# Is Behaviorism Always Wrong?



## ejsmama (Jun 20, 2006)

I'd just like to get some perspective from all your wise moms. I've noticed on several threads responses such as "that is behaviorism so I would never do it." I guess I find myself wondering if there are ever any situations, behaviors, limited instances in which some of the insights of behaviorism can be a helpful tool in the parenting toolbox? I'm not advocating behaviorism in a full scale way, but I was a psych major in college and have found, from time to time, that some of the insights of behaviorism are helpful for me to keep in mind. I would never ever advocate behaviorism as an overarching parenting model, but I guess I find myself wondering about the wholescale condemnation of it.

For instance, I find it helpful to remember that animals that are rewarded sometimes for a behavior and punished other times for the same behavior get tremendously depressed. Recently, my son and I got into a pattern in which I was using bribes a little too often, and giving in to his requests for an unnutritious treat too often as well. I would sometimes say no, but often say yes, and it was really getting to be a problem. I believe he perceived the "no" in this case as a punishment, so he was sometimes being "rewarded" for throwing tantrums about treats, and sometimes being "punished". In this case, behaviorism helped me to remember that my inconsistancy (sometimes saying yes, sometimes no) could cause my son confussion, even depression, and could certainly, from a behaviorist standpoint, lead to him asking for the lollypops more and more often.

I certainly did not use a behaviorist method when we had our "lollypop intervention", but the lessons of behaviorism were important in reminding me how painful it might be for my son if I continued to be inconsistant about this sugary treat boundary. Maybe, behaviorist lessons are helpful when a parent, like me, has messed up.

For the record, we decided that lollypops would only be a treat he would have when we went to church or got a haircut, and when he does, from time to time ask for one, I offer him a "natures lollypop" which is a piece of fruit (he loves calling them that) and remind him that we save our lollypop treat for church.

Am very interesed and looking forward to your responses.


----------



## PancakeGoddess (Oct 8, 2004)

:

I'm still looking for CL-type solutions to my toddler issues that don't involve a lot of waiting. (FI, waiting 15 minutes for him to be ready to climb into his carseat) At times, waiting is not an option when there are 3 other children with needs and desires which conflict. So far, the occasional lollypop or goldfish cracker is the least of the evils, afaics.

(OP, I'm not familiar with your lolly story, so I'm not sure if we're talking about the same use of treats)


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

I was a psych major, and am currently 1/2 way through a counseling program..... so that is where I am coming from.

No -- I don't think behaviorism is always a bad thing. I think its helpful to know a little bit about it, and to carefully pull certain things.

For example:

- Modeling is a behaviorist principle. Bandura's Social Learning Theory. I don't think anyone here would argue against the technique of modeling the behavior we want to see in our children!

- Being conscious not to reinforce the behviors we do not want to continue. For instance -- I have been careful not to "give in" to demands that involve temper tantrums. I don't want my kids to "learn" that tantrums "work" for them. I will always offer empathy, comfort, etc. -- but I'd rather they learn that WORDS get them what they need. Conversely, helping them to get results from the constructive behaviors we WANT them to continue is helpful.

- Desensitization is a behaviorist concept. And I do help my children to gradually desnsitize to things that frighten irritate them, when those sensitivities become disruptive to our household. And again, conversely, there are certain things (like violence) that I do NOT want to desensitize them to, so I am careful to maintain that senstivitity.

What I think is a problem is:
- Using tangible rewards and punishments in an arbitrary fashion to "train" responses. This is usually disrespectful, and misses the opportunity to teach more meaningful lessons.

However -- I think its also important to remember that different families have different needs and different limitations. I think there are some families that would be spanking if they did not appeal to rewards/punishments, and this is the best they can do. I would support these families. And I think there are some children with certain special needs who respond well to rewards/punishments. I would also support behaviorist efforts in these situations.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaduck* 
I was a psych major, and am currently 1/2 way through a counseling program..... so that is where I am coming from.

No -- I don't think behaviorism is always a bad thing. I think its helpful to know a little bit about it, and to carefully pull certain things.

For example:

- Modeling is a behaviorist principle. Bandura's Social Learning Theory. I don't think anyone here would argue against the technique of modeling the behavior we want to see in our children!

- Being conscious not to reinforce the behviors we do not want to continue. For instance -- I have been careful not to "give in" to demands that involve temper tantrums. I don't want my kids to "learn" that tantrums "work" for them. I will always offer empathy, comfort, etc. -- but I'd rather they learn that WORDS get them what they need. Conversely, helping them to get results from the constructive behaviors we WANT them to continue is helpful.

- Desensitization is a behaviorist concept. And I do help my children to gradually desnsitize to things that frighten irritate them, when those sensitivities become disruptive to our household. And again, conversely, there are certain things (like violence) that I do NOT want to desensitize them to, so I am careful to maintain that senstivitity.

What I think is a problem is:
- Using tangible rewards and punishments in an arbitrary fashion to "train" responses. This is usually disrespectful, and misses the opportunity to teach more meaningful lessons.

However -- I think its also important to remember that different families have different needs and different limitations. I think there are some families that would be spanking if they did not appeal to rewards/punishments, and this is the best they can do. I would support these families. And I think there are some children with certain special needs who respond well to rewards/punishments. I would also support behaviorist efforts in these situations.

Wow, I was going to response similarly, but Mamaduck said it so much better than I would have!

The only thing I would add is that when changing a behavior, behaviorism states that it is extremely important to identify what function a behavior serves, and replace it with a behavior that serves that same function. Sometimes called, "matching law." In MDC lingo, its called "honoring the impulse." These two ideas are identical, and "honoring the impulse" is a very behavioral technique.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Well, there is positive and negative reinforcement inherent in just about everything. When I naturally smile at ds because he's doing something really sweet, that's technically positive reinforcement, but it's not really behaviorism.
Here's the meriam webster definition of behaviorism - a school of psychology that takes the objective evidence of behavior (as measured responses to stimuli) as the only concern of its research and the only basis of its theory without reference to conscious experience
So, the outcome is what matters, the intentional doling out of reinforcement, in order to change the behavior. No matter what ELSE might be affected.
That seems a pretty narrow definition of behaviorism, but perhaps its what I mean when I talk about it, anyways.
So, with that definition, I'd say it is almost always wrong. (there are always exceptions to everything, just about)
I also think that behaviorism, in the more general sense that we talk about it here (all punishments and rewards), interferes with real learning, and undermines kids' innate sociality. Not saying that its always wrong, just saying that there are definite downsides.
Using a lesson from behaviorism to improve your interactions with your family would be quite ok, imo









I disagree that "honor the impulse" is behaviorism. It's not positive or negative reinforcement, in response to a certain behavior. It's telling ds that x is not socially acceptable, but that I appreciate that his impulse is indeed legitimate, and I am going to do my best to find an acceptable way for him to express it.
I don't offer alternatives JUST because I want his behavior to change. I offer alternatives because I want him to be able to express his impulses in a way that is agreeable to everyone in the house. And I want him to learn that there are ways to make everyone happy.
(Actually the phrase "honor the impulse" in Becoming the Parent refers to the parent understanding that there is indeed a legitimate impulse behing the actions. The act of redirecting is the next step. But still, honor the impulse is enough to convey that we mean the whole tihng when we say it.)


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Quote:

The only thing I would add is that when changing a behavior, behaviorism states that it is extremely important to identify what function a behavior serves, and replace it with a behavior that serves that same function. Sometimes called, "matching law." In MDC lingo, its called "honoring the impulse." These two ideas are identical, and "honoring the impulse" is a very behavioral technique.
Thats interesting, B.C. I've encountered this concept in the context of "Choice Theory," which stems from an existentialist set of assumptions/beliefs.

I've also encountered it within cognitive/behavioral therapies -- but I guess I assumed it was a product of the cognitive component.

Splitting hairs maybe! And veering off topic -- I think Choice Theory fits very well with GD parenting though.

Yeah -- Deva, it does seem that the real serious limitation of behaviorism is that it never addresses the "why" question, or deals with resolving internal conflicts. Its all about controling what is external.

This is such an interesting thread! Thanks for starting it ejsmama!


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

mamaduck thanks for such insightful replies! I remember little of my psych classes in college--your posts were refreshing!


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
Well, there is positive and negative reinforcement inherent in just about everything. When I naturally smile at ds because he's doing something really sweet, that's technically positive reinforcement, but it's not really behaviorism.

I think one problem with totally rejecting behaviorism is that you can fool yourself into thinking that your kid is not getting rewards or punishments, when in reality, as you point out, they're everywhere even if you don't deliberately try to come up with them. And you may fail to consider how those "accidental" rewards and punishments actually affect your child. I think Ejsmama gave a good example of how some knowledge of behaviorism, and a willingness to see how it might be relevant to your child, can be helpful.

I generally try to avoid rewards and punishment, but I do tend to think that behaviorism can be helpful at times, especially with really young children or babies. For instance, I can't think of any effective way to teach a baby not to bite while nursing that doesn't involve (mild) punishment or rewards.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

But I am aware of how natural responses do affect ds. That's not behaviorism, was my point. That's, um, natural. That's living in a society with other people, and living in the world in general. Society is naturally going to let people know what is ok and what isn't. That's not specifically doling out positive or negative reinforcement in order to get the behavior that I desire out of ds. Just because I don't find merit in behaviorism, doesn't mean that I don't pay attention to how ds is affected by various things.
It's not "accidental" but its not behaviorism either. It's what happens when you live with other people.
I guess if you consider ALL positive and negative reinforcement to be behaviorism, then you are correct. I don't. Perhaps we mean the same thing, we just define behaviorism differently.
I'm not "rejecting behaviorism" I know that it exists in our society, and that I have to be aware of it because others will use it with ds. But I do reject the notion that it is necessary or useful in raising children.

I can think of ways to deter a baby from biting while nursing that doesn't involve rewards or punishment. It involves explaining, and giving alternative acceptable actions that honor the impulse. (which I still don't consider behaviorism. Even though the same idea is part of behaviorism theory, it doesn't mean that the idea IS behavioristic in every instance)


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

See, Behaviorism _can_ be viewed as a set of techniques, but in broader terms it is just a theory that attempts to explain human behavior. You can reject it as a set of parenting techniques, but still accept that the theory has some merit as a way of explaining some of what motivates people to do the things they do.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Deva33-just a thought-behaviorism in part tried to identify existing, or "natural", dynamics in the world. In terms of the OP I don't think it is possible to say "Behaviorism is always wrong", if we recognize the existence of natural influences identified in behaviorism. I disagree with many of the conclusions of behavioristic theory, but I agree with the organic basis~people do have certain ways of behaving that are highly predictable. Does that make sense?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Mamaduck~we posted at the same time, saying almost the same thing! You are my cyber twin *LOL*


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

I think most people unfamiliar with behaviorism think of it as a manipulative, coersive set of strategies designed to control other people's behavior (especially children's) without regard to what the child might want or choose, or who that child is.

Just like any set of parenting techniques, behavioral strategies can be applied coldly and without regard for the child as a unique individual. So can just about any other parenting strategy. For example, Naomi Aldort's strategies of reflecting back to the child their emotional states can be done in an unfeeling, "cold" way. Sometimes when I'm tired and its the nineteenth tantrum in an hour I find myself wearily saying, "Boy, that toy sure is frustrating. You want it to go in that box and it won't go in!" without any genuine compassion behind my words, and I think DD senses that, and really just wants me to be quiet because I am not being genuine.

Behavioral techniques can be used lovingly and compassionately, adapted for the particular needs of your child, just like most other parenting strategies.

I believe its more about your INTENT (do you want to CONTROL the child, or TEACH the child?) than anything else. Its good to have knowledge of as many parenting techniques as possible so that you can be flexible and responsive to your child's needs. Behaviorism can be one of those strategies.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
But I am aware of how natural responses do affect ds. That's not behaviorism, was my point. That's, um, natural. That's living in a society with other people, and living in the world in general. Society is naturally going to let people know what is ok and what isn't. That's not specifically doling out positive or negative reinforcement in order to get the behavior that I desire out of ds. Just because I don't find merit in behaviorism, doesn't mean that I don't pay attention to how ds is affected by various things.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I thought you, specifically, were unaware of how your natural responses affected your child. (On the contrary, I thought your post showed that you were aware of how things like smiles could function as rewards.) I just meant that I thought some people might just say, "I hate the whole idea of behaviorism and I don't think it ought to be applied to people," and then never even consider the fact that their kids were actually getting "natural" rewards and punishments and that behaviorism might give them some insight into how those rewards and punishments might be affecting their kids. (When I say "behaviorism," I don't necessarily mean "using the principles of behaviorism to shape children's behavior." I just mean, "understanding how reinforcement and punishment affect behavior.")

