5 ms·

> Why do adults punish children? Because it works at changing their behavior. Now we can argue the merits of positive reinforcement vs negative reinforcement

> Why do adults punish children? Because it works at changing their behavior. Now we can argue the merits of positive reinforcement vs negative reinforcement all day. But when a technique is effective at changing unwanted behavior, then it will be used. Punishments are absolutely necessary because some kids don't know when their parents disapprove of their behavior otherwise. I'm not talking about beating kids btw, I'm talking about scolding, "go to your room", and timeouts. I don't think corporal punishment is worthwhile. There's some studies that shows that while effective at changing behavior, it also teaches the kid that violence is sometimes necessary, a lesson that I'm not sure if we should be teaching them. But punishments in general? You don't want to reach for them as your first tool in your parenting toolbox. But you really can't just positive-reinforcement "you're doing a good job" all day to your kids. Its disingenuous and the kids pick up on that. ---------- > It answers the question in the title mostly by asking what, from today’s perspective, are the rational uses of punishment? To change a person's behavior. If someone keeps lying, cheating, and stealing in society, we want to make them to stop so that they can reintegrate and become a beneficial member of society. Perhaps we've gone too far with jail times in the USA, but the foundational theory is quite simple and effective here. Anyone who has ever trained a dog or other animal knows how to use animal psychology / punishments / rewards to change the animal's behavior. Human psychology is more complex than animal behavior, but it shares a lot of similarities. Positive reinforcement (aka: rewards) and negative reinforcement (aka: punishments) are both useful within the framework.

