Stop Arguing With Your Kids - How to Win the Battles of Wills by Making Your Children Feel Heard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently I was out west visiting my grandchildren. My granddaughter, just turned 5, asked me what I was reading. I told her it was a book about getting children to stop arguing with their parents. She said, “I don’t argue with my parents, as they listen to me”. From the mouths of babes - this is what Mike Nichols’ book is about. He calls it Responsive Listening. His thesis is that if parents really listen to their children and draw them out before making a parental decision, there will be much less arguing. The book is divided into 3 parts. In the first, he describes what responsive listening is, giving many examples. In part 2, he discusses responsive listening with different age groups. Then, in the final part, he talks about complications. The author describes responsive listening as a skill that must be learned and practiced to be successful. Step 1 involves at the first sign of an argument, to check the impulse to argue back and concentrate on listening to the child’s feelings. Step 2 involves inviting the child to express his/her thoughts, feelings and wishes. In step 3, the parent feeds back in their words what they believe the child’s position is, asking in step 4, for corrections or elaborations from the child’s point of view. Finally, it is important for the parent to pause to consider the decision, and for more difficult situations to agree to talk more about it later before making a final decision. “The point of response of listening isn’t to reach some conclusion, but to get your child to talk about her wishes and opinions” (page 20) to open up conversations and get the child to talk. Nichols is not interested in why children argue, but how parents get caught into arguing back, so that the argument escalates. As he says, arguing reflects not just opposing wills, but also reading and mis-reading each other’s intentions (page 103). Kids need to know that the parent is in charge and “no” means “no” - not maybe. Often parents get into too much explanation, which invites an argument. It is important to separate arguing from quest for autonomy and protest from attack and reminders from nagging. Rules need to be clear and reasonable. Reward works better than punishment. Social reinforcement begets reinforcement and punishment begets punishment. Children learn more from what they see, modelled than from lectures. Parents of argumentative children often fail to see that the children are just mirroring their behaviour. There is lots of wisdom in this book. I like the way it is set up with important points in darker print and insets. I would recommend the book to parents of defiant, argumentative children. Therapists can also learn from reading the book.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".