Of course it's true that part of living with other people is seeing their natural responses to what you do - smiles, anger, etc. Those natural responses aren't produced with the intent of shaping your child's behavior. But they DO shape it, and behaviorism explains (at least in part) how and why that happens.

Quote:

I can think of ways to deter a baby from biting while nursing that doesn't involve rewards or punishment. It involves explaining, and giving alternative acceptable actions that honor the impulse.
With a baby? Under a year old? I can't see explanations working too well at that age. So I don't see anything wrong with simply going with your natural impulse to yell "OW!" even though that is technically a punishment. Maybe you wouldn't consider it a punishment if it was a natural impulse and not planned specifically to deter biting. But I would, because it acts as a punishment. I'd say that the person who yells "OW!" but thinks she never uses punishment with her child is fooling herself.


----------



## ejsmama (Jun 20, 2006)

Oh wow, mamas, you amaze me! Thank you so much for all the insight..keep it coming! It is really helpful to me to distinguish between behaviorism as a parenting technique and behaviorism as a theory that can help us understand certain behaviors, etc.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Quote:

It is really helpful to me to distinguish between behaviorism as a parenting technique and behaviorism as a theory that can help us understand certain behaviors, etc.
Yes, and I think the difference between theory and practice is where ethics come into play.

If we have special insight into the way that people tick, is it okay to use that insight as a way to control them? My view is that at this point, we are on tricky ground.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Ok, now I see what you meant









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
Of course it's true that part of living with other people is seeing their natural responses to what you do - smiles, anger, etc. Those natural responses aren't produced with the intent of shaping your child's behavior. *But they DO shape it, and behaviorism explains (at least in part) how and why that happens.*

I see what you are saying, and agree with it.

Quote:

So I don't see anything wrong with simply going with your natural impulse to yell "OW!" even though that is technically a punishment. Maybe you wouldn't consider it a punishment if it was a natural impulse and not planned specifically to deter biting.
See, I wouldn't consider it punishment, and more importantly I don't think ds would either (whether I'm fooling myself or not aside)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaduck*
See, Behaviorism can be viewed as a set of techniques, but in broader terms it is just a theory that attempts to explain human behavior. You can reject it as a set of parenting techniques, but still accept that the theory has some merit as a way of explaining some of what motivates people to do the things they do.

I might be defining "Behaviorism" more narrowly than others.
" *Behaviorism was a movement in psychology and philosophy* that emphasized the outward behavioral aspects of thought and dismissed the inward experiential and sometimes the inner procedural aspects as well; a movement harking back to the methodological proposals of John B. Watson, who coined the name." http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/behavior.htm
As a specific theory and way of doing things (when applied to raising kids). If dc does something bad, punishing will make that behavior stop.

Expessing natural impulses ("ouch") might be "behaviorism" in a very general sense, in that Behaviorism explains some natural human behaviors. But, try as I might, I don't see it as Behaviorism in the strict sense of the theory (that focuses solely on outward behavior).

There was a discussion LONG ago on what exactly was considered punishment, and I disagreed with most people there too. I've thought about it a lot, and carrying a child who is running away, doesn't seem to me to be punishment.

Point being- I can't say Behaviorism (the theory) is always wrong. I can say that I don't believe it is an ideal way to raise kids. But I can see how it would be a decent option in some situations for some people.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Deva - Isn't it funny how sometimes hashing out two perspectives results in common understanding?








We're saying the same thing!


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
See, I wouldn't consider it punishment, and more importantly I don't think ds would either (whether I'm fooling myself or not aside)

Would it make him less likely to bite in the future? If so, then it's technically a punishment. A punishment (at least the way behaviorists define it) is something that follows an action and makes that action less likely to occur in the future. The pained "ouch" after biting certainly meets that definition. Now, maybe what you mean is that your DS wouldn't see it as something you were deliberately doing to retaliate and wouldn't feel you were being mean to him. Is that your definition of punishment? (The frustrating thing about discussions of punishment is that everyone seems to have their own personal definition of the word.)


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaduck* 
If we have special insight into the way that people tick, is it okay to use that insight as a way to control them? My view is that at this point, we are on tricky ground.

For me, where the whole UP thing gets really tricky is when you start thinking about the fine line between reacting naturally and punishing/rewarding. The difference isn't always clear-cut, at least not to me.

Let's say we all agree that reacting naturally is fine, even if our positive or negative reactions have the effect of rewards or punishments. What if you have the self-control to moderate or even completely hide your natural reaction if you wish? If your child does something you find very, very annoying, and you could manage to hide your annoyance, but choose not to - are you deliberately punishing? Would hiding your true feelings be a good way to show unconditional love, or would it be dishonest and unnatural and deprive your child of information she needs about how her actions affect other people?


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
Now, maybe what you mean is that your DS wouldn't see it as something you were deliberately doing to retaliate and wouldn't feel you were being mean to him. Is that your definition of punishment? (The frustrating thing about discussions of punishment is that everyone seems to have their own personal definition of the word.)

Yeah, it is difficult when we all mean close to the same thing, but have really different definitions about stuff. lol
What you said, would be close to my definition of punishment.
and this, from www.m-w.com :
Punish 1 a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation b : to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation

I love that we can have discussions like this, where we really can discuss the details. If we didn't agree on the basics, we'd never get this far into the subject! Like Mamaduck said- that's the beauty of these discussions


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Quote:

Let's say we all agree that reacting naturally is fine, even if our positive or negative reactions have the effect of rewards or punishments. What if you have the self-control to moderate or even completely hide your natural reaction if you wish? If your child does something you find very, very annoying, and you could manage to hide your annoyance, but choose not to - are you deliberately punishing? Would hiding your true feelings be a good way to show unconditional love, or would it be dishonest and unnatural and deprive your child of information she needs about how her actions affect other people?
Daffodil -- I think its more important to be authentic with children than it is to say and do all the right things. Honestly, if we can't be ourselves, then we are not experiencing a genuine relationship and neither are they. That inauthentic relationship will then become a template for the child's future relationships, and things will be screwed up. Even if the parent has said and done "all the right things." There can be no real connections made when people are not being themselves.

But I don't know very much at all about UP, and do not put myself into that parenting catagory.

Thats a little off topic -- I realize. But I've debated the fine lines of consequences and punishment ad nauseum over the years (here) and have sort of given it up as fruitless. Or maybe I'm just sick of it!







For my own personal guidelines, I am against the deliberate application of arbitrary/unrelated negative stimuli following my children's undesirable behaviors, in an effort to shape them!







Thats a mouthful!


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaduck* 
Daffodil -- I think its more important to be authentic with children than it is to say and do all the right things. Honestly, if we can't be ourselves, then we are not experiencing a genuine relationship and neither are they. That inauthentic relationship will then become a template for the child's future relationships, and things will be screwed up. Even if the parent has said and done "all the right things." There can be no real connections made when people are not being themselves.

But I don't know very much at all about UC, and do not put myself into that parenting catagory.

Thats a little off topic -- I realize. But I've debated the fine lines of consequences and punishment ad nauseum over the years (here) and have sort of given it up as fruitless. Or maybe I'm just sick of it!







For my own personal guidelines, *I am against the deliberate application of arbitrary/unrelated negative stimuli following my children's undesirable behaviors, in an effort to shape them!*







Thats a mouthful!









:








I agree with all that, except that I don't know what UC stands for


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Blah. Sorry -- Daff. had mentioned UP and I mistyped. Unconditional Parenting.


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

My post was too blabbery and disorganized, so I took it down until I can state things more clearly.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
Would it make him less likely to bite in the future? If so, then it's technically a punishment. A punishment (at least the way behaviorists define it) is something that follows an action and makes that action less likely to occur in the future. The pained "ouch" after biting certainly meets that definition.

Here's one issue I have with this. Just because Behaviorism (the doctrine- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/) considers that to be punishment, doesn't mean that it is the end all and be all definition.
There must be other fields of psychology that DON'T consider normal social interactions to be made up of differing degrees of punishments and rewards. (I loved psychology in college, but obviously didn't remember much. lol)

If we go by that definition of punishment, then if I turn off the lights, and ds screams NO, then he would be punishing me. Because, it probably Would cause my future behavior to change. (that's as far as behaviorism goes)
But not because the no was so unpleasant, but because NOW I'd realize that its important to him that I don't turn it off- maybe he wants to do it, maybe he's scared of the dark, whatever. (this is why I wouldn't consider it punishment, and what behaviorism ignores)

I am going to stick with saying that "anti-punishment" is an accurate label for me. Even anti-behaviorism (the parenting technique).
I can't say I would even agree much with Behaviorism the doctrine or theory, except for the very basic idea that reinforcement can change behavior (but not without allowing for other factors in there too). But that's not particularly here nor there. lol

Interestingly enough, I just found a site that says this: "Like most traditional behaviorists, Bandura says that punishment in whatever form does not work as well as reinforcement and, in fact, has a tendency to "backfire" on us." http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/bandura.html

Hmmm....I'm also learning from my searching that reinforcement (positive, and negative) is not the same thing as punishment (positive, which is applying something bad to reduce the behavior; or negative, which is taking away something good). Here http://luna.cas.usf.edu/~rasch/per.html close to the bottom of the page.
I'd always thought that positive reinforcement was a reward, and negative reinforcement was punishment. Anyways...that's beside the point.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Dal -- I read your post and appreciated it. You should have left it!

Deva -- I don't think you are under any obligation to define "punishment" the way that Behaviorism does. In Psychogology and research, its important to carefully define your terms. The way that punishment is defined in Behaviorism is considered an "operational definition." Meaning, they provide a "working definition" to make it clear what they are talking about when they use the word, or measure the behavior. They are not attempting to provide an end-all-be-all definition that they expect everyone in the world to agree with! Its just to say, "This is what we are talking about when we use this term to explain these principles...."

An example of this that is unrelated -- I measured "romanticism" in teenagers for my college thesis project. I had to write a definition for "romanticism" that would apply to MY study, so people would know what I meant. I would never in a million years expect the whole rest of the world to define romanticism the way that I did for that one study! But if you were disscussing MY study with me, then I would expect you to respect my definition of the the idea within the context of MY research. KWIM?

Sorry -- talk about rambling...


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Yeah, I see what you are saying.
I was responding to the assertion that I must consider that I DO punish ds if I say "ouch" when he hits.
In a conversation about using behaviorism as a parenting technique (which seems what the op intended this discussion to be about), I think that it is an important point to clarify (at least to clarify that we agree to disagree on the definition). That honest reactions are not necessarily punishment.

I can see how in a discussion of Behaviorism (the doctrine), I would have to call that interaction punishment. But if we are discussing behaviorism the parenting technique, I can respond in terms of my own parenting. Does that make any sense?

So, I have to say that now I'm super curious about

Quote:

But I've debated the fine lines of consequences and punishment ad nauseum over the years (here) and have sort of given it up as fruitless. Or maybe I'm just sick of it!
I may have to do a search to see what you said!

And Dal, I'm interested in seeing your repost


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Yep. Perfect sense.







And I do think its good to be clear on our terms when we have disscussions. But more than that -- I think its important to recognize and understand the *content* of what we communicate to each, rather than getting hung up on the semantics!


----------



## ejsmama (Jun 20, 2006)

Dal, I thought your post was outstanding - wish you'd put it back up!


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Here's my post again. Still haven't edited it. I was so tired when I posted it I wasn't sure it made a lot of sense. Glad to hear that some of you read it and thought it was worthwhile.









Should be sleeping rather than posting but wanted to chirp out a few things. This is rambly and doesn't flow well, but maybe there is something worthwhile in it. I'm going to bed now!

