Out of the Best Books

Or, Why I Believe in Reading Outside Scholarship as Part of Scripture Study

There’s an attitude in the church—and I strongly suspect it began during the correlation period—that you should only use the scriptures, the Ensign, and the lesson manuals to study the gospel. You might be able to get away with adding in anything said at the BYU conference or by a BYU professor, but anything beyond that would be reaching into dangerous territory. If you seek too much outside of the basic resources, you could be in danger of losing your testimony. We hear the ominous echos of Jacob’s lament (2 Nephi 9:29) always over our shoulder:

“O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.”

We forget that among the things our founding prophet did, he established many schools, and not just schools where he taught by revelation, but schools where they sought to learn Hebrew from books and teachers. We forget that Brigham Young established schools and sent people from Utah to seek out learning elsewhere. We forget the next verse in Jacob’s sermon:

“But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.”

If we look more carefully at Jacob’s warning, he gives no straight line between learning and apostasy, but rather three intervening steps:

  1. They think they are wise—or, we believe that we understand in the subject entirety, leaving no room to doubt our own research.
  2. They hearken not unto the counsel of God—or, we do not allow for cognitive dissonance between scholarship and revelation.
  3. They suppose that they know of themselves—or, we are prideful in our learning, rather than grateful to God for our knowledge.

Or, to sum it up, knowledge plus humility is a good thing. Got that? A good thing! Not just acceptable or okay, but a good thing, as in “seek after every good thing”?

Some may say that there is enough in just the scriptures to keep anyone busy for a life time, but to this I say, how can we understand the scriptures without outside sources? How can we say we are truly seeking to know the scriptures if we read them in a naive way as though they were written yesterday in a culture familiar to us? This is like saying you want to get to know someone, but only ever talking about what they did today, never getting any of the details of their past, and stopping them if they start to tell you anything uncomfortable. That’s not how I think God wants me to know him.

The Bible is less a book than a collection of books, and the understanding of who wrote them, to whom, and why, and which ones were left out seems to me critical to understanding the message they convey. The same goes for the Doctrine and Covenants: they are nigh unto incomprehensible without the explanatory headers to each chapter, and even those only scratch the surface of comprehension. This argument applies less to the Book of Mormon, standing as it does as a book without much external context, but even here outside research is of huge benefit. The Book of Mormon Critical Text project shows that we have so far to go in understanding even this book of scripture given to us so cleanly less than 200 years ago. Also, many passages are quoted or interlinked with other scripture which does have a context.

Obviously, our studies should still be rooted in the scriptures, and I believe there is still a place for reading them straight through without outside sources. As an English major, I think of how I learned the novels we studied in class: yes, there is a value to reading it through at least once, without context or commentary, to get your own visceral reaction to the text. But there is only so far you can get without history, linguistics, and discussion. That last word—discussion—that’s all scholarship is. Discussion with people who have discussed it with other older sources, but a discussion none the less. As long as we treat it as a conversation, and not a revelation, as long as we consider it rather than worship it, it’s just like having a really interesting gospel doctrine class. :D

Which brings me to the last reason that I believe in using outside sources in scripture study: the problem with straight up studying the scriptures, with only asking the pre-written questions out of the manual? It’s boring. There, I said it. Scripture study is boring. If I only read the scriptures straight through, I usually stop after a couple of weeks because it feels like a waste of my time. When I pull in outside sources, I am energized. They send me back to the text, to process it in new ways. They provide new fuel, new insights, new material for the Spirit to work with. I figure anything that drives me to read the scriptures more, to think about the scriptures more, must be something “virtuous, lovely, of good report, and praiseworthy.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Niblish

Busby Family Rules

Drafted these tonight for Family Home Evening. My kids were so excited to have input on the rules, and to get the rules written down so they know what they are! Georgie has been going nuts because he feels like he never knows when he’s going to get in trouble, even though it seems obvious to me. But I guess not to him. Anyway, there are two sets, general rules and the table rules.

