The tendency to make theories about our children is one of the easiest errors to fall into. Many casual conversations expect that we will be able to rattle off a list of our children's defining attributes in order to fix them in the mind of a distant aunt or enquiring stranger. 'Jane is a tomboy', 'Alan is rather hyperactive', 'Joe has reading difficulties', 'Louise is a maths genius'. The trouble with these theories is that they fix the child as a static product, they imply that this is what or who the child is and ever shall be. Furthermore, they fix the child according to someone else's outside observations and subjective perceptions. The person, often a parent, may spend a lot of time with the child, be very engaged with the child and know the child well by any conventional measure. Yet even then there is still an overlay of theory that is always external and open to being faulty.

The problem for parents is that if we want to help our children get what they want doesn't it help us if we know what kind of person it is that we are helping? Doesn't it make us more efficient helpers if we know what kind of personality we are dealing with? Aren't we more likely to make appropriate suggestions that our children will prefer if we have a handy thumb nail picture of John, who is an outgoing extrovert who loves to be always on the move, has lots of energy, is not very patient etc etc?

Conventional liberal parenting would say 'yes'. You will be a more helpful parent if you know your child's personality type, know what makes him tick, have the right labels for any disabilities or learning problems and so forth. This, however, falis to treat the child as a unique individual. If we begin to treat someone according to a packaged personality type then we are not treating them with the gross disrespect of someone who really can't be bothered to attend to them in the moment. So am I saying that we can know nothing about our children and that we must begin every engagement as though we were starting from scratch? Ofcourse not. That would waste time and knowledge. What we must be aware of, though, is the kind of knowledge we have and how best to use it.

We constantly make observations about one another. 'Each time we go to town Jane wants to visit the Barbie section of the toy shop', 'Jane spends a lot of time drawing figures of girls', 'Jane likes experimenting with make up and jewelry.' These are observations and they are fine as observations so long as we do not fall into various traps: so long as we do not have a fixed idea about what Jane will do or want on every future occasion, so long as we do not start channeling Jane down pre-set routes that fit in with our perceptions of these observations, so long as we are tentative about the suggestions we make based on our observations. In short, so long as we do not let our observations become fixed theories. We may observe Jane very often and spend a lot of time with Jane, but we are still not Jane. No matter how much time we spend together we never know what is going on inside someone else's head. Our observations can only ever be of a tiny portion of the learning and thinking and developing within Jane. So by all means suggest more visits to the shops with Barbies, suggest buying Barbies, provide access to lots of make up and jewelry and paper and drawing mediums, think of lots of creative ways to add to the delight Jane takes in all these things. Yet at the same time be open to the loves of today being dropped the next day or going off in new and previously unthought of directions. Above all don't conclude that Jane is 'a very feminine little girl', 'into all the girly things', 'bound to grow up to be a model or a make up artist', 'rather empty headed', 'a bit on the frivolous side', 'too obsessed with the trivial', 'in danger of developing warped views of women's bodies', 'in need of more balanced interests' or any one of a hundred other theories that fix a child according to someone else's agenda and are likely to interfere with the intrinsic learning which is taking place.

Once we step back and admit that we are all subjective observers who are fallible and liable to employ our own overlay of perceptions then we can become rather more tentative about how we employ our observations and rather less likely to do damage with them. Consider Peter. Peter is an eleven-year-old who doesn't exhibit fluent literacy to the observing world. His parents observe that in addition Peter has a lot of energy and appears (to them) to be often frustrated and destructive. In many conventional homes Peter would be only a hair's breadth away from being diagnosed with ADHD, medicated with ritalin, labeled as having a specific learning difficulty and plugged into a remedial reading programme. Theorising about Peter leads to seeing him not as a unique person, but as a certain category of child for whom a certain package of solutions can be prescribed. These labels will fix Peter and this fixing will derail his own intrinsic learning processes.

What is the alternative? Firstly, instead of running away with ourselves and forming theories about our children, we can take a breath and stop at our observations. If we admit that what we have are tentative, subjective observations which are open to refutation or revision then we are much less likely to do any damage. 'I observe that Peter is not reading fluently at the moment.' 'I observe that Peter has broken several things around the home this week when he has appeared angry.' 'I observe that Peter is frustrated by being woken up in the mornings/told to brush his teeth….'. These are our observations, but that does not entitle us to impose a formula on them.

Secondly, don't waste time and energy trying to get inside Peter's mind. The route of psychobabble is not one which is concerned with negotiating the present, but one which is likely to add more confusing overlays to the given moment.

Thirdly, concentrate on what Peter wants. 'I might be wrong, but I got the idea you wanted to get into that book and had a bit of difficulty. Can I help?' 'You seem to be angry. What can I do about that?' 'You don't seem to like being woken up in the mornings, can we find a better way of starting the day that works for you?'

Your offers and ideas may be way off the mark, but as long as they are made tentatively and your child knows that you are only putting forward conjectures for refutation; opening gambits which can be taken or left in the melting pot of ideas then even the most mistaken observations are going to do no harm because they don't come as fixed theories which are likely to derail the whole intrinsic process of learning. Most fundamentally we do not risk defining the child and setting up a static problem label or a static self image that closes down whole areas of thinking and learning. In the case of Peter, for example, his internal breakthrough into fluent and sophisticated literacy might only have been a few days away, but the label 'late reader' or 'having a learning problem' could curtail that development and become self fulfilling. On the other hand a tentative observation and offer of assistance could speed up that final leap or be turned down as unnecessary.

We don't need labels for our children in order to help them. We don't need to get right inside their minds in order to help them. We only need to be available, observant, but aware of our own limitations and committed to discovering what Jane or Peter most prefer by their own lights at this moment.