Marie,


This comes from my friend with twins. The physical aid to the talk
about sharing was the kitchen timer. If Chris is holding a desired
object and Alex wants it, you get the kitchen timer and say "Chris can
play with the toy for one minute, then Alex can have it for a minute.
That's sharing." Then you set the timer for one minute. When it dings,
you take the toy from Chris and give it to Alex and set the timer again.
They'll scream and fight anyway, but you're the alpha in the situation
so you decide what's fair. As always, hitting or biting results in
immediate separation and a time-out. At their age, 1 minute increments
are about right, but you can increase it to 2 minutes or longer as they
get older.


--Lia


Marie wrote:
OK, all my (human) parenting books aren't helping, so I'm reverting to my
old standby--what works with dogs usually works with toddlers ;-)

Chris and Alex have entred the "greedy" stage (for want of a better phrase).
*Whatever* brother is holding is more desirable than anything else, and must
be taken/fought over. Most parenting books suggest a "discussion on
sharing" and "encouraging the children to think about of their actions make
the other child feel." Yeah, right. The parenting books on twins suggest
avoiding fights by buying two of everything. Not the cheapest advice I've
ever been given Besides, a lot of the time, the behaviour seems to be more
about hoarding resources than it does about wanting to play with a specific
thing.

So, those of you with multiple dogs: how do you teach them to share, or at
least not beat each other to a pulp over a toy?

Marie

"Marie" wrote in message
...

So, those of you with multiple dogs: how do you teach them to share, or
at
least not beat each other to a pulp over a toy?

Honestly? Take the object being fought over away. Do this each time one of
the boys starts getting greedy and sooner or later they'll stop doing, at
least in front of you. Toddlers have *extremely* limited reasoning skills.
All those books and experts that tell you to talk to your child and explain,
very nicely, how/what/why...well they're idiots IMO. You'll no sooner
finish and 3 minutes later the discussion has left the boys' brain and
they're back to fighting.

I won't go into all my other issues with the whole "reasoning" movement but
suffice it to say that IME as a mother and that of general observance from
all my friends and family who have raised children, action with a clear
result works better than anything else.

If they're fighting, separate them. If one is being greedy, take the item
away completely or give it to the other child to teach the first one that
not sharing doesn't produce good results. If they're throwing an
unwarranted tantrum then put them in a timeout and ignore the hell out of
them until they quit.

--
Tara

From: "Tee"
Date: 12/12/2004 11:51 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

Honestly? Take the object being fought over away. Do this each time one of
the boys starts getting greedy and sooner or later they'll stop doing, at
least in front of you.

Although I have heard of success using the kitchen timer that Lia mentioned, it
depends on the kids. Trying to divy up the toy, etc. just turned the "waiter"
into a "clock watcher" and then there was dissention in re to who had a minute
more, who had it last etc. doG forbid you had something else for them to do
that broke the "cycle" so that someone had to quit without one last turn....

Honestly, unless it's something big (i.e. their Rescue Hero Station/Ship/Etc or
something like the Playstation) we generally just get two of most everything.
They each had different "favorite colors" so, down to clothes, Gray had the
blue version of the toy/shirt/etc. and Zach had the green (or in green's
absence, red - Gray's "alternate" is white or silver). Especially at the age
your boys are now, they don't interact and share/play together doing a thing...
they parallel play, so sharing isn't natural. Learning to share is more a
preschool (three - four years + IME with preemie boys who are immature for
their age) thing and will come in time.

But will second Tara's advice. If they argue over a thing (they still do it,
all kids do, IME) it just gets taken away. Fighting over the Playstation?
It's turned off. Over a toy? It's confiscated. It's not a "feel good, let's
discuss our feelings about the situation" solution, but like a clicker, it's
immediate, and done with consistency, they'll figure out pretty quickly that
screaming and fighting aren't the way to go.

Ironically, the very worse punishment threat for them these days is to be
separated. When we moved from the old house (two bedrooms) to this one with
five, it gave everyone a chance to spread out a bit and DH insisted that the
boys would want their own room... they did, and we decorated them similarly
(Zach's in green, Gray's in blue - matching Lodge quilts, etc.) and not one
single night have they slept apart. It's just like they have two rooms..
alternating who sleeps with whom. When they are too rambunctious, just the
mere mention of separating them for the night improves behavior drastically.
So take heart, they will be best buddies some day G

Hope this helps!

