Well, I don’t post here all that often, but I felt the urge to vent somewhere. A friend of mine pointed me to the following link:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=570&ncid=753&e=10&u=/nm/20021001/sc_nm/life_child_scolding_dc
It is a news story about how scolding a child is as harmful as beating them because it damages their self-esteem. Apparently some team of Danish researchers observed some children from 1994-2000 and decided that any form of punishment was bad for the child and could jeopardize a close relationship between parent and child. Now excuse me, but isn’t the point of punishment to be negative reinforcement when you do something stupid? If your kid punches his brother or sister in the face and you “tell [your] children [your] opinion in a normal voice without shouting” do you really think they are gonna feel that they did something wrong? Would you? When I was a child my parents most often found that a good hard swat on the backside or a good tongue lashing was the best way to deter me from doing something stupid, and you know what? They were right. It worked. And what’s more I don’t have and self esteem problems, I’m not insecure, and i have a perfectly good relationship with them today. As the friend that pointed me to this article put it: “If you don't punish little Timmy for sticking a fork in the light socket, he's gonna do it again. And then, poof, you've got le petit flambé. Self-respect becomes a moot point in that event.” The punishment is not a tool of torture (usually), it is a way of protecting your child.
Now lets go back to the “tell their children their opinion in a normal voice without shouting,” part. Now the part that jumps out at me is the “opinion” part. Think back to your childhood. Did your parents ever have an “opinion” of what was right or wrong? In my house, my parents’ word was law, and if I didn’t like it then I learned to accept it or suffered the consequences. Parents are not supposed to be their child’s best friend. You can’t be a buddy and an effective authority figure at the same time.
Personally I can’t comprehend why a spanking is illegal anyway. As my mother used to say: “there is a reason you have extra padding back there.” Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to say that my parents beat me all the time. In fact, past thirteen i can only remember my father hitting me once, at that point there were more effective punishments. But to say that any form of punishment is wrong is like saying criminals shouldn’t be put in jail because it might cause them to be insecure (I can feel the “dropped soap” jokes pouring in now).
Maybe it’s just me. Maybe I’ll feel different if ever I am a father, but I seriously doubt it. I happen to think that my parents did a fine job of raising my brother and me, though I’m sure there are those that would disagree.
Feel free to support, flame, or comment as you see fit. There is nothing quite like a good moral debate.
-Kalith/Cirath
a verbal spanking?
Yeah I have to agree completely. My parents raised me the same way and I'm not completely messed up =) I do admit I am not as social as most, and really I don't go out of my way to talk with anyone. (unless they're really hot 
) More and more stupid things are becoming illegal because the people who are making the laws can't relate. I imagine the people involved with that particular law hated their parents, or blamed them for all their mistakes 
Well I figure in another 50 or so years the usa is gonna be a complete police state, and if things keep going this way I'm leaving. "If" I ever have any kids, I don't really want any.. I'll spank em, verbally whip them, whatever it takes, because frankly they won't listen to you if you're not harsh when you need to be. :P
Oh, and I've seen how the new 'talking to your children' thing works, those people's kids are so malbehaved I swear, and they have no respect for their parents either...
------------------
Verzul / Dulzuth - Jabbuk D'faer - Orbdrin D'oloth
[This message has been edited by Dulzuth (edited 10-02-2002).]
) More and more stupid things are becoming illegal because the people who are making the laws can't relate. I imagine the people involved with that particular law hated their parents, or blamed them for all their mistakes Well I figure in another 50 or so years the usa is gonna be a complete police state, and if things keep going this way I'm leaving. "If" I ever have any kids, I don't really want any.. I'll spank em, verbally whip them, whatever it takes, because frankly they won't listen to you if you're not harsh when you need to be. :P
Oh, and I've seen how the new 'talking to your children' thing works, those people's kids are so malbehaved I swear, and they have no respect for their parents either...
------------------
Verzul / Dulzuth - Jabbuk D'faer - Orbdrin D'oloth
[This message has been edited by Dulzuth (edited 10-02-2002).]
This all leads to how these researchers and media and whatnot are all saying to basically coddle your children and not scold them or tell them 'no' for fear or hurting their feelings.. waaaaa... and ya know what you get? Kids who don't know right from wrong and who are real pains in the ass when they are in highschool. A young child isn't always going to respond to being all nice.. if they keep doing something bad then they need a good scolding. I'm not talking about beating them or cursing them out.. but raising your voice some does wonders.
[This message has been edited by rylan (edited 10-02-2002).]
[This message has been edited by rylan (edited 10-02-2002).]
I think what these researchers are failing to realize that all kids are not the same. It would be wonderful if this new tactic of raising children would work on every kid, but the fact is that it will only work on maybe 1/1000 or so. The best way to parent your child, imo, is to find out how your child learns and base your punishment strategies around them. USA needs to remember that life isnt perfect, and that a good asskicking does good sometimes.
I have 3 kids and I get a lot of compliments on how well behaved they are in public. My husband and I occasionaly spank and yell at them. Draw your own conclusions.
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
I have 3 kids and I get a lot of compliments on how well behaved they are in public. My husband and I occasionaly spank and yell at them. Draw your own conclusions.
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
When I was a kid, my mom yelled at me, belittled me, and hit me quite regularly. It was abusive behaviour, indeed, and I'm glad to see that no one thinks it's the right way to raise kids. I haven't taken any parenting classes, and the example I had wasn't a good one - I had to figure it out on my own.
When I was first a mom, I yelled a lot. I didn't like being like that, and worked hard to stop. When I succeeded, and spoke firmly instead, Sparrow listened more and respected me more when I told him he couldn't do something. Syl hasn't had the parenting experience I have due to work and school, he yells much more than I do, and Sparrow listens to me more than he does Daddy. From personal experience with that particular child, raising voices means he's less likely to respect what is said.
I did spank him - about eight times so far, and he's five. Maybe two of those spankings weren't as necessary as they seemed to be at the time, but my basic rule is if he's endangering himself or harming another, he gets just one swat.
He's a stubborn kid, but we know what privileges he doesn't want to lose, and will take them away for poor behaviour. Maybe we're the exception, but I can parent my kid without having to yell, with minimal spanking, and he's not being coddled. I have a good kid who listens in class, at home, and at his babysitter's. It is not an impossible feat.
When I was first a mom, I yelled a lot. I didn't like being like that, and worked hard to stop. When I succeeded, and spoke firmly instead, Sparrow listened more and respected me more when I told him he couldn't do something. Syl hasn't had the parenting experience I have due to work and school, he yells much more than I do, and Sparrow listens to me more than he does Daddy. From personal experience with that particular child, raising voices means he's less likely to respect what is said.
I did spank him - about eight times so far, and he's five. Maybe two of those spankings weren't as necessary as they seemed to be at the time, but my basic rule is if he's endangering himself or harming another, he gets just one swat.
