A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:



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.

You engage in the fallacies of non causa pro causa and dicto simpliciter.



"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."

You engage in the fallacy of non sequitur.


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.

The same reasoning is true in many other cases as well. Adults need not
explain every decision or order. Children will come to learn the reasons for
the decisions through context, repetition and experience. It gives them the
opportunity to engage their reasoning faculties and ask themselves questions
about why a particular order was given, and reason out for themselves why.


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 is the fallacy of affirmation of the consequent.


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

They'll figure it out eventually.


and less
painful. Pure operant conditioning.

With the lousy results that operant conditioning produces.

Actually, operant conditioning is extremely effective, even with rats.
Humans are fully capable of integrating the conditioning and reasoning why
the stimulus was administered and how to avoid similar displeasure. Kids do
it all the time.



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.

Yup.

There is no learning.

Sure there is.

It is, as you suggest, treating a human
like a lab rat.

Actually, the lab rats were being treated like human beings.

You can definitely change a behaviour by giving someone
electric shock, beating them, or whatever Weiser item might be on the menu
that day.

True. But you ignore the fact that not all incidences of corporal punishment
or "operant conditioning" are equal. This is the fallacy of composition.


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.

So what? Respect comes later.



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.

Again, the fallacy of composition


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.

Fallacy of composition.


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.

The act, yes. The result, however, is much greater because humans are
reasoning creatures.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser