21–30 of 446 posts
Positive reinforcement is hardly "radical".
It is in the context of the US where violence against the child is common place; widely accepted; even if the parent has used a weapon to do so; even if it's not a parent but a school[1]; and where there's no hope that hitting children will ever become illegal. [1] a weirdly large number of schoolchildren are still hit in the US.
I have one thing to add: Don't beat yourself up if you fail to do it right. After things escalated, talk to the kid honestly, tell her what you felt, and ask her what she felt. And try to do it better the next time over.
It's thought to be very adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint. If you have a partner, significant other, or a child, if they do 10 nice things, that 11th one that you didn't like, you're going to really be all over. One wonders how, if it doesn't work, it was so adaptive.
My fiance recently graduated in psychology, and we have two kids. This article basically mirrors our current sentiment of how we want to raise our kids. I have one thing to add: Don't beat yourself up if you fail to do it right. After things escalated, talk to the kid honestly, tell her what you felt, and ask her what she felt. And try to do it better the next time over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is in the context of the US where violence against the child is common place; widely accepted; even if the parent has used a weapon to do so; even if it's not a parent but a school[1]; and where there's no hope that hitting children will ever become illegal. [1] a weirdly large number of schoolchildren are still hit in the US.
Hitting children is legal in the US?
This article is dangerous. On the surface it may sound good, but there is behavior so vile and harmful to the child, family or neighbors that never showing negative reinforcement is extremely dangerous with some children. It does have some merits though, showing plenty of positive reinforcement will likely reduce the amount of negative reinforcement needed.
Save the negative reinforcement and punishment for situations where it's absolutely clear and necessary—that's the best way to keep it an effective tool anyway. Maybe 60% positive, and 10% negative, with the other part just not being reinforced (an incredibly powerful behavioral tool all on its own).
It's the same with dogs (not as a derogatory comparison—just the truth of the science). I negatively reinforce for biting only, and only after they're at an age where they can comprehend the association between the bite and the punishment. It's remarkably effective. For nearly everything else, positive reinforcement is orders of magnitude more effective.
Overall, the most important part is to be a majority positive player, which makes you an overwhelmingly positive symbol in your child's (or pup's) life. This has primary effects that far outweigh the alternatives and negative side-effects of negative punishment and negative reinforcement methods.
I don't agree that the article is dangerous—people are unlikely to give up negative reinforcement altogether, but being introduced to a wider diversity of well-proven methods will only help, and we need more of it.
My fiance recently graduated in psychology, and we have two kids. This article basically mirrors our current sentiment of how we want to raise our kids. I have one thing to add: Don't beat yourself up if you fail to do it right. After things escalated, talk to the kid honestly, tell her what you felt, and ask her what she felt. And try to do it better the next time over.
What if the kid has no interest in talking to you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hitting children is legal in the US?
No. Child abuse is taken seriously in the US, and hitting children in schools with get people fired, if not prosecuted. I'm sure it does still happen, but that does not mean it is widely accepted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_corporal_punishment_in_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is in the context of the US where violence against the child is common place; widely accepted; even if the parent has used a weapon to do so; even if it's not a parent but a school[1]; and where there's no hope that hitting children will ever become illegal. [1] a weirdly large number of schoolchildren are still hit in the US.
Hitting children is legal in the US?
So it's legal for a parent to spank their child with their hand or even a weapon such as a belt. It stops being legal once "lasting" physical injury (e.g. welts, bruises, broken skin) occurs.
We have a very barbaric "society" here in many respects.