Quite a few topics related to education have come up in the New Knowledge Course recently, so I thought I’d take the opportunity to expand on one of them here.
When it comes to all those wildly varied educational philosophies, simply reading their statements of principle can easily leave you feeling like you’re wandering through clouds and mist. In fact, the clearest and simplest way to present any of these philosophies is through the answer to one question.
The killer question in the field of child education is:
“If your child is hit by another child at school or kindergarten, how should they respond?”
Put this question to someone, and their answer will basically tell you what their core educational philosophy is.
I recently came across an answer from the “Love and Freedom” camp. The title was “When Your Child Is Bullied, Teaching Them to Do This Is More Effective Than Teaching Them to Hit Back,” written by “Mom Youyou” and published on the WeChat public account “German Parenting Research.”
Here is the article’s answer to the question above:
They should not hit back.
The author says: “If a child discovers that hitting back works—that every time they hit back, the other children stop hitting them and stealing their toys—what motivation will that child have to think of other ways to resolve disagreements and conflicts? Are they supposed to rely on violence to solve problems even after they grow up? (Just think about those news stories about men murdering their wives, or killing girlfriends who wanted to break up—it’s terrifying…)”
(Ah! So getting into fights as a kid means you’ll grow up to murder your wife. How terrifying. I got into plenty of fights as a kid, so you’d better all keep your distance from me!)
The author’s proposed solution is:
First, shout it out.
“After being hit, the child should loudly say to the aggressor: ‘Stop! You can’t hit people! Hitting people is wrong, and I won’t allow you to hit me!’”
“At the same time, use a ‘stop’ hand gesture to signal that self-defense has been activated.”
“At the very first moment their boundaries are violated, children should firmly and clearly use words and gestures to state their attitude and position, making the bully think, ‘Oh, this person isn’t to be messed with. I’d better drop it.’ This can spare the child from being victimized again.”
Second, ask other people for help.
The author says that if the step above still fails to solve the problem, “the child should be encouraged to ask a teacher, parent, or friend for help. Asking others for help is also a way of dealing with things; there’s nothing shameful about it.”
In my view, neither of these solutions is very good.
As for the first one, “shout it out”: I’ve read quite a bit of research on game theory, and this is the first time I’ve heard that simply saying “You can’t hit me” is enough to create deterrence. In reality, virtually all game-theory research shows that to deter harmful behavior such as violence or betrayal, there is only one way: send a strong retaliation signal, so the other person clearly understands that if they harm you, they will definitely pay a price.
In fact, even if the author’s “loud shouting” really did work, I don’t think the key would be that stating your position scares the other person into backing down. The real key is those two words: “loud shouting.” If the other person retreats, the more likely reason is that they’re afraid the child’s yelling will bring an adult running. So, in practice, the only thing actually doing the work is the second solution—calling in reinforcements.
But is calling in reinforcements really a good move?
Even by the author’s own logic, this solution isn’t good enough. If responding to violence with violence in childhood supposedly leads people to habitually use violence to solve problems as adults, then wouldn’t children who get used to calling in reinforcements grow up to habitually seek other people’s help whenever something happens? Is immediately finding someone else to solve your problems really such a fine quality?
Of course, I don’t agree with the author’s logic. People become more complex as they grow up, and you can’t simply project the way they behaved as children straight onto adulthood.
By my own principles, this solution still isn’t good enough. When it comes to raising children, I’m an old-fashioned conservative. What I find more convincing is Jordan Peterson’s whole approach to self-reliance.
“Should children hit back when they’ve been hit?” My answer to this question is (I may lose a few more followers over this):
Yes, they should hit back.
The approach I teach children is very similar to the Generous Tit for Tat strategy in game theory—
First, be kind to others. Express goodwill in any first interaction.
If the other person also expresses goodwill, cooperation is established (you play together and become friends);
but if the other person expresses hostility—hitting you or stealing your toys—then hit back. That sends a clear retaliation signal, which is what creates deterrence. And it’s more “self-reliant” than having an adult handle it for you.
But retaliation must be limited to Tit for Tat. The next time you encounter the person who hit you, you should still take the initiative to express goodwill. (This step serves two purposes: one is to prevent an endless cycle of revenge; the other is that we live in a noisy world, and the person’s last act of hitting may not have been intentional—it may have been an accidental reaction. Generously expressing goodwill gives continued cooperation a chance in that situation.)
The above is purely my personal educational philosophy, and I’m a little uneasy about how much it goes against the grain. Comments and criticism are welcome.
Note
- This series of articles, “Psychology New Knowledge Mini-Course,” was written at the time to accompany related popular-psychology and casual-essay content for Zhichao Wei: Psychology New Knowledge Course, and was published on the now-closed platform Fantuan. The original link no longer exists.
Leave a Reply