He's a stubborn kid, but we know what privileges he doesn't want to lose, and will take them away for poor behaviour. Maybe we're the exception, but I can parent my kid without having to yell, with minimal spanking, and he's not being coddled. I have a good kid who listens in class, at home, and at his babysitter's. It is not an impossible feat.
I think these people are ignorant of the truth. Children NEED discipline, and as long as it is constructive discipline, I don't think the line needs to be drawn. If I cut class, I should expect to be grounded. If I do it again, I should expect to be yelled at. If I keep doing it, I HOPE my parents 'beat the tar' out of me. Keep in mind that this opinion comes from a kid who knows all about ass-whoopings. (To this day I disbelieve that chains and 2x4's are used for constructive purposes, and want them outlawed.)
When I have a kid, I have already set my method of raising them down. When my child makes a mistake, I am going to explain it to them, and let them know what is going wrong. When my child deliberately does something wrong, then I hope he is prepared for an ass-beating.
------------------
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Levvirrnaxxum OOC: 'i like backdoor lovin too!'
When I have a kid, I have already set my method of raising them down. When my child makes a mistake, I am going to explain it to them, and let them know what is going wrong. When my child deliberately does something wrong, then I hope he is prepared for an ass-beating.
------------------
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Levvirrnaxxum OOC: 'i like backdoor lovin too!'
i am ashamed cause my dad beat the crap out of us (a pastor too). not all the time but when he lost control(and this is in the past)....OUCH (well personally i'd have a headache for days, dunno about my siblings they don't like to talk about it). Well my dad has changed since then, but what upsets me is that i never got an apology. i don't think me saying "no, you're wrong." deserves a hit on the head nearly making me fall over, or lying about where i was to see some guy (when i was 11) does not deserve being hit over the head repeatedly. this made me stay in my room all the time simply because i was afraid of conflict. then i became a pushover cause i avoided absolutely all conflict with non-family as well (but i'm not a pushover anymore either). the good that came out of that is i can tell when someone is about to flip out on me, and i just know how to really avoid conflict. some people just want to argue for the sake of arguing and some people are ALWAYS right. AND DON'T TRUST ANYONE NOT EVEN YOUR FAMILY.
HOwever, i still think punishment is necessary even tho i hate the idea of hitting your kids. my dad hit us out of anger not love tho.
my uncle has the brattiest kid (who used to spit, kick, throw objects that hurt you and bite when younger
because of lack of punishment) cause he has never punished him. and that's just because my grandpa on my dad's side beat the crap out of his kids too. so my one uncle won't punish his kid AT ALL cause he is still hurt from being beat up i guess. it's retarded.
but verbal abuse is pretty harsh. an uncle on my mom's side tells his kids that they are stupid and tells them to shut up constantly like. he's SUCH A JERK. he says to my cousin anita "go get my keys." she says "where are they?" jerk responds "shut up, i told you to go find my keys."
I witnessed that! omg i hate that man i swear! treating my cousin, his daughter, like that. and also she would tell me that she believed her dad when he told her she was stupid. but actually she is a very smart girl. he was full of bullshit.
whoa that was a big rant.
------------------
Leah A. W.
Golnol jumps into muma's arms and gives her a kiss on the cheek
Yonkle OOC: 'Sometimes ooc sounds like Sleep Deprivation Anonymous.' <-- ROFL
HOwever, i still think punishment is necessary even tho i hate the idea of hitting your kids. my dad hit us out of anger not love tho.
my uncle has the brattiest kid (who used to spit, kick, throw objects that hurt you and bite when younger
because of lack of punishment) cause he has never punished him. and that's just because my grandpa on my dad's side beat the crap out of his kids too. so my one uncle won't punish his kid AT ALL cause he is still hurt from being beat up i guess. it's retarded.but verbal abuse is pretty harsh. an uncle on my mom's side tells his kids that they are stupid and tells them to shut up constantly like. he's SUCH A JERK. he says to my cousin anita "go get my keys." she says "where are they?" jerk responds "shut up, i told you to go find my keys."
I witnessed that! omg i hate that man i swear! treating my cousin, his daughter, like that. and also she would tell me that she believed her dad when he told her she was stupid. but actually she is a very smart girl. he was full of bullshit.
whoa that was a big rant.
------------------
Leah A. W.
Golnol jumps into muma's arms and gives her a kiss on the cheek
Yonkle OOC: 'Sometimes ooc sounds like Sleep Deprivation Anonymous.' <-- ROFL
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Daz:
<B> (To this day I disbelieve that chains and 2x4's are used for constructive purposes, and want them outlawed.)
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
my dad said his father tied him up and whipped him and almost killed him by throwing something heavy at his head but that's still not a good excuse for him to lose control on his own kids! and i didn't get a fucking apology either! .....
------------------
Leah A. W.
Golnol jumps into muma's arms and gives her a kiss on the cheek
Yonkle OOC: 'Sometimes ooc sounds like Sleep Deprivation Anonymous.' <-- ROFL
<B> (To this day I disbelieve that chains and 2x4's are used for constructive purposes, and want them outlawed.)
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
my dad said his father tied him up and whipped him
and almost killed him by throwing something heavy at his head but that's still not a good excuse for him to lose control on his own kids! and i didn't get a fucking apology either! .....------------------
Leah A. W.
Golnol jumps into muma's arms and gives her a kiss on the cheek
Yonkle OOC: 'Sometimes ooc sounds like Sleep Deprivation Anonymous.' <-- ROFL
Keep in mind that this article is not talking about abuse. The hitting and beating reffered to is a simple spanking, which as far as I know is a fairly widely accepted form of punishment. The yelling reffered to is also no abuse, just a standard scolding.
If the point of the article had been "abuse is bad" it would be different. It would still be a waste of web space, but for a totally different reason. However the point is not "abuse is bad" but "all punishment is bad. You should be your child's best friend instead of his parent so that he won't ever get mad at you or feel unhappy."
I'm not advocating abuse here, though there are many people in this world that I feel need severe beatings. I am advocating what 20 years ago (when I was a kid) was not only acceptable, but healthy (and I believe is still is). I have no doubt that there are those that go overboard. I'm sure everyone that reads this has some horror story about abuse or knows someone that does, but thats not exactly the point here.
Just thought I'd clear that up. Carry on.
-Cirath/Kalith
If the point of the article had been "abuse is bad" it would be different. It would still be a waste of web space, but for a totally different reason. However the point is not "abuse is bad" but "all punishment is bad. You should be your child's best friend instead of his parent so that he won't ever get mad at you or feel unhappy."
I'm not advocating abuse here, though there are many people in this world that I feel need severe beatings. I am advocating what 20 years ago (when I was a kid) was not only acceptable, but healthy (and I believe is still is). I have no doubt that there are those that go overboard. I'm sure everyone that reads this has some horror story about abuse or knows someone that does, but thats not exactly the point here.
