Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:41:06 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:

The more I think about this exercise, the more it looks like
something deliberately contrived to generate a particular
emotional reaction.

You are correct. That IS the point. To explore the actual experiences
of people, not create, as you seem to be doing below, move away from
the real and into the theoretical.

To teach someone about how others experience things it is useful to
point out their own experiences that may be similar.

An
objective analysis

Again, a jump away from the point of training people to use and
develop their capacity for empathy. PET is based on empathy as ONE of
its principles. There are others of course.

I view empathay as both extremely valuable and potentially dangerous.
Without empathy, true objectivity is impossible because a person doesn't
really understand the consequences of an action if he can't empathize with
those who will be affected by those consequences. But when empathy is
overly focused on one particular aspect of a situation, causing other
aspects of the situation to be ignored or given less weight than they
deserve, that excessive focus can be extremely dangerous.
----------------------
Empathy is irrelevant except that it might cause people to be fairly
given their freedom, such as children.


Yes, it is valuable for parents to empathize with how their children are
likely to feel about assertion of parental authority, and to understand how
their children might react. But parents also have to take a larger and
longer view, to consider (and empathize with) the consequences if they fail
to exert their authority. What will it do to the child's future if they do
not intervene? What dangers will the child's behavior present to the child
or to others? How would their child's behavior affect other children, both
now and in the future? And, for that matter, how would their child's
behavior affect them (the parents)?
------------------------------------
Nonsense, either the child harms others criminally, as in the case of
an adult criminal, or else they do what is within their right, just
as an adult might. If they are within their rights as an adult, then
you have NO right to interfere! The first thing a productive person's
actions MUST be is THEIR OWN and VOLUNTARY, or you have produced a
time-bomb that will turn on you and the rest of society!! As long as
a child remains within their rights, you have NO right to interfere!


As I said, parents need to empathize. But if they get so caught up in
empathizing with one aspect of the overall situation that they ignore other
aspects, they are likely to make worse choices than they would if they
empathize but also look at the overall picture objectively. I view empathy
as a part of objectivity, not a replacement for it.
--------------------------
It's NOT either your place OR your right, to interfere with the
lives of children if they do not want you to, unless the child has
become criminal toward others and committed crimes that adults would
be punished for. NOT EVEN IF YOU'RE THEIR PARENT!!!!


I assume you're aware that people with agendas frequently manipulate their
choice of what information to present and how to present it in order to make
their viewpoint look as strong as possible. My concern is that Dr. Gordon
seems to be doing that here, calling attention to what can go wrong without
encouraging people to examine the entire context. To the extent that he
includes the possibility of children's reacting by behaving at all, he
portrays it in a negative light ("Being submissive, conforming, complying;
being dutiful, docile, apple-polishing, being a goody-goody, teacher's
pet").
------------------
Kids who are well-treated do actually happen to really like, love,
and appreciate the help of the people who treat them well, their
teachers and others, just as lond as they are not coerced!


So the exercise seems
aimed more at causing people to form a negative opinion of the use of
authority
-----------------
That *IS* the effect of the assumption of illicit authority, such
as that used against children which would NOT and could NOT be used
in the same manner upon adults without a revolution!!


than at causing them to objectively evaluate how the risks and
benefits of using authority balance against each other.
----------------------
There is no such balance, coercing others always results in evil,
because you cannot show me a way in which you can interefere in
my life and coerce me that I will not wish quite naturally to kill
you for, and if it continued, I would indeed kill you quite dead!!!


The problem in this society is that the risk/benefit of punishment is
rarely even looked at, or if done, because of long taught,
conditioned, societal values, the risk will be rated low and the
benefits relatively high for punishment.

I'm inclined to strongly agree that society (or at least a very large part
of it) tends to underestimate the risks and overestimate the effectiveness.
But I think Dr. Gordon's article errs in the opposite direction.
--------------------------
No, he finally says it all and gets it right! People cannot be
coerced and bullied as children or else their chief motiavation
toward all authority when they are grown will be to wish to destroy
it, even if it is duly and democratically constituted.


The unchallenged belief in punishment as a way of controlling
relationships has consequences we see around us all the time. Divorce
rates, school dropout rates, crime rates, failures in international
diplomacy, job failures.

This accusation has some validity, but it ignores other, more important
causes.
-------------------------------------
Nope, it doesn't. You have a sick neurotic need to find some, any
justification for hitting people smaller than you if they don't obey
you, and that is nothing but a coward's diseased mental condition!!
It means you're insecure and immature and can't mind your own ****ing
business and that you'd best off find a better "hobby" than ****ing
with people that way!!


It seems to me that the biggest factor in the divorce rate is that we as a
society have largely replaced, "for better, or for worse... til death do you
part" with "until you get tired of that person or find someone you'd rather
be with."
--------------
There's absolutely NO reason for ANYONE to live with someone they
can't love any longer than they can stand to. Nobody but insane
rapists, delusional stalkers, family annihilators, and wife and
child batterers and child mnolestors think otherwise. That kind
of thinking is a mental illness!


Yes, situations where spouses' desire to punish each other drives
them farther apart are a contributing factor. But I think lack of
commitment - both on a personal level and as part of the legal concept of
what marriage is - is the deeper problem. (And I would point out that
society's belief in punishment is probably weaker now than it was before the
divorce rate started skyrocketing, not stronger.)
---------------------------
People started divorcing the people whose guts they hated as soon as
it became legally and socially acceptible to do so in their social
circle, and some of it is only just now happening. The trends for
divorce, and as well for marriage in these age groups where the
divorce rate first skyrocketed shows they are now receding and leaving
behind new marriages of friendship in their wake, replacing the old
power-oriented bully-victim marriages of the 40's and 50's!! It wasn't
a "liberal" or a "permissive" upbringing, because those who brought
them up *WERE* rightists, and WERE the very ones getting divorces,
and NOT their much more liberal kids!


But if families could (and would) choose schools that were a better fit for
their children, and if children who are considering dropping out had the
option of changing to a type of school that fit their needs and desires
better instead, that would deal with the problem a whole lot closer to its
source.
-------------------------------
If you want good schools, make yours better!
You don't even have any RIGHT to a school that is better than your
society provides! SO PROVIDE, YOU STINGY RIGHTIST FREAK!!


Portraying the crime rate as a
result of excessive belief in punishment when the things criminals went
through as children are so disproportionately likely to involve a lot more
than just punishment is highly misleading.
-----------------------------------
No it isn't, EVERY book on criminology for the last HUNDRED YEARS
has said that inmate/patient case studies show that ALL criminality
can be traced to child abuse AT OR BELOW the level of illegality!!


I'm not trying to say that "the unchallenged belief in punishment" doesn't
cause problems in all of these areas. A lot of people do seriously
overestimate how much punishment can accomplish and underestimate the
importance of other things. But I think you're painting a highly misleading
picture when you blame belief in punishment for issues that have other
important causes and contributing factors.
----------------------------------
Punishment for ANYTHING BUT absolute criminality NEVER accomplishes
ANY GOOD, so stop trying to justify it to your sick self!! And even
so, we don't even hit imprisoned criminals!!
Steve