No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems • Hacker News Board

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#131

Post by tzs » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 12:12 AM UTC

> Punishment might make you feel better, but it won’t change the kid’s behavior. Instead, he advocates for a radical technique in which parents positively reinforce the behavior they do want to see until the negative behavior eventually goes away.

The first sentence as written is incomplete. Of course punishment changes behavior. This is well established through a long line of experiments going back to the 1940s or earlier. To complete the sentence, there should be a "permanently" added to it somewhere, since the association between the punishment and the behavior wears off over time.

The association between positive reinforcement and behavior also wears off over time, but that is easy to maintain by occasionally rewarding the good behavior. You don't have to reward it every time. You might reward frequently when trying to to teach the good behavior and then you can decrease the frequency.

I think a good way to think of reward and punishment is that reward encourages repeating the behavior that is rewarded, whereas punishment encourages not repeating the behavior that is being punished. When you punish a bad behavior, that doesn't necessarily lead toward good behavior. It could simply lead to different bad behavior.

That's not to say that there is no room for punishment of bad behavior. Rather, it should depend on how bad the behavior is. If the behavior is something that is very bad, in the sense that it seriously harms people or animals or causes major economic damage, then punishment might be appropriate. For instance, if you have a kid who has taken to lighting cats and dogs (or smaller children) on fire, then severe immediate punishment might be appropriate, to get that behavior to stop now. That gives you a window until the association between the bad behavior and the punishment wears off to try to reward enough good behavior that the kid won't have time to go back to the bad behavior later.

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#132

Post by woah » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 12:13 AM UTC

B1FF_PSUVM wrote: post #56

junto wrote: post #18

> Tone of voice dictates whether you're going to get compliance or not. "Sarah, put on the green coat or the red sweater. We're going to go out, okay?" Choice among humans increases the likelihood of compliance. And choice isn't important, it's the appearance of choice that's important. Having real choice is not the issue, humans don't feel too strongly about that, but having the feeling that you have a choice makes…

Does he favor the Republican or Democrat side of his face? (Locke was onto something ...)

Damn, why did this get downvoted?

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#133

Post by devoply » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 12:15 AM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #113

marcell wrote: post #62

Quoting the article: > "Sarah, put on the green coat or the red sweater. We're going to go out, okay?" Choice among humans increases the likelihood of compliance. And choice isn't important, it's the appearance of choice that's important. I've gotten this exact advice from so many articles and pop psych pieces. Maybe they are written by non-parents or their children are much easier, but it never works for me. My 4 ye…

That's the problem with one-size-fits-all methods. Kids are just different and what worked for one child doesn't necessarily work for another child. Even if you do exactly the same thing. My girlfriend used to train dogs for a living. She always said "it's the owner's fault, not the dog's". Now we have a Chihuahua who won't listen, doesn't respond to rewards, doesn't respond to punishment. She just does her own thing…

I think the problem is with the entire field of psychology they don't take people's personality into account. And I think it takes lot and lots of practice to even start getting at that because you have one personality as a psychologist and your entire theory of mind is based on your own perceptions of what you would do were you in the other's person's shoes. It takes a lot of experience to get over that level of understand and start to take other people's temperament into account before even thinking about that. Not to mention even our models are not good because we don't really understand ourselves that well.

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#134

Post by manarth » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 12:23 AM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #57

bmy78 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "tricking", unless you're letting your toddler dictate whether you should leave the house. Toddlers don't have a choice over that; instead, you're giving the toddler a choice appropriate to their level. That helps build their cognitive abilities and takes the focus away from whether they want to leave the house (a choice they shouldn't make), to whether they want the sweater or coat (a choice reasonable for…

You're using a cognitive advantage to distract them from expressing displeasure about something they reasonably don't like. Just because the toddler doesn't have a say over whether you're leaving the house doesn't mean you're not tricking him. If two people are dating, the boyfriend is well within his rights to unilaterally break off the relationship. But if he broached the issue with his girlfriend by saying "Would…

  > the boyfriend is well within his rights to unilaterally break off the relationship.
  > But if he broached the issue with his girlfriend by saying
  > "Would you rather be just friends or simply not see each other any more?"
  > in order to distract her from the breakup, she would rightfully be resentful.

That's a tricky one, because, as you say, he can unilaterally break off the relationship. By providing options going forward, most people would see that as looking for the most positive way to move on. Who would resent that?

Unless he deliberately did that to distract from the breakup…but even then, it doesn't exactly seem all that negative. Having made the decision to break off the relationship, providing options to deal with that and offer positive ways forward doesn't seem all that bad.

For me, I'm struggling to see how the example fits. Sure, she may be upset at the breakup of the relationship, but providing options for responding to that seems more positive than negative.

I don't disagree with the principle, but the example: a relationship is based on mutual consent, and withdrawal of that consent isn't a trick or unacceptable.

