6 ms·

Better yet, threaten to punish them. It's been shown that negative reinforcement is more effective than positive

by Yajirobe 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ARandomerDude 5y ago
It's wrong to threaten to punish a child just for the fun of it, even if "fun" is cloaked in a scientific study.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Nobody said anything about fun. Punishment can be done easily and ethically in child studies. It can be as simple as starting them with a marshmallow and telling them you will take it away if they are wrong.
  - watwut 5y ago
    1. Sweets and food should not be used as reward and punishnent in the first place. So that not eating them is not emotionally punishment, but just healthy thing to do. 2. Cue meltdown in many kids with that tactic - you bring up ecpectation and then crash it. 3. Have you people even interacted with kid? What it is with adults who seek to design punishment into situation where there is already compliance or which is about unimportant bs?
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Im not sure if we are taking about the same topic, but in case you are >1. Sweets and food should not be used as reward and punishnent in the first place. So that not eating them is not emotionally punishment, but just healthy thing to do. Kids like treats, have you met one? >2. Cue meltdown in many kids with that tactic - you bring up ecpectation and then crash it. Preschoolers can understand conditional rewards and penalties and play simple games. We arent talking about toddlers here. >3. Have you people even interacted with kid? What it is with adults who seek to design punishment into situation where there is already compliance or which is about unimportant bs? Not sure what you on about here. What situation and what compliance are your referring to? We are taking about the design of a human behavior study, not how people should raise their kids.
      - watwut 5y ago
        > Kids like treats, have you met one? My comment was about what you attitude you teach them about sweets. Nothing in it implied they dont like it. They still should not be used as reward. Not having sweets is not punishment. It is just healthy behavior. You dont eat sweets as reward for being good either. Being good dont imply ability to eat more sweets. > Preschoolers can understand conditional rewards and penalties and play simple games Preschoolers have meltdowns over those super regularly. They actually completely sux at games with rules over rewards and punishments, because they sux at hangling the disappointment. Have you worked with preschoolers, ever? > Not sure what you on about here. What situation and what compliance are your referring to? We are taking about the design of a human behavior study, not how people should raise their kids. The kids did as scientists asked them. That is compliance - there was no issue of kids ignoring doll or going to play chase.
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        >The kids did as scientists asked them. That is compliance - there was no issue of kids ignoring doll or going to play chase This will be my last response because you clearly don't understand the OP study or the discussion in this thread. The study looked at a problem solving task with conflicting instructions, and measured the ability of children to complete the task correctly. acituan and ALittleLight raised valid points that rewards and punishment could change the study results. For example, maybe children would be complete the task better better if they were punished or rewarded if they complete the study wrong for right. My point is that while it would be unethical to beat or harm a child for completing the task wrong, there are ethical ways to include some other forms of punishment. It seems like you have some pet social and behavioral issues, but I find your poor grammar and communication skills trying, and have no interest in discussing them further.
        Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
        > My comment was about what you attitude you teach them about sweets. Nothing in it implied they dont like it. They still should not be used as reward. Sure, but it’s hardly the time and place to grandstand about healthy eating, is it? The point is to find an ethical and less confrontational alternative to something like hitting the child with a ruler. You’re welcome to suggest a better idea. > You dont eat sweets as reward for being good either. Sure, in an adult study it would probably make more sense to have a monetary reward, but with children it’s better to use something less abstract. > The kids did as scientists asked them. That is compliance - there was no issue of kids ignoring doll or going to play chase. The idea is to figure out whether the poor performance was because they weren’t motivated to make an effort or because they were just dumb. It’s only natural for humans to put in only the minimum effort on a pointless task with no reward or risk of punishment. I certainly can’t think instance in my child- or adulthood where I made effort for no reason.
    - Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
      > 1. Sweets and food should not be used as reward and punishnent in the first place. So that not eating them is not emotionally punishment, but just healthy thing to do. That’s a nice thought, but millions of years of co-evolution with plants using animals for seed dispersal trumps a few thousand years of post-agricultural revolution excesses. Maybe in another million years we’ll lose our genes favouring sweet foods, who knows, but until then candy is a safe bet. > 2. Cue meltdown in many kids with that tactic - you bring up ecpectation and then crash it. Unlikely given that the experimenter will be a total stranger. There will be no established incentive structure to use tantrums for psychological manipulation as with the child’s parents. > 3. Have you people even interacted with kid? What it is with adults who seek to design punishment into situation where there is already compliance or which is about unimportant bs? That can be said about any area of study. Even a study of a supposedly solved problem or “unimportant bs” can lead to great insight.
ascar 5y ago
Common mistake: Negative reinforcement is when you take a negative stimulus away to reinforce the desired behavior. What you're describing is positive punishment. Also nicely explained in TBBT: https://youtu.be/gLp_aLMm5qQ https://youtu.be/gLp_aLMm5qQ
- tpoacher 5y ago
  well it shouldn't. makes much more sense to use negative reinforcement as a term to describe a reinforcing stimulus of a negative nature. optimal terminology has never been our strong point as a scientific community.
  - machinerychorus 5y ago
    makes more sense at first glance maybe, but when you dig into it more it's perfectly logical. "positive" refers to adding stimulus, "negative" refers to removing stimulus. "Reinforcement" is anything that increases the occurrence of the behavior, "punishment" is anything that decreases the occurrence of the behavior.
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      Perhaps we should have used “stimulating” and “depriving”. This reminds me of the whole Type One and Type Two error thing.
      - lupire 5y ago
        "additive" and "subtractive"
  - Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
    That doesn’t make sense at all. That interpretation would make “positive reinforcement” and “negative punishment” redundant, and it would make “positive punishment” and “negative reinforcement” contradictory. It’s very difficult to effectively reason about modes of operant conditioning when you throw that much nuance out of the window.
elliekelly 5y ago
Source?

