|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 06 2024 23:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:Having just read the first 20% of that Britannica article, i can only conclude that you either did not read it yourself, or you did not understand it, if you are claiming that it does not explicitly state that deterrence is part of the goal. Show nested quote + During most of the 19th and 20th centuries, individuals who broke the law were viewed as the product of social conditions, and accordingly punishment was considered justified only insofar as (1) it protected society by acting as a deterrent or by temporarily or permanently removing one who has injured it
That's the 19th and 20th century. You skipped the part that explains this is a modern view.
|
On September 06 2024 23:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2024 22:51 Magic Powers wrote:I'm going by generally accepted definitions. The more common definitions of punishment allude to retaliation (or retribution). There's no mention of behavioral correction in the definition of the word. There is only an explanation of how certain appropriations of punishment can be utilized secondarily towards correction. Look up Britannica, it's generally one of the best sources for definitions. https://www.britannica.com/topic/punishmentBritannica refers to "social objectives" as secondary. It is neither required nor intended. There's nothing inherent about punishment that aims for behavioral correction. An attempt CAN be made to utililize punishment to accomplish correction of behavior. Punishment is not explicitly a tool for correction, it CAN be used as a tool for correction if one intends it so, but the intent is not inherent in the tool. It's effectively like using a spoon to cut bread - of course it can be attempted and perhaps accomplished, but it's not intended for this purpose and it may be entirely suboptimal compared to the alternative of a bread knife. You are referring to an overly narrow definition of punishment in order to "be right", despite BJ very obviously using punishment to mean "negative reinforcement", which is a very common use of the word punishment and if it isn't in the Britannica, that's their problem, not BJ's. In other words, you are trying to win the conversation rather than contributing constructively. I wouldn't mind some retributive punishment that also serves the purpose of keeping you out of the thread for a while 
If BJ or others want to use the term "negative reinforcement", they're free to do so. I'm not stopping people from using correct terminology or from making up their own definition of words, but it has to be clearly stated first and only then can a productive discussion be had. The generally accepted definitions of punishment do not necessitate at all that a correction of behavior must occur.
|
On September 06 2024 22:44 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2024 20:48 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 06 2024 20:14 Magic Powers wrote:On September 06 2024 17:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't think there's necessarily a dichotomy, here. I think rehabilitation, education and skills training should all be part of punishment. It doesn't mean the punishment-element of the penal system is entirely gone.
Like, a mandatory educational program that you need to attend for 4 hours every week for 6 weeks is still punishment, even if it also has education and rehabilitation as a focus. I don't believe in caning people at all, but depriving people of their freedom, even if you're doing so purely to hinder them from doing future crime and to create a situation where they can be forcefully educated and not at all to inflict pain upon them, that's still punishment.
I also think different crimes need different solutions. Speeding can largely be deterred through monitoring and punishing. I don't think rehabilitation or education are really the issues here. Meanwhile a drug addict who does petty crime to fund a drug addiction, in that case I don't see any value in punishing the person (his/her life already sucks, and the threat of a fine or jail time, or even caning, wouldn't be a deterrence). You can jail indefinitely or murder the person, I guess, but that ends up being excessively cruel. So in that case, some type of forced removal from regular habitat coupled with rehabilitation efforts, programs to help the person overcome his/her addiction, skills training to maintain some type of job, some communal housing seems like the only real option. But this is still, to some degree, a punishment, and the drug addict will initially experience it as a negative sanction too, even if the intentions are wholly positive. The goal of a mandatory educational program (such as school) is to raise a functional member of society, or in the case of criminals we call it rehabilitation. That goal is not included in any of the definitions of punishment. Punishment has no interest in education or rehabilitation unless that purpose is explicitly included in the type of punishment. That means mandatory educational programs cannot be called punishment (although they can be designed to be punishing, but then they'd be losing their purpose, because punishment is explicitly not the goal of education). Punishment is retaliation. It doesn't exist for any productive sake, it's purely retaliatory. I can't agree with this. Retaliation is not purely unproductive, neither is punishment. Rape victims probably feel much better knowing their attacker has been punished for what they did. Families of murder victims the same. It also acts as a deterrent in many cases. If people think they can do the thing without being punished, they are more likely to do the thing. Notice how none of this has anything to do with rehabbing or teaching anyone anything, and yet it is still good. Obviously the best approach catches all of this stuff. You need to rehabilitate and educate, its a massive priority. However, if you don't effectively punish, like i said previously, there's a massive percentage of criminals who will see that as green light to behave however they want. These are not guys who want to be educated or rehabilitated. They want to be criminals, and the only thing that will stop them is a severe enough punishment that it makes it not worth it for them. This post is beginning to touch on the issue. The confusion in this discussion stems from the fact that there are multiple functions of punishment as applied by the legal system today, functions that are often not compatible with each other; punishment as rehabilitation, punishment as retribution, and punishment as deterrence. Because historically legal systems attempt to fulfill each of these functions through a one-size-fits-all approach, we all mistakenly conflate these different functions under the umbrella term “punishment”, and get lost in the weeds. Yes Magic is right, punishment meant to be effective in delivering retribution or deterrence will not be effective in delivering rehabilitation or meaningful behavioral change. BJ is also right, punishment meant to be effective in delivering deterrence is made more effective by increasing the aversiveness of the consequence. This is a classic false dichotomy, created from differing prioritizations of the functions of punishment. It’s also clear that all three of these functions need to be addressed in some way, and not choose one over the others… - If the function of punishment in the legal system was exclusively rehabilitation, then there should be no jail time lasting longer than a week; repeated opportunities to choose between the problem behavior and the alternative replacement behavior, along with consistently ensuring the replacement behavior is followed by a reinforcing stimulus and the problem behavior is followed by a punishing stimulus, is the most effective method of rehabilitation (source: I’m a board certified behavior analyst and do this for a living, also B.F. Skinner). This falls apart when you apply it to severe crimes like murder; you don’t want to provide repeated opportunities at murder to teach the murderer that it’s not worth it, because it puts others at risk. There’s a lot more that goes into this, like identifying the function of the behavior for the individual and ensuring the replacement behavior you’re trying to teach is actually the most effective way for the individual to fulfill said function, but that would take too long to flesh out right now. - For punishment exclusively as retribution, we’ve fortunately come a long way as a society where it’s almost obvious why this is not a good idea, despite for the vast majority of human history this not being the case. We’re now at a point where it might even be argued that even the idea of retribution is immoral, which is interesting. - For punishment exclusively as deterrence, i.e. no amount of any crime can be tolerated by anyone under any circumstance, the most effective method is delivering the most aversive consequence possible every single time it happens, paired with ensuring everyone in the population is made aware of said consequence. Think flyers posted all around town saying you and your loved ones will be executed if you engage in speeding or jaywalking. This approach falls apart when you think about it for more than 2 seconds, for obvious reasons. So now what? You can’t pick one over the other, but you can’t really do all 3 at once. My solution; drop the retributive aspect completely (or make it monetary, like a fine), designate crimes as either “normal” crimes or “zero tolerance” crimes (like misdemeanors/felonies and capital crimes), and depending on the classification the function of the punishment changes. Overall, pretty similar to what exists already. IMO, the interesting questions to ask would be… - What crimes should fall under rehabilitation vs which ones should fall under deterrence? - How can society better ensure that legal behaviors fulfill the functions of the most people? - What is an alternative to retribution that can fulfill the same function for those who have been wronged in a crime, while still facilitating rehabilitation for the criminal?