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#135

Post by rtpg » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 12:29 AM UTC

axtscz wrote: post #117

paganel wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let’s say you have an adolescent daughter and she says to you, “Mom, you are such a bitch. What have you ever done for me? You only think of yourself.” Maybe it's because I grew up as a kid in another culture (Eastern Europe) and some time ago (I'm 36 now) but do kids nowadays really call their parents "bitch"? My parents almost never laid their hands on me (the couple of times they actually did I had deserved it)…

No, I'm 20 and from the US, and never would've dreamed of calling my parents a word like this. I mean never. We may of had disagreements but this was one line I would never cross.

Similar experience but I know this exists. Some people going through their teens get pretty cruel.

Definitely a minority

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#136

Post by tptacek » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 12:30 AM UTC

wyager wrote: post #80

dang wrote: post #55

(Edit: I'm detaching this from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13101402 and marking it off-topic. That example wasn't a clear enough one to make the point about, because the commenter wasn't being snarky or doing anything particularly wrong. Maybe next time it comes up more clearly I'll try again.) I know it's nitpicky, but please don't use quotation marks when you're not actually quoting someone, and especially…

How else are you supposed to indicate that you're rephrasing something someone else said? It's generally pretty clear when something is an actual quote, and putting the quote in italics makes it very clear that it was not actually said.

In prose, without quotation marks. I found it jarring the first time I got corrected for casually using quotation marks on HN (many years ago --- I think by Paul Graham!) and felt for sometime afterwards that it was evidence about how needlessly prickly the site is. But I'm now glad to have left the habit of using question marks rhetorically behind in pretty much all of my writing.

You can still use quotes if you really want to; you just have to write clearly that you aren't making a literal quotation --- to be clear that you're not putting words in someone else's mouth. But I find that it's rarely worth the effort to do so.

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#137

Post by Mz » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 12:31 AM UTC

rtpg wrote: post #135

axtscz wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm 20 and from the US, and never would've dreamed of calling my parents a word like this. I mean never. We may of had disagreements but this was one line I would never cross.

Similar experience but I know this exists. Some people going through their teens get pretty cruel. Definitely a minority

Sometimes, they are "cruel" in response to having been subtly (or not so subtly) treated cruelly themselves.

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#138

Post by gedy » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 12:32 AM UTC

seanp2k2 wrote: post #120

maxxxxx wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love it when they show on TV how brave some superstar is who manages to raise children while having a busy career. They never show the nannies, cooks and cleaning personnel.

Then we try to sell that story to single moms with low-paying jobs, and tell them to suck it up when they're breaking down due to the stress and unattainability of it.

And or get yelled at if you suggest that intentionally walking into single parenthood without excellent circumstances is not a great idea.

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#139

Post by geerlingguy » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 12:35 AM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #104

ramparrt wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep on at it. My partner and I fostered rescue puppies (mainly larger breeds) for several years before having kids. We taught bite inhibition, toilet training and general manners to umpteen puppies using positive reinforcement while they were in our care. We've used remarkably similar techniques on our children now aged 3.5 and 1.5yo. Every child is unique so YMMV but we have been very happy with the way our kids ha…

We are also firmly on the positive reinforcement / attachment parenting camp. It does work wonders. That being said, especially with kids older than ~3, we believe some form of negative consequences for bad behaviour are necessary. Especially if they e.g. push or hit another child. And I don't mean using physical punishment, more like "I'm taking this toy away from you now". The important thing is that the child is o…

> Being angry is an emotion kids need to learn about. This means (IMO) it's OK for a parent to be visibly angry sometimes, as long as you are able to remain a good role model while angry.

Very true. The thing is, if you are somehow able to bottle up your negative emotions in front of your kids all the time, you're either superhuman, or you're letting them fester in some other way... Kids should learn that they have an impact on their parents' lives too, and they need to see examples of how we deal with it.

Some parents get pouty and act just like a toddler until they cave and give the kid something the kid wants. Other parents get angry, maybe even raise their voice, but then take control of their emotion and apologize to the kid, but still don't cave to whatever the kid (often irrationally) desires.

Physical punishment (outside of restraint, e.g. When one kid hurts another) is a different conversation entirely, of course.

Re: No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems

#140

Post by manarth » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 12:35 AM UTC

Klinky wrote: post #91

jessriedel wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps working around these fatal emotion exceptions is better than running into them every day, at least until the child's brain has had time for a few major revisions. Perhaps. Parenting is complicated. But we shouldn't pretend it's not a trick, and that we aren't doing something the child may rightfully resent. > In your second paragraph, are you suggesting... No. > If the person has a negative reaction to it,…

If the goal of the parent is "get child to grandmas, so I can go to work to continue to take care of this child", while the child's goal is "I want to continue to watch cartoons in this very spot and not move, and I'll have a tantrum if I am told to move due to poor impulse/emotional controls in my under-developed brain, unless I am 'tricked'", then who's goals are more important? If the child resents such a "trick"…

  > If the goal of the parent is "get child to grandmas"
  > while the child's goal is "I want to continue to watch cartoons"
  > who's goals are more important?

At what point/age is it OK to control someone, and when/why does that stop?

As an adult, if I want to spend the day on the sofa watching cartoons, who has the right to stop me, and drag me off somewhere else?