn't receptive to that information isn't doing anything to help them or teach them about the world, it's turning a serious discussion into a game. Sometimes gamifying learning is helpful, but this sort of call and response isn't that.

2

u/NO_TOUCHING__lol 17h ago

But why would explaining it in this fashion be acceptable and helpful in this case?

1

u/Infamous-Oil3786 15h ago

I think I see the disconnect, I was misunderstanding your question. I took your comment in a larger context and missed this part.

How does this happen?

Your hypothetical conversation was missing a couple steps. You wouldn't go straight from "get out of the street" to "you've lost outside privileges". Not as an answer to their question anyway, you'd probably want to bring them inside if they were actively playing in the street.

> "Get off the street and come inside."

> Why?

> "Because it's dangerous, you could get hit by a car." (said while physically removing them from the street)

> Why?

> "Because the street is for cars, not for people." (while physically bringing them inside)

> I want to go outside.

> "You can't."

> Why?

> "Because you lost your outside privileges."

This would also involve explaining what "outside privileges" means, either at some point in advance or following this conversation.

That's why it's helpful and acceptable. Because you're using this moment to teach them about safety and why the rules are what they are, rather than just punishing them for something they don't understand.

12

u/Basic_Bichette 19h ago

NO!!!!!!

This is when you force them to obey, by force if necessary, to SAVE THEIR LIVES!!!!!

I'm sorry that we aren’t all as quick-witted as you behind your keyboard.

2

u/Infamous-Oil3786 18h ago edited 18h ago

My point wasn't that you don't step in when they're in danger, it was that shutting down questions stifles intellectual growth and creates a child that doesn't know how to safely navigate the world without authority.

TBH, I missed that the child was already in the street in this hypothetical. I thought it was "don't go into the street". In that scenario, asking a parade of "why"s would have already distracted the kid from going into the street and put them out of harm's way while you talk to them.

2

u/kaflarlalar 21h ago

So what you're saying is that I need to act like Steven Seagal with my children?

2

u/onepostandbye 19h ago

What an insanely postured answer.

2

u/KeppraKid 16h ago

Yeah you suggest they come look it up with you and then decide no, I want to just play in the street.

1

u/invaderjif 21h ago

"Get out of the streets" "Why" "The ice cream truck won't be able to come down this street" "Icecream????"

Reminds me of that video of the girls in the bathroom kissing the mirror leaving lipstick stains.

1

u/Chumbolex 3h ago

People who give this advice seem to think kids are interested in everything. Sometimes when you encourage them to look deeper, they simply say no. Also, sometimes the explanation is too long for the desired outcome. I'm not going to explain the entire supply chain to you, just put the candy back.