Just after a quick browse here's how I would answer, they probably won't be satisfying answers:
- What crimes should fall under rehabilitation vs which ones should fall under deterrence?
In a perfect world, we wouldn't classify this as different crimes requiring different approaches, but different criminals requiring different approaches. Obviously that is extremely hard to do in practice.
I think repeat offending has to be punished for deterrence at some point. I wouldn't say theft itself required punishment to the point of deterrence, but then if someone is stealing thousands worth of luxury goods that's a whole different thing to someone who is stealing food for their family.
- What is an alternative to retribution that can fulfill the same function for those who have been wronged in a crime, while still facilitating rehabilitation for the criminal?
I don't think there is one, except maybe the one we currently use, which is to punish - fulfilling the desire for retribution - while rehabilitating and educating the criminal as much as we can as they serve their punishment.
Its important not to venture into Clockwork Orange territory trying to answer this question 
- How can society better ensure that legal behaviors fulfill the functions of the most people?
I think this question is missing an important word because I can't quite get the meaning of it.
|
On September 06 2024 23:19 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2024 23:04 Acrofales wrote:On September 06 2024 22:51 Magic Powers wrote:I'm going by generally accepted definitions. The more common definitions of punishment allude to retaliation (or retribution). There's no mention of behavioral correction in the definition of the word. There is only an explanation of how certain appropriations of punishment can be utilized secondarily towards correction. Look up Britannica, it's generally one of the best sources for definitions. https://www.britannica.com/topic/punishmentBritannica refers to "social objectives" as secondary. It is neither required nor intended. There's nothing inherent about punishment that aims for behavioral correction. An attempt CAN be made to utililize punishment to accomplish correction of behavior. Punishment is not explicitly a tool for correction, it CAN be used as a tool for correction if one intends it so, but the intent is not inherent in the tool. It's effectively like using a spoon to cut bread - of course it can be attempted and perhaps accomplished, but it's not intended for this purpose and it may be entirely suboptimal compared to the alternative of a bread knife. You are referring to an overly narrow definition of punishment in order to "be right", despite BJ very obviously using punishment to mean "negative reinforcement", which is a very common use of the word punishment and if it isn't in the Britannica, that's their problem, not BJ's. In other words, you are trying to win the conversation rather than contributing constructively. I wouldn't mind some retributive punishment that also serves the purpose of keeping you out of the thread for a while If BJ or others want to use the term "negative reinforcement", they're free to do so. I'm not stopping people from using correct terminology or from making up their own definition of words, but it has to be clearly stated first and only then can a productive discussion be had. The generally accepted definitions of punishment do not necessitate at all that a correction of behavior must occur.
I don’t think I understand your viewpoint. Are you saying that punishment is 100% wrong as a concept, because it can’t be applied to the function of rehabilitation and can only be applied to the functions of retribution and deterrence, and is therefore ineffective at rehabilitation? I would think you would accept a counter-argument that punishment can be applied to the function of rehabilitation, but your response was to provide a link to a definition of punishment…that also includes rehabilitation?
I’m just a little lost.
@Jock - I updated the question to make it more clear
|
Norway28601 Posts
On September 06 2024 23:17 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2024 23:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:Having just read the first 20% of that Britannica article, i can only conclude that you either did not read it yourself, or you did not understand it, if you are claiming that it does not explicitly state that deterrence is part of the goal. During most of the 19th and 20th centuries, individuals who broke the law were viewed as the product of social conditions, and accordingly punishment was considered justified only insofar as (1) it protected society by acting as a deterrent or by temporarily or permanently removing one who has injured it That's the 19th and 20th century. You skipped the part that explains this is a modern view.
Actually, it continues with By the latter half of the 20th century, however, many people in Western countries objected to this view of punishment, believing that it placed too little responsibility on offenders for their actions, undervalued the additional deterrent effect derivable from severe, as compared with moderate, punishment, and ignored society’s ostensible right to retribution - stating that people later on started believing that harsher punishment could be desired, partially because it would be a stronger deterrent.
I mean if you want to argue that deterrence wasnt explictly stated as a reason for the particularly gruesome punishments of medieval and earlier times then I guess I'll bow out because one of the few things less interesting than a semantics discussion is a semantics discussion on how people used words centuries/millenias ago.
When people use the word 'punished', they do so referencing a reaction to something somebody did, which the person/entity handing out the punishment wants to not happen again. It may be experienced as just or unjust, excessive or too lenient, but that is at the very base of how the word is commonly used and understood.