Note: I'm not sure how close the position I discuss is to the ones that have been discussed so far. I read the discussion, and not very carefully, a long time before I wrote my response, and am writing more about the thoughts that occurred to me than to what individual posters were saying. I don't want anyone to think that I'm mistakenly taking them as advocating something that is not the case!

If behaviorism holds that anything that extinguishes or decreases a behavior is a punishment and anything that increases a behavior or allows it to continue is a reward...

Then the same thing is sometimes a reward and sometimes a punishment. Sometimes a child who is hit as a punishment will hit more as a result of this. Hitting children as a means of punishing them is sometimes rewarding them, sometimes punishing them? No. It's always punishing them, just sometimes it doesn't work as intended. If a child's parents hit him as a form of punishment, he has been punished. It's tautological, i.e., it's in the definition of punishment.

Some punishments may inadvertantly reinforce the behavior they are meant to extinguish/decrease, but this does not change what they are, only how they happened to function (or malfunction). There are reinforcing punishments and extinguishing punishments. Similarly, there are reinforcing rewards and extinguishing rewards. In both of the last two sentences, what sometimes falls in the first category may at other times fall in the latter -- even for the same person. To say that something does or doesn't count as a punishment or reward based solely on whether it's effective at, respectively, extinguishing or increasing/maintaining a behavior doesn't make sense. [There are also rewards and punishments that are neutral and do not seem to change the child's behavior at all, this doesn't mean that they cease to exist as punishments or rewards. Once again, they are just ineffective.]

I don't think that behaviorists actually refer to, say, a natural "ouch" reaction from being bitten by a nursing child as a punishment. It seems more likely to me that they would call it an extinguisher or some similar term, and then, only in certain instances: when the child seems to do less biting as a result of it. Some children, of course, may find mom's "ouch!" reaction hilarious and want to recreate it. Others may be indifferent to it while others are upset by mom's reaction but have no idea how to stop biting so they are unable to do anything differently, unless they opt to stop nursing. To assume that a punishment or a reward will consistently yield the same results, and that these results can be predicted is a mistake, and a mistake that behaviorists often make.

To suggest that we should pay attention to these things to shape how we parent: this gets into such dangerous territory in which we may assume and project how we might take a punishment or reward onto how we interpret our child's actions. Using behaviorists' tactics raises the prospects of treating one's child like a robot or a dog. Children, even very young ones, can understand a lot more than behaviorists give them credit for. When I start to treat Simon as a series of behaviors to extinguish or reinforce, it's hard to maintain our loving relationship and to treat him as a person who deserves respect. Should we look at our spouses as a series of behaviors to reinforce and extinguish too and then set out to change them to meet our preferred ends?

To define whether something is a reward/reinforcer or a punishment/extinguisher after the fact is so ad hoc. Especially when the same thing is sometimes allegedly a reward and sometimes a punishment, how is one to justify that the correlation has any legitimacy or that the reward/punishment was a cause for the change? Behaviorists do this because they assume that the external world drives our actions and does so in predictable ways. The external world has a lot to do with our actions, but what goes on in our heads matters a lot too. The world is a lot less predictable and a lot more complex than behaviorists seem to take it to be and there is a huge realm of "things are not as they seem" that their theories seem oblivious to, as though it doesn't matter why we do what we do (other than the simple assumption that we aim to run from pain and towards pleasure). Similarly, it denies the importance of how we're experiencing the world and feeling and thinking about it -- as though none of this has anything to do with how we'll turn out.

Dh comes up to me one day and I have a total crank-on. He puts his arms around me and my mood softens. Fast forward to my next crank-on. He puts his arms around me and I stiffen up and snark that I need some space. Can his hugging gesture in any meaningful way be determined in either of these cases as a punishment or a reward for my crank-on? What on earth would I get out of accepting this theory that begs the question in its own favour and thinks that it can determine what has caused my actions? Maybe my crank-on was going to end in the first instance anyway, and maybe in the second I was in the midst of an increasingly volatile internal hubbub that was bound to increase my rotten mood. It seems more apt to look at dh's gesture as an attempt to connect with me, knowing that I'm in a bad place, or a result of his never having sex and being hopeful. I can't say without asking him. It also matters how I take his gesture. He may do the exact same thing, but -- among many other possibilities -- in case 1, I may take it as a loving gesture and in case 2 take it as an unwanted and untimely sexual advance. The inner world is so important and the world is extremely complex. Just looking at correlations between suspected rewards/punishments and my actions and guessing/hypothesizing about which are causing which is apt to lead to some mistaken guesses and even when it's partly accurate, it doesn't get us very far and ignores far more than it pays attention to -- like the person behind the action.


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
Hmmm....I'm also learning from my searching that reinforcement (positive, and negative) is not the same thing as punishment (positive, which is applying something bad to reduce the behavior; or negative, which is taking away something good). Here http://luna.cas.usf.edu/~rasch/per.html close to the bottom of the page. I'd always thought that positive reinforcement was a reward, and negative reinforcement was punishment. Anyways...that's beside the point.

Negative reinforcement is often confused with punishment. The key to keeping them straight is to remember that "reinforcement" always makes things stronger - reinforcing a wall makes the wall stronger, and reinforcing a behavior makes the behavior stronger. Punishment *doesn't* make a behavior stronger, so punishment is not the same as negative reinforcement.

Negative reinforcement is what happens when a bad thing ends because you do a certain behavior. When your baby stops crying because you pick her up, the behavior of picking up the baby is negatively reinforced. On a less favorable note, heroin addicts are negatively reinforced for shooting up, because taking heroin ends their withdrawal symptoms.

I've deliberately picked examples of real-world, natural reinforcers because I think it's important to emphasize the distinction that others have drawn between the laws of learning theory and behaviorism as a deliberate strategy for changing people's behaviors. It is a fact of life (a law of learning theory) that if something an organism does has a good outcome, then the organism is more likely to do it again, whereas if it has a bad outcome, then the organism is *less* likely to do it again. That's the case whether or not you choose to consciously and deliberately use reinforcers to change your child's behaviors.


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
It is a fact of life (a law of learning theory) that if something an organism does has a good outcome, then the organism is more likely to do it again, whereas if it has a bad outcome, then the organism is *less* likely to do it again. That's the case whether or not you choose to consciously and deliberately use reinforcers to change your child's behaviors.

I think it makes more sense to speak of things in terms of pleasure and pain rather than in terms of good outcome/bad outcome. I stay up way too late on a regular basis. It's a horrible habit. I have a handful of horrible habits. Anyway, what happens the next day: I often swear not to stay up so late again, I'm often cranky or just generally sleep-deprived. I vow to go to bed earlier the next night, but no go. The result is NOT GOOD. I enjoy staying up late and don't want to put my work/play aside, even though I know that I'm more apt to do a better job of it if I get a decent amount of sleep. What's my issue then: Pleasure. I have trouble turning off the pleasure sensors and putting myself in bed.

I guess a behaviorist might respond that the extinguisher needs to be closer to the act of staying up late rather than something I feel the next day. Or I could try to bribe myself into bed.









I think the main truth of behaviorism, though we need not give behaviorists any credit for this seeing as it's all in Aristotle's Ethics: we are creatures of habit and often need some sort of incentive to break out of these habits, since they are so engrained that acting against them feels as though we are acting against our nature. While children are young, their habits are not yet so set, though their inclinations are still strong. If their habits can be set in ways that promote their well-being (assuming we have a good idea of what these habits are), parents should strive to help them to do so since it will make a huge difference in how their lives turn out. I think this is something that most parents would agree with, behaviorists or not. It would be great if Simon doesn't have to struggle as I do (and then fail, as I do) to keep his house in some semblance of order, to keep up with important administrative tasks, to get enough sleep and to eat well and so on.

The problem with behavioristic approaches, though, is the behaviorism bit.







It comes out when they set out to extinguish or reinforce actions without focusing on the whole person and the deeper motivations and goals that they have. Even among behaviorists, I don't imagine many would agree that it doesn't matter whether their child's motivations are deeply engrained and conducive to well-being (as in the case of internal motivation) or if they are contingent and conducive to neurosis (as in the case of a child/adult who is too reliant on external motivation and would act otherwise if the reward or punishment were not forthcoming). So... simply focusing on shocking children or asking them to push levers for pellets of food may not help children develop in the way that even behaviorists want them to develop. It seems more likely that, at least in a huge range of cases, such methods as these simply coerce people to act in decent ways, and to do so for the wrong reasons (for the tasty pellets, to avoid being shocked/put in a time-out, &c.).

One thing that has been on my mind lately is the relationship between behavioristic approaches (mainly ones that use some sort of punishment or unwanted force on a child) and the child's eventual agreement to do whatever it is that the parent wants of her/him. Is it accurate to say that the child's will has been broken? Might this ever be a good thing? Is it as horrible as it sounds? In many ways, this approach is only different by matter of degree than are the vile approaches described in Alice ******'s book _For Your Own Good_. ****** describes and discusses horrid parenting practices and argues that being subjected to these practices helps to explain how so many people were involved or complicit in committing the atrocities of Nazi Germany. The main feature of these practices involved breaking the will of very young children so that the parents have perfect control over them. If it's done early enough, the child can't even remember having a will or her or his own and takes on the will of her/his parents and other authority figures instead. It's really scary stuff.







To be sure, I am not saying that mainstream parents are raising the next SS. But it is still worthwhile to relate these ideas to current practices that work in a similar way: by exerting some sort of force on a child until s/he complies with the parent's will. When grown, and before then, will these children be unduly vulnerable to problematic authority figures? Will they be less able to distinguish between the way things are and the way they ought to be, and less able to and less interested in striving for the latter -- unless so doing becomes fashionable and expected of them?

It seems to me that treatments such as CIO, repeatedly forcing a child into a 5-point harness for a car ride and ignoring requests/demands to get out of the car; ignoring, shunning, or otherwise punishing a child who acts against the parent's will -- all act to break down the child's will. The use of rewards and praise can do this too, albeit in a sneakier and friendlier-looking way. Hence we see these shells of 2 year olds, sitting in a stroller all day long without even bothering to protest. This is certainly convenient for many parents who do not want to engage with a typical, active toddler. But what has happened to the child to lead to this? A lot of behaviorism! Misapplied? Is breaking a child's will, or hammering away at it until the child gives up and subjects in one way and then in another, . . . when we think about what is involved and why the child has become compliant (if only before our eyes), is this will-diminishing ever something to be treated as a success? I suppose this may be true for a murderous sociopath. Is it also true for our children?

Perhaps in our screwed up society it is sometimes to a child's advantage to light a torch under some aspects of her/his will? That certainly would have made the trip Simon and I took to the airport this morning to visit a relative a more relaxed and enjoyable one -- at least for me and my aunt and possibly for Simon as well. But of course sitting at Tim Horton's in a busy airport is not a suitable activity for an overtired 2.5 year old who is excited to participate in the world. He wanted to see the planes (which is surprisingly hard for a visitor to do). He wanted to ride around on the suitcase carts. He wanted to live rather than be a passive shell who sits in silence in the midst of chatter he can't fully understand and that is of little interest to him. Were he such a shell: oh you are so lucky! He's such a good boy! But no, for keeping his will intact we're met with: "Oh the terrible twos. He's really busy, eh? They move past this and grow into such beautiful children." But aunt, he's beautiful now!


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal* 
I think it makes more sense to speak of things in terms of pleasure and pain rather than in terms of good outcome/bad outcome. I stay up way too late on a regular basis. It's a horrible habit. I have a handful of horrible habits. Anyway, what happens the next day: I often swear not to stay up so late again, I'm often cranky or just generally sleep-deprived. I vow to go to bed earlier the next night, but no go. The result is NOT GOOD. I enjoy staying up late and don't want to put my work/play aside, even though I know that I'm more apt to do a better job of it if I get a decent amount of sleep. What's my issue then: Pleasure. I have trouble turning off the pleasure sensors and putting myself in bed.

I guess a behaviorist might respond that the extinguisher needs to be closer to the act of staying up late rather than something I feel the next day. Or I could try to bribe myself into bed.









