Every parent has been there. You’re frustrated, your child isn’t listening, and you’re just done. In that moment, it’s all too easy to let a “Because I said so!” slip out. But as child psychologists and parenting experts continually point out, the problem might not be that your kids aren’t listening—it might be that the phrases we’re using are completely ineffective.

Luckily, child psychologists have found five of the least effective yet common phrases parents use on their kids and offer some quality alternatives that work. There are also five phrases provided by child psychologists that parents can use to help their children and strengthen their relationships.

Let’s get started.

Least effective: “How many times do I have to tell you?”

More effective: “I’ve asked about this many times now, what is making this hard for you?”

Saying “How many times do I have to tell you?” just showcases your frustration and implies to the child that they’re intentionally defiant when they could be missing the mark because they’re confused or there’s a disconnect rather than intentional incompetence. The more effective phrasing allows you to figure out where the problem is rather than peg the child themselves as the problem.

Least effective: “You know better than that.”

More effective: “I know you can do this, let’s figure out what the trouble is.”

“You know better than that” is more confrontational and makes the child worry more about punishment rather than getting the result you ultimately want. The alternate phrasing allows your child to solve the issue as a team and reinforces the idea that you’re there to help them.

@somocomlab

A lot of people asked for a part 2 to the 10 phrases you shouldn’t say to your kids video, so here it is! 10 positive phrases you can use to empower your kids, strengthen your relationship, and model positive emotion regulation so they can learn how to not lose it when things don’t go their way. #gentleparenting #childdevelopment #parenthood #mentalhealth #familyfirst #childrensmentalhealth #traumaresources #connection #relationship #positiveparenting #consciousparenting #respectfulparenting ♬ original sound – Somocom Lab

Least effective: “If you don’t ____, I’ll take away ____.”

More effective: “When you’re ready to ____, we can do ____.”

This type of phrasing just puts the child into a defensive mode and feels like picking a fight over power dynamics rather than just getting them to put their toys away, get ready for bed, etc. The alternative option allows you to keep the boundary you’ve set while allowing your child to have a feeling of agency.

Least effective: “Stop crying, you’re fine.”

More effective: “Tell me what is happening that is making you this upset.”

Telling a child to just stop feeling an emotion doesn’t help in two ways. One, it tells the child that their feelings are wrong or too much for themselves or others to handle. Two, it tells them that you’re not a person that is concerned about their feelings and it limits their ability to trust you. Getting your child to share why they’re feeling in such big ways will calm them down faster, allow you to alleviate their fears or concerns, and grow trust between you.

Least effective: “Because I said so.”

parenting, child psychology, effective parenting, phrases for kids, what to say to kids, parenting hacks, communication, positive parenting, toddlers, discipline
Gif of Kaitlin Olson saying


More effective: “I know you don’t like this, but let me explain and then we’ll move on.”

Be honest, has that phrase ever worked without you feeling resentment toward your parents? “Because I said so” just shuts down any communication, telling your child that blind obedience is expected and closes them off from feeling understood or heard. The alternative phrase lets them know that their feelings are heard and that you’ll make attempts at mutual understanding, but that the subject itself isn’t open for debate or negotiation.

With all of those alternatives given, there are some phrases the child psychologists recommend parents say often in order to strengthen bonds with their children to the point that they’ll likely make life as a parent much easier for you and them. Here are a few of them:

Most effective: “How can I help you ____?”

Being a parent means reminding your child that you’re there to guide them when they need you. Offering to help isn’t the same as offering to “rescue” them or to do something for them instead, but to provide that guidance and assistance. “How can I help you clean up?”, “How can I help you understand this math problem?,” “How can I help you remember to feed the dog?,” and other such phrasing puts the responsibility and ability on them while allowing them room to learn how to accomplish the tasks should they require it.

Most effective: “What I know is…”

Even the best kids are mistaken or, frankly, lie. But calling them out on their mistakes or lies could lead to tantrums and arguments that don’t really get you anywhere. Instead, pointing out the facts of the situation (“What I know is that there were five cookies before I left you with them and now there are only two…”) spells out the facts at hand without accusation and leaves your child to either admit their mistakes or to point out information that you might not know. In either case, the truth will reveal itself.

@the.family.coach

A parents words are powerful. We can use our words to build into break. To mold. To encourage. To build esteem and identity. Self-worth courage. Bravery. Grit. Kindness. As we all know, our kids can sometimes bring out the worst in us. We can say horrible things sometimes. But we can also say beautiful things. Things that will change the way that they see themselves, and see the world. If you are struggling with your parenting, your emotions, or what comes out of your mouth. Or if you have a really challenging kid that you cannot seem to get through to… I can help. I’ve been helping parents like you for over two decades. Go to my website and read more about my parent coaching and book a free call with me. ♬ Summer day – TimTaj

Most effective: “I understand why you’re angry/sad about this, what can we do now?”

Emotions can be difficult for even adults to manage, so it’s beneficial to help your child manage theirs and teach them some healthy ways to express them while they’re young. Saying that you understand reminds the child that their feelings are valid and normal, and asking what you two can do offers both agency to the child and reminds them that you’re there to help them as a team.

Most effective: “I’m sorry, I made a mistake.”

Apologizing and owning up if you make an error or lose your temper can be huge for a child. It reinforces the fact that they’re people deserving of respect and that they too should apologize when they’re in the wrong. It also builds trust that you will give them similar grace if they share that they made a mistake and apologize for it, rather than hide it or try to cover it up to prevent themselves from getting into further trouble.

Most effective: “Thank you for ____.”

“Thank you for putting your toys away without me asking.” “Thank you for being nice and playing with your baby brother.” “Thank you for listening to me.” It feels good to be thanked regardless of age, and it lets your child know that their actions are seen, appreciated, and matter. This encourages good behavior and lets them know that what they are doing is making a difference.

Communication is key in any relationship, but without practice, it can easily break down between parent and child given children’s overall inexperience in life. However, with the right mindset and words used by the adults in their lives, children can grow and learn in a healthy environment while also being less of a headache for their parents who just want what’s best for them. With proper communication they can really grow in amazing ways, and they may even learn to not leave their shoes at the bottom of the stairs for the 112th time.

This article originally appeared earlier this year.

  • Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes
    Photo credit: CanvaA man with fast reflexes.

    At first glance, this probably looks like a camera trick. Ken Lee, an Italian content creator, has built a massive online following by doing something that doesn’t quite feel real. Viewers refer to him as the “human cheetah” because it appears he has near-instant reflexes.

    Grabbing objects out of the air with uncanny precision, flicking clothespins and lighters, and throwing a blur of punches and kicks at impossible speeds, it is easy to call him unbelievable. Half the audience thinks his viral speed videos are fake. The other half is just as convinced they are watching something incredibly rare.

    Hands so fast they blur time

    In the video above, a timer runs to confirm its authenticity. In what looks like half a second, he reaches out and snags the lighter from the table. To prove it is real, he does it twice.

    Having amassed millions of followers on his TikTok page, the identity behind the mysterious influencer remains largely unknown. Active since around 2022, with almost 100 million accumulated likes, Lee has cultivated a fandom around his self-proclaimed “Superhero per Hobby!”

    Do you believe it is real? Is this person the fastest human alive? Many followers cannot wait for the next video to be posted. Plenty of his fervent fans are Italian, so sifting through the remarks takes a bit of hunting. Here are some comments that sum up how much people enjoy the fun and the spectacle:

    “Ken lee the fastest and the best”

    “Most dangerous human”

    “Is this what the lighter sees before my homie steals it”

    “It was sped up during he grabbed the lighter, if u count up with the timer u would be off by like 0,5 seconds whenever he grabs the lighter.”

    “If the flash were human”

    “How is it possible to get such powers ?”

    “I blinked and I missed it”

    People love good entertainment

    The awe of peak performance attracts people to watch elite athletes, musicians, or even dancers. There is something that deeply satisfies all of us when a human appears to push a skill to its limit. Whether it is real or fake seems to matter less than the opportunity to chime in on some good entertainment.

    How far could any of us go by practicing and repeating a particular motion over and over until it is mastered? Beneath the flashy nickname and his viral speed videos, Lee’s content has a way of drawing people in. This is not a superpower. Just repetition. Focus. Obsession. And maybe some digital wizardry.