Busby Table Rules
1. No robots (or toys) at the table! – Robots in this context means anything with a screen that turns you into a robot instead of a real, present human being.
2. Try one happy bite of everything before you leave the table. – You don’t have to swallow if you don’t want to, but everyone tastes everything. Everyone also must have everything on their plate.
3. If you want seconds, eat your firsts (all of them). – If you want seconds of a favorite food, you have to eat your veggies. But otherwise, you can choose to eat however much you want to. Or not at all. But no short order cooking here.
4. No crazy noises at the table. – A necessary rule in a family of boys.
5. No interrupting, no talking with your mouth full of food. – We’re working on the basics of conversation here.
6. Leave the table with your plate (or to go potty). – Even a two-year-old can clear his dishes. It’s not that hard.

Busby Rules of Conduct
1. If someone is going to be hurt or something is going to be broken, tell Mom or Dad.
2. Otherwise, use nice words and voices to solve your own problems. – Yup, I don’t make my kids share.
3. If you try two solutions that don’t work, you can come ask Mom or Dad for help. – I will think of ideas for you, or give suggestions, but I will not solve your problem.
4. No screaming at anyone (especially parents at kids!). – This one is especially for me. Guilty, 100%. My kids get to send me to time out for this.
5. No hitting ever. – Rough housing is okay though.
6. Everyone does their chores. – I tried to add “with a smile,” but my hubby said that was pushing it.
7. Everyone gets an opinion, but Mom and Dad get final say. – I want my kids to know I will listen to their complaints about the rules and consider them politely.
8. Love each other. – This covers pretty much everything else, right?
9. Laugh. – About good times, about horrible times, always.

What are your family rules? Anything important we missed?

1 Comment

Filed under Discipline, Early Elementary (6-9), Preschooler (3 yrs - 5 yrs), Toddler (18 mos - 3 yrs)

5 Ways to Adapt Grown-up Board Games for Children

So my oldest son is currently obsessed with board games. And not the little kid ones like Candy Land that I’ve let the kids tear up for years. No, he’s facinated by our “grown-up” board games, with the millions of cards and figurines. And why wouldn’t he be? They’re colorful, have lots of small, interesting pieces, and have exciting themes like trains and conquering the world. How can lame games featuring candy and slides stand up to that? Georgie is always begging to play Ticket To Ride or Dominion. The one thing he asked Santa for this year was Monopoly.

The problem is that he’s five. Georgie might, on a good day, be able to handle the mechanics of Monopoly but the strategy of it is beyond him. And clearly letting anyone under the age of 13 touch Dominion would result in disaster.

Or would it? As a result of enormous five-year-old pressure, I’ve embarked on a quest of adapting some of our exciting, grown-up games for little kid playability. And granted, I wouldn’t hand over these games to a kid who is still in love with chewing cards or playing 52 card pick-up. But I’ve picked up a few strategies along the way that have actually made things fun.

  1. Reduce options - Many adult board games, like Ticket To Ride and Alhambra, rely on allowing you to draw either one of the five face up cards or from the draw pile. Cut the number down to reduce the time it takes your child to pick his/her cards. Similarly, in games where you are working towards multiple goals, like the four diseases in Pandemic or the four treasures in Tobago, try cutting the number down by half. Your kids will be able to focus better and be more strategic if there are fewer things to compare.
  2. Remove elements - The fun part of many modern board games is trying to track multiple strategic elements at once. For example, in 7 Wonders, there are at least 7 different ways to earn points to win the game. You might try to remove some options until your child gets the hang of a few. For example, getting rid of the blue and green cards in 7 Wonders doesn’t change game play too much, and greatly simplifies the goals. When playing Alhambra, you might choose to ignore the different colors of money or the requirement that your city be walkable until your child gets a hang of the scoring system. Similarly, you could ignore missions in Ticket To Ride and just go for straight points and the longest route.
  3. Play “open-face” – In games with lots of cards, tokens, and other collectables, it’s difficult for your child to even hold all their cards, much less understand what they are all doing. In this case, it can be helpful to have everyone play at least one game with their cards “open” on the table. Playing with cards visible allows your child to observe the choices you make, see card organization in action, and understand your strategy. Playmats can also be helpful for this purpose. We love to use this one when we play Bohnanza. You can find playmats for other card games by searching on BoardGameGeek.
  4. Make it co-operative – When a game is truly too challenging for a kid to understand, get together and play as a team. Make up a co-operative goal: for Ticket To Ride, you could pick a mission card and work together to get there. The great thing is, kids don’t care if there isn’t a failure condition. Just pick a short goal in the game and achieve it! My boys also like to play against a “computer” or “bad guy,” especially in games like BANG where the theme lends well to it. Regular co-op games like Pandemic also lend well to you just telling the kids what to do.
  5. Add a time limit – Because, frankly, you can only Ticket To Ride with a five-year-old so many times before you go nuts. Before you start, let your child know the limits: “This time, whoever gets the most points in 15 minutes wins!” This might be helped by skipping ahead slightly in gameplay by dealing out more starting cards (Ticket To Ride) or starting at a higher scoring level (Alhambra).

