Chapter 12 - Parents' Fears and Concerns About the "No-Lose" Method.

Almost all parents in our P. E. T. classes easily understand the no-lose method of conflict-resolution, and they immediately perceive it as a promising new alternative. However, as they progress from discussing this new method 'in theory' in the classroom, to putting it to work in their homes, many parents experience legitimate fears: They express understandable concerns about the no-lose method.

We hear many parents say, "It sounds great in theory, but will it really work in practice?"

It is human nature to be apprehensive about something new, and for you to want to be rather thoroughly sold on it before giving up what you are accustomed to doing. Also, as a parent, you might be reluctant to "experiment" with your youngsters who are so dear to you.

This chapter discusses some of our P. E. T. parents' most important concerns and fears, and what we tell them in our hope that they will give the no-lose method a real try.

Is The No-Lose Method Simply The Old 'Family Conference' Under A New Name?

Some parents at first resist the no-lose method because they think it sounds like the old "family conference" method their own parents tried with them. When we asked P. E. T. parents in our classes to describe how their family conferences operated when they were youngsters, almost universally they describe something that fits the following picture...

• "Every Sunday Mom and Dad would make us sit around the dining room table for the purpose of having a family conference to discuss problems. Usually they brought up most of the problems, but occasionally we kids would throw out something.

  "Dad and Mom did most of the talking and Dad ran the meeting. Often they would give us a kind of lecture or sermon.

  "Usually we got a chance to express our opinions, but they almost always decided what the solution would be. At first, we thought it was kinda fun, but then it got boring. We did not keep it up very long, as I recall. The things we talked about were chores, bedtime, and how we should be more considerate of our mother during the day."

P. E. T. parents detailed a variety of family conferences, but all meetings were described as having been quite parent-centered.

Dad was clearly the chairman, and solutions invariably came from one of the parents.

The kids were "preached to", the problems were generally rather abstract and non-controversial, and the atmosphere was usually quite pleasant, warm and friendly.

The no-lose method, on the other hand, is not a meeting. It is a method for resolving conflicts- preferably as soon as they occur- and certainly not postponed for some future scheduled meeting of all family members.

Conflicts almost never involve the entire family, and most situations involve only one child and one parent. Other family members need not be present, nor should they be encouraged to get involved.

The no-lose method is, also, not a guise for mothers and fathers to employ so that they can sermonize or "educate". That ploy would incorrectly imply that the teacher or preacher already has the answer.

No "chairperson", or "leader", presides when you are using the no-lose method, and generally there is no preconceived answer to problems.

The parent and the child are equal participants- searching, and hard at work finding a solution to their common problem.

Ideally, the no-lose method is applied in a brief, on-the-spot, here-and-now way to resolve problems. We call these, "stand-up" problems, because the participants are tackling conflicts right when they occur- rather than waiting to bring them up later in the abstract at some family sit-down conference.

Lastly, it should be understood that the atmosphere during your no-lose conflict-resolutions will not always be pleasant and amiable. Conflicts between any parent and child can at times get rather emotional, and feelings can run pretty high.

Consider the following three examples.

• Last month you bought your son a car and he agreed to pay for the gas and insurance. Now he has come to you saying that he doesn't have the money for the insurance premium this month.
• Or; your teenagers often stay up later than you do during the week. They play their stereo or watch TV, which keeps you awake when you have to go to work the next day.
• Or; you finally bought a puppy for your ten-year-old daughter, with the understanding that she would feed it and walk it. For the past week, she hasn't done either.

Such conflicts may involve very strong feelings. When parents begin to understand these differences between the old-style family conference and no-lose conflict-resolution, it becomes clear that we are not reviving an ancient tradition under a new name.

Some P. E. T. Parents Initially See And Equate The No-Lose Method With Parental Weakness.

Some parents, fathers particularly, at first equate the no-lose method with "giving in" to the child, "being a weak parent," or "compromising one's own convictions".

A tape-recording was played for the P. E. T. parents of the session between Bonnie and her mother working out their going-to-school conflict. One father, after hearing it, rather angrily protested, "Why, that mother simply gave in to the child! Now she has to spend an hour with her spoiled kid every afternoon. The kid won, didn't she?"

Yes, the child "won", but so did her mother who does not have to go through an emotional hassle with her daughter five mornings per week.

That new P. E. T. father's reaction is understandable because people are so accustomed to thinking about conflicts in win-lose terms. They incorrectly think that if one person gets his or her way, the other person will fail to get his or her way. "Somebody has to lose," is a common misconception.