Better yet, threaten to punish them. It's been shown that negative reinforcement is more effective than positive

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ARandomerDude 5y ago

It's wrong to threaten to punish a child just for the fun of it, even if "fun" is cloaked in a scientific study.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
Nobody said anything about fun. Punishment can be done easily and ethically in child studies. It can be as simple as starting them with a marshmallow and telling them you will take it away if they are wrong.
- watwut 5y ago
  1. Sweets and food should not be used as reward and punishnent in the first place. So that not eating them is not emotionally punishment, but just healthy thing to do. 2. Cue meltdown in many kids with that tactic - you bring up ecpectation and then crash it. 3. Have you people even interacted with kid? What it is with adults who seek to design punishment into situation where there is already compliance or which is about unimportant bs?
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Im not sure if we are taking about the same topic, but in case you are >1. Sweets and food should not be used as reward and punishnent in the first place. So that not eating them is not emotionally punishment, but just healthy thing to do. Kids like treats, have you met one? >2. Cue meltdown in many kids with that tactic - you bring up ecpectation and then crash it. Preschoolers can understand conditional rewards and penalties and play simple games. We arent talking about toddlers here. >3. Have you people even interacted with kid? What it is with adults who seek to design punishment into situation where there is already compliance or which is about unimportant bs? Not sure what you on about here. What situation and what compliance are your referring to? We are taking about the design of a human behavior study, not how people should raise their kids.
    - watwut 5y ago
      > Kids like treats, have you met one? My comment was about what you attitude you teach them about sweets. Nothing in it implied they dont like it. They still should not be used as reward. Not having sweets is not punishment. It is just healthy behavior. You dont eat sweets as reward for being good either. Being good dont imply ability to eat more sweets. > Preschoolers can understand conditional rewards and penalties and play simple games Preschoolers have meltdowns over those super regularly. They actually completely sux at games with rules over rewards and punishments, because they sux at hangling the disappointment. Have you worked with preschoolers, ever? > Not sure what you on about here. What situation and what compliance are your referring to? We are taking about the design of a human behavior study, not how people should raise their kids. The kids did as scientists asked them. That is compliance - there was no issue of kids ignoring doll or going to play chase.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        >The kids did as scientists asked them. That is compliance - there was no issue of kids ignoring doll or going to play chase This will be my last response because you clearly don't understand the OP study or the discussion in this thread. The study looked at a problem solving task with conflicting instructions, and measured the ability of children to complete the task correctly. acituan and ALittleLight raised valid points that rewards and punishment could change the study results. For example, maybe children would be complete the task better better if they were punished or rewarded if they complete the study wrong for right. My point is that while it would be unethical to beat or harm a child for completing the task wrong, there are ethical ways to include some other forms of punishment. It seems like you have some pet social and behavioral issues, but I find your poor grammar and communication skills trying, and have no interest in discussing them further.
      - Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
        > My comment was about what you attitude you teach them about sweets. Nothing in it implied they dont like it. They still should not be used as reward. Sure, but it’s hardly the time and place to grandstand about healthy eating, is it? The point is to find an ethical and less confrontational alternative to something like hitting the child with a ruler. You’re welcome to suggest a better idea. > You dont eat sweets as reward for being good either. Sure, in an adult study it would probably make more sense to have a monetary reward, but with children it’s better to use something less abstract. > The kids did as scientists asked them. That is compliance - there was no issue of kids ignoring doll or going to play chase. The idea is to figure out whether the poor performance was because they weren’t motivated to make an effort or because they were just dumb. It’s only natural for humans to put in only the minimum effort on a pointless task with no reward or risk of punishment. I certainly can’t think instance in my child- or adulthood where I made effort for no reason.
  - Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
    > 1. Sweets and food should not be used as reward and punishnent in the first place. So that not eating them is not emotionally punishment, but just healthy thing to do. That’s a nice thought, but millions of years of co-evolution with plants using animals for seed dispersal trumps a few thousand years of post-agricultural revolution excesses. Maybe in another million years we’ll lose our genes favouring sweet foods, who knows, but until then candy is a safe bet. > 2. Cue meltdown in many kids with that tactic - you bring up ecpectation and then crash it. Unlikely given that the experimenter will be a total stranger. There will be no established incentive structure to use tantrums for psychological manipulation as with the child’s parents. > 3. Have you people even interacted with kid? What it is with adults who seek to design punishment into situation where there is already compliance or which is about unimportant bs? That can be said about any area of study. Even a study of a supposedly solved problem or “unimportant bs” can lead to great insight.

ascar 5y ago

Common mistake: Negative reinforcement is when you take a negative stimulus away to reinforce the desired behavior. What you're describing is positive punishment. Also nicely explained in TBBT: https://youtu.be/gLp_aLMm5qQ https://youtu.be/gLp_aLMm5qQ

tpoacher 5y ago
well it shouldn't. makes much more sense to use negative reinforcement as a term to describe a reinforcing stimulus of a negative nature. optimal terminology has never been our strong point as a scientific community.
- machinerychorus 5y ago
  makes more sense at first glance maybe, but when you dig into it more it's perfectly logical. "positive" refers to adding stimulus, "negative" refers to removing stimulus. "Reinforcement" is anything that increases the occurrence of the behavior, "punishment" is anything that decreases the occurrence of the behavior.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    Perhaps we should have used “stimulating” and “depriving”. This reminds me of the whole Type One and Type Two error thing.
    - lupire 5y ago
      "additive" and "subtractive"
- Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
  That doesn’t make sense at all. That interpretation would make “positive reinforcement” and “negative punishment” redundant, and it would make “positive punishment” and “negative reinforcement” contradictory. It’s very difficult to effectively reason about modes of operant conditioning when you throw that much nuance out of the window.

elliekelly 5y ago

Source?