What are your family’s favorite board games? Does your child ever want to play games above their skill level and what do you do about it?

1 Comment

Filed under Early Elementary (6-9), Having Fun, Preschooler (3 yrs - 5 yrs), Tall Poppies

The Perpetual Salad Initiative

Okay, I have a confession to make.

I have prosaic American tastebuds.

I am thoroughly embarrassed about this. I don’t like quinoa or kale or tofu. Eating Thai or Indian food or sushi usually makes me throw up. I love the idea of being a food sophisticate, but I am so not. I like things like sloppy joes and tuna noodles and hamburgers, for heaven’s sake. Cole slaw is fantastic, and so is fried chicken.

Reading the internet, you’d think you couldn’t be healthy unless you like to eat vegetables with unpronounceable names and stop eating meat or carbs or both. Well, I am out to prove people wrong. I have no desire to change my cultural palate, but that doesn’t mean I can’t shift it a little to the healthy side without massacring it. I have a few rules I follow to create a healthy American cuisine:

  1. Limit cheese-heavy and cream-based sauce meals to once a week. They are foundational in American foods, so enjoy them by limiting them.
  2. Cook with real ingredients and make things yourself when possible. If you only eat homemade donuts, you’ll eat a lot less doughnuts.
  3. Throw extra vegetables in everything, but don’t disguise them. I personally think it’s silly to hide your vegetables in cake, bread, smoothies, etc. All that does is create a habit of eating cake/bread/smoothies, which may not always have vegetables in them. Get the vegetables out where you can see them and put them there in boatloads. Yes, this means my version of chili has carrots, celery, corn, garlic, onions, and peppers.
  4. Have a side salad with dinner every day.

It’s this last item that I’m working on. As you might guess by my taste preferences, I’m not so much into salad. Usually when I buy a bag of greens, half of it rots in my fridge. This year, I hope to get my family to be more consistent about eating salad. Well, mostly my husband and I, as my children, thanks to excellent brainwashing training, both love to eat salad.

The other thing that keeps me from eating more salad—besides its nasty chlorophyll-ly taste—is the effort it takes to make the thing. Salads come in second only to sandwiches in their time-to-make to tastiness ratio. (Does that make sense? It takes way too long to make them given the pitiful result.)

Thus I am beginning the Perpetual Salad Initiative. The idea is to add a few new ingredients each day to transform the salad into something new. Hopefully this will make salad more interesting and keep us from getting bored of eating it. Ready to see the plan? All right, then.

Day 1: Caesar salad – Begin with romaine lettuce and Parmesan cheese. Serve with croutons and Caesar dressing.
Day 2: Spinach w/fruit salad – Add spinach, craisins or berries, and walnuts or almonds. Serve with poppy seed dressing.
Day 3: Garden salad – Add a lettuce mix (spring greens, 7 lettuces, etc.), and two or more vegetables such as cucumbers, onions, mushrooms, and olives. Serve with Thousand Island dressing.
Day 4: Cobb salad – Add more romaine lettuce, as well as either tomatoes or avocado, chicken, and grated cheese. Serve with a vinaigrette.
Day 5: Chef salad – Add iceberg salad mix, chopped hard boiled eggs, and ham. Serve with croutons and ranch.
Day 6: Dump it and start over!

Any of your favorite salad types that I missed? What are your tips for making and eating salad? I could definitely use some help.

3 Comments

Filed under Cooking & Meal Prep

Monsters University as a Parable of Gifted Education

I was skeptical when my husband picked Monsters University for our family to watch on New Year’s Eve. But since my husband is an avid movie watcher, we’d seen everything else that was remotely interesting. It was that or Planes, which had gotten panned on Rotten Tomatoes, so Monsters University it was.

So like I said, I had my doubts about yet another transparent Disney milk-the-cash-cow attempt. But if someone had just told me that the movie was about gifted education, I would have been all in.