Often at first it is difficult for parents to understand that there is a possibility for both persons to get their way. The no-lose method is not Method 2, where the child gets her way at the expense of the parents not getting theirs. It is so natural at first for some parents to think, "If I give up Method 1, I am left with Method 2." Or for the parent to believe, "If I do not get my way, the kid will get her way." That is the familiar "either-or" way of thinking about family conflicts.

Parents have to be helped to grasp the fundamental difference involved with no-lose problem resolving. They need repeated reminders that with 'no-lose', they too must and will get their needs met. They and their children can and will accept the ultimate solution.

If you feel that you have given in to your child, then you have used Method 2, and Not the no-lose method.

For example, in the conflict between Bonnie and her mother, (when little Bonnie was not wanting to go to school,) that mother ought to have genuinely accepted giving her child that hour of exclusive attention. Otherwise, she would have been giving in to Bonnie and to method 2.

Clearly Bonnie's mother gained by no longer having to put up with hassles and nagging in the morning, but some parents initially fail to see that Bonnie's mother also gained by not feeling guilty about Bonnie's going off to school. And Bonnie's mother also had the satisfaction of discovering Bonnie's unfulfilled need, and the satisfaction from their finding a way to meet that need.

The No-Lose Method Is Not A Compromise.

A few parents persist in seeing the no-lose method as a necessary "compromise." To them, compromise means "backing down", "getting less than they wanted", or being "weak."

When I hear parents speak of the no-lose method as a compromise, I am often reminded of the phrase in President John F. Kennedy's inaugural address, "Fear not to negotiate, but never negotiate out of fear."

The no-lose method does involve you negotiating, and you do need courage to persist while you are problem-solving; persistence until a solution meets both your needs as well as your child's.

We do not equate the no-lose method with the term "compromise" in the sense of accepting less than you want. It is our experience that no-lose solutions almost always bring more to both parent and child than either had expected.

These solutions are frequently what psychologists call an "elegant solution"; good, or often best, for both. The no-lose method, therefore, does not mean that parents back down or roll over dead. Quite the contrary. Consider the following conflict involving an entire family, and note how rewarding it was to the parents as well as the children.

The Mother reported.

• Thanksgiving planning time was at hand. As usual, I felt the need to prepare a family dinner with turkey, and to have a formal family gathering.

  My three sons and my husband voiced some other desires, so we went into problem-solving. Father wanted to paint the house and resented having to take time out for an elaborate dinner and entertaining company.

  My son in college wanted to bring home a friend who had never had a real Thanksgiving family gathering in his own home.

  My high-school boy wanted to go to the family cabin for the entire four days.

  The youngest boy complained about having to get all dressed up and going through the ordeal of a "formal" dinner.

  I, of course, put a lot of value on my family's feeling of togetherness. Plus I felt the need to be a good mother by preparing an elegant turkey dinner.

  The plan that resulted from the problem-solving was that I would prepare a token turkey dinner that we would take up to the cabin after Father painted the house. My college son would bring home his friend, and all of them would help Father paint so we could get up to the cabin sooner.

  The results were, that for a change, there was no door-slamming, and no anger. Everybody had a great time- the best Thanksgiving the family ever spent together. Even my son's guest helped with the painting. It was the first time our sons helped their father do any of the work on the house without a major hassle. Dad was ecstatic, the boys were enthused, and I felt good about my role for Thanksgiving.

  Also, I did not have all the work usually required of me to prepare a huge dinner. It worked out better than our fondest dreams. Never again will I dictate family decisions!

In my own family some years ago, a conflict arose about our Easter vacation, and the no-lose method unexpectedly produced a novel solution acceptable to all of us. My wife and I felt in no way weak at the end; we felt lucky to have avoided the following Newport Beach dilemma.

• Our daughter, fifteen years old, wanted to accept an invitation to spend Easter vacation with several girlfriends at Newport Beach ("where the boys are," as well as the beer, the pot, and the cops).

  My wife and I had real fears about exposing our daughter to what we had heard so often goes on at these yearly gatherings of thousands of high-school kids. We expressed our fears, which our daughter heard but discounted in view of her strong wish to be with her friends at the beach. We knew we would lose sleep and feared we would be called out in the middle of the night to haul her out of real trouble.

  Active Listening uncovered something surprising- her principal needs were to be with a particular girlfriend, to be someplace where there would be boys, and to be at the beach so she could return to school with a deep tan.