NikolaNovak 4y ago
As well, we need to clearly distinguish "punishment" and "revenge". Revenge is an emotional response by those who have been wronged in the past. Punishment can mean many things (so perhaps we need more specific words), but I believe in this context it is meant to be a rational, conscious act to influence behaviour - though there are other kinds of punishment, and it can be difficult to distinguish. A parent may raise their voice very intentionally, without actually being angry, to gain attention, distinguish and underline a point, or elicit quick obedience (i.e. a "STOP!!!" when a child is about to dart on the road), but they may also raise their voice out of impulse, emotion, frustration, with no specific goal in mind and thus no clear direction or "win conditions". (I've only recently learned of the phrase "omnidirectional ass-chewing" [1], which is a very intentional demenour and environment for receiving marines to put them into a constantly stressful environment to train focus. It LOOKS like random angry yelling, but is in fact extremely studied, careful, and intentional. ) 1: Section 6, "Yelling" https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/03/why-is-boot-camp-so-intense.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/03/why-is-boot-camp-so...
lelanthran 4y ago
> There's some studies that shows that while effective at changing behavior, it also teaches the kid that violence is sometimes necessary, a lesson that I'm not sure if we should be teaching them. Isn't that true, though? Violence is sometimes necessary. Teaching a child that violence is never necessary is just as bad as teaching the child that violence is always necessary.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  Outside of very few, select circumstances, violence isn't the answer inside of a household. The exceptions are rape/sexual violence and self defense, and other crimes of that magnitude. Even if two boys are fighting it out, I'm not sure if the right answer is to kick their ass and spank them / humiliate them over it. People used to beat their kids up over bad grades or missing homework assignments. That's too much violence for sure.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > Outside of very few, select circumstances, violence isn't the answer inside of a household. Sure, but we're teaching kids lessons for when they're adults, right? Is it really a good idea to raise a generation who will not act out of self-defense? > Even if two boys are fighting it out, I'm not sure if the right answer is to kick their ass and spank them / humiliate them over it. I don't think violence is an answer for that. > People used to beat their kids up over bad grades or missing homework assignments. That's too much violence for sure. That's way overboard, and not what I had in mind. Rewards and punishments with kids is complex, and I don't want to come off like I am trivialising it all. Humans (and chimps, and dogs) have all been studied in-depth, and at this point we know for certain that the idea of fairness is not a uniquely human one. Take for example this very common scenario: an older/stronger child slapping a younger/weaker sibling. The victim in this case is likely not going to believe that any non-physical punishment is fair(In fact, it isn't fair), and all it would do is breed some resentment. If it happens just once or twice, sure, the victim can move on. If it happens all the time and the only result is that the parents take away TV for the aggressor for a few days, then that's going to result in plenty of long-term resentment. Even worse, sometimes if the victim responds, they're going to get punished as well because some parents don't usually care to adjudicate. Schools are even worse - the victim is more of a legal liability to the school than the aggressor, hence schools are more likely to pretend it never happened, or to punish both parties equally. Taking all this into account, I tell my boys that they should never hit first, and that if anyone ever hits them the only appropriate response to to hit back. They've[1] never hit anyone thus far, but they are also not afraid to hit anyone who hits them, because that's only fair. [1] The younger one is only 3, so not yet a proper data point.
awild 4y ago
> To change a person's behavior. If someone keeps lying, cheating, and stealing in society, we want to make them to stop so that they can reintegrate and become a beneficial member of society. I think a common criticism of this stance is, that it does not ask why a person does something that others want to punish. Obviously there sometimes are no answers, but often it's poverty and lack of options. So this begs the question, why people come to steal and murder etc. I personally don't believe that "punishment" is usually well invested in a person. Rehabilitation and support structures are probably the better option. I am also realising that it gets very interesting for white collar crime "without a victim" such as tax evasion or manipulation of stocks. My intuition is to punish exactly these crimes, but I think that's my bias showing.
enragedcacti 4y ago
> Anyone who has ever trained a dog or other animal knows how to use animal psychology / punishments / rewards to change the animal's behavior. Use of punishment in dog training is actually pretty hotly debated. Not that it doesn't work, but that it has consequences beyond what are intended and that substitution, redirection, and rewards result in a happier and more obedient pet.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  Yeah it works way better to establish the fact that you're the alpha dog via some basic obedience involved in feeding and stuff like that, then build up the dog to want your approval, establish boundaries around things like playtime, give the dog adequate "jobs" and stimulation for the breed so its not bored and anxious, etc. One the dogs needs are all met like that within some structure you're going to have a way happier dog compared to not understanding why the dog is acting out and having to tell it 'no' and discipline it all the time. That requires a commitment from the human a well though, it isn't a one-way street. Which is more less how society should treat humans as well. If we're going to have an article called "Why Punish?" there should really be a companion article on "Why Steal?" And given the right conditions literally every one of us will steal to survive. Every single one of us are still just animals at our core anyway, that means you dear reader.
- leobg 4y ago
  Debated? B. F. Skinner already found out back in the 1950s that punishment does not lead to any learning of the desired behavior. Rather, it leads to avoidance. So I would argue that the fact that punishment is the most inefficient way to change behavior is pretty much established. In fact, you can look at any area - dog training, marriage, marketing, computer games - and you will find that the most efficient and effective methods of shaping behavior of those that employ positive reinforcement. Things like Facebook and social media are pretty much just Skinner’s techniques amplified by the internet.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > and you will find that the most efficient and effective methods of shaping behavior of those that employ positive reinforcement. I attack my opponent when he's waking up (Oki position), he uses a Dragon Punch / Reversal and punishes me. I attack my opponent when he's waking up (Oki position), he uses a Dragon Punch / reversal and punishes me. I attack my opponent when he's waking up. He uses a dragon punch/reversal and punishes me. I block while my opponent is waking up. He uses a dragon punch, loses to my block and I punish him. ------------ An entire genre of video games, fighting games, revolves around conditioning your opponent and getting into their head. The rock-paper-scissors battle of attack vs block vs grab takes place so quickly, you often don't have the time to react (though some players do have insane reaction speeds). When you can't leverage reaction, you leverage conditioning. And over the long term, the only way to really learn the game at a high level is by getting your bad habits repeatedly-punished by a stronger player. Perhaps its not "efficient" to learn, but in this case, it is the only way to learn. Expert players are bad at vocalizing what is or isn't working. There are very few coaches, and almost none of them know how to take you to the highest level (even if they themselves have reached peak form). ------------- There's other forms of punishment as learning. Ex: fall into a pit in Mario. You die, so you try again. Or "Boar Lure" in AoE2. If you fail, your villager dies, and/or you don't get the precious early-game food you need to sustain your production. Or in Basketball. If you get crossed up, you fail to block the opponent and they get a free shot at the basket.
watwut 4y ago
A lot of adults punish children, because it makes them feel good. They do it again and again despite kids behavior not getting better. People often punish out of anger and their kids are badly behaved as a result.
phpisthebest 4y ago
>>Perhaps we've gone too far with jail times in the USA Perhaps? I dont think that is even debatable at this point. I would encourage you to research actual treatment of prisoners in the US, we in the US are critical of nations like Russia, and China while willfully ignoring the abuse that occurs every day in US prisons. >Anyone who has ever trained a dog or other animal This right here is the exact reason for this abuse, it is common for the US prison system, and the correctional officers to dehumanize the prisoners and treat them like animals, not cuddly pets or dogs, but like the worst animal abuse stories you here from the traveling carnivals that used to keep Elephants and Loins for show..... We need MASSIVE reform of both the criminal system, and prison system. I am not talking about being "weak" on crime like seems to be the norm today, refusing to prosecute crimes, and letting people out immediately but "tough on crime" does not have to involve the dehumanizing treatment, and outright abuse that occurs that leads to nothing productive, no rehabilitation, and more often than not non-violent criminals go in non-violent but come out extremely violent. There is NOTHING redeeming about the US Prison system
xmddmx 4y ago
Negative Reinforcement ≠ Punishment. This is a common mistake. Negative Reinforcement is the removal of an adverse stimuli. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Negative_reinforcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Negative_reinfor...
sonofhans 4y ago
> Punishments are absolutely necessary … No, this isn’t true at all. My teenager has never been punished once in his life, and he’s turning into an excellent human: hard-working, compassionate with self and others, honest. I would define punishment as “intentional infliction of suffering for purposes of behavior modification.” As stated, that’s flatly unethical, especially with your own family. Now, he experiences consequences of his actions all the time. Scratch the counter-top? Win an afternoon of helping me refinish it. That works because it’s directly connected to his actions, and because I treat it as a learning opportunity rather than yelling at him or banishing him. There are more possibilities than “punishment or permissiveness.” Kids need structure and to understand and experience age-appropriate consequences for their actions. But that doesn’t mean they need arbitrary suffering imposed by people they’re supposed to love.
- honkdaddy 4y ago
  As kindly as possible - if your anecdote about your teenager misbehaving is scratching the countertop, you may just have an unusually well behaved teenager. What would your response be if he drove drunk and crashed your car? Or if he you got in an argument and he took a swing at you? If those are outside the realm of possibility for you guys, that’s awesome, you probably have an awesome kid. But for most parents I know, their teenagers have seriously test their limits at least a few times and it seemed like a punitive approach worked well. Depending on the “crime”, grounding them at home or taking away their phone/car/screens for x amount of time is a perfectly reasonable punishment IMO. It certainly worked well enough on my four siblings and I when we did dumb crap as teenagers.
- euclaise 4y ago
  Punishment isn't typically defined that way though. That's a bit of a harsh definition In psychology it's often defined as any behavioral method used to decrease an undesired behavior - split into positive and negative punishment. Positive punishment is adding stimuli that they don't like (physical punishment is included here, but lecturing can be too), and negative punishment is removing things that they like. If a child asks rudely for ice cream and you don't give it to them because of the way they asked, that's a form of (negative) punishment. Your countertop example is too - from a behavioral perspective, that's just a form of (positive) punishment - you're making them do something they don't like in response to unwanted behavior. You might have an added rationale to connect things, but that's still what the behavioral effect is.