Robin

"Marie" wrote in message
...
OK, all my (human) parenting books aren't helping, so I'm reverting to my
old standby--what works with dogs usually works with toddlers ;-)

Chris and Alex have entred the "greedy" stage (for want of a better
phrase).
*Whatever* brother is holding is more desirable than anything else, and
must
be taken/fought over. Most parenting books suggest a "discussion on
sharing" and "encouraging the children to think about of their actions
make
the other child feel." Yeah, right. The parenting books on twins suggest
avoiding fights by buying two of everything. Not the cheapest advice I've
ever been given Besides, a lot of the time, the behaviour seems to be
more
about hoarding resources than it does about wanting to play with a
specific
thing.

i think buying two of everything is a terrible idea - my friends have twin
boys and then another a year younger, and they buy three of the same thing,
even though the kids are 9 and 10. It sends a very bad message to all three
kids who never have to share anything, imo.

LOL, its funny how the kids are at the "dog" stage, where they know that
what someone else has is better. My dogs know that too.

So, those of you with multiple dogs: how do you teach them to share, or
at
least not beat each other to a pulp over a toy?

The boys trade all the time, and if one isn't willing to trade I distract
the other with a special toy. Usually works. If not I give a firm "Kavik,
thats enough. Thats Toklat's toy. Here is YOUR TOY" handing him his toy.

dont' know if kids are as pliant though - they are human, after all.

OK, all my (human) parenting books aren't helping, so I'm reverting to my
old standby--what works with dogs usually works with toddlers ;-)

Chris and Alex have entred the "greedy" stage (for want of a better phrase).
*Whatever* brother is holding is more desirable than anything else, and must
be taken/fought over. Most parenting books suggest a "discussion on
sharing" and "encouraging the children to think about of their actions make
the other child feel." Yeah, right. The parenting books on twins suggest
avoiding fights by buying two of everything. Not the cheapest advice I've
ever been given Besides, a lot of the time, the behaviour seems to be more
about hoarding resources than it does about wanting to play with a specific
thing.

So, those of you with multiple dogs: how do you teach them to share, or at
least not beat each other to a pulp over a toy?

Marie

From: "Child"
Date: 12/13/2004 1:08 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

i think buying two of everything is a terrible idea - my friends have twin
boys and then another a year younger, and they buy three of the same thing,
even though the kids are 9 and 10. It sends a very bad message to all three
kids who never have to share anything, imo.

Yes, but purchasing for children this age is totally different than obtaining
two like toys for preemie toddlers who are still in the parallel play stage.
Children do a lot of their playing and by that token, a lot of their learning
to interact with others by playing independently, but with the same type toy.
That is to say, one will pick up a truck and the other, while not obviously
communicating, will watch and then pick up their truck.

Even today, years after they've been old enough to pick their own toys, they
will want versions of the same toy (so that they _can play together). If they
want different toys, they are free to choose whatever they want, but they still
*both* get a toy. It's a common mistake, though many do it, for people to
think of twins as a unit, instead of individuals, and therefore, only in need
of resources enough for one child, because they can always share. Having their
own possessions and being treated as two people is something that is
(apparently, because I'm not one) very important to twins. My boys certainly
bear this out. Think back to when you were a kid... how would it have felt to
have to share everything? To not have your own toys?

The boys trade all the time, and if one isn't willing to trade I distract
the other with a special toy. Usually works. If not I give a firm "Kavik,
thats enough. Thats Toklat's toy. Here is YOUR TOY" handing him his toy.

Yes, but at the end of the day, children are not dogs. You wouldn't bring home
one big, juicy bone (the equivalent of a new toy) and toss it on the floor and
say.. There you go boys! Enjoy!

Robin

Manadero wrote:

From: "Child"
Date: 12/13/2004 1:08 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

i think buying two of everything is a terrible idea - my friends have twin
boys and then another a year younger, and they buy three of the same thing,
even though the kids are 9 and 10. It sends a very bad message to all three
kids who never have to share anything, imo.