  Two days after the conflict arose, and was still unresolved, our daughter came up with a novel solution. She asked if we would consider a vacation weekend, saying, "You have not taken one for a long time, you know." Our daughter would take her friend, and we would all stay at the motel on the grounds of one of my favorite golf courses, which also happened to be close to the beach- not Newport Beach, but another where boys were also likely to be found.

  My wife and I literally pounced on her solution, greatly relieved to find a way to avoid all the anxieties we would have had about her being at Newport Beach without supervision. Our daughter was delighted, too, because she would get all her needs met.

  We carried out the plan. We all had fun together at night after my wife and I had golfed, and the girls had spent the day on the beach. It so happened that few boys were on this particular beach, which disappointed the girls. Still, neither complained to us, nor expressed any feelings indicating resentment toward us for the decision we had reached.

That situation also illustrates how some no-lose solutions do not turn out to be perfect.

Sometimes, unpredictably, what appears to be a solution meeting everyone's needs ends up being disappointing to someone.

Yet, in families using no-lose problem resolving, the disappointment does not seem to cause resentment and bitterness. That is because it was not the parents who caused the kids' disappointment as would be the case with Method 1.

Rather, it was chance, fate, the weather, or bad-luck. The child can blame external or unpredictable forces, yes, but not the parents. The no-lose method of problem resolving allows kids to realize that the outcome of solutions is as much their responsibility as their parents'.

Groups Can Not Make Decisions.

It is a commonly believed myth that only individuals, not groups, are capable of making decisions.

"A camel is the result of a committee that made a group decision about how to design a horse." That is a humorous quotation often used by parents to support their belief that groups either can not come up with a solution, or that the solution will be inferior. Another statement, that parents often bring up in class, is, "Someone eventually has to decide for the group."

That myth persists because so few people have been given the opportunity to be in an effective decision-making group. Throughout their lives, most adults have been denied this experience by those who have had power over them, and so those adults have consistently used Method 1 to solve problems, or to resolve conflicts- parents, teachers, aunts, uncles, Scout leaders, coaches, baby-sitters, military leaders, bosses, and so on.

Most adults in our "democratic" society have seldom been given the chance to experience seeing a group solve problems and conflicts democratically. It is no wonder that parents are skeptical of the decision-making capabilities of groups. They have never had a chance to see one! The implications are frightening in view of how frequently leaders proclaim the importance of bringing up kids to be responsible citizens.

Perhaps this is why some parents require a great deal of evidence that a family group can, and will, make high quality decisions to resolve problems- even those problems that are frequently rather sticky and complex, such as conflicts about...

• Allowances and money.
• Care of the home.
• Chores.
• Family purchases.
• Using the TV.
• Using the video game player.
• Vacations.
• Conduct of kids at parties in the home.
• Using the phone.
• Bedtime hours.
• Mealtimes.
• Who sits where in the car.
• Using the computer.
• Kinds of food available.
• Allocation of rooms or closets.
• Condition of rooms.

The list is endless, but families can make decisions as a group. The proof will come every day when they use the no-lose method. Of course, parents must make a commitment to use the no-lose method, and must give themselves and their children the opportunity to experience how much a group can be trusted to arrive at creative and mutually acceptable solutions.

The No-Lose Method Takes Too Much Time.

The idea of having to spend a lot of time problem-solving worries many parents.

Mr. W., a busy executive, already overextended in meeting the demands of his job, declared, "I can not possibly find the time to sit down, and spend an hour with each of my kids every time a conflict comes up. That would be ridiculous!"

Mrs. B., mother of five youngsters, says, "I would never get anything done if I had to use the no-lose method with each of my five children. They are a handful now!"

There is no denying that effective problem solving takes time. The amount of time depends on the problem, and the willingness of a parent and a child to search for a no-lose solution. Here are four findings from the experiences of parents who made a genuine effort with no-lose problem resolving.

• 1. Many conflicts are "quickies" or "stand-up" problems requiring from a few minutes to ten minutes.
• 2. Some problems take longer, such as allowances, chores, use of the TV set, bedtime hours. However, once the problem is jointly resolved by the no-lose method, they generally stay solved. Unlike Method 1 decisions dictated by parents, no-lose decisions do not continually come up again, and again.
• 3. Parents save time in the long run because they do not have to spend countless hours reminding, enforcing, checking up, or hassling.
• 4. When the no-lose method is first introduced in a family, the first problem solving sessions usually take longer than the sessions will in the future. This is because the kids, as well as the parents, are not well experienced with the new process. Kids may, also, initially distrust their parents' good intentions, thinking, "What is this new technique you are using to control us?"Children may also have residual resentments, or children may, out of habit, have win-lose postures and feel, "I have got to get my way."

