cynar

I suspect most kids who would throw water at a cat like that would not be very good liars about it. Also, adults tend not to dump water on kids for no reason. I would definitely take the time to pick apart what happened, before going full papa bear mode.

I might be pissed, but my instinct would be to find out who I should be pissed at first, before going on the war path.

That's basically the goal I'm aiming for. It's also worth remembering to always give an (age appropriate) explanation with the "no". If you're using a hard no, then there is something they don't yet understand. Explaining it lets them integrate that knowledge into their future risk management.

The only downside is their confidence is high enough to terrify me! The job of containing and shaping that confidence, without damaging it gives me plenty of grey hairs.

That's why I clarified. There's 2 ways to read the phrase, one a lot harsher than the other.

It seems to be working well. It also results in me being surprised a lot of the time. I'm ready to deal with a scuffed knee, or a bruised ego. Instead they either get back up and try again, or just pull it off. At that point I need to mentally correct for their new capabilities.

The key thing is, I'm not looking after a small pet, I'm training a future adult. They need to both instinctively understand how the world works, while packing as much awesomeness and magic into the formative years as possible. Letting them learn and practice is a big part of that.

Natural consequences doesn't mean "law of the jungle" here. It just means linking cause and effect in a proportionate manner.

I tend to use a lot of "natural consequence parenting". Basically, the response should flow from the cause. If you throw water over your friend, you can't then complain if they throw water over you. You learn that, while it's fun when expected, it can be deeply unpleasant when unexpected.

It's a lot more effective than random generic punishments. The trick is shielding them from excessive results, while allowing proportional ones to play out. E.g. swinging on a chair will get a warning, but often not stopped. When they fall, there's an "I told you so" before/with the cuddle. If there is a risk of a more serious injury however, e.g. the corner of a table where their head may hit, then I step in and stop things.

As a parent, if my kid did that, I'd likely side with the neighbour. I would put it (very loosely) in the category of "natural consequence" punishments.

It fits the crime, it discourages the crime, it forces empathy with the cat, and it does no real harm.

It also hides the conditioning aspect. We hide things when we consider them negative. If they are asking, they have potentially noticed a lot more. If you hide it, you believe it was a bad thing you were doing, and they will react VERY strongly to you doing it.

By being upfront it will derail their train of thought on the matter. I personally used this a few times in my youth. It pulls the teeth of an argument quickly.

Here it is basically acknowledging what you have been doing, while defusing the various "ah ha!" reveals and got-yas they had mentally planned. At that point they have to actually think, rather than just react according to the script they built in their head. Once they are thinking, it's a lot easier to communicate properly.

Negative reinforcement should be HIGHLY limited. It can cause unforeseen knock on effects. Any negative reinforcement should be highly targeted, without triggering a fight or flight response. It should also be accompanied by clear instructions for how to correct it. This applies to both humans and pets.

It's quite likely that most of the negative traits in the OP were caused by an attempt at negative reinforcement.

Drawing boobs is second only to the instinct to draw cocks.

People forget that humans are just animals (that can sometimes reason and talk). I still stand that dog training guides make better parenting books than many parenting books. At least up till around 3 years old.

The extension of this to adults is more challenging. Intent matters. This could be used abusively VERY easily. That is not happening here, however. With great power, comes great responsibility.

It's also worth noting that, if you use this, plan out how you will explain it later. A panicked, "oh shit, (s)he caught on!" will look bad, no matter what. A calm, thoughtful, positive explanation, delivered with confidence will likely get a lot more acceptance.

A: "Ok, what's with the M&Ms?"

B: "You've noticed then. :)"

A: "..."

B: "I noticed chocolate made you happy. I also noticed you were trying to overcome some negative habits. I decided to help. Whenever you put effort in, I rewarded it with a bit of chocolate. It makes you happy, and helps you lock a good habit in better."

A: "... You've been conditioning me?!?"

B: "Yes, don't you like the improvement?"

A "... yes, but I'm not sure I should..."

B: "M&M?"

Resurrections is an excellent protest movie, in the punk vein.

It was protesting exactly the type of exploitation that Warner brothers did with the matrix.

The film is akin to a new lassie film. Only the film ends with lassie being staked out in the sun and flayed alive by a teenage sociopath, whimpering the entire time. It's a massive fuck you, intended to kill the franchise. There was just enough plausible deniability to get away, and avoid being sued for it.

I've noticed you can basically replace "woke" with empathy (in various forms).

I've broken a few people out of the "anti-woke" cycle by pointing this out. It tends to work best on people who would be woke themselves, if it was presented in a different light.

My house might be tidy... one day... I don't think it's been truly tidy in over a decade.