Yes, but purchasing for children this age is totally different than obtaining
two like toys for preemie toddlers who are still in the parallel play stage.
Children do a lot of their playing and by that token, a lot of their learning
to interact with others by playing independently, but with the same type toy.
That is to say, one will pick up a truck and the other, while not obviously
communicating, will watch and then pick up their truck.


Its been *many* years, but I spent a little time working at a
progressive school here in nyc. I worked as a T.A. and I spent that time
basically working on a college research paper on this "new" (not really-
but seriously underused) way of teaching. So, this is *old* and (more
importantly) unused info that should be taken for what its
worth...whatever that may be.

I worked with the 2 year olds (the "grades" were separated by age group
until high school, IIRC). The 2's classroom had enough of *everything*
for everyone. I came in thinking it was very important for them to learn
how to share, so the first time there was a kiddie spat over a toy, I
sat down and talked to them about sharing. I was pulled aside by the
teacher and told, under no uncertain terms, that there was a *reason*
they had enough of everything. Their feeling was that in order to really
grasp the concept of "sharing", they first had to grasp the concepts of
"mine" and "yours". They believed strongly in age appropriate learning,
and they *never* pushed learning faster than the age of the child
warranted.

I have to say, I never saw a school filled with such balanced, engaged
and intellectually curious kids in my life. They were doing *something*
right. I suspect they were doing a *lot* of things right.

Tara

"Manadero" wrote in message
...
| From: "Child"
| Date: 12/13/2004 1:08 AM Eastern Standard Time
| Message-id:
|
| i think buying two of everything is a terrible idea - my friends have
twin
| boys and then another a year younger, and they buy three of the same
thing,
| even though the kids are 9 and 10. It sends a very bad message to all
three
| kids who never have to share anything, imo.
|
| Yes, but purchasing for children this age is totally different than
obtaining
| two like toys for preemie toddlers who are still in the parallel play
stage.
| Children do a lot of their playing and by that token, a lot of their
learning
| to interact with others by playing independently, but with the same type
toy.
| That is to say, one will pick up a truck and the other, while not
obviously
| communicating, will watch and then pick up their truck.
|
| Even today, years after they've been old enough to pick their own toys,
they
| will want versions of the same toy (so that they _can play together). If
they
| want different toys, they are free to choose whatever they want, but they
still
| *both* get a toy. It's a common mistake, though many do it, for people to
| think of twins as a unit, instead of individuals, and therefore, only in
need
| of resources enough for one child, because they can always share. Having
their
| own possessions and being treated as two people is something that is
| (apparently, because I'm not one) very important to twins. My boys
certainly
| bear this out. Think back to when you were a kid... how would it have
felt to
| have to share everything? To not have your own toys?

I have a sibling - I understand the concept of buying a toy for every kid.
What I don't understand is having to purchase two identical of everything.
I think its wrong and sends the wrong message, and while I agree with you
that at the age of Marie's kids, they aren't going to get "sharing", its the
precendent thats set in the household that is the problem.

| The boys trade all the time, and if one isn't willing to trade I distract
| the other with a special toy. Usually works. If not I give a firm
"Kavik,
| thats enough. Thats Toklat's toy. Here is YOUR TOY" handing him his
toy.
|
| Yes, but at the end of the day, children are not dogs. You wouldn't bring
home
| one big, juicy bone (the equivalent of a new toy) and toss it on the floor
and
| say.. There you go boys! Enjoy!


And thats not at all what I have advocated.

From: "Child"
Date: 12/13/2004 3:41 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

What I don't understand is having to purchase two identical of everything.

We did, largely because children that age don't have the skills necessary to
reason/understand and to share successfully. And, as I said, often the toys
would not be identical, but they were certainly "equal" in value, if that makes
sense.

I think its wrong and sends the wrong message, and while I agree with you
that at the age of Marie's kids, they aren't going to get "sharing", its the
precendent thats set in the household that is the problem.