Additionally, the most significant outcome of families' using the no-lose method is an outcome that I had not expected, and is the greatest time-saver of all. After a period of time, conflicts simply no longer come up very often.

• One mother reported to us less than a year after taking P.E.T., "We seem to have run out of things to problem-solve."

Another mother, in response to my request for examples of continuing no-lose attempts in her family, wrote...

• "We would have liked to respond to your appeal for case material, but we do not seem to have had many conflicts lately to give us further no-lose practice."

In my own family, so few serious parent-child conflicts have occurred that I frankly can not at this time recall one. Things get worked out easily and immediately without turning into full-fledged "conflicts."

I had expected conflicts to keep cropping up, year after year, and I am sure most parents in P.E.T. did, too. So, why the decrease?

It makes sense to me, now that I have thought about it. The no-lose method of dealing with the conflicts brings about a radically different posture of kids and parents toward each other. Knowing that their parents have given up using power to get their way, and that their parents no longer feel that they must 'win', even at the expense of not respecting the needs of their kids, these kids now have no reason to press hard to get their own way; nor do the children feel the need to defend vigorously against the parents' power. Consequently, strong clashes of needs disappear almost totally.

Instead, a youngster becomes accommodating, and as respectful of his or her parents' needs as he or she is her own needs. When a child has a need, she expresses it, and her parents look for ways of accommodating her need. When the parents have needs, they express them, and the youngster looks for ways of accommodating the parent. Then when either party has any difficulty in accommodating the other person's needs, in unison they now view the problem as more of a problem to be worked out together, rather than a fight to be fought.

One other interesting thing happens as well. Parents and kids start to use responsible methods to avoid or resolve anticipated conflicts well in advance of the situation's arrival.

For example, an adolescent daughter makes a point of leaving a note for her parents at the front door, reminding them of her need to have the car that night.

Or the child asks ahead of time if it would interfere with her parents if he invites his friend for dinner next Friday. Note that he does not ask for permission. Getting parents' permission is a pattern born out of a Method 1 home, and implies that the parents might deny permission.

In a no-lose, climate, the child says, "I want to do my thing, and I can do so confidently at any time, unless I learn it might interfere with you doing your thing."

"AREN'T PARENTS JUSTIFIED IN USING METHOD I BECAUSE THEY ARE WISER?"

The notion that a parent is justified in using power over her children because she is wiser or more experienced has firm roots. We listed many of the usual rationalizations earlier:

• "We know best from our experience."
• "We're denying you only for your own good."
• "When you're older, you'll thank us for making you do these things."
• "We just want to prevent you from making the same mistakes we made."
• "We just can't let you do something that we know you'll be sorry for later."
• etc., etc.

Many parents who convey these or similar messages to their children sincerely believe what they say. No other attitude is more difficult to modify in our classes than the one that parents are justified in using power- even have a responsibility to use power- because they know more, are brighter, wiser, more mature, or more experienced.

This is not an attitude held exclusively by parents. Throughout history tyrants have used this argument to justify their use of power over those whom they have oppressed. Most had a very low opinion of their subjects- whether slaves, peasants, barbarians, backwoodsmen, Christians, heretics, rabble, commoners, the working class, Jews, Latinos, Asians, or women. It seems almost universal that those who exercise power over others must somehow rationalize and justify their oppression and inhumanity by judging those on whom they use their power to be inferior.

How can anyone refute the idea that parents are wiser and more experienced than children? It seems to be such a self-evident truth. Yet, when we ask parents in our classes, whether their own parents made unwise Method I decisions, they all say, "Yes." How easy it is for parents to forget their own experience as children! How easy to forget that children sometimes know better than parents when they are sleepy or hungry; know better the qualities of their friends, their own aspirations and goals, how their various teachers treat them; know better the urges and needs within their bodies, whom they love and whom they don't, what they value and what they don't.

Parents have superior wisdom? No, not about many things concerning their children. Parents do have much valuable wisdom and experience, and that wisdom and experience need never be buried.

Many parents in P.E.T. overlook at first the point that the wisdom of both the parent and the child is mobilized by the no-lose method. Neither is left out of problem-solving (in contrast to Method 1, which ignores a child's wisdom, or Method 2, which ignores the wisdom of parents).

A mother of lovely, exceptionally bright twin girls reported a successful problem-solving session about whether the twins should be advanced one grade in school, so their schoolwork would be more interesting and challenging, or remain in their present class with their friends. This is the type of problem that is traditionally solved by "experts" exclusively- teachers and parents. In this case the mother had ideas, but she also trusted the wisdom of her daughters' feelings, their own assessment of their intellectual potential, their own judgment of what would be best for them. After several days of weighing pros and cons, including listening to ideas and contributions from the mother as well as information given to them by their teacher, the twins accepted the solution that they should be advanced. The outcome of this family decision turned out to be favorable without exception, both in terms of the twins' happiness and their school performance.

"CAN METHOD 3 WORK WITH YOUNG CHILDREN?"

• "I can see how Method 3 might work with older kids who are more verbal, more mature and capable of reasoning, but not with youngsters aged two to six. They're just too young to know what's best for them, so don't you have to use Method 1?"

This question is asked in every P.E.T. class. However, evidence from families who have tried Method 3 with very young children proves it can work. Here is a brief session between a three-year-old girl and her mother, who submitted the situation:

A two-year-old girl responded to the non-power method in this incident described by her mother:

• "I was cooking dinner one night and my daughter was gurgling happily on her rocking horse. Then she took the straps used to buckle the child on and began to try to buckle the straps herself. Her face reddened and she began to scream in a high-pitched voice as her frustration mounted.

  "I found myself getting angry at her screaming, so in my usual fashion I knelt down to do it for her. But she fought me and kept screaming. Now I was ready to pick up her and the rocking horse and deposit them both in her room, slamming the door to shut out the noise.

  "Then something clicked in me. So I knelt down, placed my hands on top of hers and said, 'You're really mad because you can't do that yourself.' She nodded, stopped the screaming, and a few belated sobs later was again happily rocking away. And I thought, 'You mean it really is that simple?"'

To this somewhat surprised mother, I would have to say, "No, it isn't always that simple," but Method 3 does work surprisingly well with preschool children-and even infants. I remember well this incident in our family:

• When our daughter was only five months old, we went on a week's vacation during which we lived in a cabin beside a fishing lake. Before this the trip we had felt lucky because the little one had never needed a feeding from 11:00 P.M. until 7:00 A.M.

  The change in surroundings brought a change in our luck. She started waking up at 4:00 A.M. for a feeding. At that hour of the morning, getting up to feed her was painful. In northern Wisconsin in September, it was freezing in the cabin and all we had was a wood-burning stove.

  This meant we either had to go to the trouble of building a fire or, equally bad, wrap up in blankets and try to stay warm for the hour it took to prepare the formula, warm the bottle, and feed her. We truly felt this was a "conflict-of-needs situation," needing some joint problem-solving.

  Putting our heads together, my wife and I decided to offer the infant an alternative solution in the hope that she would find it acceptable to her. Instead of waking her up and feeding her at 11:00, the next night we let her sleep until 12:00, then fed her. That morning she slept until 5:00 A.M. So far, pretty good.

  The next night we made a special effort to see to it that she drank more than her usual amount of milk and then put her to bed around 12:30. It worked- she bought it. That morning, and subsequent mornings, she did not waken until 7:00, when we wanted to get up anyway to get out on the lake when the fish were biting best. Nobody lost, we all won.

Not only is it possible to use Method 3 with infants; it is important to begin using it early in the child's life. The earlier it is started, the sooner the child will learn how to relate to others democratically, to respect others' needs, and to recognize it when her own needs are respected.

Parents who have taken P.E.T. after their kids are older and introduce them to Method 3 after they have become accustomed to the two power-struggle methods invariably have a more difficult time of it than parents who start using Method 3 from the very start.

One father told his P.E.T. class that the first few times he and his wife tried Method 3 their older boy said, "What's this new psychological technique you're using to try and make us do what you want?" This perceptive son, accustomed to win-lose conflict-resolution (with the kids usually losing), was finding it hard to trust his parents' good intentions and their genuine desire to try the no-lose method. In the next chapter I will show how to handle such resistance from teenagers.

"AREN'T THERE TIMES WHEN METHOD 1 HAS TO BE USED?"