I think the main truth of behaviorism, though we need not give behaviorists any credit for this seeing as it's all in Aristotle's Ethics: we are creatures of habit and often need some sort of incentive to break out of these habits, since they are so engrained that acting against them feels as though we are acting against our nature. While children are young, their habits are not yet so set, though their inclinations are still strong. If their habits can be set in ways that promote their well-being (assuming we have a good idea of what these habits are), parents should strive to help them to do so since it will make a huge difference in how their lives turn out. I think this is something that most parents would agree with, behaviorists or not. It would be great if Simon doesn't have to struggle as I do (and then fail, as I do) to keep his house in some semblance of order, to keep up with important administrative tasks, to get enough sleep and to eat well and so on.

The problem with behavioristic approaches, though, is the behaviorism bit.







It comes out when they set out to extinguish or reinforce actions without focusing on the whole person and the deeper motivations and goals that they have. Even among behaviorists, I don't imagine many would agree that it doesn't matter whether their child's motivations are deeply engrained and conducive to well-being (as in the case of internal motivation) or if they are contingent and conducive to neurosis (as in the case of a child/adult who is too reliant on external motivation and would act otherwise if the reward or punishment were not forthcoming). So... simply focusing on shocking children or asking them to push levers for pellets of food may not help children develop in the way that even behaviorists want them to develop. It seems more likely that, at least in a huge range of cases, such methods as these simply coerce people to act in decent ways, and to do so for the wrong reasons (for the tasty pellets, to avoid being shocked/put in a time-out, &c.).

One thing that has been on my mind lately is the relationship between behavioristic approaches (mainly ones that use some sort of punishment or unwanted force on a child) and the child's eventual agreement to do whatever it is that the parent wants of her/him. Is it accurate to say that the child's will has been broken? Might this ever be a good thing? Is it as horrible as it sounds? In many ways, this approach is only different by matter of degree than are the vile approaches described in Alice ******'s book _For Your Own Good_. ****** describes and discusses horrid parenting practices and argues that being subjected to these practices helps to explain how so many people were involved or complicit in committing the atrocities of Nazi Germany. The main feature of these practices involved breaking the will of very young children so that the parents have perfect control over them. If it's done early enough, the child can't even remember having a will or her or his own and takes on the will of her/his parents and other authority figures instead. It's really scary stuff.







To be sure, I am not saying that mainstream parents are raising the next SS. But it is still worthwhile to relate these ideas to current practices that work in a similar way: by exerting some sort of force on a child until s/he complies with the parent's will. When grown, and before then, will these children be unduly vulnerable to problematic authority figures? Will they be less able to distinguish between the way things are and the way they ought to be, and less able to and less interested in striving for the latter -- unless so doing becomes fashionable and expected of them?

It seems to me that treatments such as CIO, repeatedly forcing a child into a 5-point harness for a car ride and ignoring requests/demands to get out of the car; ignoring, shunning, or otherwise punishing a child who acts against the parent's will -- all act to break down the child's will. The use of rewards and praise can do this too, albeit in a sneakier and friendlier-looking way. Hence we see these shells of 2 year olds, sitting in a stroller all day long without even bothering to protest. This is certainly convenient for many parents who do not want to engage with a typical, active toddler. But what has happened to the child to lead to this? A lot of behaviorism! Misapplied? Is breaking a child's will, or hammering away at it until the child gives up and subjects in one way and then in another, . . . when we think about what is involved and why the child has become compliant (if only before our eyes), is this will-diminishing ever something to be treated as a success? I suppose this may be true for a murderous sociopath. Is it also true for our children?

Perhaps in our screwed up society it is sometimes to a child's advantage to light a torch under some aspects of her/his will? That certainly would have made the trip Simon and I took to the airport this morning to visit a relative a more relaxed and enjoyable one -- at least for me and my aunt and possibly for Simon as well. But of course sitting at Tim Horton's in a busy airport is not a suitable activity for an overtired 2.5 year old who is excited to participate in the world. He wanted to see the planes (which is surprisingly hard for a visitor to do). He wanted to ride around on the suitcase carts. He wanted to live rather than be a passive shell who sits in silence in the midst of chatter he can't fully understand and that is of little interest to him. Were he such a shell: oh you are so lucky! He's such a good boy! But no, for keeping his will intact we're met with: "Oh the terrible twos. He's really busy, eh? They move past this and grow into such beautiful children." But aunt, he's beautiful now!


Sorry to jump in here, but I just wanted to argue in favor of behaviorism and say that I don't think the kids sitting passively in their strollers have been the victims of such well-thought-out parenting as consistently using behaviorist techniques. They've just been ignored because their parents are too immature/busy/preoccupied/exhausted/whatever to listen to their cries and recognize them as communication, and have eventually given up trying to get through to someone. At least that's what I've seen in my in-laws family, and the result has been zoned-out, non-communicative children who seem to have very little connection to their fellow humans.

Anyway, I strongly disagree that a little behaviorism is going to break a child's will. Especially the way I see mainstream parents advocating it, as in, whenever your child does XYZ, I'll use hitting for an example, you punish the child, usually by time-out, or maybe by some other kind of privelege removal. Then, whenever your child doesn't hit, you reward this with praise. I don't think this is going to break anyone's will, it's just concentrated on that action. I don't think it teaches alternatives, or helps a child's empathy, or improves your relationship, but I agree with that it could greatly reduce a child's hitting, especially if you can stay calm and administer the punishment in exactly the same way every time. Not the end of the world, right?


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah* 

Anyway, I strongly disagree that a little behaviorism is going to break a child's will.

You are reading me as advocating a far stronger position than is the case. I said that I wonder if behaviorist techniques -- citing first instances such as CIO and full-body restraint [oops -- I mean 5-point harness type restraints, that's not quite "full-body"]-- hammer away at a child's will. I don't think that this is akin to taking over the child's will or breaking it entirely.

The focus on consistency is meant to teach the child that the action is not an option for her/him. The child must comply with the adult's will in these circumstances or (e.g.) reap the punishments/fear about a loss of love. This is the same way the techniques were used in preWWII Germany, though of course the current techniques -- at least the popular ones -- are not anywhere near as violent. (Some of the techniques used in preWWII Germany were mild as well, such as playing certain games to increase the child's impulse control, and then once this was managed use the new skill in the parent's benefit).

The hitting example you indicate sounds fairly benign. Is it? What does the child learn? The parents may supplement behaviorism with something more empathy-producing. If it were just behaviorism though, the child would learn that whenever I do X, mom (or whoever) will jump in and cause pain to me. After a time, the child may give up on this, not because s/he has learned that hitting hurts other people, but because the parent's threat and punishment is frightening enough that the child learns to ignore her or his own impulses, i.e., learns to act against her or his own will, and not because s/he is internally motivated to do so, but for self-interested reasons (e.g., avoiding the punishment/keeping mom's love). Does this mean that the will has changed? It may not, perhaps the child just suppresses what s/he wants to do for fear of the punishment or loss of love. Or, perhaps the child doesn't have a very strong will to begin with and the parent's strong chastisements/conditional methods of support do break the child's will in that particular regard. Over time, the child may come to do what the parent wants out of habit or out of fear. But unless something else provides internal motivation, it seems the child is just acting out the will of the parent (even if s/he has thoughtlessly taken this on due to the punishments/rewards/not being given any other real options) -- hence so many people who are raised in such conditional ways end up wondering who they really are and feeling they've spent their childhoods in inauthentic pursuits, aimed to please their parents and ensure their continued support.

So given this clarification, if it helps at all, am I mistaken in thinking that behavioristic techniques hammer away at a child's will -- not the whole will, but bits and pieces of it over time, the more frequently and more widespread in a child's life such methods are used? And am I mistaken in wondering/worrying that so doing may make a child less apt to resist harmful authorities in the future, or to think for her- or himself?

The broken toddler in stroller example was an extreme case. I do think that how the child got to that point is through techniques that behaviorists support (ignoring/punishing what is not desired and rewarding or being as kind as one gets when the child is compliant). If a lot of misapplied behaviorism can do that to a child, might more acceptable forms of it cause damage that is not so easy to see, or that might even make things look as though the child is a dream child, though in truth the child is simply too scared to act otherwise (for fear of lost love or punishments) or has come to believe that acting otherwise is simply not a real option (since her parents punish her whenever she does, or withdraw love in those cases and so on).


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal* 
The hitting example you indicate sounds fairly benign. Is it? What does the child learn? The parents may supplement behaviorism with something more empathy-producing. If it were just behaviorism though, the child would learn that whenever I do X, mom (or whoever) will jump in and cause pain to me. After a time, the child may give up on this, not because s/he has learned that hitting hurts other people, but because the parent's threat and punishment is frightening enough that the child learns to ignore her or his own impulses, i.e., learns to act against her or his own will, and not because s/he is internally motivated to do so, but for self-interested reasons (e.g., avoiding the punishment/keeping mom's love). Does this mean that the will has changed? It may not, perhaps the child just suppresses what s/he wants to do for fear of the punishment or loss of love. Or, perhaps the child doesn't have a very strong will to begin with and the parent's strong chastisements/conditional methods of support do break the child's will in that particular regard. Over time, the child may come to do what the parent wants out of habit or out of fear. But unless something else provides internal motivation, it seems the child is just acting out the will of the parent (even if s/he has thoughtlessly taken this on due to the punishments/rewards/not being given any other real options) -- hence so many people who are raised in such conditional ways end up wondering who they really are and feeling they've spent their childhoods in inauthentic pursuits, aimed to please their parents and ensure their continued support.

Okay, we're definitely on the same page here. This is my objection to the behaviorist method of teaching a child not to hit. I don't think it teaches the broader lesson that you want the child to learn.

But, if you believe that children are innately social beings, maybe you can just assume that they will eventually mature and develop the empathetic response, and grow out of the desire to hit, without trying to teach them why NOT to hit in an empathetic way before they're ready for it.

I actually bring this up because I'm struggling a lot with it lately. My dd hits my ds far more often than I'm comfortable with, and I sometimes think that if I could just get her to stop, we could move on from there and work on other things. I've been considering lately if a punishment would help her break the habit, because I am fairly certain she feels pretty bad after she hits him, especially if he cries, and it might make everyone feel better if she could break the habit.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal* 
So given this clarification, if it helps at all, am I mistaken in thinking that behavioristic techniques hammer away at a child's will -- not the whole will, but bits and pieces of it over time, the more frequently and more widespread in a child's life such methods are used? And am I mistaken in wondering/worrying that so doing may make a child less apt to resist harmful authorities in the future, or to think for her- or himself?

These are such good questions! When I read your previous post about staying up late and feeling miserable because of it, I thought what I always think about behaviorism, and what I believe has been the downfall of it. That is, humans just don't work that well! We never respond correctly, we continually punish ourselves, we do things that we shouldn't do even though we are causing ourselves pain, and we do them continually. I think that all animals' behavior is occasionally too complex to work under behaviorist descriptions, or at least horses, dogs and cows. I haven't got enough experience with any other kind of animal to know.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

The problem is, behaviorism as practiced on human beings is ethically wrong.

Humans are not lab rats.
Humans are not amoebae whose cognition never rises above the level of stimulus-response.

At its base, behaviorism is manipulative and reduces human beings to the condition of machines or animals.

Hope that helps clarify.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal* 
Some punishments may inadvertantly reinforce the behavior they are meant to extinguish/decrease, but this does not change what they are, only how they happened to function (or malfunction). There are reinforcing punishments and extinguishing punishments. Similarly, there are reinforcing rewards and extinguishing rewards. In both of the last two sentences, what sometimes falls in the first category may at other times fall in the latter -- even for the same person. To say that something does or doesn't count as a punishment or reward based solely on whether it's effective at, respectively, extinguishing or increasing/maintaining a behavior doesn't make sense. [There are also rewards and punishments that are neutral and do not seem to change the child's behavior at all, this doesn't mean that they cease to exist as punishments or rewards. Once again, they are just ineffective.]

I'm glad you reposted that, Dal! Good food for thought there. It does seem reasonable to use "punishment" to mean anything intended to punish and "reward" to mean anything intended to reward, and then describe particular punishments or rewards as being effective or not. (Though it seems equally reasonable to me to use the words as they're used in operant conditioning - to describe their actual effects. That may not make sense to you, but it totally makes sense to me, maybe just because I'm used to it.)