Just thought I'd clear that up. Carry on.
-Cirath/Kalith
As a mother of two, ages 15 and 10, I have to say my limits are truly being tested with my teenager on how to handle some situations. And going deaf has made me realize a few things..Does screaming help, it sure might feel good coming from your lips, might put the scare in your child once they sit there eyes open looking at you, but in reality..screaming distorts sound, which means you lose meaning. Have I screamed..A many of times, still do occasionally. Do I believe in spanking..yeah, but hardly ever do it, and I wouldnt even try to put my 15 year old across my lap. I have found soooo many ways to really grab his attention. Try taking away power cords to his favorite game, or the wheels off his skateboard and make him look at the playstation, or board, knowing its useless unless he ships up. Trust me it works. My oldest is grounded at the moment, no music, no skateboarding, nothing, he works, I took him to buy new rail, new skateboard, looks really nice in his room, and talk about shiny. Kevins grades in school were all failing, I held my voice, and just talked, and then took the *toys* out of commission. Grades have shot up, his room has been spotless, and he actually has been helping out more *possibly trying to suck up there*. The fact is, kids will listen, without screaming or beating. My dad spanked my ass a many of times, I remember thinking..Going to hurt for just a little bit, lets get this over with. Lessons werent learned. I myself still need that occasional spankin but wont go there:P
I do believe when you say NO, it should be enforced. Most of us become parents when we ourselves are still kids, there is no manuels on raising them, and most cant rely on the way they themselves were raised, I think allowing your child to test your limits, should get a response though, since we all know they do this as we did ourselves.
------------------
Wuva *Wildchild* EagleBlade
I do believe when you say NO, it should be enforced. Most of us become parents when we ourselves are still kids, there is no manuels on raising them, and most cant rely on the way they themselves were raised, I think allowing your child to test your limits, should get a response though, since we all know they do this as we did ourselves.
------------------
Wuva *Wildchild* EagleBlade
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sok:
Your son's name is Sparrow? I can image him growing up and joining the WWE. Animal and Sparrow, the new Road Warriors.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sparrow is our online nickname for him. :P Just like friends from the mud often enough call me Syl, no matter who I'm playing :P
Sylvos
Your son's name is Sparrow? I can image him growing up and joining the WWE. Animal and Sparrow, the new Road Warriors.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sparrow is our online nickname for him. :P Just like friends from the mud often enough call me Syl, no matter who I'm playing :P
Sylvos
Overall, it looks like the parents who have posted say that you need to be firm, but yelling on its own doesn't do the job.
It looks like the non-parents are determined to be firm, and to use whatever tools are necessary to raise good kids, and to use those tools with love and respect.
Sounds good to me. All the talk in the world is talk until it's time for practical application, and we're smart enough to figure out what tools work and what ones don't. Use your tools well and you're more likely to get what you want from them - children who love and respect their parents, and parents who love and respect their children...
It looks like the non-parents are determined to be firm, and to use whatever tools are necessary to raise good kids, and to use those tools with love and respect.
Sounds good to me. All the talk in the world is talk until it's time for practical application, and we're smart enough to figure out what tools work and what ones don't. Use your tools well and you're more likely to get what you want from them - children who love and respect their parents, and parents who love and respect their children...
Hmmm, a little late to jump into the discussion, but something I feel is relevant to the topic is how behaviorists define effective punishment. Punishment needs to be strong enough for the subject to want to avoid it, swift enough after the act in question, and must be consistently punished. The last two are important in order to make the subject realize why they are being punished, the first is obviously to make sure it sinks in. Making sure a child knows WHY they're being punished is much more important than the method used.
------------------
You fire a black-shafted elven arrow to the east at Gormal's pet goat with masterful shooting that does lethal damage!
You receive your share of experience.
------------------
You fire a black-shafted elven arrow to the east at Gormal's pet goat with masterful shooting that does lethal damage!
You receive your share of experience.
Have to disagree, I think some of you have read the article in the wrong light. Punishment if different to negative reinforcement, and certainly only a small factor in the realm of discipline.
What they are refering to, by the very words of their argument is 'abuse'. I shudder when out and hear parents calling their children 'stupid fucking cunts' etc etc. This article stems from comparative research between the nature of children who are physically abused and verbally abused. It demonstrates that both form of abuse are can be equally as devasting. I think it begs the question whether or not some parents, not using punishment such as spanking have started to actually abuse their children verbally out of frustration? It has very little if any to do with teaching your children the nature of right and wrong.
On a side note, the article does highlight the point that punishment generally doesn't lead to long term positive results. While fostering what is good and bad through reinforcement, generally does. Skinnerian psychology was founded on shock treatment of rats to get results for their behaviour, this is called behaviour modification. Punishment is generally associated with this. In short, while it may make kids behave well, they are going to be pretty damn bitter about it.
------------------
What they are refering to, by the very words of their argument is 'abuse'. I shudder when out and hear parents calling their children 'stupid fucking cunts' etc etc. This article stems from comparative research between the nature of children who are physically abused and verbally abused. It demonstrates that both form of abuse are can be equally as devasting. I think it begs the question whether or not some parents, not using punishment such as spanking have started to actually abuse their children verbally out of frustration? It has very little if any to do with teaching your children the nature of right and wrong.
On a side note, the article does highlight the point that punishment generally doesn't lead to long term positive results. While fostering what is good and bad through reinforcement, generally does. Skinnerian psychology was founded on shock treatment of rats to get results for their behaviour, this is called behaviour modification. Punishment is generally associated with this. In short, while it may make kids behave well, they are going to be pretty damn bitter about it.
------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Cirath:
<B>Well, I don?t post here all that often, but I felt the urge to vent somewhere. A friend of mine pointed me to the following link:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=570&ncid=753&e=10&u=/nm/200 21001/sc_nm/life_child_scolding_dc
It is a news story about how scolding a child is as harmful as beating them because it damages their self-esteem. Apparently some team of Danish researchers observed some children from 1994-2000 and decided that any form of punishment was bad for the child and could jeopardize a close relationship between parent and child.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
well actually that "article" wouldnt pass for anything, nothing at all can be sayed about that danish teams work on basis of the three lines that merely hint the results of the research...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Cirath:
<B>
Now excuse me, but isn?t the point of punishment to be negative reinforcement when you do something stupid?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
so? thats not the point of the study as anyone can see. but then again ive heared it b4, the "those-darn-scientist-dont-know-what-theyre-talkin-about-cuz-i-knowitall-cus-my-mom-told-me-so-rant". whats new? study the subject, learn, or just keep yer day-job.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Cirath:
<B>
*snip*
When I was a child my parents
*snip*
They were right.