NikolaNovak 4y ago

As well, we need to clearly distinguish "punishment" and "revenge". Revenge is an emotional response by those who have been wronged in the past. Punishment can mean many things (so perhaps we need more specific words), but I believe in this context it is meant to be a rational, conscious act to influence behaviour - though there are other kinds of punishment, and it can be difficult to distinguish. A parent may raise their voice very intentionally, without actually being angry, to gain attention, distinguish and underline a point, or elicit quick obedience (i.e. a "STOP!!!" when a child is about to dart on the road), but they may also raise their voice out of impulse, emotion, frustration, with no specific goal in mind and thus no clear direction or "win conditions". (I've only recently learned of the phrase "omnidirectional ass-chewing" [1], which is a very intentional demenour and environment for receiving marines to put them into a constantly stressful environment to train focus. It LOOKS like random angry yelling, but is in fact extremely studied, careful, and intentional. ) 1: Section 6, "Yelling" https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/03/why-is-boot-camp-so-intense.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/03/why-is-boot-camp-so...

lelanthran 4y ago

> There's some studies that shows that while effective at changing behavior, it also teaches the kid that violence is sometimes necessary, a lesson that I'm not sure if we should be teaching them. Isn't that true, though? Violence is sometimes necessary. Teaching a child that violence is never necessary is just as bad as teaching the child that violence is always necessary.

