4 ms·

That's one heck of a justification that one. Childhood trauma and abuse sometimes also sometimes results in functioning, well-adjusted adults with decent abuse

That's one heck of a justification that one. Childhood trauma and abuse sometimes also sometimes results in functioning, well-adjusted adults with decent abuse coping skills and without crippling mental illness - that doesn't mean it's the best way to achieve that goal.

Dylan16807 4y ago
Jumping to anxiety disorders and abuse is also a heck of a justification for disliking it.
- justinjlynn 4y ago
  You should very much know that the null hypothesis for a proposed behavioural modification technique is that it isn't a benefit and doesn't work and may be harmful. It's on the proposer to show otherwise.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    May. What you're asserting goes miles beyond 'may'. You're making extremely strong claims with no evidence.
    - justinjlynn 4y ago
      What's less harmful when it comes to human health and safety in non-essential activities, to assume no risk of harm or injury or to assume risk of harm or injury? I assert that the null hypothesis is that it does not have a benefit and is harmful. This is not an assertion of fact, simply a position of likelihood and a judgement that doing a physical and emotional punishment to a person is generally harmful and that doing so must be balanced against ensuring a just outcome. This is not an unreasonable stance. You, on the other hand, if I understand properly, are saying that we should be able to do whatever we like to a punish person unless we show it directly causes harm. Down that road lies such human rights abuses that holding such views should be considered unconscionable.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        > What's less harmful when it comes to human health and safety in non-essential activities, to assume no risk of harm or injury or to assume risk of harm or injury? I agree with this statement. Assume a risk. > I assert that the null hypothesis is that it does not have a benefit and is harmful. Why did the word 'risk' disappear here? I don't think that's a good null hypothesis at all. > You, on the other hand, if I understand properly, are saying that we should be able to do whatever we like to a punish person unless we show it directly causes harm. I am not saying that.
        justinjlynn 4y ago
        > Why did the word 'risk' disappear here? I don't think that's a good null hypothesis at all. What null hypothesis would you prefer? > I am not saying that. Then what are you saying?
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > What null hypothesis would you prefer? "It has no lasting effects", probably. And you need to make sure you're looking for both positive and negative effects. "It's harmful" is a huge bias for a null hypothesis. > Then what are you saying? That you shouldn't assume it is harmful. I didn't say anything about what parents should be "able to do". I didn't even give an opinion on the candy thing. I just think your justification is a big overreach. But also a null hypothesis implies you're currently doing the testing, so that's a different scenario too...

Dylan16807 4y ago

Jumping to anxiety disorders and abuse is also a heck of a justification for disliking it.

justinjlynn 4y ago
You should very much know that the null hypothesis for a proposed behavioural modification technique is that it isn't a benefit and doesn't work and may be harmful. It's on the proposer to show otherwise.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  May. What you're asserting goes miles beyond 'may'. You're making extremely strong claims with no evidence.
  - justinjlynn 4y ago
    What's less harmful when it comes to human health and safety in non-essential activities, to assume no risk of harm or injury or to assume risk of harm or injury? I assert that the null hypothesis is that it does not have a benefit and is harmful. This is not an assertion of fact, simply a position of likelihood and a judgement that doing a physical and emotional punishment to a person is generally harmful and that doing so must be balanced against ensuring a just outcome. This is not an unreasonable stance. You, on the other hand, if I understand properly, are saying that we should be able to do whatever we like to a punish person unless we show it directly causes harm. Down that road lies such human rights abuses that holding such views should be considered unconscionable.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > What's less harmful when it comes to human health and safety in non-essential activities, to assume no risk of harm or injury or to assume risk of harm or injury? I agree with this statement. Assume a risk. > I assert that the null hypothesis is that it does not have a benefit and is harmful. Why did the word 'risk' disappear here? I don't think that's a good null hypothesis at all. > You, on the other hand, if I understand properly, are saying that we should be able to do whatever we like to a punish person unless we show it directly causes harm. I am not saying that.
      - justinjlynn 4y ago
        > Why did the word 'risk' disappear here? I don't think that's a good null hypothesis at all. What null hypothesis would you prefer? > I am not saying that. Then what are you saying?
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > What null hypothesis would you prefer? "It has no lasting effects", probably. And you need to make sure you're looking for both positive and negative effects. "It's harmful" is a huge bias for a null hypothesis. > Then what are you saying? That you shouldn't assume it is harmful. I didn't say anything about what parents should be "able to do". I didn't even give an opinion on the candy thing. I just think your justification is a big overreach. But also a null hypothesis implies you're currently doing the testing, so that's a different scenario too...