4 ms·
The result here isn't what you said: > taken individually, immediate minor punishments are as effective as major punishments The result here is that frequent
by dlss 11y ago
The result here isn't what you said:
> taken individually, immediate minor punishments are as effective as major punishments
The result here is that frequent minor punishments are 72% more effective than infrequent major punishments (see the article on Hawaii's 5 year study of this approach linked to by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10064425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10064425).
- jeorgun 11y agoIf I'm understanding right, grandparent isn't saying "effectiveness(minor, frequent) == effectiveness(major, infrequent)"; they're saying "effectiveness(minor) == effectiveness(major) && effectiveness(frequent) > effectiveness(infrequent)".
- aidenn0 11y agoThat's exactly what I was saying, though this (and my original comment) was a simplification.
- aidenn0 11y agoThat seems completely consistent with my original quote of "Consistent annoyances are better at provoking change than occasional calamity." My point was a single minor punishment is about as effective as a single major punishment. It's more complicated than that of course, (sometimes a single major punishment is more effective, sometimes a major punishment is actually counterproductive), but in any event, frequency seems to be much more important than severity.