|
On September 06 2024 23:38 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2024 23:19 Magic Powers wrote:On September 06 2024 23:04 Acrofales wrote:On September 06 2024 22:51 Magic Powers wrote:I'm going by generally accepted definitions. The more common definitions of punishment allude to retaliation (or retribution). There's no mention of behavioral correction in the definition of the word. There is only an explanation of how certain appropriations of punishment can be utilized secondarily towards correction. Look up Britannica, it's generally one of the best sources for definitions. https://www.britannica.com/topic/punishmentBritannica refers to "social objectives" as secondary. It is neither required nor intended. There's nothing inherent about punishment that aims for behavioral correction. An attempt CAN be made to utililize punishment to accomplish correction of behavior. Punishment is not explicitly a tool for correction, it CAN be used as a tool for correction if one intends it so, but the intent is not inherent in the tool. It's effectively like using a spoon to cut bread - of course it can be attempted and perhaps accomplished, but it's not intended for this purpose and it may be entirely suboptimal compared to the alternative of a bread knife. You are referring to an overly narrow definition of punishment in order to "be right", despite BJ very obviously using punishment to mean "negative reinforcement", which is a very common use of the word punishment and if it isn't in the Britannica, that's their problem, not BJ's. In other words, you are trying to win the conversation rather than contributing constructively. I wouldn't mind some retributive punishment that also serves the purpose of keeping you out of the thread for a while If BJ or others want to use the term "negative reinforcement", they're free to do so. I'm not stopping people from using correct terminology or from making up their own definition of words, but it has to be clearly stated first and only then can a productive discussion be had. The generally accepted definitions of punishment do not necessitate at all that a correction of behavior must occur. I don’t think I understand your viewpoint. Are you saying that punishment is 100% wrong as a concept, because it can’t be applied to the function of rehabilitation and can only be applied to the functions of retribution and deterrence, and is therefore ineffective at rehabilitation? I would think you would accept a counter-argument that punishment can be applied to the function of rehabilitation, but your response was to provide a link to a definition of punishment…that also includes rehabilitation? I’m just a little lost. @Jock - I updated the question to make it more clear
I think the concept of punishment is wrong and outdated, yes. There's a reason why psychologists have moved away from the term in droves, because they're right. Their understanding of human psychology has shifted towards correction, and that idea exists separately from punishment - they're not the same and they don't overlap unless we deliberately try to make them overlap. The scientific evidence behind punishment is beyond weak. Negative reinforcement on the other hand has proven to be effective. And negative reinforcement doesn't require any punishment whatsoever.
In my view putting people behind bars should be considered an extension of self-defense coupled with an opportunity for correction. If it serves any other purpose, it's a failed idea.
|
On September 06 2024 23:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2024 23:17 Magic Powers wrote:On September 06 2024 23:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:Having just read the first 20% of that Britannica article, i can only conclude that you either did not read it yourself, or you did not understand it, if you are claiming that it does not explicitly state that deterrence is part of the goal. During most of the 19th and 20th centuries, individuals who broke the law were viewed as the product of social conditions, and accordingly punishment was considered justified only insofar as (1) it protected society by acting as a deterrent or by temporarily or permanently removing one who has injured it That's the 19th and 20th century. You skipped the part that explains this is a modern view. Actually, it continues with Show nested quote +By the latter half of the 20th century, however, many people in Western countries objected to this view of punishment, believing that it placed too little responsibility on offenders for their actions, undervalued the additional deterrent effect derivable from severe, as compared with moderate, punishment, and ignored society’s ostensible right to retribution - stating that people later on started believing that harsher punishment could be desired, partially because it would be a stronger deterrent. I mean if you want to argue that deterrence wasnt explictly stated as a reason for the particularly gruesome punishments of medieval and earlier times then I guess I'll bow out because one of the few things less interesting than a semantics discussion is a semantics discussion on how people used words centuries/millenias ago. When people use the word 'punished', they do so referencing a reaction to something somebody did, which the person/entity handing out the punishment wants to not happen again. It may be experienced as just or unjust, excessive or too lenient, but that is at the very base of how the word is commonly used and understood.
Modernity started around the 18th century (or technically the origins can be found in the 16th, but that's unimportant). The idea that punishment can be used as a deterrent is a modern idea from around that time. So that idea was attached to the concept of punishment, it's not inherent in the definition.
Since then, a few more hundred years have passed. Many people have come to the understanding that punishment as a deterrent isn't working, or isn't working anywhere near as effectively as other methods. So we're now moving past that one modern idea (punishment as deterrent) because it has failed.
|
Northern Ireland24438 Posts
There are two separate spheres at play here though
One being the direct victims of some kind of criminally transgressive action, then the wider, more abstracted wider society.
Punishment exists within most criminal justice frameworks to appease the former group just as much as it’s theoretically meant to be a deterrent in the latter.
Rehabilitation and recidivism is the purview of the state, some desire for punishment generally more at the individual level. They’re not always aligned
Granted I may be misreading your posts but is your proposed solution to the age old carrot/stick balancing debate to take the stick off the table? As I said it’s possible/probable I am reading you wrong!
I feel punishment serves a useful part of the tapestry as, no matter how our social structures may not reflect it, us humans tend to place a lot of stock in fairness. And those who transgress being punished in whatever manner, maintains that sense of fairness.
|
On September 07 2024 00:15 WombaT wrote:
There are two separate spheres at play here though
One being the direct victims of some kind of criminally transgressive action, then the wider, more abstracted wider society.
Punishment exists within most criminal justice frameworks to appease the former group just as much as it’s theoretically meant to be a deterrent in the latter.
Rehabilitation and recidivism is the purview of the state, some desire for punishment generally more at the individual level. They’re not always aligned
Granted I may be misreading your posts but is your proposed solution to the age old carrot/stick balancing debate to take the stick off the table? As I said it’s possible/probable I am reading you wrong!
I feel punishment serves a useful part of the tapestry as, no matter how our social structures may not reflect it, us humans tend to place a lot of stock in fairness. And those who transgress being punished in whatever manner, maintains that sense of fairness.
I'll give the example of speeding fines. The negative stimulus is the fine. You speed, you lose money. If you don't speed, you don't lose money. It's very simple and straight forward, so that's all good. After receiving a ticket, the driver has a good incentive to drive more conservatively so they don't lose money again.
In an ideal world the fine would be returned to the driver at a later point given that they haven't received a ticket for a certain amount of time. This would be positive reinforcement. I'm not sure why this idea isn't being implemented, but I digress.
None of this is a form of punishment, because there's no retaliation. There's a clear path from problem to solution, from crime/misdemeanor to correction using incentives. Therefore psychologists support it because it works.
It's very similar to taking a kid's toy away for a time until the kid displays the desired behavior. Then the toy is returned and they can play with it again.
|
Northern Ireland24438 Posts
On September 06 2024 23:52 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2024 23:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 06 2024 23:17 Magic Powers wrote:On September 06 2024 23:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:Having just read the first 20% of that Britannica article, i can only conclude that you either did not read it yourself, or you did not understand it, if you are claiming that it does not explicitly state that deterrence is part of the goal. During most of the 19th and 20th centuries, individuals who broke the law were viewed as the product of social conditions, and accordingly punishment was considered justified only insofar as (1) it protected society by acting as a deterrent or by temporarily or permanently removing one who has injured it That's the 19th and 20th century. You skipped the part that explains this is a modern view. Actually, it continues with By the latter half of the 20th century, however, many people in Western countries objected to this view of punishment, believing that it placed too little responsibility on offenders for their actions, undervalued the additional deterrent effect derivable from severe, as compared with moderate, punishment, and ignored society’s ostensible right to retribution - stating that people later on started believing that harsher punishment could be desired, partially because it would be a stronger deterrent. I mean if you want to argue that deterrence wasnt explictly stated as a reason for the particularly gruesome punishments of medieval and earlier times then I guess I'll bow out because one of the few things less interesting than a semantics discussion is a semantics discussion on how people used words centuries/millenias ago. When people use the word 'punished', they do so referencing a reaction to something somebody did, which the person/entity handing out the punishment wants to not happen again. It may be experienced as just or unjust, excessive or too lenient, but that is at the very base of how the word is commonly used and understood. Modernity started around the 18th century (or technically the origins can be found in the 16th, but that's unimportant). The idea that punishment can be used as a deterrent is a modern idea from around that time. So that idea was attached to the concept of punishment, it's not inherent in the definition. Since then, a few more hundred years have passed. Many people have come to the understanding that punishment as a deterrent isn't working, or isn't working anywhere near as effectively as other methods. So we're now moving past that one modern idea (punishment as deterrent) because it has failed.
