Young kids are better at mimicry than following orders

Very young children are better at doing what we do, than they are at doing what we merely say.

Today I was at a shopping centre, and we stopped to have some dim sum for lunch. It was crowded, and a family of 3 (Mum, Dad & toddler) sat opposite. Mum wasn't eating, Dad had finished, and the toddler had a large half a sandwich before her, which she'd begun to ignore in favour of looking around. Mum and Dad were a bit bored, but patient, and didn't try to coax her into finishing (gold star for that).

I smiled at the toddler a couple of times, when our eyes met, and she smiled back. When Mr O returned from the queue with our food, she watched covertly as we began eating. Mr O is partial to a prawn dumpling, so he ate with evident enjoyment. I had chicken pie so I was happy too.

After perhaps 30 seconds, the toddler began to tackle her sandwich. Mum and Dad were delighted, but had no idea what had started her eating again.

It made me think how odd it must be to the child, when a parent sits them down and tries to feed them at what is self-evidently not an eating time.

I guess in the 'olden days' when it was the custom that children ate early and usually separate food as well, there was a Nanny present whom the children were used to obey. It was a different dynamic, and not one our society is keen to resume.

So, all things being equal*, if you want a small child to eat, the best thing to do is eat yourself.

*the child must be hungry, the food must be something they like or are prepared to try, and don't bother trying this in the middle of a tussle of wills!

This is post 38 of 100 posts in 100 days.

'Good' or 'Adult Convenient'?

Were you a good child?  Do you have a good child?  What does that mean, anyway?

During my years working with families, I was fascinated by how often good came up. Babies come into the world and are immediately either good feeders and good sleepers (or not). I never heard an adult call a child bad, we don't say, "He's a really bad sleeper," but instead, "You know, he hardly ever sleeps".

Shortly afterward, the child will be good with new foods (or a picky eater), a good walker or talker (or else 'not walking/talking yet'), and good with strangers (or 'shy').  

If adults want a child to be quiet, stay put and keep its hands to itself, they ask it to be good.

This good thing is hard on adults who, deep down, feel the child they are with is not being good.  I say, "You know, there's not much moral dimension to behaviour in the under 3s, and none at all in the under 2s.  It's probably easier to think of good as adult convenient. If a child is not in-conveniencing the adults in its vicinity, it is called a good child.

I don't think it's possible for a small child to be bad, in the sense of making a moral choice with an understanding of the implications.  In fact most small children aren't thinking about the people around them much at all, they're just reacting to their own experience and needs. 

An adult convenient child will not just behave in a way that makes life easier for the adults around it, it will behave in such a way as to reflect glory onto them.  

An adult convenient child will happily interact with paid carers, teachers, medical staff and other children.  An adult convenient child will joyfully bang on a child-safe instrument when offered.  An adult convenient child will meet, or preferably exceed, any developmental milestone available. An adult convenient child never makes noise in banks or cafes.

Yes, that's right, the perfect good child - the perfect adult convenient child - is not really a child at all!  It is a mechanized doll.