But here's my problem with using intent to define whether something is or is not a punishment or reward. If you're trying - like a lot of us here - to avoid punishments or rewards, then whether or not you label something as a punishment or reward may determine whether or not you think it's okay. What if your natural reaction when your child does well at something you value is to beam with pride, give the child a big hug, and say, "I'm so proud of you and I love you so much!"? What if you do that automatically with no conscious intention at all of encouraging the child to repeat the behavior? You may then not think that counts as a reward - but whether or not it "counts" in your mind, it still has the potential to make your child feel judged and not unconditionally loved. It still has the potential to encourage your child to repeat that behavior for the reward of your happy, loving reaction rather than because she's internally motivated. It can have all the same harmful effects as a deliberate reward, so I think recognizing it as a reward (by actually calling it that) can be helpful.

Quote:

I don't think that behaviorists actually refer to, say, a natural "ouch" reaction from being bitten by a nursing child as a punishment. It seems more likely to me that they would call it an extinguisher or some similar term, and then, only in certain instances: when the child seems to do less biting as a result of it.
Yes, they'd call it a punishment. Check out this page on operant conditioning for some defininitions and explanation. Of course, it's true that it wouldn't be a punishment for every child under every circumstance. It wouldn't be under your definition of punishment, either. If _you_ did it, it wouldn't count as punishment because you wouldn't intend it that way. But if _I_ did it (with the thought in the back of my mind, as it would be, that it would upset the baby a bit, but that would be okay because it would make him less likely to bite in the future) then it would be a punishment. _That_ doesn't quite make sense to me.

Of course, if defining punishments and rewards based on intent runs the risk of labelling things as okay when they're not, defining them based on effect runs the opposite risk - of labelling them as punishments or rewards (with the implication that they're not okay) when they're really harmless. Whether or not we call a pained "Ouch!" a punishment, we all seem to be in agreement that it's an okay thing for a mother to do. But calling it a punishment could make it harder to feel okay about it.

And, really, for those of us taking part in this discussion it probably doesn't matter exactly how we define punishment or reward (as long as we understand each other's definitions), because we all probably have similar ideas about which parental reactions are okay and which are potentially harmful. Maybe it's foolish of me to argue for my way of defining punishments and rewards, when my arguments are really based on an assumption that somewhere there are people who aren't quite as clever as we are, who might not understand how their actions affect their children if those actions aren't described in the way that seems clearest to me.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Some thoughts that are more directly in line with the OP:

In general, I agree with the idea that trying to shape children's behavior through rewards and punishments is a bad idea, for all the reasons other posters have eloquently laid out. BUT, unlike some of you, I don't believe it's ALWAYS bad or inherently immoral. I've been thinking about whether there might be some situations where rewards could be helpful rather than harmful to my DD, and a couple came to mind:
-- I could use rewards to help get her over her fear of hair washing. We've actually come up with some techniques that keep water from getting on her face, so she doesn't find the actual washing traumatic anymore. But she has such bad associations with the whole idea that she'll often start to cry if I suggest hair washing, and reminding her of how well it's gone the last few times doesn't help. It occurred to me that some kind of reward might make her start looking forward to hair washing instead of dreading it. In this case, I don't think I would need to worry about any of the possible bad effects of rewarding. I'm not concerned that she would never develop internal motivation to wash her hair, or that she would think I loved her more if she let me wash her hair.
-- I could use rewards to encourage her to start sleeping in her own bed again. She decided a few weeks before her baby brother was born that she pretty much only wanted to sleep with me, and I haven't wanted to do anything to make her feel I was rejecting her in favor of the baby. So I've tried not to even hint that I would prefer for her to sleep in her bed. But it occurred to me that perhaps I could use rewards (in what could be called a sneaky, manipulative way) to help her start feeling good about being in her own bed. In this case, I don't think it would be good to be obvious about what I was doing - blatantly offering a sticker or toy for every night she sleeps in her own bed, for instance. That would certainly give her the message that I don't want her in my bed. But if I could give a reward that was less obvious . . . maybe telling particularly fascinating stories to her while she was lying in her own bed, and keeping them up until she fell asleep, instead of just mumbling that I'm that too tired to talk the way I might do when she's in my bed? I'm not sure I could come up with a good way to reward her, or that I shouldn't just wait until SHE decides she's ready to sleep alone, so I don't know if I would ever actually try this. But it strikes me as the type of situation where rewarding MIGHT be a good idea.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

I admit to not having thoroughly read every response, or to having absorbed every nuance, but I would like to jump in and say this one thing. My problem with behaviorism is that it is focused only on the external, what is outwardly observable, when human beings have a rich, constantly active internal experience. Each choice we make is the result of so many factors, not just the result of the stimuli and consequences we experience. We have thoughts, feelings, beliefs, perceptions, motivations, needs, preferences, desires, and free will. We sometimes do make the choice to do something for reasons other than how it will affect us personally-sometimes we do something for the good of someone else, genuinely acting from altruism, and feeling good about it or in some other way benefitting ourselves (which can happen) isn't our primary motivation. Behaviorism, in its focus on what is outwardly observable (observable stimulus, observable behavior, observable consequence), tends to not take into account much of the internal experience that is an integral part of each choice we make.

And behaviorism seems to assume that people do well if they _want to_. In fact, that is sometimes true. But there are as many times (maybe more) that we can say that people do well _if they can_, and this is too often ignored by behaviorism and behaviorist parenting methods. IMHO. I think it's much more true of children that they do well if they can, than that they do well if they want to.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah* 
But, if you believe that children are innately social beings, maybe you can just assume that they will eventually mature and develop the empathetic response, and grow out of the desire to hit, without trying to teach them why NOT to hit in an empathetic way before they're ready for it.

I actually bring this up because I'm struggling a lot with it lately. My dd hits my ds far more often than I'm comfortable with, and I sometimes think that if I could just get her to stop, we could move on from there and work on other things. I've been considering lately if a punishment would help her break the habit, because I am fairly certain she feels pretty bad after she hits him, especially if he cries, and it might make everyone feel better if she could break the habit.

I have a child who hits a lot. She's 7. I have worked so very hard to figure this out, to work with her, to solve it. Using punishments or rewards leads to greater frustration for her, because the problem is that she is lacking some skills that would allow her to deal with conflict or frustration without hitting so she simply has difficulty earning those rewards or avoiding those punishments if "not hitting" is the criteria (she _wants_ to do better, and even if we're heaping on all sorts of other ways of dealing with the problem, the rewards and/or punishments still add too much frustration). For her it's not a matter of learning why not to hit, but of how learning how to handle things so she doesn't reach the point of feeling that hitting is all she can do. Does that make sense? The one thing that has made the most progress (she is doing better much of the time, though she still has her phases) is to focus on her internal experience: what's she feeling, what's the problem from her point of view, give her empathy, help her problem-solve, help her communicate, show her she can trust us and that we're doing our best to help her. And prevention is key (as in proactively problem solving regarding situations in which she is likely to hit, addressing them before a problem has already started, as well as when necessary keeping children separate and physically stepping in to prevent/stop hitting) because this has been a long, slow process (another problem that comes from behaviorism pervading popular culture, I think, is the idea that there's a quick fix for changing people, for eliminating behaviors we don't like, and there is no quick lasting fix). She has reached the point now where she can express her frustration, she can say "I'm trying, help me, [this is the problem]." This is a huge leap for her. This process is how she's learning to communicate, to problem-solve, to relax and stay calm in the face of frustration and conflict. And this is also how she's learning empathy for others, learning how to consider their point of view-talking about this is part of the process.

I don't think behaviorism is always wrong, I just think it's usually inadequate by itself. (eta that I think ignoring stimulus and consequence is also a mistake. I think it's important to keep all aspects in mind. Focusing too narrowly on one aspect of human nature, or of a situation, or on one explanation of how/why is to potentially miss the forest for the trees.)


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
The problem is, behaviorism as practiced on human beings is ethically wrong.

Humans are not lab rats.
Humans are not amoebae whose cognition never rises above the level of stimulus-response.

At its base, behaviorism is manipulative and reduces human beings to the condition of machines or animals.

Hope that helps clarify.

Meg, I can certainly understand where you are coming from. When you were on It's planet, trying to rescue Charles Wallace, the immense behavioral control over the inhabitants of that planet was definitely the most evil use of behaviorism. I would be scarred for life if that happened to me, and definitely be Anti-behaviorism.

Medical science also tends to reduce humans to mere machines, sometimes. It doesn't have to. But it can be applied that way. Behaviorism can be used the same way. It doesn't have to be applied that way. But it can be. In its early history it was more often misused in that cold, inhumane way than it is today.

Behaviorism has its place in the parenting toolbox. Many of us use behavioral techniques every day and aren't even aware of them:

"Let's clean up the blocks then we can go outside and play!" (Premack Principle: A behavior of higher frequency can be used to reinforce a behavior of lesser frequency).

"Let's climb on these stairs instead. Here, I'll help you. The kitchen table isn't very safe for climbing." (Functional assessment of behavior and replacement of a more adaptive behavior).

"That vacuum is scary! Let's close the door and move over here. Let's put some music on and dance while the vacuum is going." (Desensitization).

"Ellen took my crayon and I want it back. 'Ellen, I was using that. Can I have it back, please?'" (Social Modeling).

"Ellen is crying! Why do you think she is crying? Oh, you think its because she wants her ball? What can you do to help? Oh, you want to give the ball back?" (Functional assessment of behavior, identifying reinforcer).

"If you help me clean the counter and table, I'll help you build a castle out of lego's." (Social Contracting).

"Those balloons are really exciting! Its so hard to stop smashing them and screaming. I'm going to put the balloons over here until you feel calmer. Do you want to rock with me on my lap? Let me know when you feel calm enough to play with the balloons safely." (Time Out from Reinforcement).

"When you throw the truck at me, it hurts. I'm going to put the truck up here for a while. It needs a time out." (Time Out from Reinforcement).

{Screeching loudly to get Mom's attention. Mom shows no response} Extinction.

{Screeching loudly to get Mom's attention}. "It looks like you want me to play with you! Can you use your words? Try saying, "Mama, will you play with me?" (Functional assessment of behavior. Social Modeling. Differential Reinforcement of Alternate Behavior).

Anyway... the list could go on and on.

Behaviorism is a TOOL that is useful to have in your toolbox. It is not inherently evil or good. It all depends on your intent and your application.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal* 
The hitting example you indicate sounds fairly benign. Is it? What does the child learn? The parents may supplement behaviorism with something more empathy-producing. If it were just behaviorism though, the child would learn that whenever I do X, mom (or whoever) will jump in and cause pain to me. After a time, the child may give up on this, not because s/he has learned that hitting hurts other people, but because the parent's threat and punishment is frightening enough that the child learns to ignore her or his own impulses, i.e., learns to act against her or his own will, and not because s/he is internally motivated to do so, but for self-interested reasons (e.g., avoiding the punishment/keeping mom's love).

This is as far as I've read (its early in the morning







) But I agree that the child's will is being suppressed and replaced with the moms. Because the impulse doesn't go away, its still there, and the child suppresses it because he doesn't know a better way to express it, and because the consequences for expressing it through hitting are too unpleasant. Perhaps worse is that it gives the illusion (to the child) that he is acting out his will.
(I'll add again that I don't see behaviorism as wrong in all cases. I just don't believe its ideal to use with kids.)


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

And those two posts, by Meg Murray and BellinghamCrunchie go back to my wondering if its even legitimate to define our social interactions based on ONE school of psychology. Humanists, for example, wouldn't define that "ouch" as a punishment (I don't know, but what I read didn't address any of that at all).
I guess that natural interactions, even if they could be *technically* defined by behaviorism, aren't best served by being defined that way. (and I'm kinda getting to the point that Daffodil mentioned, that we all are aware of how different actions affect our kids)
I mean, imposed punishments for disobedience (spankings, timeouts, groundings) can't possibly be in the same category as a natural reaction, or explaining a more socially acceptable way to express a certain impulse!
And the everyday meaning of punishment, the one that is accepted in society in general, would include timeouts and groundings. It wouldn't include explaining or acceptable alternatives, even though those could cause a "behavior to occur with less frequency."