dragontamer 4y ago
Outside of very few, select circumstances, violence isn't the answer inside of a household. The exceptions are rape/sexual violence and self defense, and other crimes of that magnitude. Even if two boys are fighting it out, I'm not sure if the right answer is to kick their ass and spank them / humiliate them over it. People used to beat their kids up over bad grades or missing homework assignments. That's too much violence for sure.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > Outside of very few, select circumstances, violence isn't the answer inside of a household. Sure, but we're teaching kids lessons for when they're adults, right? Is it really a good idea to raise a generation who will not act out of self-defense? > Even if two boys are fighting it out, I'm not sure if the right answer is to kick their ass and spank them / humiliate them over it. I don't think violence is an answer for that. > People used to beat their kids up over bad grades or missing homework assignments. That's too much violence for sure. That's way overboard, and not what I had in mind. Rewards and punishments with kids is complex, and I don't want to come off like I am trivialising it all. Humans (and chimps, and dogs) have all been studied in-depth, and at this point we know for certain that the idea of fairness is not a uniquely human one. Take for example this very common scenario: an older/stronger child slapping a younger/weaker sibling. The victim in this case is likely not going to believe that any non-physical punishment is fair(In fact, it isn't fair), and all it would do is breed some resentment. If it happens just once or twice, sure, the victim can move on. If it happens all the time and the only result is that the parents take away TV for the aggressor for a few days, then that's going to result in plenty of long-term resentment. Even worse, sometimes if the victim responds, they're going to get punished as well because some parents don't usually care to adjudicate. Schools are even worse - the victim is more of a legal liability to the school than the aggressor, hence schools are more likely to pretend it never happened, or to punish both parties equally. Taking all this into account, I tell my boys that they should never hit first, and that if anyone ever hits them the only appropriate response to to hit back. They've[1] never hit anyone thus far, but they are also not afraid to hit anyone who hits them, because that's only fair. [1] The younger one is only 3, so not yet a proper data point.

awild 4y ago

> To change a person's behavior. If someone keeps lying, cheating, and stealing in society, we want to make them to stop so that they can reintegrate and become a beneficial member of society. I think a common criticism of this stance is, that it does not ask why a person does something that others want to punish. Obviously there sometimes are no answers, but often it's poverty and lack of options. So this begs the question, why people come to steal and murder etc. I personally don't believe that "punishment" is usually well invested in a person. Rehabilitation and support structures are probably the better option. I am also realising that it gets very interesting for white collar crime "without a victim" such as tax evasion or manipulation of stocks. My intuition is to punish exactly these crimes, but I think that's my bias showing.

enragedcacti 4y ago

> Anyone who has ever trained a dog or other animal knows how to use animal psychology / punishments / rewards to change the animal's behavior. Use of punishment in dog training is actually pretty hotly debated. Not that it doesn't work, but that it has consequences beyond what are intended and that substitution, redirection, and rewards result in a happier and more obedient pet.

lamontcg 4y ago
Yeah it works way better to establish the fact that you're the alpha dog via some basic obedience involved in feeding and stuff like that, then build up the dog to want your approval, establish boundaries around things like playtime, give the dog adequate "jobs" and stimulation for the breed so its not bored and anxious, etc. One the dogs needs are all met like that within some structure you're going to have a way happier dog compared to not understanding why the dog is acting out and having to tell it 'no' and discipline it all the time. That requires a commitment from the human a well though, it isn't a one-way street. Which is more less how society should treat humans as well. If we're going to have an article called "Why Punish?" there should really be a companion article on "Why Steal?" And given the right conditions literally every one of us will steal to survive. Every single one of us are still just animals at our core anyway, that means you dear reader.
leobg 4y ago
Debated? B. F. Skinner already found out back in the 1950s that punishment does not lead to any learning of the desired behavior. Rather, it leads to avoidance. So I would argue that the fact that punishment is the most inefficient way to change behavior is pretty much established. In fact, you can look at any area - dog training, marriage, marketing, computer games - and you will find that the most efficient and effective methods of shaping behavior of those that employ positive reinforcement. Things like Facebook and social media are pretty much just Skinner’s techniques amplified by the internet.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > and you will find that the most efficient and effective methods of shaping behavior of those that employ positive reinforcement. I attack my opponent when he's waking up (Oki position), he uses a Dragon Punch / Reversal and punishes me. I attack my opponent when he's waking up (Oki position), he uses a Dragon Punch / reversal and punishes me. I attack my opponent when he's waking up. He uses a dragon punch/reversal and punishes me. I block while my opponent is waking up. He uses a dragon punch, loses to my block and I punish him. ------------ An entire genre of video games, fighting games, revolves around conditioning your opponent and getting into their head. The rock-paper-scissors battle of attack vs block vs grab takes place so quickly, you often don't have the time to react (though some players do have insane reaction speeds). When you can't leverage reaction, you leverage conditioning. And over the long term, the only way to really learn the game at a high level is by getting your bad habits repeatedly-punished by a stronger player. Perhaps its not "efficient" to learn, but in this case, it is the only way to learn. Expert players are bad at vocalizing what is or isn't working. There are very few coaches, and almost none of them know how to take you to the highest level (even if they themselves have reached peak form). ------------- There's other forms of punishment as learning. Ex: fall into a pit in Mario. You die, so you try again. Or "Boar Lure" in AoE2. If you fail, your villager dies, and/or you don't get the precious early-game food you need to sustain your production. Or in Basketball. If you get crossed up, you fail to block the opponent and they get a free shot at the basket.