We have records going back about 3/4000 years where punishment, publicly as a method of deterrence have been evidenced.
The ancient Kings of Abyssinia took a perverse pride in recording various atrocities in stone reliefs of what they did to the last folks who rebelled that they would show to other regional leaders who might have been thinking about it.
If basically the oldest physical remnants of art/writing from ancient civilisation include a customer service complaint, a depiction of punishment as a deterrent isn’t far behind
Of course part of it is also punishment for punishment’s sake and the traditional eye for an eye as well.
I’d posit that making a conscious decision to etch your atrocities in stone is partly to commemorate a victory sure, it’s also a hell of a warning to point out to others
|
On September 06 2024 23:48 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2024 23:38 Ryzel wrote:On September 06 2024 23:19 Magic Powers wrote:On September 06 2024 23:04 Acrofales wrote:On September 06 2024 22:51 Magic Powers wrote:I'm going by generally accepted definitions. The more common definitions of punishment allude to retaliation (or retribution). There's no mention of behavioral correction in the definition of the word. There is only an explanation of how certain appropriations of punishment can be utilized secondarily towards correction. Look up Britannica, it's generally one of the best sources for definitions. https://www.britannica.com/topic/punishmentBritannica refers to "social objectives" as secondary. It is neither required nor intended. There's nothing inherent about punishment that aims for behavioral correction. An attempt CAN be made to utililize punishment to accomplish correction of behavior. Punishment is not explicitly a tool for correction, it CAN be used as a tool for correction if one intends it so, but the intent is not inherent in the tool. It's effectively like using a spoon to cut bread - of course it can be attempted and perhaps accomplished, but it's not intended for this purpose and it may be entirely suboptimal compared to the alternative of a bread knife. You are referring to an overly narrow definition of punishment in order to "be right", despite BJ very obviously using punishment to mean "negative reinforcement", which is a very common use of the word punishment and if it isn't in the Britannica, that's their problem, not BJ's. In other words, you are trying to win the conversation rather than contributing constructively. I wouldn't mind some retributive punishment that also serves the purpose of keeping you out of the thread for a while If BJ or others want to use the term "negative reinforcement", they're free to do so. I'm not stopping people from using correct terminology or from making up their own definition of words, but it has to be clearly stated first and only then can a productive discussion be had. The generally accepted definitions of punishment do not necessitate at all that a correction of behavior must occur. I don’t think I understand your viewpoint. Are you saying that punishment is 100% wrong as a concept, because it can’t be applied to the function of rehabilitation and can only be applied to the functions of retribution and deterrence, and is therefore ineffective at rehabilitation? I would think you would accept a counter-argument that punishment can be applied to the function of rehabilitation, but your response was to provide a link to a definition of punishment…that also includes rehabilitation? I’m just a little lost. @Jock - I updated the question to make it more clear I think the concept of punishment is wrong and outdated, yes. There's a reason why psychologists have moved away from the term in droves, because they're right. Their understanding of human psychology has shifted towards correction, and that idea exists separately from punishment - they're not the same and they don't overlap unless we deliberately try to make them overlap. The scientific evidence behind punishment is beyond weak. Negative reinforcement on the other hand has proven to be effective. And negative reinforcement doesn't require any punishment whatsoever. In my view putting people behind bars should be considered an extension of self-defense coupled with an opportunity for correction. If it serves any other purpose, it's a failed idea.
Again, I’m confused. Did you look at the link I provided? If you’re going to rely on appealing to authority vis-a-vis “psychologists have moved away from the term…”, then that implies you should use the definitions of words that those in said authority use. Correction as you’re describing it is not negative reinforcement, it’s positive punishment.
https://positivepsychology.com/positive-punishment/
Excerpt:
“ There are many more ways to use positive punishment to influence behavior, including:
Yelling at a child for bad behavior.
Forcing them to do an unpleasant task when they misbehave.
Adding chores and responsibilities when he fails to follow the rules.
Assigning students who forget to turn in their assignment extra work.
Adding extra sensitivity training to employees who offend or harass someone at work.
Implementing more rules and restrictions when a teen misses curfew.
Not all of these punishments are necessarily good ways to discourage behavior, but they are examples of the concept of positive punishment.”
When you correct a behavior, you are adding a stimulus after the behavior occurs that decreases the likelihood of that behavior happening again. Whether you’re slapping them in the face, or giving them a lecture, or teaching them a new behavior to replace the bad one, those are all stimuli given with the purpose of reducing the future rate of the behavior.
What psychologists are running away from in droves is the idea of implementing punishment without an accompanying program to reinforce alternative replacement behaviors. Sentient beings engage in behaviors to fulfill a specific function, and punishing a behavior without addressing that function is what leads to problems like learned helplessness. A proper behavior modification program involves creating as many opportunities as possible to reinforce the given appropriate replacement behavior that fulfills the same function, while punishing the problem behavior with the least aversive stimulus necessary to achieve the desired impact.
