Parenting: How to Raise Responsible Kids
親子教育篇：如何養出有責任的孩子
Hi, I'm Dr. Laura Markham of ahaparenting.com, and today we're talking about how you can help your child become more responsible. Now, the first thing you can do is give your child choices. Right from the time your child even understands what you're talking about, "Do you want the blue cup? Do you want the red cup?"
嗨，我是 ahaparenting.com 的 Laura Markham 博士，今天我們要來聊聊你可以怎樣幫助你的小孩變得更有責任感。現在，你能做的第一件事是給你的孩子選擇。從你的孩子能理解你在說什麼的時候就開始，「你想要藍色的杯子嗎？你想要紅色的杯子嗎？」
Why does this matter? Well, judgment develops from experience, and sometimes, good judgment develops from bad experiences. So, kids really need the chance to make decisions right from the beginning, and that way, the decisions they make when they're out of your sight, when they're 17, 18 and 19, are gonna be much better decisions than a child for whom you've made all the choices.
為什麼這很重要？這個嘛，判斷力從經驗中逐漸養成，而有時候，好的判斷力是從不好的經驗中慢慢累積的。所以，孩子真的很需要從一開始就能作選擇的機會，那樣一來，他們不在你視線時所作的決定，他們 17、18 和 19 歲時所作的決定，這些決定會比一個你替他下所有決定的孩子來得更好。
The second thing you can do is problem-solve rather than blame, or punish, your child. Now, what do I mean by that? Well, just take the word "punish" out of your vocabulary entirely. Instead, think in terms of problem-solving. So, your child has done something wrong? You're looking for a punishment? Uh-uh! Instead, say, "Well, we have a problem here." Not even your child is being a problem, because your child isn't. Your child now has created a problem. So, we look at the problem and we help our child figure out, "What could we do about this problem? You broke your sister's toy." Right? Or, worse yet, "You hit your sister, and you damaged that relationship. What can we do to problem-solve there? Is there a repair that you can make? A reparation?" And that's how children learn, how that, even though we're human and sometimes we make mistakes, we can always make things better. And it empowers them, instead of making them feel like bad people.
你能做的第二件事是解決問題，而不是責怪或是處罰你的孩子。現在，我這樣說是什麼意思？嗯，就把「處罰」這個詞完全從你的字彙中剔除。取而代之地，就解決問題方面來思考。那麼，你的孩子做錯事了？你在找機會處罰？不、不!要做的反而是，說：「嗯，我們這有個麻煩。」不是說你的孩子是個麻煩，因為你的孩子並不是。而是你的孩子製造了個麻煩。所以，我們研究那問題，然後我們幫助孩子解決，「關於這問題，我們可以做什麼呢？你用壞了你姊姊的玩具。」對吧？ 或是，更糟糕的狀況，「你打了你姊姊，你破壞了那關係。我們可以怎麼解決問題？有什麼你可以做的補救嗎？一個補償？」孩子就是那樣學習的，學到即便我們是人類且我們有時會犯錯，我們總是可以做彌補。這會給他們力量，而不是讓他們覺得像壞人。
The third thing is setting limits in an empathic way. I wanna tell you about a piece of research that has been going on in the studies about this for the last 50 years. And we have some very clear indicators of what helps kids come out great, be responsible, but also be emotionally intelligent, and just all-around wonderful people. So, look at this:
第三件事是用有同理心的方式設下限制。我想要告訴你一篇研究，一篇過去五十年來在這方面作探討的研究。我們有些什麼能幫助孩子出人頭地的清楚指示，成為有責任，而且還有情緒智慧的人，就是成為全能人才的指示。所以，看看這個：
We tend to think that parenting, kids are always up, when...that when we interact with our children, we're always on a scale between permissive and authoritarian, right? We're somewhere on this scale of demandingness. If we demand a lot, we're over here on the authoritarian side of the scale. If we don't demand very much, we're over here on the permissive side. These are the kids that run around the restaurant and annoy everybody. These are the kids who everyone says are spoiled rotten. These kids are the kids who, really, when you ask them later, they'll say their parents were very strict, but often, they aren't speaking to their parents. If the parents are very strict, the kids have rebelled a lot during the high school years.