    Testing the science of speed

    If you wish to question the validity of Lee’s performances, maybe some basic science can help. Human reaction time is not just a reflex. A 2024 study found that the nervous system can fine-tune responses in real time. Practice can make movements appear almost automatic.

    It has been well established in research that the gap between seeing something and responding has a limit. A 2025 study concluded that the most elite extremes allow for reaction times of 100 milliseconds. At that speed, the human brain can barely process that something has happened.

    Science explains Lee is not necessarily moving as fast as we might perceive him to be. And therein lies all the fun of it. We cannot prove it is real, nor can we actually prove that it is fake.

    Maybe Lee is the “fastest man alive” or the so-called “human cheetah.” Or maybe he is just a remarkable entertainer. Either way, he has clearly tapped into something strange and fascinating: a blend of human ability and fantasy that people do not want to miss.

    To give context to Lee’s videos, watch this performance on Tú Sí Que Vales:

  • Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes
    Photo credit: LisaStrachan/iStock via Getty Images Fear not: There isn’t anything that needs saving.

    As a linguistics professor, I’m often asked why English is decaying before our eyes, whether it’s “like” being used promiscuouslyt’s being dropped deleteriously or “literally” being deployed nonliterally.

    While these common gripes point to eccentric speech patterns, they don’t point to grammatical annihilation. English has weathered far worse.

    Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Old English, spoken from approximately A.D. 450 to 1100, is pretty unintelligible to us today. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of reading “Beowulf” in high school knows how different English back then used to sound. Word endings did a lot more grammatical work, and verbs followed more complicated patterns. Remnants of those rules fuel lingering debates today, such as when to use “whom” over “who,” and whether the past tense of “sneak” is “snuck” or “sneaked.”

    The language went on to experience centuries of tumult: Viking invasions, which introduced Old Norse influence; Anglo-Norman French rule, which shifted the language of the elite to French; and 18th-Century grammarians, who dictated norms with their elocution and grammar guides.

    In that time, English has lost almost all of the more complex linguistic trappings it was born with to become the language we know and – at least, sometimes – love today. And as I explain in my new book, “Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents,” it was all thanks to the way that language naturally evolves to meet the social needs of its speakers.

    From dropping the ‘l’ to dropping the ‘g’

    The things we tend to label as “bad” or sloppy English – for instance, the “g” that gets lost from our -ing endings or the deletion of a “t” when we say a word like “innernet” – actually reflect speech habits that are centuries old.

    Take, for example, “often.” Originally spoken with the “t,” that pronunciation gradually became less favored around the 15th century, alongside that “l” in “talk” and the “k” in know. Meanwhile, the “s” now stuck on the back of verbs like “does” and “makes” began as a dialectal variant that only became popular in 16th-century London. It gradually replaced “th” whenever third persons were involved, as in “The lady doth protest too much.”

    While dropping the “l” in talk may have been initially frowned upon, today it would be strange if you pronounced the letter. And the shift makes sense: It smoothed out some linguistic awkwardness for the sake of efficiency.

    If people learned to look at language more like linguists, they might come around to seeing that there is more than one perspective on what good speech consists of.

    And yes, that absolutely is a sentence ending with a preposition – something many modern grammar guides discourage, even though the idea only took hold after 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth intimated it was a less elegant choice based on the model of Latin.

    Though Lowth voiced no hard and fast rule against it, many a grammar maven later misconstrued his advice as an admonition. Just like that, a mere suggestion became grammatical law.

    The rise of the grammar sticklers

    Many of today’s ideas about what constitutes correct English are based on a singular – often mistaken – 19th-century view of the forces that govern our language.

    In the late 18th century, the English-speaking world began experiencing class restructuring and higher literacy rates. As greater class mobility became possible, accent differences became class markers that separated new money from old money.

    Emulation of upper-crust speech norms became popular among the nouveau riche. With literacy also on the rise, grammarians and elocutionists raced to dictate the terms of “proper” English on and off the page, which led to the rise of usage guides and dictionaries that were eager to sell a certain brand of speech.

    Another example of grammarian angst reconfiguring the view of an otherwise perfectly fine form is the droppin’ of the “g.” It became so tied to slovenly speech that it was branded with an apostrophe in the 19th century to make sure no one missed its lackadaisical and nonstandard nature.