*snip*
I don?t have and self esteem problems, I?m not insecure,
*snip*
The punishment is not a tool of torture (usually), it is a way of protecting your child.
*snip*
Think back to your childhood.
*snip*
In my house, my parents? word was law,
*snip*
Parents are not supposed to be their child?s best friend.
*snip*
Personally I can?t comprehend why a spanking is illegal anyway.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
any point?/fil
<B>Well, I don?t post here all that often, but I felt the urge to vent somewhere. A friend of mine pointed me to the following link:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=570&ncid=753&e=10&u=/nm/200 21001/sc_nm/life_child_scolding_dc
It is a news story about how scolding a child is as harmful as beating them because it damages their self-esteem. Apparently some team of Danish researchers observed some children from 1994-2000 and decided that any form of punishment was bad for the child and could jeopardize a close relationship between parent and child.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
well actually that "article" wouldnt pass for anything, nothing at all can be sayed about that danish teams work on basis of the three lines that merely hint the results of the research...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Cirath:
<B>
Now excuse me, but isn?t the point of punishment to be negative reinforcement when you do something stupid?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
so? thats not the point of the study as anyone can see. but then again ive heared it b4, the "those-darn-scientist-dont-know-what-theyre-talkin-about-cuz-i-knowitall-cus-my-mom-told-me-so-rant". whats new? study the subject, learn, or just keep yer day-job.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Cirath:
<B>
*snip*
When I was a child my parents
*snip*
They were right.
*snip*
I don?t have and self esteem problems, I?m not insecure,
*snip*
The punishment is not a tool of torture (usually), it is a way of protecting your child.
*snip*
Think back to your childhood.
*snip*
In my house, my parents? word was law,
*snip*
Parents are not supposed to be their child?s best friend.
*snip*
Personally I can?t comprehend why a spanking is illegal anyway.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
any point?/fil
-
Guest
A quiz for parents who are trying to decide to use corporal punishment:
1. Can you guarantee that at no time will you strike your child out of a sense of personal anger at the child, rather than out of a sense of disciplining that child in a learning way?
That's pretty much it. IF you can spank your child without infusing the spanking with your own personal anger at them, then you can effectively discipline them, potentially. If you cannot make this statement, then you run a very serious risk of, indeed, teaching your child. The wrong lesson.
If you can't think of any way to discipline a child, in a loving way, you aren't very creative. Take away a toy they're playing with, until they agree that their behavior is wrong. Place them in their crib/room. Tell them you're disappointed in their behavior (works wonderfully after a certain age). There are many tools at your disposal.
Striking someone is not something that is allowed in society between adults, at least not in anger (ok, some sports allow it, but it's sanctioned). That's not true of every society, but it ought to be.
Striking your child to discipline teaches them a very simple principle: Might makes right. You can rationalize all you want, but that is the very first thing they will learn if you do it in anger. Don't be surprised when you get many calls into the principal's office.
1. Can you guarantee that at no time will you strike your child out of a sense of personal anger at the child, rather than out of a sense of disciplining that child in a learning way?
That's pretty much it. IF you can spank your child without infusing the spanking with your own personal anger at them, then you can effectively discipline them, potentially. If you cannot make this statement, then you run a very serious risk of, indeed, teaching your child. The wrong lesson.
If you can't think of any way to discipline a child, in a loving way, you aren't very creative. Take away a toy they're playing with, until they agree that their behavior is wrong. Place them in their crib/room. Tell them you're disappointed in their behavior (works wonderfully after a certain age). There are many tools at your disposal.
Striking someone is not something that is allowed in society between adults, at least not in anger (ok, some sports allow it, but it's sanctioned). That's not true of every society, but it ought to be.
Striking your child to discipline teaches them a very simple principle: Might makes right. You can rationalize all you want, but that is the very first thing they will learn if you do it in anger. Don't be surprised when you get many calls into the principal's office.
I don't really want to make this a RagornPost(tm), so I'll leave out some of the supporting evidence and background facts 
Two types of behavior modifiers: reinforcement and punishment. Reinforcement is simply a term for promoting a certain behavior. Punishment is used to deter a behavior.
Two methods of behavior modifiers: positive and negative. Positive adds a stimulus, negative removes one.
For for example:
Positive reinforcement: Giving a child a toy for doing well.
Negative reinforcement: Giving a child a day off from school for doing well. This is sometimes the hardest catagory to grasp, as sometimes it's tough to see how you can promote behavior by taking something away.
Positive punishment: Spanking a misbehaving child.
Negative punishment: Grounding a misbehaving child (taking away his freedom).
FACT: For changing behavior over the long term, reinforcement works several times better than punishment.
FACT: The most effective use for punishment is deterring impulse behaviors in the short term. Spanking will prevent your child from playing with the stereo. It will not keep him from, say, doing drugs later on.
FACT: In order for any of these methods to be the least bit effective, the child has to understand what he did to provoke your reaction, why you're reacting the way you are, and the behavior you expect in the future.
FACT: The less time between the act and the reaction, the more effective the behavior modifier. Waiting until daddy comes home to spank the kid for something he did at 9AM is about as effective as grounding your kid in June for a test he failed in November.
FACT: Positive punishment, used correctly, does not lead to low self-esteem, violence in adults, drug use, strained relationships, broken families, or suicide. It doesn't, period. Child abuse leads to these things, but not the simple act of disciplining your child.
FACT: There's always some hippie fuck trying to tell you that spanking your child makes you a bad parent
------------------
- Ragorn
You group-say 'What's up, bro?'
Touk group-says 'Accounting homework and skill practice.'
You group-say 'Ewww... which is worse?'
Two types of behavior modifiers: reinforcement and punishment. Reinforcement is simply a term for promoting a certain behavior. Punishment is used to deter a behavior.
Two methods of behavior modifiers: positive and negative. Positive adds a stimulus, negative removes one.
For for example:
Positive reinforcement: Giving a child a toy for doing well.
Negative reinforcement: Giving a child a day off from school for doing well. This is sometimes the hardest catagory to grasp, as sometimes it's tough to see how you can promote behavior by taking something away.
Positive punishment: Spanking a misbehaving child.
Negative punishment: Grounding a misbehaving child (taking away his freedom).
FACT: For changing behavior over the long term, reinforcement works several times better than punishment.
FACT: The most effective use for punishment is deterring impulse behaviors in the short term. Spanking will prevent your child from playing with the stereo. It will not keep him from, say, doing drugs later on.
FACT: In order for any of these methods to be the least bit effective, the child has to understand what he did to provoke your reaction, why you're reacting the way you are, and the behavior you expect in the future.
FACT: The less time between the act and the reaction, the more effective the behavior modifier. Waiting until daddy comes home to spank the kid for something he did at 9AM is about as effective as grounding your kid in June for a test he failed in November.