Perhaps that's why I'm still arguing the semantics here. I consider that I don't punish. Everyone knows what that means. I'm pretty sure no one here, or in real life, would take that to mean that I don't express natural reactions that *might* cause ds to change his behavior.
And if I say I'm anti-behaviorism, most people (who know what behaviorism is) would take that to mean that I don't use punishments or rewards, intentionally doled out in order to change my son's behavior. And the reason I would say THAT would be because I don't like being thought of (by people in the real world) to be one of those "praise every good thing your child does, so they'll behave" because that's not what I am doing AT ALL! And that's the thought that most people have when I say I don't punish.

From Daffodil's link, there is a link to the definition of punishment-Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant on a subject as a response to some unwanted behavior or disobedience that the subject has displayed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meg Murry.
The problem is, behaviorism as practiced on human beings is ethically wrong.

Humans are not lab rats.
Humans are not amoebae whose cognition never rises above the level of stimulus-response.

At its base, behaviorism is manipulative and reduces human beings to the condition of machines or animals.

Hope that helps clarify.
This is addressing behaviorism as it is generally accepted (which I'd imagine would mean basically rewards and punishment). Not the behavioristic definitions applied to every day life.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
This is addressing behaviorism as it is generally accepted (which I'd imagine would mean basically rewards and punishment). Not the behavioristic definitions applied to every day life.


If behaviorism is reduced to simply using reinforcement to increase behavior you want and punishment to decrease the behavior you don't want, without regard for anything else, I personally would find behaviorism offensive.

The interesting thing to me is that we all seem to have the same basic beliefs at heart: that children are people, that people are complex, that people's feelings, thoughts, spirit, desires, hopes, and fears are enormously important.

The only thing we REALLY disagree on is what constitutes behaviorism.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
The interesting thing to me is that we all seem to have the same basic beliefs at heart: that children are people, that people are complex, that people's feelings, thoughts, spirit, desires, hopes, and fears are enormously important.

The only thing we REALLY disagree on is what constitutes behaviorism.










So true! lol
It's so easy to get involved in a semantics (or definition) debate. lol


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Deva33mommy said:


> And those two posts, by Meg Murray and BellinghamCrunchie go back to my wondering if its even legitimate to define our social interactions based on ONE school of psychology. Humanists, for example, wouldn't define that "ouch" as a punishment (I don't know, but what I read didn't address any of that at all).
> 
> Yes, in behaviorism, if the "ouch" made it less likely the behavior would occur in the future, its a punisher. Punishers don't always hurt or make you feel bad. A punisher that makes you hurt or feel bad is called an aversive; that is a specific subset of punishers. Even behavorists don't recommend aversives unless EVERYTHING else has been tried, or the behavior is life-threatening and will be repeated (for example, an autistic self-injurious behavior of head-banging). The use of aversives has many bad effects which are well-documented, including increased aggression, distrust of the parent, loss of the therapeutic relationship, depression, etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
I consider that I don't punish. Everyone knows what that means. I'm pretty sure no one here, or in real life, would take that to mean that I don't express natural reactions that *might* cause ds to change his behavior.

Well, it might be true to say that everyone on this thread knows what you mean by that. But I'm quite sure that everyone, in general, would NOT know what you mean when you say you don't punish. When I first started reading threads here about not punishing, I was struck by the incredibly wide variety of things people meant when they said "punishment." I've seen lots of posts from people who say they don't punish, but they do X, where X sounds exactly like punishment to me! And when I first started considering the idea that maybe you could raise kids without punishing them, and seeing posts from people who said they did just that, I did actually think that might mean not expressing natural reactions that might cause their kids to change their behavior. Or at least I doubted the whole idea that not punishing could be possible because it seemed to me that you'd have to call some of those natural reactions punishments.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Daffodil- it seems that you have a lot of background in thinking about behaviorism (the doctrine). I don't imagine that most people would think of punishment in the same terms that you do.
It seems quite the opposite- when I say "I don't punish" (irl) I get a lot of "do you use time outs?" Um, no... lol


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

BC -- your post made me laugh a little -- in this counseling program we are being told to NEVER say that we take an eclectic approach to counseling. Which supports what you are saying. But instead, we are told to say that we take an "integrated approach" to counseling! LOL. Pretty much the same thing. 'cept I think that if I say "integrated" it gives the idea of fewer theories, carefully put together to compliment each other in a well thought out fashion....


----------



## ejsmama (Jun 20, 2006)

I am just completely absorbed by what you all are saying, and wish I felt I had more to contribute. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that my initial question would provoke such an increadible, insightful conversation. While I was a psych major, I don't have the extensive background that some of you have, so forgive what comes out of ignorance. Although I've never used a time out with my son, only recently, upon spending time on this forum, did it occur to me to consider a time out a punishment (I've always thought of it as an opportunity for a child to calm down so that s/he and the parent could then discuss and figure out alternatives to what was going on).

It does seem like much of this is semantics (how exactly does one define behaviorism). In a narrow sense - using punishments and rewards to achieve desired behavior, or in a broader sense as several have expressed. But even in the narrowest sense, I find myself wondering about occasional appropriate use. I completely agree that if the ultimate goal is a child who grows in understanding and inner motivation to care for self and others, then behaviorist methods are pretty innefective. So, by themself, the answer is obvious to me, behaviorism as an overall model of parenting is wrong. BUT, what if there is also a short term goal that is very important - the safety and health of another person. I'm thinking in terms of parents who are really struggling with a child who is doing physical harm repeatedly to their younger sibling (something many have posted about), who are using many other parenting tools to try to help their child grow in empathy, but who also have a legitimate responsibility to protect the well being of their other child. In such a case, could one argue for short term use of behaviorist methods to simply get the behavior to stop for the safety of the second child, while simultaneously continuing to work with the child on empathy using our other parenting tools?

I'm not saying I agree with what I just said, just raising the question. What does a parent do when the health and well being of others is being affected, and you can't just remove child number 1 because they live together.


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

It takes me a lot of effort and time to be concise. Sorry for not getting my main points across in a shorter way.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
I'm glad you reposted that, Dal! Good food for thought there. It does seem reasonable to use "punishment" to mean anything intended to punish and "reward" to mean anything intended to reward, and then describe particular punishments or rewards as being effective or not. (Though it seems equally reasonable to me to use the words as they're used in operant conditioning - to describe their actual effects. That may not make sense to you, but it totally makes sense to me, maybe just because I'm used to it.)

My apologies for thinking that you might be misrepresenting behaviorism! The first thing I tend to do when a presentation of ideas just seems out of whack is to wonder whether it's being accurately presented -- as a way of being charitable. It seemed to me that, no way, they couldn't possibly think that! Har har ahar.









It seems to me that what I'm suggesting covers what behaviorists want it to cover by indicating whether something serves to extinguish or reinforce a behavior, and adds on top of that whether the purported cause of changed behavior (or something that was attempted to change behavior) was deliberately doled out in an attempt to change the child's behavior.

[/QUOTE] But here's my problem with using intent to define whether something is or is not a punishment or reward. If you're trying - like a lot of us here - to avoid punishments or rewards, then whether or not you label something as a punishment or reward may determine whether or not you think it's okay. What if your natural reaction when your child does well at something you value is to beam with pride, give the child a big hug, and say, "I'm so proud of you and I love you so much!"? What if you do that automatically with no conscious intention at all of encouraging the child to repeat the behavior? You may then not think that counts as a reward - but whether or not it "counts" in your mind, it still has the potential to make your child feel judged and not unconditionally loved. It still has the potential to encourage your child to repeat that behavior for the reward of your happy, loving reaction rather than because she's internally motivated. It can have all the same harmful effects as a deliberate reward, so I think recognizing it as a reward (by actually calling it that) can be helpful.[/QUOTE]

I do see the risk you are pointing to but think it can be mitigated in ways that are preferable to reducing the unintended reinforcers and extinguishers to rewards and punishments. The way I define things still works here. I can try to pay attention to whether my actions may serve to reinforce or extinguish some of Simon's behaviors without needing to equate what I'm doing with punishments and rewards, even if I acknowledge that my responses to him may well have a similar, or even the same, effect. The point though is that they are not the same thing. It's perhaps more a case of "as if." If I smile at Simon and hug him every time that he brushes his teeth, this may be as if I were rewarding him for brushing his teeth. I think that it is worthwhile, probably even important, to look for unintended reinforcers and extinguishers.

There may be little real-life difference aside from the intention of the parent, but I think this intention is important and should be factored in to the equation. The two things cannot be equated because doing this fails to account for relevant and important differences between the two approaches. Behaviorists may account for this by talking about deliberate vs. accidental punishments and rewards. That might align their position to mine, more or less, but I think there is a lot to be said for starting with the way terms are used in ordinary life and refining and clarifying these terms rather than redefining them, as behaviorists seem to be doing. Language is meant to be practical and helpful, which indicates that it's best to use terms as they are apt to be interpreted. Redefining terms adds unnecessary confusion and more work for philosophers and other semantic-obsessors to sort though (this is often helpful, though the goal is to arrive at a new sense of clarity that gets beyond the mixed up use of language). We can see the need for work to be done when we look to the various ways these terms are being defined, e.g., whereas defining rewards and punishments may once have fit clearly within the realm of common sense, now things are muddied by terms such as "natural and logical consequences," and by behaviorism itself (e.g., taking hugging a child who just instigated a scrap with another child as a reward for that instigation).

A behaviorist might say to a non-behaviorist: Hey! You are against behaviorism, but I noticed that when your son just hit you, you told him that you don't appreciate being hit and then you told him what he could do instead, asking if he wanted to practice doing the right thing! Here you applied a few punishments in hopes of changing his behavior (or at least one punishment, depending on how the behaviorist defines these things.) It seems then, that your parenting is quite behavioristic after all.

Is the parent applying punishments? Well, what is a punishment? I'm trained in analytic philosophy. I think it's very important to argue semantics as we can get a lot of meaning and insight out of how we talk about various things. Is it more helpful and accurate to refer to unintentional extinguishers as punishments and unintentional reinforcers as rewards? I don't think so, not at all. This muddies things up rather than clarifies it, and happens to do so in a way that may help behaviorists to feel that the deliberate use of these techniques is not, in any real way (literally!) different from other approaches to parenting that do not deliberately push and pull a child's emotions to alter her or his conduct (even if, in some of these approaches, the push and pull will be a side effect of what the parent feels is right, e.g., a result of dialogue, providing information, teaching empathy, and modelling).

In a strict behavioristic case, the parent is trying to change behavior through the application of pleasure and pain. In a more consensual-living type model of parenting, more respectful methods are being used (I'm begging the question here about their respectfulness since I think other posters here already agree with this). Saying that anything that extinguishes is a punisher and anything that reinforces is a reward collapses and ignores the very real and very significant differences between these approaches. They are not the same.

I think the parent's intention may alter the way in which reinforcers and extinguishers are given and received. Where one's responses are coming from usually has an important impact on how they come off. A mom who deliberately praises and is affectionate to her child to encourage teeth-brushing (or whatever) is apt to offer rewards rather than genuine praise, and to do so in a less authentic way precisely because she is using them in a conscious effort to manipulate her child. I think children can pick up on that, often quite easily. I also think that children can get when we are playing things up to teach them a lesson and distinguish this from a more authentic response. E.g., if a child lightly hits her dad, he might make a fuss and pretend that it hurt a great deal in hopes of teaching the child not to hit in the future. I think the child can get the phoniness of this.

Parents who are (mostly or fully) opposed to behavioristic uses of punishments and rewards can learn from considering how their actions may be reinforcing and extinguishing things that their child does without believing that they are unwittingly doling out punishments and rewards. Perhaps this is something that parents should do. We can learn from these things and may opt to change some of our responses as a result. Looking at the relationship in this way runs the risk (or some may take this to be a benefit) of moving the relationship into more behavioristic territory since the parent then may choose to deliberately act in different ways in hopes of changing the child's responses, in hopes of solving conflicts with the child, and so on. I guess a key question then is whether and in which cases this is a beneficial thing, and when it is not.