    Up until the 19th century, however, no one seemed to care whether one pronounced it as “-in” or “-ing.”

    Evidence suggests that -ing wasn’t even heard as the correct form. Many elocution guides from the 18th century provide rhyming word pairs like “herring/heron,” “coughing/coffin” and “jerking/jerkin,” which suggest that “-in” may have been the preferred pronunciation of words ending with “-ing.” Even writer and satirist Jonathan Swift – a frequent lobbyist for “proper” English – rhymes “brewing” with “ruin” in his 1731 poem “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, D.S.P.D..”

    Embrace the change

    Language has always shifted and evolved. People often bristle at changes from what they’ve known to what is new. And maybe that’s because this process often begins with speakers that society usually looks less favorably on: the young, the female, the poor, the nonwhite.

    But it’s important to remember that being disliked and bad are not the same thing – that today’s speech pariahs are driven by the same linguistic and social needs as the Londoners who started going with “does” instead of “doth” or dropped the “t” in often.

    So if you think the speech that comes from your lips is the “correct” version, think again. Thou, like every other English speaker, art literally the product of centuries of linguistic reinvention.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • 10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild
    Photo credit: Ian Taylor PhotographerTwo young children play in the grass.

    It sounds like the plot of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. However, in the mid-2000s, it was a very real and very controversial reality television experiment.

    Footage from the UK Channel 4 documentary Boys and Girls Alone is captivating audiences all over again. It offers a fascinating and chaotic look at what happens when you remove parents from the equation.

    The premise was simple but high stakes. Twenty children, aged 11 and 12, were split into two groups by gender. Ten boys and ten girls were placed in separate houses and told to live without adult supervision for five days.

    The Setup

    While there were safety nets in place, the day-to-day living was entirely up to the kids. A camera crew was present but instructed not to intervene unless safety was at risk. The children could also ring a bell to speak to a nurse or psychiatrist.

    The houses were fully stocked with food, cleaning supplies, toys, and paints. Everything they needed to survive was there. They just had to figure out how to use it.

    The Boys: Instant Chaos

    In the boys’ house, the unraveling was almost immediate. The newfound freedom triggered a rapid descent into high-energy anarchy.

    They engaged in water pistol fights and threw cushions. In one memorable instance, a boy named Michael covered the carpet in sticky popcorn kernels just because he could.

    The destruction eventually escalated to the walls. The boys covered the house in writing, drawing, and paint. But the euphoria of freedom eventually crashed into the reality of consequences.

    “We never expected to be like this, but I’m really upset that we trashed it so badly,” one boy admitted in the footage. “We were trying to explore everything at once and got too carried away in ourselves.”

    Their attempts to clean up were frantic and largely ineffective. Nutrition also took a hit. Despite having completed a cooking course, the boys survived mostly on cereal, sugar, and the occasional frozen pizza. By the end of the week, the house was trashed, and the group had fractured into opposing factions.

    The Girls: Organized Society

    The girls’ house looked like a different planet.

    In stark contrast to the mayhem next door, the girls immediately established a functioning society. They organized a cooking roster, with a girl named Sherry preparing their first meal. They baked cakes. They put on a fashion show. They even drew up a scrupulous chores list to ensure the house stayed livable.

    While their stay wasn’t devoid of interpersonal drama, the experiment highlighted a fascinating divergence in socialization. Left to their own devices, the girls prioritized community and maintenance. The boys tested the absolute limits of their environment until it broke.

    The documentary was controversial when it aired, with critics questioning the ethics of placing children in unsupervised situations for entertainment. But what made it so enduring, and why footage keeps resurfacing years later, is what it reveals about how kids are socialized long before anyone puts them in a house together. The boys weren’t born anarchists and the girls weren’t born organizers. They arrived at those houses already shaped by years of being told, implicitly and explicitly, what boys do and what girls do. Whether that’s a nature story or a nurture story is the question the documentary keeps asking without quite answering, which is probably why people are still watching and arguing about it nearly two decades later.

    This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

Explore More Culture Stories

Internet

Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes

Culture

Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes

Culture

10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild

Media

9-year-old girl asks Steph Curry why his shoes aren’t in girls’ sizes. The response was perfect.