It has become a joke with those of us who teach P.E.T. that in almost every new class some parent will challenge the validity or limits of Method 3 by one of two questions:

• "But what if your kid runs into the street in front of a car? Don't you have to use Method 1?"
• "But what if your kid gets severe appendicitis? Don't you have to use Method 1 to make her go to the hospital?"

Our answer to both these questions is "Yes, of course." These are crisis situations that demand immediate and firm action. Yet, prior to the crisis of the child's running in front of a car or needing to be taken to the hospital, non-power methods can be used.

If a child develops a habit of running into the street, a parent might first try to talk to the child about the dangers of cars, walk her around the edge of the yard, and tell her that anything beyond is not safe, show her a picture of a child hit by a car, build a fence around the yard, or watch her when she is playing in the front yard for a couple of days, reminding her each time when she goes beyond the limits. Even if I took the punishment approach, I would never risk my child's life on the assumption that punishment alone would keep her from going into the street. I would want to employ more certain methods in any event.

With children who get sick and require surgery or shots or medicine, non-power methods also can be extremely effective. In the following situation with a nine-year-old, she and her mother were driving to the allergy clinic to start a regimen of twice-weekly injections for her hay fever. The mother used only Active Listening.

This mother then described the outcome- Lindsay eventually went in, kept the appointment as planned, had her shots, and received a compliment from the nurse on her cooperation. Lindsay's mother also added the following:

• Prior to P.E.T. I would have lectured her about the necessity of carrying out a doctor's treatment plan, or I would have told her how much my own allergy shots were helping, or said that shots really didn't hurt much, or moralized about how lucky she was to have no other health problem, or else I would have become exasperated and told her outright to quit complaining. I certainly wouldn't have given her a chance to remember the nurse who gives shots so you don't "even know it when the needle goes in."

"WON'T I LOSE MY KIDS' RESPECT?"

Some parents, particularly fathers, fear that using Method 3 will cause their kids to lose respect for them. They tell us:

• "I'm afraid my kids will run all over me."
• "Shouldn't kids look up to their parents?"
• "I think kids should respect the authority of their parents."
• "Are you suggesting that parents treat their kids as equals?"

Many parents are confused about the term "respect." Sometimes when they use the term, as in "respect my authority," they really mean "fear." They are concerned about their kids losing their fear of the parents and then not obeying or resisting efforts to control them. When confronted by this definition, some parents have said, "No, I don't mean that- I want them to respect me for my abilities, my knowledge, and so on. I guess I really wouldn't want them to fear me."

We then ask such parents, "How do you get to respect another adult for her abilities and her knowledge?" Usually, the answer is, "Well, she would have demonstrated her abilities- she would somehow have earned my respect." Generally, it becomes obvious to these parents that they, too, must earn their kids' respect by demonstrating their competence or their knowledge.

Most parents, when they think clearly about it, know that they cannot demand someone's respect- they have to earn it. If their abilities and knowledge are worthy of respect, their kids will respect them. If they are not, they won't.

Parents who have made a genuine effort to substitute Method 3 for the win-lose methods generally discover their kids have developed a new kind of respect for them- not one based on fear, but one based on a change in their perception of the parent as a person. A school principal wrote this moving letter to me:

• "I can best tell you what P.E.T. has meant in my life by telling you that my stepdaughter didn't like me from the time I came on the scene when she was two and one-half years old. This really got to me- her disdain. Kids generally like me- but not Sally.

  I began to dislike her- even loathe her. So much so that one early morning I had a dream in which my feelings about her were so antagonistic, so distasteful that the intensity of the negative feelings awakened me with a shock. I knew then I needed help.

  I got into therapy. The therapy helped me relax a bit, but Sally still didn't like me. Six months after my therapy- Sally was ten years old by now- I took P.E.T. and later began teaching it.

  Within a year, Sally and I had as rich a relationship as I would desire and dream of. She is thirteen now. We respect one another, we like one another, we laugh, we argue, play, work, and occasionally cry with one another.

  I received my 'graduation certificate' from Sally about a month ago. Our family was eating in a Chinese restaurant. While we were all opening our fortune cookies, Sally silently read hers and then handed it to me saying, 'This should be for you, Dad.' It read, 'You will be happy in your children and they in you.' You see, I have reason to thank you for giving me P.E.T."

Sally's respect for her stepfather, most parents would readily agree, is the kind of respect they really want from their kids. Method 3 does cause children to lose fear-based "respect," but what has a parent lost when in its place he has earned a far better kind of respect?