4 ms·

The devil does not deserve even the due you're giving it. Imposing a dysfunctional self-concept on children to satisfy the parents' anxiety is at best morally d

The devil does not deserve even the due you're giving it. Imposing a dysfunctional self-concept on children to satisfy the parents' anxiety is at best morally dubious in and of itself, but more importantly, praise that is relentlessly unconditional and unearned ignores everything researchers have found in operant conditioning concerning satiation, schedule, individualization, and zone of proximal development.

tcfunk 9y ago
All of which are points I carefully take into consideration before saying "Good job!"
ky3 9y ago
So many devils, so little time. "Operant conditioning"? For whom and for what purposes are our kids to be satiated, scheduled, individualized, and zoned?
- scott00 9y ago
  That's your choice, as a parent. You're going to attempt to manipulate the child into certain behaviors whether you think of it in scientific terms or not. Might as well do it effectively.
Bartweiss 9y ago
> Imposing a dysfunctional self-concept on children to satisfy the parents' anxiety is at best morally dubious in and of itself When I played rec sports as a kid, we weren't allowed to keep score because it might lead to bad feelings and competitiveness. Not just when we were too young to do it right, but up to around age 15. Everyone involved did keep score of course, we'd all signed up for a competitive sport outside of school. (Or been pushed in by parents, who nevertheless didn't want scorekeeping...) But anyone overheard mentioning the score got an angry lecture, so we had to do it when there were no (adult) witnesses. It didn't take long at all for kids to notice that we were 'protecting' the adults instead of the reverse. Score was still kept, kids were still being bullied to tears over losses, nothing had changed, but the rule worked perfectly at making sure parents and coaches didn't see it happen. I don't think participation ribbons hurt kids, because they have so little impact. At worst, aimless positivity is just a wasted opportunity for something better. But the more controlling side of self-esteem building is creepy and terrible - it has a horrible emphasis on changing kid's lives to allay their parents fears, no matter how unreasonable.
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  Sure: using a participation trophy to teach what success feels like (e.g. when you're 3 years old in a gymnastics performance for the first time in front of an audience full of strange parents) has more defensible merits. Using it as an attempt to dispel unpleasant emotions and thereby assault or hamper development of well-adjusted task metacognition is something else entirely.

tcfunk 9y ago

All of which are points I carefully take into consideration before saying "Good job!"

ky3 9y ago

So many devils, so little time. "Operant conditioning"? For whom and for what purposes are our kids to be satiated, scheduled, individualized, and zoned?

scott00 9y ago
That's your choice, as a parent. You're going to attempt to manipulate the child into certain behaviors whether you think of it in scientific terms or not. Might as well do it effectively.

Bartweiss 9y ago

> Imposing a dysfunctional self-concept on children to satisfy the parents' anxiety is at best morally dubious in and of itself When I played rec sports as a kid, we weren't allowed to keep score because it might lead to bad feelings and competitiveness. Not just when we were too young to do it right, but up to around age 15. Everyone involved did keep score of course, we'd all signed up for a competitive sport outside of school. (Or been pushed in by parents, who nevertheless didn't want scorekeeping...) But anyone overheard mentioning the score got an angry lecture, so we had to do it when there were no (adult) witnesses. It didn't take long at all for kids to notice that we were 'protecting' the adults instead of the reverse. Score was still kept, kids were still being bullied to tears over losses, nothing had changed, but the rule worked perfectly at making sure parents and coaches didn't see it happen. I don't think participation ribbons hurt kids, because they have so little impact. At worst, aimless positivity is just a wasted opportunity for something better. But the more controlling side of self-esteem building is creepy and terrible - it has a horrible emphasis on changing kid's lives to allay their parents fears, no matter how unreasonable.

lr4444lr 9y ago
Sure: using a participation trophy to teach what success feels like (e.g. when you're 3 years old in a gymnastics performance for the first time in front of an audience full of strange parents) has more defensible merits. Using it as an attempt to dispel unpleasant emotions and thereby assault or hamper development of well-adjusted task metacognition is something else entirely.