I have found that whenever I start getting into a mindset that is closer to behaviorism, my relationship with Simon suffers and it creates more conflicts, strain, discomfort, and inauthenticity, rather than more harmony and joy. My stress levels go up, my enjoyment of life goes down, and I start to view Simon in more negative and critical ways -- as though he's a project of mine. (Fortunately my dips into this territory are mild and short-lived until my usual parenting philosophy takes the fore again.) I realize that not all families would experience the same results. In particular, a totally chaotic permissive family may experience great gains by the addition of behavioristic approaches. All this says though is that carefully applied behaviorism is better than neglect and permissiveness. But then again, I'm not denying that it may sometimes be helpful for non-behavioristic parents (including me) to look at what is going on in behavioristic terms and make some changes as a result. I think this runs risks, but that they can be mitigated. Also, when in doubt, one can look at results and take things from there. This may help account for differences in personalities. For me, using behavioristic techniques almost always backfires. Maybe carefully and respecfully applied, they might work really well for some children, if this can be done in ways that don't threaten a child's sense of unconditional love and that do not threaten a child's deep sense of autonomy and of being a respected person who has good intentions.

One thing I've noticed is that behaviorist-inspired parents DO talk about rewards in ways that refer to anything that is pleasant for the child -- sometimes even taking a reward to amount to anything short of ignoring a child or being (what I take to be) rude to her/him. This helps to point out problems with extending the use of "rewards" and "punishments" in the way that behaviorists do. They think, e.g., that a parent who does not scold his child or punish him for hitting another child is rewarding his child for hitting. They are so used to ignoring or otherwise punishing children who do not act as the parent wants that anything pleasant or neutral for the child is taken as a reward. This carries all the conditional parenting problems and risks, which greatly outweigh the risk that an unconditional parent might unintentionally reinforce a behavior that he would rather extinguish, especially considering that thoughtful parents can be attentive and aware of this type of thing anyway, without getting sucked into the manipulative reward/punishment paradigm. Indeedio, it seems that there are a lot of effective parents who are solving conflicts well without getting into the behavioristic mindset. Some of the tactics they use may fit with the behaviorists model, but it remains that there are real and important differences between approaches that are deliberately behavioristic and those that are not (here taking something like consensual living (CL) and some other kinds of GD as an alternative, since outright neglect or whatnot is not what I have in mind here!). One of these differences is that the CL parent is working with the child to arrive at mutually agreeable solutions rather than doing things to the child in hopes of changing the child. There may be a lot of overlap. It will be helpful to sort through it and come to a more decisive account of the ways in which CL is actually like behaviorism or when it might benefit from looking at things in this way, and likewise when doing so might be dangerous (which might be all the time, but maybe not).


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ejsmama* 
Although I've never used a time out with my son, only recently, upon spending time on this forum, did it occur to me to consider a time out a punishment (I've always thought of it as an opportunity for a child to calm down so that s/he and the parent could then discuss and figure out alternatives to what was going on).

I think most of us are thinking of time-out as, e.g., child hits sibling. Mom says "That is not acceptable! It's time for a time-out!" and proceeds to force the child to sit on a chair for 3 minutes or whatever (often a number of minutes that matches the age of the child) while being ignored by the parent and not allowed to do anything interesting (unless something fun goes on in the child's head!).

ejsmama, I agree with you. It seems that in some really difficult situations it may be a good idea to use behavioristic techniques, while using others as well and aiming to eventually be able to drop the behaviorism. I don't have a solid position on this yet.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal* 
It seems to me that what I'm suggesting covers what behaviorists want it to cover by indicating whether something serves to extinguish or reinforce a behavior, and adds on top of that whether the purported cause of changed behavior (or something that was attempted to change behavior) was deliberately doled out in an attempt to change the child's behavior.

Yes, I guess you're right - your way of talking about it can be just as clear. More clear, I suppose, to people who aren't used to the behaviorist definitions. But I still find myself thinking that _really_ it makes the most sense to look at the actual results of an action, rather than the intent behind it, when you're deciding whether or not to call it a punishment or reward. Because, after all, isn't the effect on the child the most important thing? I imagine, though, that to you the intent behind the parent's actions might actually be more important than the end result. Maybe we have an underlying philosophical difference that influences our choice of language.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ejsmama* 

It does seem like much of this is semantics (how exactly does one define behaviorism). In a narrow sense - using punishments and rewards to achieve desired behavior, or in a broader sense as several have expressed. But even in the narrowest sense, I find myself wondering about occasional appropriate use.

I was just thinking about this.
I don't feel that unrelated punishments (timeouts, groundings, etc) would be more helpful than harmful in any situation.
But, I can see that there could be situations where logical consequences, although perhaps not ideal, would be the best that a parent could do, given the current situation.


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
Yes, I guess you're right - your way of talking about it can be just as clear. More clear, I suppose, to people who aren't used to the behaviorist definitions. But I still find myself thinking that _really_ it makes the most sense to look at the actual results of an action, rather than the intent behind it, when you're deciding whether or not to call it a punishment or reward. Because, after all, isn't the effect on the child the most important thing? I imagine, though, that to you the intent behind the parent's actions might actually be more important than the end result. Maybe we have an underlying philosophical difference that influences our choice of language.

Let's say that we're talking about a specific case: Simon grabs a toy from Joe's hands. Both children get really upset. A few seconds later Simon is in my arms crying and nursing. I don't say anything more than this at the time feeling that Simon is too upset to absorb anything I would say. Later on, Simon and I talk about grabbing, how upset Joe was, and so on. We role-play sharing and how to respond to grabbers.

You are saying that what is important in relation to this scenario is to consider the effect of the action rather than my intent and offer this as a reason to prefer sticking to the terms rewards and punishments. But why? Which action? My relationship with Simon is a continuum of actions that hopefully work together in a meaningful way, but are not like clockwork or even like a quilt in which each actions plays a particular and identifiable role. Things aren't always as they seem.









If what matters primarily are effects, why favour "punishment" over less loaded terms, such as extinguisher/diminisher or whatever term is used to mean that the likelihood of Simon grabbing in the future has gone down? I don't see any benefit to saying that I rewarded or punished Simon. Perhaps someone might say the initial hug and nursing session was a reward. Who knows. If that is all I ever did, maybe it would be, though I give Simon more respect and ownership of his own actions than that. A gentle discussion about sharing and playing sharing games is far more aptly described as a parenting technique that manages to reduce undesirable behaviors without punishing the child. How would a behaviorist get this point across? Would they start to talk about punishments that deliberately inflict pain on the child and those that do not (so that there is a category of punishments that do not, in regular use of language, punish)? Or is the difference meaningless to them? Why not just say punish when one means punish since that word is functional and useful?

Punishment is connected to inflicting some sort of pain on another person in retribution and/or in hopes of changing the person's future conduct. That's in the definition and I'm not seeing why anyone should accept a redefinition that takes away from punishment what is most vital about it (certainly as far as its victims/recipients are concerned).

The anti-grabbing method I use can be entirely fun and playful. Why is it more apt to mix it into the same category as spankings as though there is no real difference between the two, than it is to simply say that both are attempts to diminish unwanted actions and in some cases, both succeed at doing this? Actually, I see my response to Simon as trying to help him learn how to do something rather than teaching him how not to do something. The difference is subtle, but I think it might be important here. I'm not trying to punish him and see no reason at all to say that playing a grabbing game ought to be categorized as a punishment.

Are you familiar with those overlapping circles? Venn diagrams. http://www.sdcoe.k12.ca.us/score/actbank/tvenn.htm (There isn't much info there, it's just one of the first hits I got.)

We could define things the way I prefer: My grabbing discussion and game diminish the likelihood that Simon will grab in the future. (This is actually contrived and not how I typically think about the situation, but it's the closest that seems to fit this context)

The way you are suggesting: My grabbing discussion and game punish Simon and reduce the chances that he will grab in the future.

Let's make up a Venn diagram with two circles, one for punishments and one for diminishers, to see the relationships between them and to sort out which category makes the most sense for my grabbing game.

What is a diminisher/extinguisher? Something that diminishes unwanted behaviors. Here the dialogue and grabbing game fit the definition perfectly, with no aspects of difficulty.

What is a punishment? Something that is meant to diminish/extinguish and entails the introduction of something painful to a person's life for retribution and/or in hopes of coercing that person not to do X in the future. Here, my dialogue does serve to diminish, but the add-on to this, of deliberately inflicting pain on another person for retribution/to teach a lesson doesn't fit what I've done at all. To say this is what I'm doing is wrong. I don't deliberately inflict avoidable pain on my son in order to "teach him a lesson" or for any other reason. I'm opposed to that and I am not a hypocrite when I respond to grabbing incidents by talking about grabbing and playing grabbing games. (Not saying that you are calling me one, btw







). To argue that we can conceive of "punishment" as though it were identical to "diminisher" collapses the two terms as though there is no meaningful difference, taking what differentiates them from each other away so that "punishment" becomes identical to "diminisher." Why?!?! I wonder if the only real "benefit" of doing this is to serve to make behaviorism appear more palatable and of greater significance and relevance than is the case?

If you put my response to Simon's grabbing where it belongs on a Venn diagram that shows the relationships between diminishers and punishers, it will fall under diminisher, as will some kinds of punishment, but the category of punishments extends beyond diminishers since it includes the deliberate infliction of pain in order to teach a lesson. Some punishments will be diminishers, but some will not (since many punishments don't function as intended). The two qualities do not entail each other. Not all diminishers are punishers and my response falls outside of the area that represents the overlap between punishers and diminishers. So, while some punishers are diminishers, my diminisher is not a punisher. It makes more sense to categorize it as a diminisher, which is apt and not confusing, than to describe it as a punishment, as it is different in quality and kind from a punishment, even though it does have one thing in common with some punishments: it functions as a diminisher.









When a parent is in a difficult situation and some annoying person says "Aren't you going to punish him!?" a behaviorist might reply: "I hope that I'm going to punish him but I can't be certain until I see how he responds to the time-out. The time-out may prove to be a reward. Maybe it will be neither a reward nor a punishment. We'll have to wait and see."

Behaviorists sound a lot like hardcore skeptics. Though these skeptics say that they can't be certain that when they walk out their front door, they won't fly away or whatever ridiculous thing one might insert there, they inevitably act as though they have the knowledge they claim not to have. Similarly, the way they talk in philosophy books and discussions is not the way they talk in real life. Do behaviorists actually stick to their use of the lingo when talking to others? If they do, there must be a lot of miscommunication (aside from when they are talking to other behaviorists). How do they speak of rewards and punishments (in the usual sense of these terms) when the consequences of them are not known (and really, it is quite difficult in many situations to determine this even if one is privy to all of the available information)?

If what matters most is the (alleged) consequences of a given action, moreso than the intent, it doesn't seem to matter a whole lot how one gets to X so long as X is where one wants to go. In other words, it's all the same whether one steps all over another, brainwashes her, or whatever the case may be, so long as X is achieved, it's all the same.

Intent can alter so much about how people act and interact with each other. To focus primarily on effects ignores this. I see it as another way of ignoring people and focusing instead on what they do. The intent -- and I don't mean to say that the intent trumps all else -- but the intent and the entire mental world of the parent as well as that of the child are extremely important.

I still think it makes more sense to talk about rewards and punishments, some of which are ineffective others effective, and to talk about X as an extinguisher and Y as a reinforcer and so on.

One thing that bothers me about the behaviorists' usage of terms: It seems to reduce the world into a grand mass of rewards and punishments and humans into mindless beings who grope around for the former and run from the latter.

Blah blah blah.







Having fun and love to blah blah.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal* 
Punishment is connected to inflicting some sort of pain on another person in retribution and/or in hopes of changing the person's future conduct. That's in the definition and I'm not seeing why anyone should accept a redefinition that takes away from punishment what is most vital about it (certainly as far as its victims/recipients are concerned).











Quote:

Intent can alter so much about how people act and interact with each other. To focus primarily on effects ignores this. I see it as another way of ignoring people and focusing instead on what they do. The intent -- and I don't mean to say that the intent trumps all else -- but the intent and the entire mental world of the parent as well as that of the child are extremely important.
Yeah. Even if it *looks* the same, *intent* can change how it feels to both parents and child. (As long as we're not fooling ourselves that intent is everything, and not focusing on how the child actually experiences it)


----------



## ejsmama (Jun 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal* 
Let's say that we're talking about a specific case: Simon grabs a toy from Joe's hands. Both children get really upset. A few seconds later Simon is in my arms crying and nursing. I don't say anything more than this at the time feeling that Simon is too upset to absorb anything I would say. Later on, Simon and I talk about grabbing, how upset Joe was, and so on. We role-play sharing and how to respond to grabbers.