watwut 4y ago

A lot of adults punish children, because it makes them feel good. They do it again and again despite kids behavior not getting better. People often punish out of anger and their kids are badly behaved as a result.

phpisthebest 4y ago

>>Perhaps we've gone too far with jail times in the USA Perhaps? I dont think that is even debatable at this point. I would encourage you to research actual treatment of prisoners in the US, we in the US are critical of nations like Russia, and China while willfully ignoring the abuse that occurs every day in US prisons. >Anyone who has ever trained a dog or other animal This right here is the exact reason for this abuse, it is common for the US prison system, and the correctional officers to dehumanize the prisoners and treat them like animals, not cuddly pets or dogs, but like the worst animal abuse stories you here from the traveling carnivals that used to keep Elephants and Loins for show..... We need MASSIVE reform of both the criminal system, and prison system. I am not talking about being "weak" on crime like seems to be the norm today, refusing to prosecute crimes, and letting people out immediately but "tough on crime" does not have to involve the dehumanizing treatment, and outright abuse that occurs that leads to nothing productive, no rehabilitation, and more often than not non-violent criminals go in non-violent but come out extremely violent. There is NOTHING redeeming about the US Prison system

xmddmx 4y ago

Negative Reinforcement ≠ Punishment. This is a common mistake. Negative Reinforcement is the removal of an adverse stimuli. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Negative_reinforcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Negative_reinfor...

sonofhans 4y ago

> Punishments are absolutely necessary … No, this isn’t true at all. My teenager has never been punished once in his life, and he’s turning into an excellent human: hard-working, compassionate with self and others, honest. I would define punishment as “intentional infliction of suffering for purposes of behavior modification.” As stated, that’s flatly unethical, especially with your own family. Now, he experiences consequences of his actions all the time. Scratch the counter-top? Win an afternoon of helping me refinish it. That works because it’s directly connected to his actions, and because I treat it as a learning opportunity rather than yelling at him or banishing him. There are more possibilities than “punishment or permissiveness.” Kids need structure and to understand and experience age-appropriate consequences for their actions. But that doesn’t mean they need arbitrary suffering imposed by people they’re supposed to love.

honkdaddy 4y ago
As kindly as possible - if your anecdote about your teenager misbehaving is scratching the countertop, you may just have an unusually well behaved teenager. What would your response be if he drove drunk and crashed your car? Or if he you got in an argument and he took a swing at you? If those are outside the realm of possibility for you guys, that’s awesome, you probably have an awesome kid. But for most parents I know, their teenagers have seriously test their limits at least a few times and it seemed like a punitive approach worked well. Depending on the “crime”, grounding them at home or taking away their phone/car/screens for x amount of time is a perfectly reasonable punishment IMO. It certainly worked well enough on my four siblings and I when we did dumb crap as teenagers.
euclaise 4y ago
Punishment isn't typically defined that way though. That's a bit of a harsh definition In psychology it's often defined as any behavioral method used to decrease an undesired behavior - split into positive and negative punishment. Positive punishment is adding stimuli that they don't like (physical punishment is included here, but lecturing can be too), and negative punishment is removing things that they like. If a child asks rudely for ice cream and you don't give it to them because of the way they asked, that's a form of (negative) punishment. Your countertop example is too - from a behavioral perspective, that's just a form of (positive) punishment - you're making them do something they don't like in response to unwanted behavior. You might have an added rationale to connect things, but that's still what the behavioral effect is.