Again, you can use whatever definitions you want, but if you’re going to appeal to authority for your argument, you need to use the definitions of words the authority uses. Otherwise you sound like you’re quibbling in semantics. And I’d hope you have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that if you have to quibble in semantics to win an argument, you’re not meaningfully engaging with your conversation partner.
|
On September 07 2024 00:28 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2024 23:52 Magic Powers wrote:On September 06 2024 23:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 06 2024 23:17 Magic Powers wrote:On September 06 2024 23:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:Having just read the first 20% of that Britannica article, i can only conclude that you either did not read it yourself, or you did not understand it, if you are claiming that it does not explicitly state that deterrence is part of the goal. During most of the 19th and 20th centuries, individuals who broke the law were viewed as the product of social conditions, and accordingly punishment was considered justified only insofar as (1) it protected society by acting as a deterrent or by temporarily or permanently removing one who has injured it That's the 19th and 20th century. You skipped the part that explains this is a modern view. Actually, it continues with By the latter half of the 20th century, however, many people in Western countries objected to this view of punishment, believing that it placed too little responsibility on offenders for their actions, undervalued the additional deterrent effect derivable from severe, as compared with moderate, punishment, and ignored society’s ostensible right to retribution - stating that people later on started believing that harsher punishment could be desired, partially because it would be a stronger deterrent. I mean if you want to argue that deterrence wasnt explictly stated as a reason for the particularly gruesome punishments of medieval and earlier times then I guess I'll bow out because one of the few things less interesting than a semantics discussion is a semantics discussion on how people used words centuries/millenias ago. When people use the word 'punished', they do so referencing a reaction to something somebody did, which the person/entity handing out the punishment wants to not happen again. It may be experienced as just or unjust, excessive or too lenient, but that is at the very base of how the word is commonly used and understood. Modernity started around the 18th century (or technically the origins can be found in the 16th, but that's unimportant). The idea that punishment can be used as a deterrent is a modern idea from around that time. So that idea was attached to the concept of punishment, it's not inherent in the definition. Since then, a few more hundred years have passed. Many people have come to the understanding that punishment as a deterrent isn't working, or isn't working anywhere near as effectively as other methods. So we're now moving past that one modern idea (punishment as deterrent) because it has failed. We have records going back about 3/4000 years where punishment, publicly as a method of deterrence have been evidenced. The ancient Kings of Abyssinia took a perverse pride in recording various atrocities in stone reliefs of what they did to the last folks who rebelled that they would show to other regional leaders who might have been thinking about it. If basically the oldest physical remnants of art/writing from ancient civilisation include a customer service complaint, a depiction of punishment as a deterrent isn’t far behind Of course part of it is also punishment for punishment’s sake and the traditional eye for an eye as well. I’d posit that making a conscious decision to etch your atrocities in stone is partly to commemorate a victory sure, it’s also a hell of a warning to point out to others
"show to other regional leaders" implies that it was meant as a deterrent for other unrelated tribes, not for an individual subject in question who committed a crime. And from today's perspective there's nothing proving that punishment deters random individuals from committing crimes either.
|
On September 07 2024 00:35 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2024 23:48 Magic Powers wrote:On September 06 2024 23:38 Ryzel wrote:On September 06 2024 23:19 Magic Powers wrote:On September 06 2024 23:04 Acrofales wrote:On September 06 2024 22:51 Magic Powers wrote:I'm going by generally accepted definitions. The more common definitions of punishment allude to retaliation (or retribution). There's no mention of behavioral correction in the definition of the word. There is only an explanation of how certain appropriations of punishment can be utilized secondarily towards correction. Look up Britannica, it's generally one of the best sources for definitions. https://www.britannica.com/topic/punishmentBritannica refers to "social objectives" as secondary. It is neither required nor intended. There's nothing inherent about punishment that aims for behavioral correction. An attempt CAN be made to utililize punishment to accomplish correction of behavior. Punishment is not explicitly a tool for correction, it CAN be used as a tool for correction if one intends it so, but the intent is not inherent in the tool. It's effectively like using a spoon to cut bread - of course it can be attempted and perhaps accomplished, but it's not intended for this purpose and it may be entirely suboptimal compared to the alternative of a bread knife. You are referring to an overly narrow definition of punishment in order to "be right", despite BJ very obviously using punishment to mean "negative reinforcement", which is a very common use of the word punishment and if it isn't in the Britannica, that's their problem, not BJ's. In other words, you are trying to win the conversation rather than contributing constructively. I wouldn't mind some retributive punishment that also serves the purpose of keeping you out of the thread for a while If BJ or others want to use the term "negative reinforcement", they're free to do so. I'm not stopping people from using correct terminology or from making up their own definition of words, but it has to be clearly stated first and only then can a productive discussion be had. The generally accepted definitions of punishment do not necessitate at all that a correction of behavior must occur. I don’t think I understand your viewpoint. Are you saying that punishment is 100% wrong as a concept, because it can’t be applied to the function of rehabilitation and can only be applied to the functions of retribution and deterrence, and is therefore ineffective at rehabilitation? I would think you would accept a counter-argument that punishment can be applied to the function of rehabilitation, but your response was to provide a link to a definition of punishment…that also includes rehabilitation? I’m just a little lost. @Jock - I updated the question to make it more clear I think the concept of punishment is wrong and outdated, yes. There's a reason why psychologists have moved away from the term in droves, because they're right. Their understanding of human psychology has shifted towards correction, and that idea exists separately from punishment - they're not the same and they don't overlap unless we deliberately try to make them overlap. The scientific evidence behind punishment is beyond weak. Negative reinforcement on the other hand has proven to be effective. And negative reinforcement doesn't require any punishment whatsoever. In my view putting people behind bars should be considered an extension of self-defense coupled with an opportunity for correction. If it serves any other purpose, it's a failed idea. Again, I’m confused. Did you look at the link I provided? If you’re going to rely on appealing to authority vis-a-vis “psychologists have moved away from the term…”, then that implies you should use the definitions of words that those in said authority use. Correction as you’re describing it is not negative reinforcement, it’s positive punishment. https://positivepsychology.com/positive-punishment/Excerpt: “ There are many more ways to use positive punishment to influence behavior, including: Yelling at a child for bad behavior. Forcing them to do an unpleasant task when they misbehave. Adding chores and responsibilities when he fails to follow the rules. Assigning students who forget to turn in their assignment extra work. Adding extra sensitivity training to employees who offend or harass someone at work.Implementing more rules and restrictions when a teen misses curfew. Not all of these punishments are necessarily good ways to discourage behavior, but they are examples of the concept of positive punishment.” When you correct a behavior, you are adding a stimulus after the behavior occurs that decreases the likelihood of that behavior happening again. Whether you’re slapping them in the face, or giving them a lecture, or teaching them a new behavior to replace the bad one, those are all stimuli given with the purpose of reducing the future rate of the behavior. What psychologists are running away from in droves is the idea of implementing punishment without an accompanying program to reinforce alternative replacement behaviors. Sentient beings engage in behaviors to fulfill a specific function, and punishing a behavior without addressing that function is what leads to problems like learned helplessness. A proper behavior modification program involves creating as many opportunities as possible to reinforce the given appropriate replacement behavior that fulfills the same function, while punishing the problem behavior with the least aversive stimulus necessary to achieve the desired impact. Again, you can use whatever definitions you want, but if you’re going to appeal to authority for your argument, you need to use the definitions of words the authority uses. Otherwise you sound like you’re quibbling in semantics. And I’d hope you have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that if you have to quibble in semantics to win an argument, you’re not meaningfully engaging with your conversation partner.
