Last week, there was a "vicious incident of being called parents by the teacher" in the class where our third-grade children were located. It is said that two children raised their middle fingers to the teacher-of course, we know that this is a kind of "harmless but extremely insulting" behavior. No wonder the teacher was angry. Although the epidemic was still under control, parents were invited to school.

As a parent of an ordinary student (neither invited nor gossiped), I don't know what the teacher talked to the parents of two children, which in itself is enough to shock me:

"Pointing the middle finger at the teacher", even if the two children don't quite understand the exact intention contained in this action, most of them can clearly perceive the provocative meaning contained in it; Even because I know that I subjectively want to annoy the teacher, I do this behavior.

I asked my husband: What would you do if your son was like this? My husband didn't hesitate to say that he must fight first, and then he dared not do it again, and then explained why it was wrong.

Although I don't approve of hitting children, my husband's idea is really representative: when children do intolerable things, our first thought is to give him a clear "lesson" so that he will never "dare" again.

In school, the improper behavior of "vertical middle finger" obviously belongs to the "destructive behavior" that is not allowed; There seems to be nothing wrong with being severely punished for sabotage to eliminate future troubles-the principle is correct, the thinking is clear, and the immediate effect is not obvious. But ... is this really the only way?

Why do children prefer "destructive behavior"?

If you have observed the growth process of children, it will be easy to find that their initial behavior is more or less "destructive":

Children who have just come into contact with building blocks are not interested in building blocks, but in knocking down the works built by others;

Playing on the beach with buckets, children seem to like to let adults make castles, and then shovel them down with shovels;

The first book that more and more parents provide to their children is a cloth book, precisely because they prefer to tear it directly instead of looking at the pages;

……

Although many research attempts in contemporary education have proved that children do this to exercise certain control skills, according to Russell, an outstanding thinker in the twentieth century and one of the founders of modern education, destructive behavior may be closer to the expression of power will.

In this classic book of modern education, education and a better life, Russell believes that "the desire to satisfy power" is inherent in everyone; But he did not condone the intention of "destroying" this way.

In this expression, we can see Russell's "observation and cognition of facts" and the "better way" he explored-yes, in his view, there can be different and better ways to satisfy the legitimate desire for power.

This is the antonym of "destruction"

In order to better understand Russell's point of view, let's first look at his definitions of "destruction" and "construction":

From the above statement, it is not difficult to see that construction and destruction, two seemingly completely opposite practices, can actually satisfy people's sense of control over "influential things"-whether it is enhanced or weakened, it is the role of "I" will and can make "I" feel its influence.

However, the practice of destroying (weakening) is instinctive, simple and easy, and basically requires no skills, and almost everyone can easily do it; However, the construction (enhancement) is more demanding, more difficult and requires learning, and everyone has a different degree of mastery.

From this, it is not difficult to understand children's preference for "destruction":

Because of their young age and weak strength, the "construction" which requires high skills is obviously not applicable, but their pursuit of power will is still strong, and of course it can only be achieved through "no technical content" and "destruction" of nature.

03 From "Destruction" to "Construction"

It seems a little desperate: when a child is born, he is naturally used to using "destruction" to satisfy his instinctive will to power. Will he still be interested in the more difficult "construction"?

In this regard, Russell is obviously not pessimistic. Inheriting the fact that "architecture is usually more difficult" in the above article, he believes that "successful people in this respect will have a stronger sense of satisfaction".

Observing in life, such cases are indeed very common. Whether it is the increasing technical difficulty in competitive sports or the continuous upgrading of electronic games, the constant pursuit of more challenging "goals" is not so much to "contribute to society" as to meet our sense of accomplishment with higher and higher thresholds.

This is the world of adults, and children are no exception.

Indeed, after a period of "destructive exploration", most children can feel the higher sense of accomplishment brought by "construction" in new skills. But this does not mean that children's "building" skills can develop spontaneously. As parents, our daily guidance-that is, "education" in the general sense-also plays a vital role.