我們很容易認為養育孩子，孩子總是在這上面，在我們和我們的孩子互動時，我們總是在放任式和權威式之間的尺度，對吧？我們在這要求孩子的尺度上的某處。如果我們要求太多，我們就在尺度上的權威式那側。如果我們不太要求，那我們就在放任這邊。這些就是在餐廳跑來跑去干擾到所有人的孩子。這些就是大家說被寵壞的孩子。這些孩子就是那種孩子，真的，在他們長大後問他們時，他們會說那時他們的父母非常嚴格，但往往，他們現在也不大會跟父母說話。如果家長非常嚴厲，孩子在高中時期會有很多反抗。
And... So, we might think, Okay, the sweet spot's right in between. But, here's the disadvantage to that. The disadvantage is I want my kids to get straight A's. That's over here, right? I want my kids to write nice thank you letters—that's over here. I want my kids to sit down in the restaurant instead of running around, annoying people—that's over here too. So what am I supposed to do if I'm too demanding? My kids are gonna be mad at me, right? And in fact, there's a lot of research that demanding parents don't raise kids who think for themselves, and they're actually very vulnerable to peer pressure as they grow up.
還有... 所以，我們可能會想，好吧，最理想的點就在中間。但是，這裡是那的缺點。缺點是我想要我的孩子得到優異成績。那是在這，對吧？我想要我的孩子寫下優美的感謝函－－那是在這。我想要我的孩子在餐廳坐著，而不是跑來跑去、打擾人們－－那也是在這。所以如果我太過要求該怎麼辦？我的孩子會氣我，對吧？事實上，有許多研究指出，要求多的父母養不出獨立思考的孩子，而那些孩子其實在長大後很難承受同儕壓力。
But there is a solution. You know why? We've only got half the picture here. Here's what we need to look at. There's another axis. This axis is the support axis. So, if you look at high demandingness over here, but high support over here, suddenly we get the sweet spot. That's the kind of parent we wanna be! We wanna be as demanding as the authoritarian parent in the sense of, "No, you can't run around the restaurant, sweetie," but we wanna be as supportive, "I see it's not really appropriate to have brought you to this restaurant. You're only three years old, and it's the end of a long day!" Right? We're seeing it from our child's point of view and we're supporting her. Or, "Honey, you can be as jealous and mad at your sister as you want, but you cannot break her toy." Right? "We need to do something about this problem you've created." That's the sweet spot in parenting—empathic limits.
但有個解決辦法。你知道為什麼嗎？我們只看了這圖的一半。這裡是我們得看看的地方。有另一條軸。這條軸是支持軸。所以，如果你看看這裡的高要求點，但這裡是高支持點，突然間我們就得到最理想的點了。那就是我們想成為的那種父母!我們想要和權威式家長同樣地要求，就像是：「不，親愛的，妳不能在餐廳跑來跑去」，但我們同樣也想表現支持，「我發現帶妳到這餐廳並不太合適。妳只有三歲，而且這是漫長一天的尾聲!」對吧？我們在從孩子的角度看事情，而且我們在支持她。或是，「親愛的，隨便你要怎樣忌妒和對你姐姐感到生氣，但你不能用壞她的玩具。」對吧？「我們得對你製造的這個麻煩做些什麼。」那就是養育孩子最理想的方式－－有同理心的限制。
Thank you.
謝謝你。
- 「就...方面來說」- In Terms Of
Instead, think in terms of problem-solving.
取而代之地，就解決問題方面來思考。 - 「想出、理解」- Figure Out
So, we look at the problem and we help our child figure out...
所以，我們研究那問題，然後我們幫助孩子解決... - 「獨立思考」- Think For Oneself
And in fact, there's a lot of research that demanding parents don't raise kids who think for themselves...
事實上，有許多研究指出，要求多的父母養不出能獨立思考的孩子...