Excerpt from your link:
"You might be thinking that “positive punishment” sounds like an oxymoron, after all, how can punishment be positive?
Not many people “like” punishment, right?
The disconnect in understanding this concept comes from the usage of the word “positive;” here at PositivePsychology.com, we generally use the term “positive” to refer to things that are inherently good, things that are life-giving, and things that promote thriving and flourishing.
The concept of positive punishment comes from a very different era and a very different perspective on psychology; namely, the 1930s and behaviorism."
1930 is not recent in any meaningful capacity. Just in recent decades alone various outdated concepts have been thrown out in the field of psychology. A lot has been debunked. If a psychologist still uses the term "punishment" in combination with "positive" unironically, I'd consider them rather unwilling to go with the times. I think you found a fairly fringe view among a small portion of psychologists.
|
On September 07 2024 00:26 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2024 00:15 WombaT wrote:
There are two separate spheres at play here though
One being the direct victims of some kind of criminally transgressive action, then the wider, more abstracted wider society.
Punishment exists within most criminal justice frameworks to appease the former group just as much as it’s theoretically meant to be a deterrent in the latter.
Rehabilitation and recidivism is the purview of the state, some desire for punishment generally more at the individual level. They’re not always aligned
Granted I may be misreading your posts but is your proposed solution to the age old carrot/stick balancing debate to take the stick off the table? As I said it’s possible/probable I am reading you wrong!
I feel punishment serves a useful part of the tapestry as, no matter how our social structures may not reflect it, us humans tend to place a lot of stock in fairness. And those who transgress being punished in whatever manner, maintains that sense of fairness.
I'll give the example of speeding fines. The negative stimulus is the fine. You speed, you lose money. If you don't speed, you don't lose money. It's very simple and straight forward, so that's all good. After receiving a ticket, the driver has a good incentive to drive more conservatively so they don't lose money again. In an ideal world the fine would be returned to the driver at a later point given that they haven't received a ticket for a certain amount of time. This would be positive reinforcement. I'm not sure why this idea isn't being implemented, but I digress. None of this is a form of punishment, because there's no retaliation. There's a clear path from problem to solution, from crime/misdemeanor to correction using incentives. Therefore psychologists support it because it works. It's very similar to taking a kid's toy away for a time until the kid displays the desired behavior. Then the toy is returned and they can play with it again.
Stop misusing these words. A speeding fine is negative punishment; you’re removing a stimulus (money) to decrease the likelihood of the behavior (speeding) from occurring in the future. And citation fucking needed for psychologists supporting speeding tickets, even if it’s likely true you can’t just drop appeals to authority out of nowhere. And your final example of taking a kid’s toy away is a terrible example of effective behavior change because the only scenario where the behavior is being reinforced is when you’ve removed the toy beforehand (ideally with some sort of warning, otherwise that’s pretty cruel and arbitrary).
Good lord this is getting frustrating.
|
On September 07 2024 00:47 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2024 00:26 Magic Powers wrote:On September 07 2024 00:15 WombaT wrote:
There are two separate spheres at play here though
One being the direct victims of some kind of criminally transgressive action, then the wider, more abstracted wider society.
Punishment exists within most criminal justice frameworks to appease the former group just as much as it’s theoretically meant to be a deterrent in the latter.
Rehabilitation and recidivism is the purview of the state, some desire for punishment generally more at the individual level. They’re not always aligned
Granted I may be misreading your posts but is your proposed solution to the age old carrot/stick balancing debate to take the stick off the table? As I said it’s possible/probable I am reading you wrong!
I feel punishment serves a useful part of the tapestry as, no matter how our social structures may not reflect it, us humans tend to place a lot of stock in fairness. And those who transgress being punished in whatever manner, maintains that sense of fairness.
I'll give the example of speeding fines. The negative stimulus is the fine. You speed, you lose money. If you don't speed, you don't lose money. It's very simple and straight forward, so that's all good. After receiving a ticket, the driver has a good incentive to drive more conservatively so they don't lose money again. In an ideal world the fine would be returned to the driver at a later point given that they haven't received a ticket for a certain amount of time. This would be positive reinforcement. I'm not sure why this idea isn't being implemented, but I digress. None of this is a form of punishment, because there's no retaliation. There's a clear path from problem to solution, from crime/misdemeanor to correction using incentives. Therefore psychologists support it because it works. It's very similar to taking a kid's toy away for a time until the kid displays the desired behavior. Then the toy is returned and they can play with it again. Stop misusing these words. A speeding fine is negative punishment; you’re removing a stimulus (money) to decrease the likelihood of the behavior (speeding) from occurring in the future. And citation fucking needed for psychologists supporting speeding tickets, even if it’s likely true you can’t just drop appeals to authority out of nowhere. And your final example of taking a kid’s toy away is a terrible example of effective behavior change because the only scenario where the behavior is being reinforced is when you’ve removed the toy beforehand (ideally with some sort of warning, otherwise that’s pretty cruel and arbitrary). Good lord this is getting frustrating.
I'm sorry if I have offended you, but you're ignoring actual methodology in psychology if you call the toy example "terrible". This is literally how it works and you don't seem to know the first thing about it.
