BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/12/05 7:49 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , BCITORGB
at wrote on 4/6/05 7:10 PM:

Scott thinks:
=============
teaching a child that authority has teeth, and that defiance
may have painful consequences is absolutely necessary if the child is
to grow up into a responsible adult.
================

Why am I thinking of Stanley Milgram right now?

Could it be.... teaching people the importance of obeying authority....
naaahhh!

Funny thing is, my children are very well-mannered and well-behaved
(almost to a fault) but I've always asked them to question authority
(not necessarily verbally, but at least intellectually). In fact, I
*never* want them to "accept" authority without question!

frtzw906

The real danger is in teaching compliance rather than respect.

That can be a problem. Still, if the choice is compliance or respect, I'll
take compliance.

If your goal is to prepare the child to be a victim, that's a good choice.

"I sit quietly so you won't hit me" is not respect.

If that is the only thought process, you're correct, but most often, the
thought process is rather more complex.

Yes, it might be...

"I'll sit quietly so you won't hit me, and one day I will murder you in your
sleep and then kill myself to escape this hell."

That is fear, resulting
in compliance.

Well, depending on the need for compliance, compliance can come first, and
respect later.

LOL. Good luck with that.

I don't need a two-year-old to respect me when I tell him not
to run out into the street, I need his instant, unquestioning obedience. If
fear of punishment causes that compliance, fine. At some later time, when
he's intellectually capable of understanding why I required unquestioning
obedience, I'll be happy to explain to him why, and hopefully he will be
able to see that he owes me respect because it was his safety that I was
concerned with. This is, in fact, the way it usually happens.

Mm. Yes, I think we can agree that a 2 year old has quite a lot of
difficulty understanding the particulars of road safety.

There is no internal motivation to change the behaviour, it
is through external threat only that the change is achieved.

Don't be silly. The internal motivation is: "Scott was extremely displeased
at my behavior and he punished me for it. Why would he do that? Hm, maybe
what I did was wrong or dangerous. Perhaps I should amend that behavior in
order to gain both approval from Scott and avoid further painful and
embarrassing punishment, not to mention avoiding the possibility of physical
harm."

The external threat stimulates the internal motivation. Children are pretty
good at picking up on adult approval and disapproval. That's how they learn
to survive, and always have.

That's how many children learn how to be victims, particularly people with
intellectual disabilities, the group that you want "mainstreamed" with
assigned "mentors."

This type of behavioural management teaches people to be victims and
victimizers.

That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard you say, and it's completely
without foundation or reason.

Only because your thinking on this is so simplistic, shallow, and
self-serving.

Someone who is having trouble focusing in class who gets a smash on the back
of the hand is being forced to comply.

Yup. They are also being taught that concentration is desirable

No, only that pretending to concentrate might mean suffering less physical
pain. They still have no idea why concentrating is a good thing

and less
painful. Pure operant conditioning.

With the lousy results that operant conditioning produces.

There is no learning or respect or
understanding.

Wrong. Even a rat can learn behaviors in response to operant conditioning,
so clearly there's learning going on. "If I do that, it hurts. I guess I
won't do that."

The understanding and respect comes later.

Operant conditioning is nothing more than bringing about changes in
behaviour. There is no learning. It is, as you suggest, treating a human
like a lab rat. You can definitely change a behaviour by giving someone
electric shock, beating them, or whatever Weiser item might be on the menu
that day.

Just compliance.

Compliance first, understanding and respect later. It's a multi-step
process.

The compliance is teaching many things, and respect is not one of those
things.

And that is what that child is learning -
comply, or else.

Yup. A lesson every child must learn.

If they are being trained to be sexually molested, sure.

Then they learn *why* they must
comply, and they learn why it is that they were punished, and who, and when
they are subject to justifiable punishment. As a result, they learn proper
behavior, respect and how to successfully integrate into society.

They are learning that life is about having the power to physically abuse
others.

This is
not random brutalization we're talking about here, it's specific corporal
punishment administered for specific wrongdoing. Even small children
understand the cause and effect in getting a smack on the bottom for
disobeying a parent's safety instructions.

It's nothing more than operant conditioning, as you've said.

And this is training for being a victim.

Hogwash, poppycock AND balderdash!

Ignorance is bliss, and you prove it every day.

The next person of
authority who seeks their compliance may have the intention to sexually
assault them. And the child has been taught that refusal to comply results
in a beating, and that they are powerless. So the comply.

Nonsense.

See above.

They also learn to seek compliance from others, using the same technique as
the authority figure that taught them how to do it. It could be younger kids
in the schoolyard or siblings at home. And eventually a wife and kids.

Specious nonsense.

See above.