Well, honestly, it's not a problem. At the appropriate times, they sprouted
personalities of their own and made their choices known, though they will still
choose similar toys so that they can share and play together. In fact, they've
also made it successfully to the age where they do chores, earn allowance and
save for their own toys... I doubt seriously that they even remember that they
had identical sets of toys as infants/toddlers, if they do, they've never
mentioned it. In fact, outside of getting two things (which I understand now
you feel is a given) they rarely choose identical things, but some things are
just _so cool.. they want two.

Not sure what is up with your friend's boys, because they are all older than
mine, and mine outgrew that years ago (but were very much that way until about
three). There is a such a massive difference in (largely) pre-verbal, preemie,
caucasian boys (according to what the nurses told me in the NICU "wimpy white
boys" are the latest of all sex/race combinations to mature) and where they are
today that I can't fathom that myself...

And thats not at all what I have advocated.

Sorry if I misunderstood... It's a huge pet peeve of all parents of multiples
(not to mention the kids themselves) that people think that it's not neccessary
to buy two... they can always share. It's the same mentality that says if your
birthday is anywhere near Christmas (or Hanukah, or Kwanzaa) that you only get
one present for both... that really sucks for a kid.

Robin

"Manadero" wrote in message
...
| From: "Child"
| Date: 12/13/2004 3:41 PM Eastern Standard Time
| Message-id:
|
| What I don't understand is having to purchase two identical of
everything.
|
| We did, largely because children that age don't have the skills necessary
to
| reason/understand and to share successfully. And, as I said, often the
toys
| would not be identical, but they were certainly "equal" in value, if that
makes
| sense.

Certainly "of equal value" makes sense. Let me put it this way: If I have
the resources to buy two really great toys, that could stimulate learning in
my children, I wouldn't buy two of the same one, I would buy two different
ones. Partly because the value of a toy goes down after its played with a
while - kids get bored. Having two toys can mitigate that somewhat.
Secondly, this way both kids can gain the benefits of both toys.

| I think its wrong and sends the wrong message, and while I agree with you
| that at the age of Marie's kids, they aren't going to get "sharing", its
the
| precendent thats set in the household that is the problem.
|
| Well, honestly, it's not a problem. At the appropriate times, they
sprouted
| personalities of their own and made their choices known, though they will
still
| choose similar toys so that they can share and play together. In fact,
they've
| also made it successfully to the age where they do chores, earn allowance
and
| save for their own toys... I doubt seriously that they even remember that
they
| had identical sets of toys as infants/toddlers, if they do, they've never
| mentioned it. In fact, outside of getting two things (which I understand
now
| you feel is a given) they rarely choose identical things, but some things
are
| just _so cool.. they want two.

And once in a while, having two of the same thing is great, but maybe at 1
1/2 kids dont' really care all that much if its the same exact toy, maybe
they just need to be of equal value.

Let me give you an example: One boy of the three I mention wants a bearded
dragon lizard for his birthday and has committed to taking care of one in
his room. The other boys said "How come HE gets a bearded dragon?" So
instead of purchasing a bearded dragon for the birthday boy, or even for the
three boys to share, they are buying THREE TANKS, and three lizards, two of
which (and maybe three of which) will not be properly cared for.

At the same time the kids needed three portable cd players. That makes
sense to me.


| Not sure what is up with your friend's boys, because they are all older
than
| mine, and mine outgrew that years ago (but were very much that way until
about
| three). There is a such a massive difference in (largely) pre-verbal,
preemie,
| caucasian boys (according to what the nurses told me in the NICU "wimpy
white
| boys" are the latest of all sex/race combinations to mature) and where
they are
| today that I can't fathom that myself...

Whats wrong with them is that they have NEVER been expected to share.

| And thats not at all what I have advocated.
|
| Sorry if I misunderstood... It's a huge pet peeve of all parents of
multiples
| (not to mention the kids themselves) that people think that it's not
neccessary
| to buy two... they can always share. It's the same mentality that says if
your
| birthday is anywhere near Christmas (or Hanukah, or Kwanzaa) that you only
get
| one present for both... that really sucks for a kid.


For the twins I usually buy two related but different gifts - like two
different bionicles, so they can play together.