It looks simple, doesn't it?

However, if you think that the so-called "education" is to force children to understand the truth of "don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you" by "threatening to destroy the fruits of their labor" when they occasionally find "the joy of construction", it is all wet.

The so-called "construction" not only includes the enhancement of "from scratch" and "from small to large" on the factual level; The acquisition of a sense of accomplishment also includes the meaning that a person subjectively "feels the contribution of' me'".

In fact, most parents nowadays are using "overprotection" to deprive their children of the experience of "self-contribution", turning the experience that could have provided a sense of accomplishment into a boring process of following their parents step by step.

You must have seen such a scene:

The three-year-old child came out of the kitchen carefully with milk. Grandma saw it and rushed forward to "grab" the glass: "Baby, it's dangerous for you to hold the glass. You will break it and hurt yourself. If you want to drink milk, just tell grandma and I'll get it for you. "

The five-year-old boy clumsily tried to sew up the hole in his clothes with a needle and thread, but his mother nervously stopped him: "Needle and thread are not children's things. What if my eyes are punctured? "

A child of seven or eight years old wanted to learn to cook, but his father stopped him: "Read and write! The kitchen is full of gas and fire. Is this something you should be busy with? "

Although as parents, our worries are not unreasonable, this transcendence is objectively depriving children of the fun of experiencing "construction".

Russell said: "Many seeds of virtue are bred from the happy experience brought by construction." If children don't even have the opportunity to experience, where can they feel this happiness? Where can I learn new skills?

04 Skills and Morality-Those Neglected Links

Parents want their children to have good moral character. If you think about the topic "if you cultivate good moral character", what specific methods will you think of?

Virtue story, who will tell children about ancient and modern celebrities? Seeing other people's moral behavior, seize the opportunity to persuade children? Pay special attention to your words and deeds when you show a "role model of virtue" around your children?

Of course, all this is true.

However, in Russell's view, the important way to shape morality-providing appropriate skills-is often easily overlooked.

As mentioned above, the more difficult it is to achieve, the more people can feel joy, and it is also a "better solution" to satisfy the innate desire for power;

At the same time, the more difficult it is to achieve, the more skills are needed, and these skills will not be acquired naturally, and it is difficult to achieve them spontaneously.

Therefore, imparting appropriate skills to children has become an inevitable way to make them feel happy and properly satisfy the will to power.

Regarding "how to pass on appropriate skills to children", the method may be simpler than many parents think:

Do you also think that Russell's "method" is too simple, even suspected of "inaction"?

This seemingly "inaction" process actually contains two important actions:

1, demonstration: let children see what they can do. This is the basis of their successful attempt-don't forget, our purpose is to let children feel the joy of success, not the frustration of failure. There is an example for reference and study, which provides a guarantee for them to experience the joy of a sense of accomplishment.

2. Let go: Give them a chance to "succeed on their own". Independent completion is a necessary condition to overcome difficulties, and it also provides enough space for enjoying success-it is these that inspire a higher sense of accomplishment and satisfy the desire for power.

Throw away "severe punishment" and stimulate "skills"

Thanks to Russell. After straightening out the educational logic of "cultivating skills and exercising good moral character", I finally saw my inner disapproval in the face of my husband's logic that "some things must be severely punished as soon as they appear".

Stopping destructive behavior is like stopping a flood. It seems to be effective, but it treats the symptoms rather than the root cause.

It is really effective to solve the problem and find ways to alleviate it.

Although it is not my child who points the finger at me at school this time, I can still take the initiative to show him that there are many more positive ways to deal with things that make me extremely angry.

For example, take a deep breath, manage your emotions inward, and don't accept each other's provocations;

For example, a frank but not arrogant expression shows your bottom line and is not afraid of provocation;

For example, with the help of available resources, take the initiative to ask for help and not succumb to the provocation of the other party;

……

After all, if you just use some malicious gesture to express your anger, or even irritate the other person, it also means that there is nothing you can do.