|
On September 07 2024 00:46 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2024 00:35 Ryzel wrote:On September 06 2024 23:48 Magic Powers wrote:On September 06 2024 23:38 Ryzel wrote:On September 06 2024 23:19 Magic Powers wrote:On September 06 2024 23:04 Acrofales wrote:On September 06 2024 22:51 Magic Powers wrote:I'm going by generally accepted definitions. The more common definitions of punishment allude to retaliation (or retribution). There's no mention of behavioral correction in the definition of the word. There is only an explanation of how certain appropriations of punishment can be utilized secondarily towards correction. Look up Britannica, it's generally one of the best sources for definitions. https://www.britannica.com/topic/punishmentBritannica refers to "social objectives" as secondary. It is neither required nor intended. There's nothing inherent about punishment that aims for behavioral correction. An attempt CAN be made to utililize punishment to accomplish correction of behavior. Punishment is not explicitly a tool for correction, it CAN be used as a tool for correction if one intends it so, but the intent is not inherent in the tool. It's effectively like using a spoon to cut bread - of course it can be attempted and perhaps accomplished, but it's not intended for this purpose and it may be entirely suboptimal compared to the alternative of a bread knife. You are referring to an overly narrow definition of punishment in order to "be right", despite BJ very obviously using punishment to mean "negative reinforcement", which is a very common use of the word punishment and if it isn't in the Britannica, that's their problem, not BJ's. In other words, you are trying to win the conversation rather than contributing constructively. I wouldn't mind some retributive punishment that also serves the purpose of keeping you out of the thread for a while If BJ or others want to use the term "negative reinforcement", they're free to do so. I'm not stopping people from using correct terminology or from making up their own definition of words, but it has to be clearly stated first and only then can a productive discussion be had. The generally accepted definitions of punishment do not necessitate at all that a correction of behavior must occur. I don’t think I understand your viewpoint. Are you saying that punishment is 100% wrong as a concept, because it can’t be applied to the function of rehabilitation and can only be applied to the functions of retribution and deterrence, and is therefore ineffective at rehabilitation? I would think you would accept a counter-argument that punishment can be applied to the function of rehabilitation, but your response was to provide a link to a definition of punishment…that also includes rehabilitation? I’m just a little lost. @Jock - I updated the question to make it more clear I think the concept of punishment is wrong and outdated, yes. There's a reason why psychologists have moved away from the term in droves, because they're right. Their understanding of human psychology has shifted towards correction, and that idea exists separately from punishment - they're not the same and they don't overlap unless we deliberately try to make them overlap. The scientific evidence behind punishment is beyond weak. Negative reinforcement on the other hand has proven to be effective. And negative reinforcement doesn't require any punishment whatsoever. In my view putting people behind bars should be considered an extension of self-defense coupled with an opportunity for correction. If it serves any other purpose, it's a failed idea. Again, I’m confused. Did you look at the link I provided? If you’re going to rely on appealing to authority vis-a-vis “psychologists have moved away from the term…”, then that implies you should use the definitions of words that those in said authority use. Correction as you’re describing it is not negative reinforcement, it’s positive punishment. https://positivepsychology.com/positive-punishment/Excerpt: “ There are many more ways to use positive punishment to influence behavior, including: Yelling at a child for bad behavior. Forcing them to do an unpleasant task when they misbehave. Adding chores and responsibilities when he fails to follow the rules. Assigning students who forget to turn in their assignment extra work. Adding extra sensitivity training to employees who offend or harass someone at work.Implementing more rules and restrictions when a teen misses curfew. Not all of these punishments are necessarily good ways to discourage behavior, but they are examples of the concept of positive punishment.” When you correct a behavior, you are adding a stimulus after the behavior occurs that decreases the likelihood of that behavior happening again. Whether you’re slapping them in the face, or giving them a lecture, or teaching them a new behavior to replace the bad one, those are all stimuli given with the purpose of reducing the future rate of the behavior. What psychologists are running away from in droves is the idea of implementing punishment without an accompanying program to reinforce alternative replacement behaviors. Sentient beings engage in behaviors to fulfill a specific function, and punishing a behavior without addressing that function is what leads to problems like learned helplessness. A proper behavior modification program involves creating as many opportunities as possible to reinforce the given appropriate replacement behavior that fulfills the same function, while punishing the problem behavior with the least aversive stimulus necessary to achieve the desired impact. Again, you can use whatever definitions you want, but if you’re going to appeal to authority for your argument, you need to use the definitions of words the authority uses. Otherwise you sound like you’re quibbling in semantics. And I’d hope you have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that if you have to quibble in semantics to win an argument, you’re not meaningfully engaging with your conversation partner. Excerpt from your link: "You might be thinking that “positive punishment” sounds like an oxymoron, after all, how can punishment be positive? Not many people “like” punishment, right? The disconnect in understanding this concept comes from the usage of the word “positive;” here at PositivePsychology.com, we generally use the term “positive” to refer to things that are inherently good, things that are life-giving, and things that promote thriving and flourishing. The concept of positive punishment comes from a very different era and a very different perspective on psychology; namely, the 1930s and behaviorism."1930 is not recent in any meaningful capacity. Just in recent decades alone various outdated concepts have been thrown out in the field of psychology. A lot has been debunked. If a psychologist still uses the term "punishment" in combination with "positive" unironically, I'd consider them rather unwilling to go with the times. I think you found a fairly fringe view among a small portion of psychologists.
lol
https://ambwealth.com/aba-therapy-industry-summary/
Applied behavior analysis (ABA), a SMALL SUBSET of psychological treatment methods founded in behaviorism, is expected to grow to a market share of $2.45 billion by 2025, with an expected need of 100,000 trained practitioners to fill the desired positions. This is mostly because this is the only treatment method with empirical evidence for treating autism spectrum disorder (ASD), so it’s not just a load of bullshit.
I’m losing faith that you’re able to objectively debate points in good faith.
EDIT - Ah, I see the issue. I didn’t realize the article was from positivepsychology.com, guess that’s what I get for lazily grabbing the first article that pops up. The TLDR is that positive psychology has admirable ideals and what not, but it is both ideologically opposed to behaviorism and much more fringe. The longstanding debate is between behaviorists and cognitivists, i.e. what’s more important, thoughts or behaviors. IMO it’s a false dichotomy, but you get a lot of people who take sides like it’s a sporting match. That’s where your quote is probably coming from, but I assure you that idea is not at all widely accepted by psychologists at large.
|
On September 07 2024 00:51 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2024 00:47 Ryzel wrote:On September 07 2024 00:26 Magic Powers wrote:On September 07 2024 00:15 WombaT wrote:
There are two separate spheres at play here though
One being the direct victims of some kind of criminally transgressive action, then the wider, more abstracted wider society.
Punishment exists within most criminal justice frameworks to appease the former group just as much as it’s theoretically meant to be a deterrent in the latter.
Rehabilitation and recidivism is the purview of the state, some desire for punishment generally more at the individual level. They’re not always aligned
Granted I may be misreading your posts but is your proposed solution to the age old carrot/stick balancing debate to take the stick off the table? As I said it’s possible/probable I am reading you wrong!
I feel punishment serves a useful part of the tapestry as, no matter how our social structures may not reflect it, us humans tend to place a lot of stock in fairness. And those who transgress being punished in whatever manner, maintains that sense of fairness.
