For a long time I have not heard from the mouth of psychologists, pediatricians, pedagogues and other professionals the theory that says that to raise a child, with thirty minutes a day is enough, if the time we spend with him is quality. Not from their mouths, but I still hear it from the mouth of ordinary people, fathers and mothers, convinced (perhaps self-convinced) that it is normal or logical to spend half an hour with our son, very intense at the level of relationship, hoping that with that we have done all the work.
Those thirty minutes, or whatever time, is what It is known as "quality time", which apparently is better than "the amount of time", with which they refer to spending hours and hours with the child being for other things, such as buying, cooking, cleaning, picking up, etc. Now, is the "amount of time" really worse than the "quality time"? In other words: would it not be better to spend many hours even if we are not one hundred percent with our son, than spend a very intense half hour with him?
Neither yes, nor no, not quite the opposite
The answer is a depends. And it is a depends because first of all I want to run away from both extremes, because there are nuances in each other that may not make any of the situations completely bad, or make it bad, very bad.
To begin, to say that with 30 minutes we have a raised child it is absurd, so much, that I raise him to insult to intelligence. I know that many "experts" have said that they will probably continue to think so. I know that many parents have believed it and they go to bed every night in peace knowing that they have spent half an hour with their children. I didn't believe it, like many other parents, because half an hour a day is too little time to do anything. Imagine a relationship in which you can only see 30 minutes a day. Imagine studying a career with 30 minutes a day. Imagine starting a new project, the most important of your lives, with 30 minutes a day. Imagine you have a job that you go to 30 minutes a day.
No, you cannot pretend to educate a child with thirty minutes a day, which is one of the most difficult things there is, because children they not only learn from what they hear, but also learn, and above all, from what they see. Sit with them for 30 minutes and tell them stories, or play, or do puzzles, or listen to what they have to tell us or explain what we have to tell them is nothing compared to what children really need, which is soak up our lives.
But why thirty minutes?
Now, running away from the absurd thirty-minute theory, if you told me that we talked about one hour one day, two hours another, five hours another day, ten weekends, half an hour another day, etc. I don't say anything anymore. If all that time is more or less intense, being with them and for them, alternating with some "amount of time" when there are more hours, surely we could raise a child perfectly.
But of course, we would be leaving a bit of the 30-minute theory, which the "experts" imagined they devised to convince themselves that what they did with their children was fine, seeing them for a little while every day and giving up their education and their lives to third parties and who do not stop repeating so that the parents of now, who have the need to work both to live, do not complain too much for not being able to spend more time with his kids.
The amount of time
In contrast to "quality time" is the "amount of time", having the child at home without going to daycare and having the child make a large part of our life: go shopping, be with him while we make food, We pick up the house, if we talk on the phone, if we are watching TV, yes ... all this is considered "no quality" time, because we are not specifically for them.
However, children also have to share this time with us because it's a lie that it is time of no quality. Lying because while we do, they look. We are going to buy and observe what we do, how we do it, the words we say, how we greet and respond to us, how we thank and give them to us, how we pay and give us the change. They are at home and they see us putting the clothes inside the washing machine, picking it up, folding it. They see us make food, handle the dishes, put everything on plates, say "Let's eat!", Wash the dishes or put them in the dishwasher. They see us…
And all that for them is learning. If you won't tell me (or be told by "30 minutes is enough"), how can it be that my 2-year-old son (and most two-year-olds) hears our "Let's eat!" and go to his brothers and sisters to tell them the same thing, how could he talk on the phone with everyone and nobody, how could he say thank you without having told him that "What do you say? Grraaaaciiiaaaasss", how can it be to remove the diaper and throw it away, without having explained that it is thrown there, how can it be that you put the clothes in the bucket of clothes without having read the story "The little turtle that did not know that clothes go to the clothes bin "and so many other things he does simply because he sees us do them.
Is more even when we are not offering you anything to do, that is quality time, because in those moments when a child does not know what to do, his mind starts to begin to imagine or decide what to do next. In a world where they spend the day doing what we tell them they have to do, all with a schedule, that children have time to free play is a luxury that we should value more.
But, what if the mother or father passes the child Olympic?
Of course, we can go to the extreme: the mother or the father who are with their children all day but who take them everywhere because there is no other choice, passing the children Olympic, without hardly speaking to them. We all agree that it is not ideal, right? But as I say, I run away from this extreme because I am on the basis that parents have an interest in educating their children.
What, then, is the ideal?
I have it very clear, the "amount of time" with part of "quality time." That is, spend with the child the longer the better, without having to be constantly doing activities for him. A while yes, of course, that children love to play with us (and we with them), telling stories, doing puzzles and playing whatever they like, but the rest, the rest must be everyday life, day by day, talk to him, explain where we are going, tell him what we are going to do, and thus spend the minutes and hours with him. I see no better way to teach him to live, nor to learn to live.
And even when our children are in one room, doing whatever, and we in another room, doing whatever is good. Many people say "how absurd, the child is alone", but it is a lie. It's a lie because although they are alone at that time, they know they are accompanied, and that I don't need you right now doesn't mean that in half an hour I don't want to be with you. Besides, I like to be alone, but accompanied, than to be alone, in an empty house. It seems the same, but it is not. And for children either.
Photos | Thinkstock On Babies and more | Quality time or quantity of time ?, The time we do not devote to our children, With love, time is relativized, by Javier Urra