What’s that you say? You didn’t know Monsters University was about gifted education? It wasn’t in the trailer? Well, no, MU wasn’t explicitly a tale of why we need gifted education in this country, but it’s about as close as we can expect mainstream Hollywood to get.

For those who haven’t seen it yet, Monsters University features Mike Wazowski rather than Sully as the main character. Turns out, Mike has wanted to be a scarer ever since going on a field trip to Monsters Inc. when he was a socially isolated but charming elementary school monster. Right away, I was intrigued with how the film was going to pull this off. Anyone who has seen the original movie knows that Mike does not turn out to be a scarer: Sully’s the main scarer, Mike is just his clueless assistant. How could they make a movie for little kids where we know from the beginning that the main character is going to utterly fail? Or, at least, how could they make such a movie without being heartless jerks?

The film skips to Mike’s first day at Monsters University, where in his first day of scare class, he is informed by the highly creepy, dragon-centipede-hybrid dean of the department that there will be an exam at the end of the semester to determine who will qualify to continue in the program. As she says, “I’m here to make good scarers great, not make mediocre scarers less mediocre.” Hmm, interesting educational philosophy there . . . .

Enter Sully. He waltzes into class late, without so much as a pencil, and impresses everyone with his lineage of great scarers. A rivalry ensues between Mike and Sully, with Sully floating by on pure talent and Mike studying his butt off on technique, history, and theory. At first the cut scenes show Sully trouncing Mike in class—after all, he’s a 6–7 foot hairy blue nightmare and Sully’s a green adorable beachball. But soon, the professor notices Sully’s stagnation and Mike’s marked improvement from practice.

This experience exactly mirrors what happens to many talented students when they hit college. So many truly gifted kids breeze through high school, never lifting a finger to study even though they are in the “honors” or “challenge” sections, or even in an AP or IB program. Nothing they do in school requires them to push themselves past what comes easily and naturally. Then eventually, they finally hit the ceiling—in late high school or early college these students reach a class where the answers don’t just come to them. And they have no skills to cope with it. At 17 or 18, they are faced with a challenge for the first time in their lives, and because they don’t know how to overcome, they feel like imposters, failures, idiots. They give up on what they were born to do and do something easy.

Alright, being truly honest, this happened to me. Up through high school, I never met a class that I had to study for. Oh sure, I had to memorize lists (like world capitals) when they came up, but other than that, no studying was ever required for me to both comprehend the class material and pass the class with flying colors. When I got to college, it was pretty much the same story, until I took organic chemistry in my sophomore year. Here I ran up against concepts that didn’t make intuitive sense, that I couldn’t read once and then completely understand. I had no method for dealing with this and ended up flailing to get a C in the class. I re-took it the next year and did better, but it only got worse as I took biochemistry and physical chemistry until eventually I quit my chemistry major to pursue something that didn’t require much effort on my part.

This ability to push through challenges and overcome is called “grit” and it’s the big trend in education theory right now. Many books I’ve read on education—I’m thinking particularly of How Children Succeed—focus on the idea that it’s not about how high a child’s IQ is that matters; it’s how hard they work to overcome challenges that matters. And this is often true—in many cases, a high-achieving but average child will outperform an unmotivated, under-performing high IQ child. So these theorists say that we should focus on building this quality in children in school, rather than focusing so much on academic progress.

There are two problems with this theory. And both of them are addressed in this movie.

First is that high academic achievement and gaining grit are hardly opposing processes, where we have to choose one or the other. In fact, in the case of gifted children, high academic standards are a necessity in order for them to develop grit. After all, how do you develop grit except by facing challenges? And to challenge a gifted child, you must set academic standards that challenge them, at their level, regardless of whether that level is one level above grade or five.

We can see this in Sully’s character. He’s always been the most terrifying thing around, so he had nothing to reach for. His ability was assumed and never challenged. Not only has this prevented him from developing grit, but it has also been psychologically scarring. In a critical moment near the end of the movie, Sully tells Mike, “I act scary, Mike. But most of the time, I’m terrified.” He’s terrified of not being good enough to live up to his (and his family’s) reputation. Many gifted kids have this affliction: they know they can’t go on never messing up forever, so they spend their whole (educational) lives waiting for the other shoe to drop—for things to get hard for them—and they are terrified of what will happen to them when it does. Their whole self-image is built on being able to do everything easily, and so is very fragile to challenges. We are doing these kids no favors by saying they are “fine” because they are performing above grade level and letting them “relax and be a kid.” What we are doing is the opposite of letting them relax—we’re winding them up more and more as they wait for the inevitable moment when challenge might kick in.

The second problem with the grit theory is that, while grit and perseverance are important, talent actually does matter. Comparing high achieving average students to under-acheiving gifted ones is a total set-up. When you compare apples to apples (hard-working kids of different IQ levels), you can see that IQ absolutely does matter in final achievement. A high IQ child allowed to push themselves through acceleration and compacting of curriculum could make the next big discovery in quantum mechanics or sustainable fuel. And no matter how hard an average student pushes, they just won’t have the mind to make those leaps.

In Monsters University, high-jinks ensue at the final exam and both characters end up getting kicked out of the program, then joining the ridiculous Scare Games in an attempt to get back in. Their team of misfits comes within one event of winning the competition when the dean confronts Sully about his team’s chances being ruined by Mike’s presence. Sully sticks up for his new friend, talking about how much he knows. Dean Hardscrabble comes right out and asks him, “But do you think he’s scary?” And Sully has no response. Of course Mike isn’t scary. No matter how hard he stretches and works, he just lacks the natural ability, and that can’t be changed. As she says at the final exam, “Mr Wazowsky, what you lack simply cannot be taught. You’re just not scary.”

This idea makes most Americans very uncomfortable. Our country is founded on freedom, and we see this as placing an unfair limitation on people. We are willing to accept the idea of talent in sports and artistic endeavors, but claiming that some people have a talent for academics is just too much. This egalitarian urge is one of the reasons so many districts fight having a gifted program, insisting that all students are gifted. This is, of course, ridiculous and a lie—if there are some students on the special education side of the curve, there ought to be an equal population on the other end of the normal curve. But this lie makes us feel comfortable about ourselves, and about depriving a generation of geniuses of their fair education.

4 Comments

Filed under Early Elementary (6-9), Tall Poppies, Tiger Mother

New Year, New Beginning

I’m resurrecting this blog for New Year’s. Yes, cliche, but there you have it. I need to start writing more, and this is the place that feels natural to do it. Expect to be hearing more from me in the future.

I’m also scrapping my attempt to make this a parenting-only blog. It was boring to write, and I have so much more to talk about than that. So, as you can see reflected in the About page, I’m now going to write about whatever I want to, mostly with the hope of culling material for some personal essay writing.

And now without further ado, my New Year’s resolutions. Please share yours with me! Peer pressure is a great way to get things done.

Physical:

  • Run a half marathon. This half-marathon. That I’ve already paid for, so no backing out. Train for this by running 3 days a week, strength training 2 days a week, and yoga once a week. Follow my progress on Runkeeper.
  • Begin the Perpetual Salad Initiative. (More on that later.)

Spiritual:

  • Read daily from the Old Testament before bed. I’ve tried for years to find another time to read scriptures, but nothing ever turns out to be a consistent cue, so back to bedtime it is. I’m trying to get in bed earlier and reward myself with other reading so I won’t be so tired when I do it.
  • Read 10 other books on Old Testament topics to keep it interesting. Follow my progress on Goodreads.
  • Attend the temple once a month. Get a babysitter.

Mental:

  • Read 10 classics. I’m trying to stick with the ancient history period so these will tie in with the Old Testament, but if I get bored I may throw in some Victorian stuff. Follow my progress on Goodreads.
  • Read 10 works of creative non-fiction. Gotta start reading more of what I want to write. Follow my progress on Goodreads.
  • Blog twice a week.
  • Complete 5 personal essay projects this year. Pull material from blog writing and journal writing.

Relational

  • Plan a monthly family activity.
  • Go on a date monthly by actually planning ahead and getting a babysitter. (Why is that the hardest part?)
  • Continue to work on not yelling at the kids. :D

Looks like a lot, I know. I always get too ambitious. But best to aim high, right?

1 Comment

Filed under Goal Setting

Potty Training the Slow Way: Faster is Not Always Better

I started this post in April when I starting potty-training Sailor, but I’ve been hesitant to post it until we met with success. How could I talk about this stuff if I didn’t know how it would end? This week, Sailor has been almost 100% diaper free with few accidents, and I ‘m ready to declare success. So without further ado, here’s a little mini-series on my new thoughts on potty-training.