I'll give the example of speeding fines. The negative stimulus is the fine. You speed, you lose money. If you don't speed, you don't lose money. It's very simple and straight forward, so that's all good. After receiving a ticket, the driver has a good incentive to drive more conservatively so they don't lose money again. In an ideal world the fine would be returned to the driver at a later point given that they haven't received a ticket for a certain amount of time. This would be positive reinforcement. I'm not sure why this idea isn't being implemented, but I digress. None of this is a form of punishment, because there's no retaliation. There's a clear path from problem to solution, from crime/misdemeanor to correction using incentives. Therefore psychologists support it because it works. It's very similar to taking a kid's toy away for a time until the kid displays the desired behavior. Then the toy is returned and they can play with it again. Stop misusing these words. A speeding fine is negative punishment; you’re removing a stimulus (money) to decrease the likelihood of the behavior (speeding) from occurring in the future. And citation fucking needed for psychologists supporting speeding tickets, even if it’s likely true you can’t just drop appeals to authority out of nowhere. And your final example of taking a kid’s toy away is a terrible example of effective behavior change because the only scenario where the behavior is being reinforced is when you’ve removed the toy beforehand (ideally with some sort of warning, otherwise that’s pretty cruel and arbitrary). Good lord this is getting frustrating. I'm sorry if I have offended you, but you're ignoring actual methodology in psychology if you call the toy example "terrible". This is literally how it works and you don't seem to know the first thing about it.
Again, citation needed. I’d like to think I’ve demonstrated to the rest of the readers of this thread that you’re wrong and I do know what I’m talking about, especially considering I do exactly the things we’re talking about for a living. If anyone else has any questions on the topic I’d be happy to answer, but if people want to move on that’s fine too!
|
I had a friend in college who was a psych major who talked about this stuff a lot and I’m pretty confident Ryzel is in the right here about the standard terminology. “Positive reinforcement,” “positive punishment,” “negative reinforcement,” and “negative punishment” are the four categories, in which “positive” and “negative” don’t mean good or bad, they just mean whether you’re adding something or taking it away, and “reinforcement” or “punishment” indicate whether a behavior is being encouraged or discouraged. So:
- ”Positive reinforcement “ is when you add something good to encourage a good behavior (e.g. “You can have a piece of candy because you were so well-behaved at the doctor’s office today”)
- ”Negative reinforcement” is when you take away something bad to encourage a good behavior (e.g. “you don’t have to do chores this week because you got good grades”)
- ”Positive punishment” is when you add something bad to discourage a bad behavior (e.g. “I’m going to wash your mouth out with soap because you spoke that way to your mother”)
- ”Negative punishment” is when you take away something good to discourage a bad behavior (e.g. “You can’t go to your friend’s party this weekend because you got in a fight at school”)
That’s not to endorse any of those methods as effective at behavioral change, or even to endorse that terminology as most clear/elucidating of the underlying dynamics at play. But I am pretty confident, at least, that if you studied psychology in college as recently as 10 years ago (Christ, has it really been that long?) those would be the canonical terms on a slideshow being explained by a professor, and those would be the definitions you’d be expected to know on a test.
“Punishment serves no purpose and is purely retaliatory” might be true in a criminal justice sense of the term (where the justifications for criminal penalties are often divided into retaliatory, deterrent, and rehabilitative, and you might be using “punishment” to refer exclusively to the first one) but that’s not the standard definition used in psychology.
|
On September 07 2024 02:04 ChristianS wrote:I had a friend in college who was a psych major who talked about this stuff a lot and I’m pretty confident Ryzel is in the right here about the standard terminology. “Positive reinforcement,” “positive punishment,” “negative reinforcement,” and “negative punishment” are the four categories, in which “positive” and “negative” don’t mean good or bad, they just mean whether you’re adding something or taking it away, and “reinforcement” or “punishment” indicate whether a behavior is being encouraged or discouraged. So: - ”Positive reinforcement “ is when you add something good to encourage a good behavior (e.g. “You can have a piece of candy because you were so well-behaved at the doctor’s office today”)
- ”Negative reinforcement” is when you take away something bad to encourage a good behavior (e.g. “you don’t have to do chores this week because you got good grades”)
- ”Positive punishment” is when you add something bad to discourage a bad behavior (e.g. “I’m going to wash your mouth out with soap because you spoke that way to your mother”)
- ”Negative punishment” is when you take away something good to discourage a bad behavior (e.g. “You can’t go to your friend’s party this weekend because you got in a fight at school”)
That’s not to endorse any of those methods as effective at behavioral change, or even to endorse that terminology as most clear/elucidating of the underlying dynamics at play. But I am pretty confident, at least, that if you studied psychology in college as recently as 10 years ago (Christ, has it really been that long?) those would be the canonical terms on a slideshow being explained by a professor, and those would be the definitions you’d be expected to know on a test. “Punishment serves no purpose and is purely retaliatory” might be true in a criminal justice sense of the term (where the justifications for criminal penalties are often divided into retaliatory, deterrent, and rehabilitative, and you might be using “punishment” to refer exclusively to the first one) but that’s not the standard definition used in psychology.
That is how i learned those terms in university, too.
|
On September 07 2024 02:25 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2024 02:04 ChristianS wrote:I had a friend in college who was a psych major who talked about this stuff a lot and I’m pretty confident Ryzel is in the right here about the standard terminology. “Positive reinforcement,” “positive punishment,” “negative reinforcement,” and “negative punishment” are the four categories, in which “positive” and “negative” don’t mean good or bad, they just mean whether you’re adding something or taking it away, and “reinforcement” or “punishment” indicate whether a behavior is being encouraged or discouraged. So: - ”Positive reinforcement “ is when you add something good to encourage a good behavior (e.g. “You can have a piece of candy because you were so well-behaved at the doctor’s office today”)
- ”Negative reinforcement” is when you take away something bad to encourage a good behavior (e.g. “you don’t have to do chores this week because you got good grades”)
- ”Positive punishment” is when you add something bad to discourage a bad behavior (e.g. “I’m going to wash your mouth out with soap because you spoke that way to your mother”)
- ”Negative punishment” is when you take away something good to discourage a bad behavior (e.g. “You can’t go to your friend’s party this weekend because you got in a fight at school”)
That’s not to endorse any of those methods as effective at behavioral change, or even to endorse that terminology as most clear/elucidating of the underlying dynamics at play. But I am pretty confident, at least, that if you studied psychology in college as recently as 10 years ago (Christ, has it really been that long?) those would be the canonical terms on a slideshow being explained by a professor, and those would be the definitions you’d be expected to know on a test. “Punishment serves no purpose and is purely retaliatory” might be true in a criminal justice sense of the term (where the justifications for criminal penalties are often divided into retaliatory, deterrent, and rehabilitative, and you might be using “punishment” to refer exclusively to the first one) but that’s not the standard definition used in psychology. That is how i learned those terms in university, too.
Same here. I'm far from an expert, but Psychology was one of my minors, and we used basic terminology like this all the time, especially in regards to operant conditioning (B.F. Skinner, as Ryzel mentioned earlier).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