FACT: Positive punishment, used correctly, does not lead to low self-esteem, violence in adults, drug use, strained relationships, broken families, or suicide. It doesn't, period. Child abuse leads to these things, but not the simple act of disciplining your child.
FACT: There's always some hippie fuck trying to tell you that spanking your child makes you a bad parent
------------------
- Ragorn
You group-say 'What's up, bro?'
Touk group-says 'Accounting homework and skill practice.'
You group-say 'Ewww... which is worse?'
If you continue along in psychology, you'll see the reinforcement/punishment paradigm come up over and over again. It's one of the major tenets of psychology, because it explains the most fundamental way to change behavior. A lot of other treatments and methods we use stem from this very basic model. It's simple yet useful, which is why it's part of most Intro Psych classes. Later on in Abnormal and Advanced Developmental, you'll learn more applications.
For example, far and away the best way to treat autism in elementary school children is a very simple structure of positive reinforcement. There's no fancy tricks, no medicine, nothing. They do well, they get rewarded, they show vast improvement over time.
------------------
- Ragorn
You group-say 'What's up, bro?'
Touk group-says 'Accounting homework and skill practice.'
You group-say 'Ewww... which is worse?'
For example, far and away the best way to treat autism in elementary school children is a very simple structure of positive reinforcement. There's no fancy tricks, no medicine, nothing. They do well, they get rewarded, they show vast improvement over time.
------------------
- Ragorn
You group-say 'What's up, bro?'
Touk group-says 'Accounting homework and skill practice.'
You group-say 'Ewww... which is worse?'
next class is either going to be with same prof and another psych class .. or philosophy .. and yeah im gonna continue .. screwed up as i am i really want to help people .. and abuse victims are generally the better counsellors imho ...
i have always been intrigued with why people do things ... how poeple's minds work .... shrug .. we see
hugs
me
------------------
Ambar -= Beloved Matron =- Crimson Coalition
i have always been intrigued with why people do things ... how poeple's minds work .... shrug .. we see
hugs
me
------------------
Ambar -= Beloved Matron =- Crimson Coalition
As a Mother of 3 children 2 daughters 8 & 3 and a son 2.
My 8 yr old daughter I could beat her ass 9 ways to sunday and it would even begin to affect her other then the day it happens but when i start taking aways things (TV video games ect.) she shapes up with the quickness
My 3 yr old daughter would cry her eyes out if she even thought she did anything wrong (not to say she is a angel but she wears her feelings on her shoulders).
Now to my son granted he is only 2 but that boy just knows how to push it!!! I have tried talking yelling SCREAMING and even a swift swat on the backside does NO good but 2 min standing in the corner straightens out. Now just the threat of heading to the corner normally gets his attention.
Having said that NO I do not BEAT my children but i see nothing wrong with a swift slap to the backside on occasion.
What I'm trying to say is all kids are different and each responds to different punishments differently.
My 8 yr old daughter I could beat her ass 9 ways to sunday and it would even begin to affect her other then the day it happens but when i start taking aways things (TV video games ect.) she shapes up with the quickness
My 3 yr old daughter would cry her eyes out if she even thought she did anything wrong (not to say she is a angel but she wears her feelings on her shoulders).
Now to my son granted he is only 2 but that boy just knows how to push it!!! I have tried talking yelling SCREAMING and even a swift swat on the backside does NO good but 2 min standing in the corner straightens out. Now just the threat of heading to the corner normally gets his attention.
Having said that NO I do not BEAT my children but i see nothing wrong with a swift slap to the backside on occasion.
What I'm trying to say is all kids are different and each responds to different punishments differently.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ragorn:
<B>Two types of behavior modifiers: reinforcement and punishment.
*snip*
Two methods of behavior modifiers: positive and negative.
*snip*
FACT: Positive punishment, used correctly, does not lead to low self-esteem, violence in *snip*
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
FACT (hey, look there, im even capsing to prove my point): stateing something as fact, even in allcaps-mode wont make it true.
i believe yer missing the point with raising a child, yes reinforcement is quite well studied since the 50-s, not on children tho, but on pigeons and mice. the fact that we can change a pigeons behaviour in certain ways does not imply that a childs mind works in the same way, this is old and known kriticism of behaviourism iu general. further on behaviourism does not deal with the complexity of the way humans build their conception of the world, morals and ethic. _if_ we were to build an understanding of this complex with a simple s->r model it would be so big, since stimuli is continous to the organism, that it would be totally out of hand, and not much of a cause-relationship between the behaviour and intentions and stimuli would be possible to read into such a model. it is true tho that we can enforce certain specific behaviours into children (and adults and pigeons and mice too) but this would not acount for how the human mind will work in general. the "FACT" that ragorn claims that "positive punishment" dont lead to lo self esteem would be tautological, as i understand his use of it it wouldnt be "positive punishment" if someone got low self-esteem from it, so it would be a basicly nonsensical term to use in a scientific context actually. the fact that us psychology still takes its ground from behaviourism, is a fact about us psychology, not about the human mind, not about human behaviour. the fact that some ppl dont understand certain scientific reports and still makes laims about them is a fact about the human mind tho, that i think ragorn would agree on too./fil
<B>Two types of behavior modifiers: reinforcement and punishment.
*snip*
Two methods of behavior modifiers: positive and negative.
*snip*
FACT: Positive punishment, used correctly, does not lead to low self-esteem, violence in *snip*
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
FACT (hey, look there, im even capsing to prove my point
): stateing something as fact, even in allcaps-mode wont make it true.i believe yer missing the point with raising a child, yes reinforcement is quite well studied since the 50-s, not on children tho, but on pigeons and mice. the fact that we can change a pigeons behaviour in certain ways does not imply that a childs mind works in the same way, this is old and known kriticism of behaviourism iu general. further on behaviourism does not deal with the complexity of the way humans build their conception of the world, morals and ethic. _if_ we were to build an understanding of this complex with a simple s->r model it would be so big, since stimuli is continous to the organism, that it would be totally out of hand, and not much of a cause-relationship between the behaviour and intentions and stimuli would be possible to read into such a model. it is true tho that we can enforce certain specific behaviours into children (and adults and pigeons and mice too) but this would not acount for how the human mind will work in general. the "FACT" that ragorn claims that "positive punishment" dont lead to lo self esteem would be tautological, as i understand his use of it it wouldnt be "positive punishment" if someone got low self-esteem from it, so it would be a basicly nonsensical term to use in a scientific context actually. the fact that us psychology still takes its ground from behaviourism, is a fact about us psychology, not about the human mind, not about human behaviour. the fact that some ppl dont understand certain scientific reports and still makes laims about them is a fact about the human mind tho, that i think ragorn would agree on too./fil
Are you saying we've never studied the effects on reinforcement on children, only on mice and pigeons? If you are, then I politely request that you take a look at the libraries worth of research psychology has conducted on parenting in the last 30 years. The effects of reinforcement have been well documented on humans, both adults and children, both healthy and as it relates to a variety of different disorders. The human behavioral system can't be boiled down to a pure stimulus -> reponse cycle, true enough, but to say that such a cycle has no place in understanding human behavior is silly.