You are saying that what is important in relation to this scenario is to consider the effect of the action rather than my intent and offer this as a reason to prefer sticking to the terms rewards and punishments. But why? Which action? My relationship with Simon is a continuum of actions that hopefully work together in a meaningful way, but are not like clockwork or even like a quilt in which each actions plays a particular and identifiable role. Things aren't always as they seem.







)

A tremendously helpful real life example. Thank you so much! And I'm loving the term diminisher/extinguisher...much more helpful than punishment or even consequences. Interesting...some of my arguments in the past regarding GD have been that the nursing cuddling happened BEFORE the toy was returned to the one whom it was grabbed from, in which case I did see it as a reward which was likely to cause behavior to continue. Some would see the return of the toy as a "punishment"...and Simon might even perceive it as such, though that certainly is not the intent, is it? The intent is, I guess, fairness. What would you consider the return of the toy to be , in this case? Is it a punishment? Is it a consequence? Or would you use a totally different word?

Anyhow, I love all of your posts. You have all been so tremendously helpful to me. Last week I posted about a natural consequence of my sons actions that really was experienced as punishment (by both he and I). I'm still trying to mull all of this over in my mind and figure out what is best, most helpful, and kind.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal* 
Let's say that we're talking about a specific case: Simon grabs a toy from Joe's hands. Both children get really upset. A few seconds later Simon is in my arms crying and nursing. I don't say anything more than this at the time feeling that Simon is too upset to absorb anything I would say. Later on, Simon and I talk about grabbing, how upset Joe was, and so on. We role-play sharing and how to respond to grabbers.

You are saying that what is important in relation to this scenario is to consider the effect of the action rather than my intent and offer this as a reason to prefer sticking to the terms rewards and punishments. But why? Which action? My relationship with Simon is a continuum of actions that hopefully work together in a meaningful way, but are not like clockwork or even like a quilt in which each actions plays a particular and identifiable role. Things aren't always as they seem.









Actually, with this particular scenario, I _don't_ think it would be very helpful to discuss it in terms of rewards and punishments. Most of what you're doing there isn't much like operant conditioning. There are some things you do that might decrease the likelihood that Simon will grab in the future, but I wouldn't call them punishments. I know, you're thinking I'm being inconsistent because I said that anything you do after a behavior occurs that makes the child less likely to repeat the behavior is a punishment. But I was really just talking about something that happens _right after_ the behavior and is also something the child would want to avoid in the future. Discussion and role-playing well after the grabbing incident doesn't really function in the same way. It doesn't occur soon enough after the event to be clearly related to it, and (I assume) it's not unpleasant for him. It helps Simon learn to see things from another child's perspective, shows him what your values are regarding sharing and grabbing, and helps him practice behaviors that can become new habits. These are all things that may eventually lead to less grabbing, but not by functioning as rewards or punishments. (Remember, I'm not a behaviorist. I haven't been trying to convince you that the behaviorist model is the best way of explaining all human interactions. I think it's useful in some cases, but this isn't one of them.)

Quote:

If what matters primarily are effects, why favour "punishment" over less loaded terms, such as extinguisher/diminisher or whatever term is used to mean that the likelihood of Simon grabbing in the future has gone down?
Well, one problem with terms like extinguisher or diminisher is that they don't have a clearly-defined meaning. (Extinguisher would be particularly confusing, since in operant conditioning, a behavior is extinguished when there is no response to it. So the only extinguisher is doing nothing.) Punishment does at least have a clearly-defined meaning - or so I thought, anyway! What I'm learning from this conversation is that, to some people, the behaviorist definition of punishment seems so completely different from the way they usually use the word that it doesn't even make sense to them. I guess I didn't realize how much exposure I must have had over the years to behaviorist ideas, and how much less exposure the typical person must have had.

Quote:

Punishment is connected to inflicting some sort of pain on another person in retribution and/or in hopes of changing the person's future conduct. That's in the definition and I'm not seeing why anyone should accept a redefinition that takes away from punishment what is most vital about it (certainly as far as its victims/recipients are concerned).

The anti-grabbing method I use can be entirely fun and playful. Why is it more apt to mix it into the same category as spankings as though there is no real difference between the two, than it is to simply say that both are attempts to diminish unwanted actions and in some cases, both succeed at doing this?
I don't think the behaviorist definition of punishment is actually quite as far from your definition as you think. As I said above, I don't think your anti-grabbing method is a punishment (by anyone's definition.) I DO think yelling "OW!" when a baby bites you may very well be a punishment even by your definition. (At least if the baby is like mine, and cries when you do it. For a less-sensitive baby who thinks it's funny, I suppose it would be a reward.)

Quote:

If what matters most is the (alleged) consequences of a given action, moreso than the intent, it doesn't seem to matter a whole lot how one gets to X so long as X is where one wants to go. In other words, it's all the same whether one steps all over another, brainwashes her, or whatever the case may be, so long as X is achieved, it's all the same.
Well, you know, that is actually pretty much what I believe. I'm basically a utilitarian. If I were presented with convincing evidence that dispassionately "training" my kids with rewards and punishments would achieve my goals for them, I'd happily do it. Of course, my goals are not things like "good" behavior - they're things like raising happy, confident kids who feel unconditionally loved, are not afraid to try new things, and care about other people but don't feel that life is all about meeting other people's expectations. And it sure doesn't look to me like the punishment/reward model is the best way to achieve what I want. But my opposition to using that model is probably more practical than moral - though of course morality has something to do with why it's not a practical path to what I want for my kids.


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Arg!! I'm always in a rush here! Here's my "quick" response that might just balloon as my responses tend to balloon:

ejsmama, thank-you for your kind words.







It feels so good to hear that you've found my posts helpful. With my very conditional upbringing, your support helps to give me the fuel I need but shouldn't need to keep going.









Daffodil, it's great to learn more from a behaviorist's perspective (not that you have one of your own, but you know far more about behaviorism than I do). I'm not surprised to see that punishments, for behaviorists, are supposed to happen directly after the offending action (more or less) as this is something I've heard before. It seems to be yet another refinement on "punishment," another example of behaviorists changing language so that it no longer means what it means, but is now supposed to mean what they want it to mean.

Since they are focused on the right-after, would they consider the hug a reward? That is certainly the response that mainstream moms have to it. I remember feeling the same way when Simon was younger and I saw a boy being hugged after hitting another child. I hadn't yet considered what I would do in such a situation or why, so the response that came to my mind was more of a reflection of the cultural norms that had been stamped into my head without critical reflection. A similar incident that stands out: a man I know was playing with his sons. He was joking with them, saying "Nooooo!" This was a playful harmless game, but at the time I (with my 2 month old cradled in my arms) was thinking, "Oh geez, that's brilliant. Let's make a game out of telling a child they can't do something. Those children will never listen when they are told 'no.'" I thought that even when totally immersed in AP and against saying "No" to Simon. Odd. It's nice that AP'ing a baby is so straightforward as it gives us time to sort out what to do with toddlers and children. It's also nice how I get off topic.

To clarify: I was taking extinguisher as something that led to a total cessation of an unwanted behavior and a diminisher as something that led to a reduced incidence of the unwanted behavior.

I do think that Simon does get the connection between my grabbing discussion and grabbing game with him and the incident that led up to it. I think the incident helps fuel his interest in the game and discussion since he likes to work on things that are clearly relevant to his life.

I don't take yelling "Ow" when bitten by a nursing baby as a punishment by my definition of punishment, which I tentatively gave as: "inflicting some sort of pain on another person in retribution and/or in hopes of changing the person's future conduct." I meant for it to contain intention on part of the punisher so that a naturally occuring "Ow" response does not qualify since it is not a contrived attempt to shape the baby's future behavior. In the "ow" case, then, it would only be a punishment if mom said it in a deliberate attempt to reduce her child's future biting. Even then it seems unusual to refer to it as a punishment, but I can see that maybe it would count as such. Maybe consequence would be a better term here, though generally I feel that deliberately applied consequences are just a different, perhaps slighly less harmful, breed of punishments. A mom might also choose to be more dramatic with her "Ow" response to being bitten not to cause pain to the baby, but to provide her/him with important information: biting mom hurts her. Mom does not want to be bit. Thinking back, I do remember doing that type of thing when Simon was a lot younger, since I didn't expect him to understand very much in words so I tried to convey meaning through emotional means instead. (I think I said something on some thread lately that was against playing up one's emotions&#8230; I can't remember&#8230; if I did, I may take that back, depending on the context!).

Daffodil, Oh non! You are a utilitarian!!! I'm having trouble seeing how "dispassionately 'training'" your children through punishments and rewards would be acceptable for you if you knew that it would work. As I see it, it's not just that these methods don't work to reach your goals with your children, which I take to be moral goals based on your sense of love and obligation to them, the methods themselves are antithetical to what you want for your children and so carrying them out would require you to violate your moral beliefs. Or maybe not? If you want them to be unconditionally loved, you can't very well heap love on them when they come home with A's and then turn off the love-vibes when they are not doing anything that is to your liking. If you want them to be happy, you won't deliberately inflict needless pain on them, since you know that there are relatively painless methods to reach the same goals (and that are far more effective too). Anyway&#8230; you grant that you have moral issues with the application of these methods. I guess I didn't read your comments very carefully before prattling on.

Thanks for keeping this discussion going! It's been fun.


----------



## ZeldasMom (Sep 25, 2004)

Great thread!







I worked for many years with people with developmental disabilities and in that world you hear so much about behavior, behavior, behavior and hardly ever about feelings. It's a drag.









My approach in determining whether to use a behavioral technique was to ask, am I doing this to help this person get something they want, or is it to control them/make someone else's life more convenient?

And there are some things I have an intense aversion to (like token economies).


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal* 
Since they are focused on the right-after, would they consider the hug a reward?

Well, maybe. But the hug didn't come RIGHT after the grabbing - the thing that came right after was an unpleasant response from the other kid. The hug was just to help him recover from that. So I doubt the overall effect would be that Simon would feel rewarded.

Quote:

I don't take yelling "Ow" when bitten by a nursing baby as a punishment by my definition of punishment, which I tentatively gave as: "inflicting some sort of pain on another person in retribution and/or in hopes of changing the person's future conduct." I meant for it to contain intention on part of the punisher so that a naturally occuring "Ow" response does not qualify since it is not a contrived attempt to shape the baby's future behavior.
As I said a while back, there seems to be a fine line between a natural response and an inentional attempt to shape behavior. A lot of the time a mother probably _could_ stifle her cry of pain if she really wanted to - the way I did when my daughter was a newborn and my nipples were so sore it really hurt when she latched on. So if you could manage not to cry "Ow!" but you do it anyway, _then_ it is a punishment?

Quote:

Daffodil, Oh non! You are a utilitarian!!! I'm having trouble seeing how "dispassionately 'training'" your children through punishments and rewards would be acceptable for you if you knew that it would work. As I see it, it's not just that these methods don't work to reach your goals with your children, which I take to be moral goals based on your sense of love and obligation to them, the methods themselves are antithetical to what you want for your children and so carrying them out would require you to violate your moral beliefs. Or maybe not?
Are the methods themselves antithetical to what I want for my children? Well, yes and no. A system of rewards and punishments is pretty likely to lead to feelings of being judged and not loved conditionally, fear of not meeting others' expectations, etc., and that's the opposite of what I want for my children. But what if I could somehow reward and punish them in such a subtle way that they didn't realize exactly how they were being manipulated, and they still ended up feeling happy and loved and confident and all that? Would I feel that I was acting immorally simply because I was deliberately manipulating their feelings and behavior? I don't think I would. I think if I _really_ could use behaviorism and get the end results I want (happy, kind, well-adjusted kids who think for themselves), the end would justify the means. (I couldn't say that about _every_ means to that end - torturing them to shape their behavior and then drugging them to make them forget their pain and feel happy, for instance. But subtle rewards and punishments just don't give me that sick feeling of wrongness.) Now I don't actually think for a minute that those techniques could ever give those results, so this is just kind of a goofy thought experiment. And I guess I'm wandering pretty far from the OP. . .














(And maybe making myself sound a bit too much like some kind of crazy, evil scientist. I'm actually a nice person. Really!)


----------

