He could explain why he was angry. That didn't mean he could stop himself.

Malo, my almost-three-year-old son, explained very clearly that he was angry because I had put away the play dough before he had finished his crocodile.

His sentence was precise. His crocodile, much less so.

I said I understood, then asked him not to take the box back. Malo looked at me, repeated that he was angry and pulled at it anyway.

When a three-year-old talks very well but still has tantrums, the contrast can be confusing. Their words can make it sound as though they are already able to do everything they can explain.

Being able to say it is not the same as being able to stop

With Malo, I could hear myself thinking: But you just told me exactly what is happening. So you know perfectly well.

He did know how to name his anger and explain the reason for it. That did not automatically give him the ability to wait, give something up or stop his movement at the moment frustration rose.

I think his language sometimes made me age him up in my head. Because he could hold a little conversation, I expected a level of control that was still very young.

That does not mean a verbal child understands no limits. Nor does it mean everything has to be allowed until the brain is “ready”. The limit can stay the same. What changes is what I expect my explanations to achieve.

A long explanation does not necessarily create extra brakes.

Keep the limit simpler than the explanation

That day, I stopped adding reasons. The play dough was put away because we had to leave. Malo could be angry, but I was not letting him take the box back.

I could also help him physically and calmly instead of asking him once again to “control himself”.

He still protested. He had not forgotten my words, and I did not need to decide that he was deliberately ignoring them.

A few minutes later, Malo was talking about the crocodile again with the same precision as before.

The words were already there. The brakes still had a little way to go.