Does positive punishment cause low self esteem? No, it does not, and I state that as a fact. Positive punishment may be corrolated to low self esteem, in that many people with low self esteem were spanked as children. But there are several coinciding factors along with that. Child abuse DOES cause low self esteem, and a much higher percentage of parents who punish their children cross the line into abuse than parents that only reinforce. So, at a cursory glance, some organizations use statistics on child abuse to try to "prove" that spanking your children AT ALL causes low self esteem.
Does spanking cause emotional problems later on? By itself, no. Does excessive punishment, coupled with physical or emotional abuse, neglect, authoritarian parenting, and strict, unreasonable guidelines cause problems? You can safely say yes to that, and even then not in every case.
------------------
- Ragorn
You group-say 'What's up, bro?'
Touk group-says 'Accounting homework and skill practice.'
You group-say 'Ewww... which is worse?'
Does positive punishment cause low self esteem? No, it does not, and I state that as a fact. Positive punishment may be corrolated to low self esteem, in that many people with low self esteem were spanked as children. But there are several coinciding factors along with that. Child abuse DOES cause low self esteem, and a much higher percentage of parents who punish their children cross the line into abuse than parents that only reinforce. So, at a cursory glance, some organizations use statistics on child abuse to try to "prove" that spanking your children AT ALL causes low self esteem.
Does spanking cause emotional problems later on? By itself, no. Does excessive punishment, coupled with physical or emotional abuse, neglect, authoritarian parenting, and strict, unreasonable guidelines cause problems? You can safely say yes to that, and even then not in every case.
------------------
- Ragorn
You group-say 'What's up, bro?'
Touk group-says 'Accounting homework and skill practice.'
You group-say 'Ewww... which is worse?'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ragorn:
<B>Are you saying we've never studied the effects on reinforcement on children, only on mice and pigeons?
*snip*
The human behavioral system can't be boiled down to a pure stimulus -> reponse cycle, true enough, but to say that such a cycle has no place in understanding human behavior is silly.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
you need to make the decission if its the behaviour or the mind were talking about. yes some behaviour can be somewhat scetched and viewed as a s->r relation (heck, youre the one that oposes causation as i recal from earlier discussions correct me if im wrong), whats s->r, pure causation, in its loest form.anyway:
im saying that most work studying reinforcement has been done on animals yes, and i say that as you state positive punishment is tautological/nonsensical. im also saying that there is a big difference between american psychology and the psychologu of the rest of the world (note: as a science, not as the psycology of americans
). im saying to, maybe mostly important, something isnt a fact just because someone states it as one. im saying that behaviourism totally misses the human mind, a certain behaviour isnt very often correlated to a certain mental state, and the other way around, that mental states are corelated to certain behaviours is even more difficult to maintain. i believe that the main concern of raising a child would be that the child vil be able to make moral decisions close to the moral decissions i make, that would in some ways imply behaviour, yes, but even if he made other moral decissions he could wind up with the same behaviour. raising a child is also to a big extent learning to handle different emotions, this wouldnt account under behaviour, but under the childs conception of self and the world. (id say, even if its another discussion that alot of the whining about where and how the game on sojourn is going is a lack of this ability...:/). then again, emotional ability is something that has to be trained right from the start, the n3wb0rn wil have to learn that there exists a world that is separated from the self, that the ppl around arent there for the main reason to satisfy the childs needs. then again one should allways remember that learning is a matter of experience, learning at the wrong time will cause traumas that might go into bigger traumas that would require professional treating. then ofcause, most of what im saying even behaviourists wouldnt deny, but the main point is where to put the focus, behaviour or feeling, learning or obaying, thinking or acting.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ragorn:
Does spanking cause emotional problems later on? By itself, no.
[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
does bullets cause a hole in your head? prolly not, only if yer shot...in your head...
/fil
<B>Are you saying we've never studied the effects on reinforcement on children, only on mice and pigeons?
*snip*
The human behavioral system can't be boiled down to a pure stimulus -> reponse cycle, true enough, but to say that such a cycle has no place in understanding human behavior is silly.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
you need to make the decission if its the behaviour or the mind were talking about. yes some behaviour can be somewhat scetched and viewed as a s->r relation (heck, youre the one that oposes causation as i recal from earlier discussions correct me if im wrong
), whats s->r, pure causation, in its loest form.anyway:im saying that most work studying reinforcement has been done on animals yes, and i say that as you state positive punishment is tautological/nonsensical. im also saying that there is a big difference between american psychology and the psychologu of the rest of the world (note: as a science, not as the psycology of americans
). im saying to, maybe mostly important, something isnt a fact just because someone states it as one. im saying that behaviourism totally misses the human mind, a certain behaviour isnt very often correlated to a certain mental state, and the other way around, that mental states are corelated to certain behaviours is even more difficult to maintain. i believe that the main concern of raising a child would be that the child vil be able to make moral decisions close to the moral decissions i make, that would in some ways imply behaviour, yes, but even if he made other moral decissions he could wind up with the same behaviour. raising a child is also to a big extent learning to handle different emotions, this wouldnt account under behaviour, but under the childs conception of self and the world. (id say, even if its another discussion that alot of the whining about where and how the game on sojourn is going is a lack of this ability...:/). then again, emotional ability is something that has to be trained right from the start, the n3wb0rn wil have to learn that there exists a world that is separated from the self, that the ppl around arent there for the main reason to satisfy the childs needs. then again one should allways remember that learning is a matter of experience, learning at the wrong time will cause traumas that might go into bigger traumas that would require professional treating. then ofcause, most of what im saying even behaviourists wouldnt deny, but the main point is where to put the focus, behaviour or feeling, learning or obaying, thinking or acting.<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ragorn:
Does spanking cause emotional problems later on? By itself, no.
[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
does bullets cause a hole in your head? prolly not, only if yer shot...in your head...
/fil
Yes, I'm a behaviorist I do believe that behavior exhibits a certain mind frame, that you can determine a person's mental perspective based upon his actions, and that thought is directly related to action. I'm also not against causation, I'm the one who crusades for people to understand and appreciate the difference between CAUSATION and CORROLATION. Too often, people see two traits are related and just assume that one causes the other... like punishment causing low self esteem
Nobody can put an argument forth that reinforcement DOESN'T work on humans. It's elementary common sense that a healthy child will not repeatedly touch a hot stove once he learns to associate the touching with the resulting pain. Positive punishment in its purest form. I also wouldn't dare to say that reinforcement is the ONLY method of behavior modification that affects humans, but I do believe that a fairly hefty chunk of how we act on a day to day basis can be crunched down to simple reinforcement theory.