I have to admit, when I was potty training Monkey, I was totally caught up in all the “potty train your child in a week/day/hour” methods that are out there.  I loved the idea that I could just be done and not deal with all the messes.  Yuck.

These methods did not work for us for two reasons:

  1. I didn’t have the patience to focus exclusively on potty training for any amount of time.  Most of “instant” methods I read about required a lot of time dedication from the parent. When I tried it, I found that all I could do if I wanted the method to work was watch my child for accidents and babble about the potty. Any distraction led to failures. I felt bored and trapped, and it made me mad and impatient.  Ditto for Monkey. Even a day was too much to ask; we have better things to do.
  2. I had a hard time understanding the real challenge of potty training is not getting them to go on demand, but getting them to understand when they need to go.  Monkey had the first part down in about 30 minutes; knowing when to go took six months or more.  It was baffling to me why he couldn’t put two and two together.  I didn’t help that Monkey is so naturally bright–I expected him to comprehend this as quickly as he had picked up reading. He didn’t.

After all the yelling and crying associated with Monkey’s extended potty-training period (6 months, a year if you count our first few attempts), I was ready to find something else for training Sailor.  I did not want to go through it again, and more importantly, I didn’t want to put my cute little Sailor through it.  In a whim of random library trawling (whoever coordinated our library so that the parenting section of non-fiction lies next to the kids area was a genius), I picked up a couple of books on potty training from the library including Early-Start Potty Training. It’s a very interesting book, mostly focusing on infant elimination control, the idea of potty training babies starting at 2-4 months. (If you thought babies had no bladder control, consider how quickly your child stops peeing during diaper changes. It only takes a few months before your baby learns that this gets a very negative reaction and they have the control to avoid it.)

I don’t know if I’m quite hardcore enough to take on potty training an infant, but their section on training 18-to-24-month-olds was exactly what I was looking for. A few things I liked about it:

  1. Less time consuming - Instead of potty-training suddenly occupying your whole existence, you start extremely gradually and move up, enfolding it into your daily routine. If you’re doing fast potty training, you’re cumulatively taking hours out of your child’s day for this rather boring activity.  After the first novelty wore off, I’d be put out about it, wouldn’t you? Slow potty training solves this by introducing potty time slowly, so the burden is gradually placed on your child.
  2. More patience – Maybe it’s just me, but it was so much easier for me to be patient with an 18-month-old than a 2.5 year old. I didn’t expect him to understand and I felt fine taking it slow since he had so much more time before he hit the age where it was socially unacceptable for him to be in diapers. I treated it like an interesting experiment to see if he could learn, not expecting any results at all, just establishing habits.
  3. Conditioning, not logic – Frankly when we potty-trained Monkey, there was a lot of arguing and reasoning, bribing and rewarding. But in the end, the reflexes involved are a mostly involuntary system and logic isn’t very helpful. Young toddlers are better programmed to learn by imitation and conditioning than 2 and 3 year olds. Early-Start Potty Training frequently uses the analogy of house breaking a puppy versus housebreaking a fully-grown dog: the dog will understand what you want better but be less able to comply because of habit, whereas the puppy won’t understand but is easier to condition. (I take this on faith, since I’ve never had a dog.)
  4. Balance between child-led and parent-directed – Finally, slow potty training isn’t as in-your-face, “you will do this” as some of the fast potty training methods, but it’s not as wishy-washy as the “let your child tell you when it’s time” methods that will have your child still in diapers at age 4.  It’s definitely parent directed, but the demands upon the child are incremental and therefore a lot less onerous and less likely to draw resistance fire from your toddler.

One thing you must have to accept before you go the slow potty training way: there will be accidents, there will be mess, but it won’t be as bad as you think. Since reading Early-Start Potty Training, I’m beginning to think that all of our modern potty training woes stem from our desire to avoid mess. We start at a later age, hoping they will comprehend quicker and reduce mess. We invented “training pants” which are basically still diapers–they work great to avoid mess, but they eliminate the natural consequences that speed potty learning.

Next week: the steps I modified from Early-Start Potty Training to form my new go-to potty training plan.

Leave a comment

Filed under Baby (9 - 18 mos), Potty Training, Toddler (18 mos - 3 yrs)