I may or may not agree with you that "most" research is performed on animals. I might agree that most labratory studes are conducted on animals, but I also submit that the vast majority of observational studies are performed with people. And of course, all survey studies are performed with humans, though I put much less faith in statistical research than observational or labratory experimentation.
The discussion we're having is a simple behaviorist argument, and I know we're never going to solve it here That's part of what I love about psychology, that we don't KNOW the vast majority of what there is to know about the field yet. You go into engineering or astronomy or most other sciences, and you basically enter a world of known facts and laws where you have to either struggle or get lucky to make a breakthrough. I'm 24 years old and already I'm able to contribute to the WORLD'S collective knowledge on ADD and Disassociative Identity Disorder, just through the work I've done in the last few years. Science is about discovery, not rehashing what other people already know. I love it
------------------
- Ragorn
You group-say 'What's up, bro?'
Touk group-says 'Accounting homework and skill practice.'
You group-say 'Ewww... which is worse?'
I do believe that behavior exhibits a certain mind frame, that you can determine a person's mental perspective based upon his actions, and that thought is directly related to action. I'm also not against causation, I'm the one who crusades for people to understand and appreciate the difference between CAUSATION and CORROLATION. Too often, people see two traits are related and just assume that one causes the other... like punishment causing low self esteem Nobody can put an argument forth that reinforcement DOESN'T work on humans. It's elementary common sense that a healthy child will not repeatedly touch a hot stove once he learns to associate the touching with the resulting pain. Positive punishment in its purest form. I also wouldn't dare to say that reinforcement is the ONLY method of behavior modification that affects humans, but I do believe that a fairly hefty chunk of how we act on a day to day basis can be crunched down to simple reinforcement theory.
I may or may not agree with you that "most" research is performed on animals. I might agree that most labratory studes are conducted on animals, but I also submit that the vast majority of observational studies are performed with people. And of course, all survey studies are performed with humans, though I put much less faith in statistical research than observational or labratory experimentation.
The discussion we're having is a simple behaviorist argument, and I know we're never going to solve it here
That's part of what I love about psychology, that we don't KNOW the vast majority of what there is to know about the field yet. You go into engineering or astronomy or most other sciences, and you basically enter a world of known facts and laws where you have to either struggle or get lucky to make a breakthrough. I'm 24 years old and already I'm able to contribute to the WORLD'S collective knowledge on ADD and Disassociative Identity Disorder, just through the work I've done in the last few years. Science is about discovery, not rehashing what other people already know. I love it ------------------
- Ragorn
You group-say 'What's up, bro?'
Touk group-says 'Accounting homework and skill practice.'
You group-say 'Ewww... which is worse?'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ragorn:
<B>Yes, I'm a behaviorist I do believe that behavior exhibits a certain mind frame, that you can determine a person's mental perspective based upon his actions, and that thought is directly related to action. I'm also not against causation, I'm the one who crusades for people to understand and appreciate the difference between CAUSATION and CORROLATION. Too often, people see two traits are related and just assume that one causes the other... like punishment causing low self esteem
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
and its sooo easy, that you really should know, for ppl that hasnt read certain repports to have oppinions about them. this discussion origins from a journalistic article that sumarizes a report from a danish research team in like 2 quotes from an interviwe with one of the researchers. yes its easy to say that theyre wrong or right, but anyone that has an oppinion about the repport without haveing read it, then id say that oppinion is worth squat. i get it youre kinda scientific minded, why dont you put your "spanking cant ever cause low self esteem, if its done the right way" to the test. its just plain silly to presuppose that its either way, and if you really are into psychology you really should know that there are hoards, bigger than 1337 eq hoards, of evidence that points in the direction that youre prolly wrong.
on behaviourism, you cant actually mean that a certain behaviour is co-corelated to a certain mind frame, can you?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ragorn:
<B>
Nobody can put an argument forth that reinforcement DOESN'T work on humans. It's elementary common sense that a healthy child will not repeatedly touch a hot stove once he learns to associate the touching with the resulting pain. Positive punishment in its purest form.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i dont say reinforcement doesnt work on humans, look at the army, everyone acting exactly like pavlovian dogs on the officers orders. what im saying tho is that the human mind isnt explainable in terms of reinforcement in a straightfortward way. im also wondering what the child does when he learns not to touch the stove, is it association with the pain that keeps him from touching the stove or is it the actual memmory of the pain or is it something else? we can agree that if a child burns himself on the stove hes less likely to do it again. but what processes are there that makes him not touching the stove and what affects will this have on his future mental life. that the touching of the stove will cause a minor trauma i believe we can agree on too, that the treatment of this trauma will be a coulpe o mins up to an hr or so in the normal case (handed by parents or whom ever is around when this happens). repeated minor traumas can cause bigger ones. thats common knowledge, thats not a matter of reinforcement tho.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ragorn:
<B>
That's part of what I love about psychology, that we don't KNOW the vast majority of what there is to know about the field yet. You go into engineering or astronomy or most other sciences, and you basically enter a world of known facts and laws where you have to either struggle or get lucky to make a breakthrough. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
darn, i see the behaviourist and the positivist, i wont even start the positivist rant tho, just note that there are many reasons to hold that the nature of scientific knowledge isnt cumulative. the end of the ptolemayan paradigm in astronomy made previous knowledge inacurate, for instance. id say too that science is not mainly about discovery. discovry can be the result of science, science is about sorting observation in rational ways. science is the general way to handle out wonders about the world. science is the way to make the world conceptualizable.
ahh well, much more to be sayed, guess ill might drop a lill chunk later on today
/fil
[This message has been edited by fildur (edited 10-08-2002).]
<B>Yes, I'm a behaviorist
I do believe that behavior exhibits a certain mind frame, that you can determine a person's mental perspective based upon his actions, and that thought is directly related to action. I'm also not against causation, I'm the one who crusades for people to understand and appreciate the difference between CAUSATION and CORROLATION. Too often, people see two traits are related and just assume that one causes the other... like punishment causing low self esteem </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
and its sooo easy, that you really should know, for ppl that hasnt read certain repports to have oppinions about them. this discussion origins from a journalistic article that sumarizes a report from a danish research team in like 2 quotes from an interviwe with one of the researchers. yes its easy to say that theyre wrong or right, but anyone that has an oppinion about the repport without haveing read it, then id say that oppinion is worth squat. i get it youre kinda scientific minded, why dont you put your "spanking cant ever cause low self esteem, if its done the right way" to the test. its just plain silly to presuppose that its either way, and if you really are into psychology you really should know that there are hoards, bigger than 1337 eq hoards, of evidence that points in the direction that youre prolly wrong.
on behaviourism, you cant actually mean that a certain behaviour is co-corelated to a certain mind frame, can you?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ragorn:
<B>
Nobody can put an argument forth that reinforcement DOESN'T work on humans. It's elementary common sense that a healthy child will not repeatedly touch a hot stove once he learns to associate the touching with the resulting pain. Positive punishment in its purest form.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i dont say reinforcement doesnt work on humans, look at the army, everyone acting exactly like pavlovian dogs on the officers orders. what im saying tho is that the human mind isnt explainable in terms of reinforcement in a straightfortward way. im also wondering what the child does when he learns not to touch the stove, is it association with the pain that keeps him from touching the stove or is it the actual memmory of the pain or is it something else? we can agree that if a child burns himself on the stove hes less likely to do it again. but what processes are there that makes him not touching the stove and what affects will this have on his future mental life. that the touching of the stove will cause a minor trauma i believe we can agree on too, that the treatment of this trauma will be a coulpe o mins up to an hr or so in the normal case (handed by parents or whom ever is around when this happens). repeated minor traumas can cause bigger ones. thats common knowledge, thats not a matter of reinforcement tho.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ragorn:
<B>
That's part of what I love about psychology, that we don't KNOW the vast majority of what there is to know about the field yet. You go into engineering or astronomy or most other sciences, and you basically enter a world of known facts and laws where you have to either struggle or get lucky to make a breakthrough. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
darn, i see the behaviourist and the positivist, i wont even start the positivist rant tho, just note that there are many reasons to hold that the nature of scientific knowledge isnt cumulative. the end of the ptolemayan paradigm in astronomy made previous knowledge inacurate, for instance. id say too that science is not mainly about discovery. discovry can be the result of science, science is about sorting observation in rational ways. science is the general way to handle out wonders about the world. science is the way to make the world conceptualizable.
ahh well, much more to be sayed, guess ill might drop a lill chunk later on today
/fil
[This message has been edited by fildur (edited 10-08-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fildur:
i dont say reinforcement doesnt work on humans, look at the army, everyone acting exactly like pavlovian dogs on the officers orders.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually I don't really see the connection. Pavlov showed that you could create an involuntary reponse based on conditioning... the dog salivated not because he was ordered to or because the scientist expected him to, the dog salivated because he associated the bell with being fed. For a more accurate analogy of soldiers following orders, check out the very famous Milgram experiment (the one with the varying levels of electric shocks). That experiment was very influential in helping the world understand how a Nazi soldier could morally reconcile killing innocent children by the hundreds.
For those who aren't familiar with it, the Milgram experiment lent strong evidence to the idea that people will do things they would usually consider immoral if commanded to by somebody they perceive to be in a position of authority. Test subjects regularly delivered what they thought to be electric shocks of lethal intensity to innocent people at the demand of the researcher.
That is exactly what I mean, and this is the basis of a lot of behaviorism. I mean that I believe I can give you a rough idea of how a person thinks by the way he acts and talks. I believe that by knowing a person's past actions and the decisions they've made when faced with a variety of situations, I can predict fairly reliably how they will act in the future. That's a big part of behaviorism and psychology as a whole... prediction of future action.
You can explain a lot of human behavior through reinforcement. The child remembers the pain, remembers that touching the stove caused pain, and is less likely to do it again in the future. A child who gets an A on a test and is rewarded may remember the reward the next time he's preparing to take a test, and he might study harder in hopes of getting another reward. On a more adult level, most people have a favorite brand of aspirin, because they find that it works best for them. Even that is negative reinforcement at work... you discover which brand removes the pain the best, and continue purchasing that brand in the future.
You can't explain ALL human behavior through reinforcement, no. But you can analyze behavior for patterns, and quite often you can see patterns of reinforcement or punishment underlying a person's behavior.
True, and today most of Freud's theories have been debunked by half the world. But that's not to say he didn't have a positive influence on the field, and you can't say that nothing he ever published was accurate. The field expands, and like every other science, it buries the old theories and hypotheses which prove to be false.
------------------
- Ragorn
You group-say 'What's up, bro?'
Touk group-says 'Accounting homework and skill practice.'
You group-say 'Ewww... which is worse?'
i dont say reinforcement doesnt work on humans, look at the army, everyone acting exactly like pavlovian dogs on the officers orders.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually I don't really see the connection. Pavlov showed that you could create an involuntary reponse based on conditioning... the dog salivated not because he was ordered to or because the scientist expected him to, the dog salivated because he associated the bell with being fed. For a more accurate analogy of soldiers following orders, check out the very famous Milgram experiment (the one with the varying levels of electric shocks). That experiment was very influential in helping the world understand how a Nazi soldier could morally reconcile killing innocent children by the hundreds.
For those who aren't familiar with it, the Milgram experiment lent strong evidence to the idea that people will do things they would usually consider immoral if commanded to by somebody they perceive to be in a position of authority. Test subjects regularly delivered what they thought to be electric shocks of lethal intensity to innocent people at the demand of the researcher.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">on behaviourism, you cant actually mean that a certain behaviour is co-corelated to a certain mind frame, can you?</font>
That is exactly what I mean, and this is the basis of a lot of behaviorism. I mean that I believe I can give you a rough idea of how a person thinks by the way he acts and talks. I believe that by knowing a person's past actions and the decisions they've made when faced with a variety of situations, I can predict fairly reliably how they will act in the future. That's a big part of behaviorism and psychology as a whole... prediction of future action.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> what im saying tho is that the human mind isnt explainable in terms of reinforcement in a straightfortward way. im also wondering what the child does when he learns not to touch the stove, is it association with the pain that keeps him from touching the stove or is it the actual memmory of the pain or is it something else?</font>
You can explain a lot of human behavior through reinforcement. The child remembers the pain, remembers that touching the stove caused pain, and is less likely to do it again in the future. A child who gets an A on a test and is rewarded may remember the reward the next time he's preparing to take a test, and he might study harder in hopes of getting another reward. On a more adult level, most people have a favorite brand of aspirin, because they find that it works best for them. Even that is negative reinforcement at work... you discover which brand removes the pain the best, and continue purchasing that brand in the future.
You can't explain ALL human behavior through reinforcement, no. But you can analyze behavior for patterns, and quite often you can see patterns of reinforcement or punishment underlying a person's behavior.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">darn, i see the behaviourist and the positivist, i wont even start the positivist rant tho, just note that there are many reasons to hold that the nature of scientific knowledge isnt cumulative. the end of the ptolemayan paradigm in astronomy made previous knowledge inacurate, for instance.</font>
True, and today most of Freud's theories have been debunked by half the world. But that's not to say he didn't have a positive influence on the field, and you can't say that nothing he ever published was accurate. The field expands, and like every other science, it buries the old theories and hypotheses which prove to be false.
------------------
- Ragorn
You group-say 'What's up, bro?'
Touk group-says 'Accounting homework and skill practice.'
You group-say 'Ewww... which is worse?'
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests