Obsessive behavior in 4 year old

Doan wrote in message ...
a123sdg321

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, toto wrote:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:12:09 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, toto wrote:

On 7 Feb 2004 19:18:26 -0800, (KC) wrote:

I have only recently started getting my dd toys all the time as a
reward for good behavior (we keep a chart). So far she's not
obsessive about it, but hopefully that won't change.

This is a bad idea.

It teaches reliance on external rewards instead of internal
motivation for good behavior. And it certainly can lead to
being obsessive about getting toys as well, imo.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits


Dorothy, why are you so against rewards? Let's
me offer you what Dr. Embry has to say on this subject:

"As a research scientist, I can assure that rewards very
decidedly affect memory and long-term behavior. There
are extensive research on this.

There is extensive research showing that rewards
demotivate children toward learning. If you offer
rewards continually, the child becomes dependent
on the reward and does not continue the behavior
when the rewards are withdrawn.

That is a misapplication of rewards!

I think that is what Toto just said.

Rewards should never be
offer "continually".

Yes, I was right. That is just what Toto just said.

Rewards and punishment when overused can
be very destructive indeed.

Why yes. You didn't draw that easily and unremarkably from the
comments you reply to? I don't think YOUR opinion, you old spanking
and punishing compulsive you, is very relevant, and in fact would,
upon examining your posting history is such matters, be quite
disruptive and misleading.

Your agreement would bring the principles mentioned into serious
question, given the serious questions that arrise from your posting
style, content, and intent.

You can find very good research online at psychinfo
(maintained by the American Psychological Associaton)
or PUBMED (accessed through www.nih.gov).
There are thousands of studies on this subject.

Yes there are, but most of them don't address the
factor of how internal motivation works and the fact
that for humans, it is internal motivation that is necessary.

The studies that do show that rewards have the opposite
effect from what you think they do.

The carrot and the stick are the opposite sides of the
popular behaviorist methodology. They work for rats
and for dogs, but they don't work well for humans because
humans are more complex in their motivations and will
resist *control* by others.

The applied longitudinal studies are most interesting, however to
educators. When you examine well controlled studies where rates of
reinforcement (which is feedback, some activities, praise) were
deliberately increased,

Note he encouragement and feedback are not the same as
extrinsic rewards. Praise can be, but it doesn't have to be. It
depends on *how* you are praised.

rates of long-term achievement, etc increased.
The review for example of the effects of classwide peer
tutoring is nice item of work by by Charles Greenwood
showing that simple feedback

Again, simple feedback letting you know that you are
progressing is not the same as stickers and toys as
a reward. Students do need to be able to see their
progress, but done by encouragement that says this is
specifically what is good about the work, it is very
different from giving a student a sticker for good work.

and group or team rewards has long-term impact on
achievement, reduced special education, etc. The
Good Behavior Game, which rewards inhibition, has
10 year long-term positive effects. You can read my
published review on that at our web site.

I haven't seen the game. If it *teaches* acceptable behavior
in a fun way, that again is not the same as giving children
rewards *for* the behavior.

Please note that that drugs like ritalin and nicotine are
synthethic rewards that increase memory and learning
acuity."

This guy is using rewards in a different way than I do.
I disagree entirely that ritalin is a reward for anything.
And while nicotine can be used as such by individuals
rewarding themselves, it's not something I recommend
to anyone, do you?

One interesting bit of research took advantage of an
unusual occurence in a real workplace: the sudden
elimination of an incentive system that had been in
effect for a group of welders. If financial incentive
(rewards) supplies motivation, it's absense should
drive down production. And, that is exactly what
happened - at first. Fortunately, this researcher
continued tracking production over a period of
months, thus providing the sort of long term data
rarely collected in this field. In the absence of the
incentives, the welders production quickly began to
rise and eventually reached a level as high or higher
than it had been before (Roth, 1970).

One of the largest reviews of the research looking at
how various intervention programs affect worker
productivity, a meta-analysis of some 330 comparisons
from 98 studies, was conducted in the mid-1980s by
Richard A. Guzzo and his colleagues. The raw numbers
seemed to suggest a positive relationship between
financial incentives and productivity, but because of the
huge variations from one study to another, statistical
tests indicated that there was no significant effect
overall. Financial incentives were virtually unrelated
to the number of workers who were absent or who
quit over a period of time. By contrast, training and
goal-setting had a far greater impact on productivity
than did anything involving payment.

For children and learning the results are similar.
One group of researchers tried to sort out the
factors that helped third and fourth graders remember
what they were reading. They found that how
interested students were in the passage was 30
times more important than how *readable* the
passage was. (Not too surprising), but the fact
is that rewards dilute the pure joy that comes from
learning itself and this is demotivating for children.

LeAnn Lipps Birch and her colleagues at the University
of Illinois whose expertise was not in rewards, but in
food preferences, confirmed the demotivating effects
of rewards in this experiment. They too a group of
children and got them to drink kefir (a fruit flavored
yogurt beverage they had never tasted before). The
children were divided into three groups: some were
just handed a full glass, some were praised: "That's
very good, you drank it all the way down", some were
given a free movie ticket for drinking it. Who drank
more? Well, Skinner would say those who got the
movie tickets drank more and he would be correct.
However, the researchers were not just interested in
the short term. They found that those who got nothing
for drinking it liked the beverage just as much a week
later as they had when they first tasted it. However,
those who got the movie tickets found it much less
appealing and so did the children who were praised
for drinking it.

Mark Lepper conducted an experiment with
preschoolers along these same lines. They gave
51 preschoolers a chance to draw with magic
markers which most preschool children find very
appealing. Some of them, however, were told
that if they drew pictures they would receive a
special, personalized certificate, decorated with
a red ribbon and a gold star. Between a week
and two weeks later, the children were observed
in their classrooms. Those who had been told
in advance of the certificate they would receive
now seemed to be less interested in drawing with
magic markers than the other children were and
less interested than they had been before the
reward was offered.

There are a lot more of these studies and because
they go *against* the common wisdom, people don't
quite know what to make of them. Often they are
not well-accepted because they seem so contrary
to what we *know,* but the fact is that extrinsic
motivators decrease the intrinsic motivation in
humans. It's pretty simple. Used sparingly when
only a short term result is necessary, they may be
fine, but used continually as we do in our schools
and in some homes, they are an unwise way of
parenting and educating children.

See Punished by Rewards by Alphie Kohn for many
more references to these kinds of studies. He brings
it all together in one book so my references are from
his text.


I think your data are very dated! A more recent review looked at 145
research studies that attempted to determine whether rewards for good
performance tend to undermine childrens inner motivation. The authors
found, no evidence for detrimental effects of reward on measures of
intrinsic motivation (Cameron, Blanko & Pierce, 2001).

Oh, I see. You are busy trying to patch up your somewhat frayed image,
by "contributin" to a valid discussion that is miles over your head,
actually.

You don't know WHY this is so, only that there was a study.

Why are you not, as you usually do, laying down an argument and
support for spanking as a controlling discipline?

Or did you finally catch on that if you are to every have any
credibility again after your long record of being a pain and
humiliation parenting advocate and apologist, now would be the time to
start? When you've been turned out of your borrowm, finally for the
slimy little dodging weasal that you are?

Well, I've heard it said that "fake it 'til you make it"' is a valid
way of changing one's own attitude and behaviors, so don't let me stop
you from NOW and ONLY NOW, starting to support the OTHER SIDE OF THE
ARGUMENT, as you claim you have done so neutrally all along, but of
course have NOT.

Do hope and pray no one googles on your addy name and finds out what
you are really about until you have accumulated a bit more "neutral"
"balanced" history.

Doan

I told you I'd whipped your ass, and this sudden and remarkable
retreat (you'll post OTHER supports you've written here for the OTHER
SIDE OF THE SPANKING DEBATE, RIGHTE?) into posting FOR the judicious
use of rewards is proof positive you have taken it in the butt, old
boy.

Let's just see how energetic get on THIS side of the debate, and if
it's anywhere near equal to the many long years...what, seven or
eight, that you have posted in favor and support of parents punishing
with CP including apologist supporter for those that do NOT know where
the dividing line is between CP and abuse.

You have a long road ahead of you, don't you Droaner.

Embarrassing too. Like not answering The Simple Question yet. Dodging
by pretending I challenged YOU to a debate on Embry, when it was you
doing your dodge, and now you continue to pretend that I have
something to prove.

It's YOU, Droananator, that have the burden of proof for all your
nonsense.

Why not get back to aps and do as you are told after backing yourself
into the bolt hole with no outlet, but performance of the challenges.

You want to debate Embry with me, then do IT. Complete the debating
requirements so we have a nice clean playing field. DO IT, sucker.

Oh, and sleep well tonight. {:-

kane

Let's just remind everyone on these newsgroup that Kane9 is a
"never-spanked" boy. ;-)

Doan

On 10 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan wrote in message ...
a123sdg321

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, toto wrote:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:12:09 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, toto wrote:

On 7 Feb 2004 19:18:26 -0800, (KC) wrote:

I have only recently started getting my dd toys all the time as a
reward for good behavior (we keep a chart). So far she's not
obsessive about it, but hopefully that won't change.

This is a bad idea.

It teaches reliance on external rewards instead of internal
motivation for good behavior. And it certainly can lead to
being obsessive about getting toys as well, imo.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits


Dorothy, why are you so against rewards? Let's
me offer you what Dr. Embry has to say on this subject:

"As a research scientist, I can assure that rewards very
decidedly affect memory and long-term behavior. There
are extensive research on this.

There is extensive research showing that rewards
demotivate children toward learning. If you offer
rewards continually, the child becomes dependent
on the reward and does not continue the behavior
when the rewards are withdrawn.

That is a misapplication of rewards!

I think that is what Toto just said.

Rewards should never be
offer "continually".

Yes, I was right. That is just what Toto just said.

Rewards and punishment when overused can
be very destructive indeed.

Why yes. You didn't draw that easily and unremarkably from the
comments you reply to? I don't think YOUR opinion, you old spanking
and punishing compulsive you, is very relevant, and in fact would,
upon examining your posting history is such matters, be quite
disruptive and misleading.

Your agreement would bring the principles mentioned into serious
question, given the serious questions that arrise from your posting
style, content, and intent.

You can find very good research online at psychinfo
(maintained by the American Psychological Associaton)
or PUBMED (accessed through www.nih.gov).
There are thousands of studies on this subject.

Yes there are, but most of them don't address the
factor of how internal motivation works and the fact
that for humans, it is internal motivation that is necessary.

The studies that do show that rewards have the opposite
effect from what you think they do.

The carrot and the stick are the opposite sides of the
popular behaviorist methodology. They work for rats
and for dogs, but they don't work well for humans because
humans are more complex in their motivations and will
resist *control* by others.

The applied longitudinal studies are most interesting, however to
educators. When you examine well controlled studies where rates of
reinforcement (which is feedback, some activities, praise) were
deliberately increased,

Note he encouragement and feedback are not the same as
extrinsic rewards. Praise can be, but it doesn't have to be. It
depends on *how* you are praised.

rates of long-term achievement, etc increased.
The review for example of the effects of classwide peer
tutoring is nice item of work by by Charles Greenwood
showing that simple feedback

Again, simple feedback letting you know that you are
progressing is not the same as stickers and toys as
a reward. Students do need to be able to see their
progress, but done by encouragement that says this is
specifically what is good about the work, it is very
different from giving a student a sticker for good work.

and group or team rewards has long-term impact on
achievement, reduced special education, etc. The
Good Behavior Game, which rewards inhibition, has
10 year long-term positive effects. You can read my
published review on that at our web site.

I haven't seen the game. If it *teaches* acceptable behavior
in a fun way, that again is not the same as giving children
rewards *for* the behavior.

Please note that that drugs like ritalin and nicotine are
synthethic rewards that increase memory and learning
acuity."

This guy is using rewards in a different way than I do.
I disagree entirely that ritalin is a reward for anything.
And while nicotine can be used as such by individuals
rewarding themselves, it's not something I recommend
to anyone, do you?

One interesting bit of research took advantage of an
unusual occurence in a real workplace: the sudden
elimination of an incentive system that had been in
effect for a group of welders. If financial incentive
(rewards) supplies motivation, it's absense should
drive down production. And, that is exactly what
happened - at first. Fortunately, this researcher
continued tracking production over a period of
months, thus providing the sort of long term data
rarely collected in this field. In the absence of the
incentives, the welders production quickly began to
rise and eventually reached a level as high or higher
than it had been before (Roth, 1970).

One of the largest reviews of the research looking at
how various intervention programs affect worker
productivity, a meta-analysis of some 330 comparisons
from 98 studies, was conducted in the mid-1980s by
Richard A. Guzzo and his colleagues. The raw numbers
seemed to suggest a positive relationship between
financial incentives and productivity, but because of the
huge variations from one study to another, statistical
tests indicated that there was no significant effect
overall. Financial incentives were virtually unrelated
to the number of workers who were absent or who
quit over a period of time. By contrast, training and
goal-setting had a far greater impact on productivity
than did anything involving payment.

For children and learning the results are similar.
One group of researchers tried to sort out the
factors that helped third and fourth graders remember
what they were reading. They found that how
interested students were in the passage was 30
times more important than how *readable* the
passage was. (Not too surprising), but the fact
is that rewards dilute the pure joy that comes from
learning itself and this is demotivating for children.

LeAnn Lipps Birch and her colleagues at the University
of Illinois whose expertise was not in rewards, but in
food preferences, confirmed the demotivating effects
of rewards in this experiment. They too a group of
children and got them to drink kefir (a fruit flavored
yogurt beverage they had never tasted before). The
children were divided into three groups: some were
just handed a full glass, some were praised: "That's
very good, you drank it all the way down", some were
given a free movie ticket for drinking it. Who drank
more? Well, Skinner would say those who got the
movie tickets drank more and he would be correct.
However, the researchers were not just interested in
the short term. They found that those who got nothing
for drinking it liked the beverage just as much a week
later as they had when they first tasted it. However,
those who got the movie tickets found it much less
appealing and so did the children who were praised
for drinking it.

Mark Lepper conducted an experiment with
preschoolers along these same lines. They gave
51 preschoolers a chance to draw with magic
markers which most preschool children find very
appealing. Some of them, however, were told
that if they drew pictures they would receive a
special, personalized certificate, decorated with
a red ribbon and a gold star. Between a week
and two weeks later, the children were observed
in their classrooms. Those who had been told
in advance of the certificate they would receive
now seemed to be less interested in drawing with
magic markers than the other children were and
less interested than they had been before the
reward was offered.

There are a lot more of these studies and because
they go *against* the common wisdom, people don't
quite know what to make of them. Often they are
not well-accepted because they seem so contrary
to what we *know,* but the fact is that extrinsic
motivators decrease the intrinsic motivation in
humans. It's pretty simple. Used sparingly when
only a short term result is necessary, they may be
fine, but used continually as we do in our schools
and in some homes, they are an unwise way of
parenting and educating children.

See Punished by Rewards by Alphie Kohn for many
more references to these kinds of studies. He brings
it all together in one book so my references are from
his text.


I think your data are very dated! A more recent review looked at 145
research studies that attempted to determine whether rewards for good
performance tend to undermine childrens inner motivation. The authors
found, no evidence for detrimental effects of reward on measures of
intrinsic motivation (Cameron, Blanko & Pierce, 2001).

Oh, I see. You are busy trying to patch up your somewhat frayed image,
by "contributin" to a valid discussion that is miles over your head,
actually.

You don't know WHY this is so, only that there was a study.

Why are you not, as you usually do, laying down an argument and
support for spanking as a controlling discipline?

Or did you finally catch on that if you are to every have any
credibility again after your long record of being a pain and
humiliation parenting advocate and apologist, now would be the time to
start? When you've been turned out of your borrowm, finally for the
slimy little dodging weasal that you are?

Well, I've heard it said that "fake it 'til you make it"' is a valid
way of changing one's own attitude and behaviors, so don't let me stop
you from NOW and ONLY NOW, starting to support the OTHER SIDE OF THE
ARGUMENT, as you claim you have done so neutrally all along, but of
course have NOT.

Do hope and pray no one googles on your addy name and finds out what
you are really about until you have accumulated a bit more "neutral"
"balanced" history.

Doan

I told you I'd whipped your ass, and this sudden and remarkable
retreat (you'll post OTHER supports you've written here for the OTHER
SIDE OF THE SPANKING DEBATE, RIGHTE?) into posting FOR the judicious
use of rewards is proof positive you have taken it in the butt, old
boy.

Let's just see how energetic get on THIS side of the debate, and if
it's anywhere near equal to the many long years...what, seven or
eight, that you have posted in favor and support of parents punishing
with CP including apologist supporter for those that do NOT know where
the dividing line is between CP and abuse.

You have a long road ahead of you, don't you Droaner.

Embarrassing too. Like not answering The Simple Question yet. Dodging
by pretending I challenged YOU to a debate on Embry, when it was you
doing your dodge, and now you continue to pretend that I have
something to prove.

It's YOU, Droananator, that have the burden of proof for all your
nonsense.

Why not get back to aps and do as you are told after backing yourself
into the bolt hole with no outlet, but performance of the challenges.

You want to debate Embry with me, then do IT. Complete the debating
requirements so we have a nice clean playing field. DO IT, sucker.

Oh, and sleep well tonight. {:-

kane

Do you two get your rocks off by Ad Homineming each other to death? Get an
argument!

S
"Doan" wrote in message
...

Let's just remind everyone on these newsgroup that Kane9 is a
"never-spanked" boy. ;-)

Doan

On 10 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan wrote in message
...
a123sdg321

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, toto wrote:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:12:09 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, toto wrote:

On 7 Feb 2004 19:18:26 -0800, (KC) wrote:

I have only recently started getting my dd toys all the time as
a
reward for good behavior (we keep a chart). So far she's not
obsessive about it, but hopefully that won't change.

This is a bad idea.

It teaches reliance on external rewards instead of internal
motivation for good behavior. And it certainly can lead to
being obsessive about getting toys as well, imo.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits


Dorothy, why are you so against rewards? Let's
me offer you what Dr. Embry has to say on this subject:

"As a research scientist, I can assure that rewards very
decidedly affect memory and long-term behavior. There
are extensive research on this.

There is extensive research showing that rewards
demotivate children toward learning. If you offer
rewards continually, the child becomes dependent
on the reward and does not continue the behavior
when the rewards are withdrawn.

That is a misapplication of rewards!

I think that is what Toto just said.

Rewards should never be
offer "continually".

Yes, I was right. That is just what Toto just said.

Rewards and punishment when overused can
be very destructive indeed.

Why yes. You didn't draw that easily and unremarkably from the
comments you reply to? I don't think YOUR opinion, you old spanking
and punishing compulsive you, is very relevant, and in fact would,
upon examining your posting history is such matters, be quite
disruptive and misleading.

Your agreement would bring the principles mentioned into serious
question, given the serious questions that arrise from your posting
style, content, and intent.

You can find very good research online at psychinfo
(maintained by the American Psychological Associaton)
or PUBMED (accessed through www.nih.gov).
There are thousands of studies on this subject.

Yes there are, but most of them don't address the
factor of how internal motivation works and the fact
that for humans, it is internal motivation that is necessary.

The studies that do show that rewards have the opposite
effect from what you think they do.

The carrot and the stick are the opposite sides of the
popular behaviorist methodology. They work for rats
and for dogs, but they don't work well for humans because
humans are more complex in their motivations and will
resist *control* by others.

The applied longitudinal studies are most interesting, however to
educators. When you examine well controlled studies where rates of
reinforcement (which is feedback, some activities, praise) were
deliberately increased,

Note he encouragement and feedback are not the same as
extrinsic rewards. Praise can be, but it doesn't have to be. It
depends on *how* you are praised.

rates of long-term achievement, etc increased.
The review for example of the effects of classwide peer
tutoring is nice item of work by by Charles Greenwood
showing that simple feedback

Again, simple feedback letting you know that you are
progressing is not the same as stickers and toys as
a reward. Students do need to be able to see their
progress, but done by encouragement that says this is
specifically what is good about the work, it is very
different from giving a student a sticker for good work.

and group or team rewards has long-term impact on
achievement, reduced special education, etc. The
Good Behavior Game, which rewards inhibition, has
10 year long-term positive effects. You can read my
published review on that at our web site.

I haven't seen the game. If it *teaches* acceptable behavior
in a fun way, that again is not the same as giving children
rewards *for* the behavior.

Please note that that drugs like ritalin and nicotine are
synthethic rewards that increase memory and learning
acuity."

This guy is using rewards in a different way than I do.
I disagree entirely that ritalin is a reward for anything.
And while nicotine can be used as such by individuals
rewarding themselves, it's not something I recommend
to anyone, do you?

One interesting bit of research took advantage of an
unusual occurence in a real workplace: the sudden
elimination of an incentive system that had been in
effect for a group of welders. If financial incentive
(rewards) supplies motivation, it's absense should
drive down production. And, that is exactly what
happened - at first. Fortunately, this researcher
continued tracking production over a period of
months, thus providing the sort of long term data
rarely collected in this field. In the absence of the
incentives, the welders production quickly began to
rise and eventually reached a level as high or higher
than it had been before (Roth, 1970).

One of the largest reviews of the research looking at
how various intervention programs affect worker
productivity, a meta-analysis of some 330 comparisons
from 98 studies, was conducted in the mid-1980s by
Richard A. Guzzo and his colleagues. The raw numbers
seemed to suggest a positive relationship between
financial incentives and productivity, but because of the
huge variations from one study to another, statistical
tests indicated that there was no significant effect
overall. Financial incentives were virtually unrelated
to the number of workers who were absent or who
quit over a period of time. By contrast, training and
goal-setting had a far greater impact on productivity
than did anything involving payment.

For children and learning the results are similar.
One group of researchers tried to sort out the
factors that helped third and fourth graders remember
what they were reading. They found that how
interested students were in the passage was 30
times more important than how *readable* the
passage was. (Not too surprising), but the fact
is that rewards dilute the pure joy that comes from
learning itself and this is demotivating for children.

LeAnn Lipps Birch and her colleagues at the University
of Illinois whose expertise was not in rewards, but in
food preferences, confirmed the demotivating effects
of rewards in this experiment. They too a group of
children and got them to drink kefir (a fruit flavored
yogurt beverage they had never tasted before). The
children were divided into three groups: some were
just handed a full glass, some were praised: "That's
very good, you drank it all the way down", some were
given a free movie ticket for drinking it. Who drank
more? Well, Skinner would say those who got the
movie tickets drank more and he would be correct.
However, the researchers were not just interested in
the short term. They found that those who got nothing
for drinking it liked the beverage just as much a week
later as they had when they first tasted it. However,
those who got the movie tickets found it much less
appealing and so did the children who were praised
for drinking it.

Mark Lepper conducted an experiment with
preschoolers along these same lines. They gave
51 preschoolers a chance to draw with magic
markers which most preschool children find very
appealing. Some of them, however, were told
that if they drew pictures they would receive a
special, personalized certificate, decorated with
a red ribbon and a gold star. Between a week
and two weeks later, the children were observed
in their classrooms. Those who had been told
in advance of the certificate they would receive
now seemed to be less interested in drawing with
magic markers than the other children were and
less interested than they had been before the
reward was offered.

There are a lot more of these studies and because
they go *against* the common wisdom, people don't
quite know what to make of them. Often they are
not well-accepted because they seem so contrary
to what we *know,* but the fact is that extrinsic
motivators decrease the intrinsic motivation in
humans. It's pretty simple. Used sparingly when
only a short term result is necessary, they may be
fine, but used continually as we do in our schools
and in some homes, they are an unwise way of
parenting and educating children.

See Punished by Rewards by Alphie Kohn for many
more references to these kinds of studies. He brings
it all together in one book so my references are from
his text.


I think your data are very dated! A more recent review looked at 145
research studies that attempted to determine whether rewards for good
performance tend to undermine childrens inner motivation. The authors
found, no evidence for detrimental effects of reward on measures of
intrinsic motivation (Cameron, Blanko & Pierce, 2001).

Oh, I see. You are busy trying to patch up your somewhat frayed image,
by "contributin" to a valid discussion that is miles over your head,
actually.

You don't know WHY this is so, only that there was a study.

Why are you not, as you usually do, laying down an argument and
support for spanking as a controlling discipline?

Or did you finally catch on that if you are to every have any
credibility again after your long record of being a pain and
humiliation parenting advocate and apologist, now would be the time to
start? When you've been turned out of your borrowm, finally for the
slimy little dodging weasal that you are?

Well, I've heard it said that "fake it 'til you make it"' is a valid
way of changing one's own attitude and behaviors, so don't let me stop
you from NOW and ONLY NOW, starting to support the OTHER SIDE OF THE
ARGUMENT, as you claim you have done so neutrally all along, but of
course have NOT.

Do hope and pray no one googles on your addy name and finds out what
you are really about until you have accumulated a bit more "neutral"
"balanced" history.

Doan

I told you I'd whipped your ass, and this sudden and remarkable
retreat (you'll post OTHER supports you've written here for the OTHER
SIDE OF THE SPANKING DEBATE, RIGHTE?) into posting FOR the judicious
use of rewards is proof positive you have taken it in the butt, old
boy.

Let's just see how energetic get on THIS side of the debate, and if
it's anywhere near equal to the many long years...what, seven or
eight, that you have posted in favor and support of parents punishing
with CP including apologist supporter for those that do NOT know where
the dividing line is between CP and abuse.

You have a long road ahead of you, don't you Droaner.

Embarrassing too. Like not answering The Simple Question yet. Dodging
by pretending I challenged YOU to a debate on Embry, when it was you
doing your dodge, and now you continue to pretend that I have
something to prove.

It's YOU, Droananator, that have the burden of proof for all your
nonsense.

Why not get back to aps and do as you are told after backing yourself
into the bolt hole with no outlet, but performance of the challenges.

You want to debate Embry with me, then do IT. Complete the debating
requirements so we have a nice clean playing field. DO IT, sucker.

Oh, and sleep well tonight. {:-

kane

How is calling someone "never-spanked" an ad-hom? I thought that was an
emblem that every modern enlightenned parent wanted to wear. Now, if
that "never-spanked" boy started spouting "smelly-****", "whore",
"sucking dick".....what do you think about the way his parents raised him?

Doan

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:

Do you two get your rocks off by Ad Homineming each other to death? Get an
argument!

S
"Doan" wrote in message
...

Let's just remind everyone on these newsgroup that Kane9 is a
"never-spanked" boy. ;-)

Doan

On 10 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan wrote in message
...
a123sdg321

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, toto wrote:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:12:09 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, toto wrote:

On 7 Feb 2004 19:18:26 -0800, (KC) wrote:

I have only recently started getting my dd toys all the time as
a
reward for good behavior (we keep a chart). So far she's not
obsessive about it, but hopefully that won't change.

This is a bad idea.

It teaches reliance on external rewards instead of internal
motivation for good behavior. And it certainly can lead to
being obsessive about getting toys as well, imo.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits


Dorothy, why are you so against rewards? Let's
me offer you what Dr. Embry has to say on this subject:

"As a research scientist, I can assure that rewards very
decidedly affect memory and long-term behavior. There
are extensive research on this.

There is extensive research showing that rewards
demotivate children toward learning. If you offer
rewards continually, the child becomes dependent
on the reward and does not continue the behavior
when the rewards are withdrawn.

That is a misapplication of rewards!

I think that is what Toto just said.

Rewards should never be
offer "continually".

Yes, I was right. That is just what Toto just said.

Rewards and punishment when overused can
be very destructive indeed.

Why yes. You didn't draw that easily and unremarkably from the
comments you reply to? I don't think YOUR opinion, you old spanking
and punishing compulsive you, is very relevant, and in fact would,
upon examining your posting history is such matters, be quite
disruptive and misleading.

Your agreement would bring the principles mentioned into serious
question, given the serious questions that arrise from your posting
style, content, and intent.

You can find very good research online at psychinfo
(maintained by the American Psychological Associaton)
or PUBMED (accessed through www.nih.gov).
There are thousands of studies on this subject.

Yes there are, but most of them don't address the
factor of how internal motivation works and the fact
that for humans, it is internal motivation that is necessary.

The studies that do show that rewards have the opposite
effect from what you think they do.

The carrot and the stick are the opposite sides of the
popular behaviorist methodology. They work for rats
and for dogs, but they don't work well for humans because
humans are more complex in their motivations and will
resist *control* by others.

The applied longitudinal studies are most interesting, however to
educators. When you examine well controlled studies where rates of
reinforcement (which is feedback, some activities, praise) were
deliberately increased,

Note he encouragement and feedback are not the same as
extrinsic rewards. Praise can be, but it doesn't have to be. It
depends on *how* you are praised.

rates of long-term achievement, etc increased.
The review for example of the effects of classwide peer
tutoring is nice item of work by by Charles Greenwood
showing that simple feedback

Again, simple feedback letting you know that you are
progressing is not the same as stickers and toys as
a reward. Students do need to be able to see their
progress, but done by encouragement that says this is
specifically what is good about the work, it is very
different from giving a student a sticker for good work.

and group or team rewards has long-term impact on
achievement, reduced special education, etc. The
Good Behavior Game, which rewards inhibition, has
10 year long-term positive effects. You can read my
published review on that at our web site.

I haven't seen the game. If it *teaches* acceptable behavior
in a fun way, that again is not the same as giving children
rewards *for* the behavior.

Please note that that drugs like ritalin and nicotine are
synthethic rewards that increase memory and learning
acuity."

This guy is using rewards in a different way than I do.
I disagree entirely that ritalin is a reward for anything.
And while nicotine can be used as such by individuals
rewarding themselves, it's not something I recommend
to anyone, do you?

One interesting bit of research took advantage of an
unusual occurence in a real workplace: the sudden
elimination of an incentive system that had been in
effect for a group of welders. If financial incentive
(rewards) supplies motivation, it's absense should
drive down production. And, that is exactly what
happened - at first. Fortunately, this researcher
continued tracking production over a period of
months, thus providing the sort of long term data
rarely collected in this field. In the absence of the
incentives, the welders production quickly began to
rise and eventually reached a level as high or higher
than it had been before (Roth, 1970).

One of the largest reviews of the research looking at
how various intervention programs affect worker
productivity, a meta-analysis of some 330 comparisons
from 98 studies, was conducted in the mid-1980s by
Richard A. Guzzo and his colleagues. The raw numbers
seemed to suggest a positive relationship between
financial incentives and productivity, but because of the
huge variations from one study to another, statistical
tests indicated that there was no significant effect
overall. Financial incentives were virtually unrelated
to the number of workers who were absent or who
quit over a period of time. By contrast, training and
goal-setting had a far greater impact on productivity
than did anything involving payment.

For children and learning the results are similar.
One group of researchers tried to sort out the
factors that helped third and fourth graders remember
what they were reading. They found that how
interested students were in the passage was 30
times more important than how *readable* the
passage was. (Not too surprising), but the fact
is that rewards dilute the pure joy that comes from
learning itself and this is demotivating for children.

LeAnn Lipps Birch and her colleagues at the University
of Illinois whose expertise was not in rewards, but in
food preferences, confirmed the demotivating effects
of rewards in this experiment. They too a group of
children and got them to drink kefir (a fruit flavored
yogurt beverage they had never tasted before). The
children were divided into three groups: some were
just handed a full glass, some were praised: "That's
very good, you drank it all the way down", some were
given a free movie ticket for drinking it. Who drank
more? Well, Skinner would say those who got the
movie tickets drank more and he would be correct.
However, the researchers were not just interested in
the short term. They found that those who got nothing
for drinking it liked the beverage just as much a week
later as they had when they first tasted it. However,
those who got the movie tickets found it much less
appealing and so did the children who were praised
for drinking it.

Mark Lepper conducted an experiment with
preschoolers along these same lines. They gave
51 preschoolers a chance to draw with magic
markers which most preschool children find very
appealing. Some of them, however, were told
that if they drew pictures they would receive a
special, personalized certificate, decorated with
a red ribbon and a gold star. Between a week
and two weeks later, the children were observed
in their classrooms. Those who had been told
in advance of the certificate they would receive
now seemed to be less interested in drawing with
magic markers than the other children were and
less interested than they had been before the
reward was offered.

There are a lot more of these studies and because
they go *against* the common wisdom, people don't
quite know what to make of them. Often they are
not well-accepted because they seem so contrary
to what we *know,* but the fact is that extrinsic
motivators decrease the intrinsic motivation in
humans. It's pretty simple. Used sparingly when
only a short term result is necessary, they may be
fine, but used continually as we do in our schools
and in some homes, they are an unwise way of
parenting and educating children.

See Punished by Rewards by Alphie Kohn for many
more references to these kinds of studies. He brings
it all together in one book so my references are from
his text.


I think your data are very dated! A more recent review looked at 145
research studies that attempted to determine whether rewards for good
performance tend to undermine childrens inner motivation. The authors
found, no evidence for detrimental effects of reward on measures of
intrinsic motivation (Cameron, Blanko & Pierce, 2001).

Oh, I see. You are busy trying to patch up your somewhat frayed image,
by "contributin" to a valid discussion that is miles over your head,
actually.

You don't know WHY this is so, only that there was a study.

Why are you not, as you usually do, laying down an argument and
support for spanking as a controlling discipline?

Or did you finally catch on that if you are to every have any
credibility again after your long record of being a pain and
humiliation parenting advocate and apologist, now would be the time to
start? When you've been turned out of your borrowm, finally for the
slimy little dodging weasal that you are?

Well, I've heard it said that "fake it 'til you make it"' is a valid
way of changing one's own attitude and behaviors, so don't let me stop
you from NOW and ONLY NOW, starting to support the OTHER SIDE OF THE
ARGUMENT, as you claim you have done so neutrally all along, but of
course have NOT.

Do hope and pray no one googles on your addy name and finds out what
you are really about until you have accumulated a bit more "neutral"
"balanced" history.

Doan

I told you I'd whipped your ass, and this sudden and remarkable
retreat (you'll post OTHER supports you've written here for the OTHER
SIDE OF THE SPANKING DEBATE, RIGHTE?) into posting FOR the judicious
use of rewards is proof positive you have taken it in the butt, old
boy.

Let's just see how energetic get on THIS side of the debate, and if
it's anywhere near equal to the many long years...what, seven or
eight, that you have posted in favor and support of parents punishing
with CP including apologist supporter for those that do NOT know where
the dividing line is between CP and abuse.

You have a long road ahead of you, don't you Droaner.

Embarrassing too. Like not answering The Simple Question yet. Dodging
by pretending I challenged YOU to a debate on Embry, when it was you
doing your dodge, and now you continue to pretend that I have
something to prove.

It's YOU, Droananator, that have the burden of proof for all your
nonsense.

Why not get back to aps and do as you are told after backing yourself
into the bolt hole with no outlet, but performance of the challenges.

You want to debate Embry with me, then do IT. Complete the debating
requirements so we have a nice clean playing field. DO IT, sucker.

Oh, and sleep well tonight. {:-

kane

Doan wrote:

Let's just remind everyone on these newsgroup that Kane9 is a
"never-spanked" boy. ;-)

Doan
--------------
So what? So he wasn't abused?

I fail to understand why that ranks as some sort of useful come-back
with you.

We can't trust an abused little **** like you, because you're ****ing
damaged! Don't you understand this??

The fact that he ISN'T damaged is precisely what damns YOU and makes
you unreliable, don't you even GET THAT??
Steve

Doan wrote:

How is calling someone "never-spanked" an ad-hom?
-----------
The fact that YOU clearly think it is merely makes you look like
you have Alzheimers.


I thought that was an
emblem that every modern enlightenned parent wanted to wear.
-----------------
It's okay, it means you're not mentally damaged goods.


Now, if
that "never-spanked" boy started spouting "smelly-****", "whore",
"sucking dick".....what do you think about the way his parents raised him?
Doan
-----------------
I'd think that they taught him normal colorful language. All parents
who are not abusive also do not abuse kids over language, so what?

There's nothing wrong with those sorts of words, it's ONLY MENTALLY
DAMAGED **** like YOU who have been brainwashed who believe ignorant
religious crap like that!
Steve

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

Let's just remind everyone on these newsgroup that Kane9 is a
"never-spanked" boy. ;-)

Doan
--------------
So what? So he wasn't abused?

I fail to understand why that ranks as some sort of useful come-back
with you.

We can't trust an abused little **** like you, because you're ****ing
damaged! Don't you understand this??

The fact that he ISN'T damaged is precisely what damns YOU and makes
you unreliable, don't you even GET THAT??
Steve

And you and him were "never-spanked, DON'T YOU EVEN GET THAT??? :-)

Doan

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

How is calling someone "never-spanked" an ad-hom?
-----------
The fact that YOU clearly think it is merely makes you look like
you have Alzheimers.

The fact the YOU thought I cleary think it makes you look like you
were "never-spanked"! :-)


I thought that was an
emblem that every modern enlightenned parent wanted to wear.
-----------------
It's okay, it means you're not mentally damaged goods.

Thanks! ;-)


Now, if
that "never-spanked" boy started spouting "smelly-****", "whore",
"sucking dick".....what do you think about the way his parents raised him?
Doan
-----------------
I'd think that they taught him normal colorful language. All parents
who are not abusive also do not abuse kids over language, so what?

So what? ;-)

There's nothing wrong with those sorts of words, it's ONLY MENTALLY
DAMAGED **** like YOU who have been brainwashed who believe ignorant
religious crap like that!
Steve

Sound good, Steve. Tell you what, you call my mom "never-spanked" and
I call yours "SMELLY-****"! ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT? ;-)

Doan

"Calling someone" is ... well calling someone a name. It is not an argument
in favor of your position. Both of the 2 of you are guilty of it a lot. And
it makes you both look like unreasonable people. People not to be listened
to.

Just athought.
"Doan" wrote in message
...

How is calling someone "never-spanked" an ad-hom? I thought that was an
emblem that every modern enlightenned parent wanted to wear. Now, if
that "never-spanked" boy started spouting "smelly-****", "whore",
"sucking dick".....what do you think about the way his parents raised him?

Doan

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:

Do you two get your rocks off by Ad Homineming each other to death? Get
an
argument!

S
"Doan" wrote in message
...

Let's just remind everyone on these newsgroup that Kane9 is a
"never-spanked" boy. ;-)

Doan

On 10 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan wrote in message
...
a123sdg321

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, toto wrote:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:12:09 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, toto wrote:

On 7 Feb 2004 19:18:26 -0800, (KC)
wrote:

I have only recently started getting my dd toys all the time
as
a
reward for good behavior (we keep a chart). So far she's
not
obsessive about it, but hopefully that won't change.

This is a bad idea.

It teaches reliance on external rewards instead of internal
motivation for good behavior. And it certainly can lead to
being obsessive about getting toys as well, imo.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits


Dorothy, why are you so against rewards? Let's
me offer you what Dr. Embry has to say on this subject:

"As a research scientist, I can assure that rewards very
decidedly affect memory and long-term behavior. There
are extensive research on this.

There is extensive research showing that rewards
demotivate children toward learning. If you offer
rewards continually, the child becomes dependent
on the reward and does not continue the behavior
when the rewards are withdrawn.

That is a misapplication of rewards!

I think that is what Toto just said.

Rewards should never be
offer "continually".

Yes, I was right. That is just what Toto just said.

Rewards and punishment when overused can
be very destructive indeed.

Why yes. You didn't draw that easily and unremarkably from the
comments you reply to? I don't think YOUR opinion, you old spanking
and punishing compulsive you, is very relevant, and in fact would,
upon examining your posting history is such matters, be quite
disruptive and misleading.

Your agreement would bring the principles mentioned into serious
question, given the serious questions that arrise from your posting
style, content, and intent.

You can find very good research online at psychinfo
(maintained by the American Psychological Associaton)
or PUBMED (accessed through www.nih.gov).
There are thousands of studies on this subject.

Yes there are, but most of them don't address the
factor of how internal motivation works and the fact
that for humans, it is internal motivation that is necessary.

The studies that do show that rewards have the opposite
effect from what you think they do.

The carrot and the stick are the opposite sides of the
popular behaviorist methodology. They work for rats
and for dogs, but they don't work well for humans because
humans are more complex in their motivations and will
resist *control* by others.

The applied longitudinal studies are most interesting, however
to
educators. When you examine well controlled studies where rates
of
reinforcement (which is feedback, some activities, praise) were
deliberately increased,

Note he encouragement and feedback are not the same as
extrinsic rewards. Praise can be, but it doesn't have to be.
It
depends on *how* you are praised.

rates of long-term achievement, etc increased.
The review for example of the effects of classwide peer
tutoring is nice item of work by by Charles Greenwood
showing that simple feedback

Again, simple feedback letting you know that you are
progressing is not the same as stickers and toys as
a reward. Students do need to be able to see their
progress, but done by encouragement that says this is
specifically what is good about the work, it is very
different from giving a student a sticker for good work.

and group or team rewards has long-term impact on
achievement, reduced special education, etc. The
Good Behavior Game, which rewards inhibition, has
10 year long-term positive effects. You can read my
published review on that at our web site.

I haven't seen the game. If it *teaches* acceptable behavior
in a fun way, that again is not the same as giving children
rewards *for* the behavior.

Please note that that drugs like ritalin and nicotine are
synthethic rewards that increase memory and learning
acuity."

This guy is using rewards in a different way than I do.
I disagree entirely that ritalin is a reward for anything.
And while nicotine can be used as such by individuals
rewarding themselves, it's not something I recommend
to anyone, do you?

One interesting bit of research took advantage of an
unusual occurence in a real workplace: the sudden
elimination of an incentive system that had been in
effect for a group of welders. If financial incentive
(rewards) supplies motivation, it's absense should
drive down production. And, that is exactly what
happened - at first. Fortunately, this researcher
continued tracking production over a period of
months, thus providing the sort of long term data
rarely collected in this field. In the absence of the
incentives, the welders production quickly began to
rise and eventually reached a level as high or higher
than it had been before (Roth, 1970).

One of the largest reviews of the research looking at
how various intervention programs affect worker
productivity, a meta-analysis of some 330 comparisons
from 98 studies, was conducted in the mid-1980s by
Richard A. Guzzo and his colleagues. The raw numbers
seemed to suggest a positive relationship between
financial incentives and productivity, but because of the
huge variations from one study to another, statistical
tests indicated that there was no significant effect
overall. Financial incentives were virtually unrelated
to the number of workers who were absent or who
quit over a period of time. By contrast, training and
goal-setting had a far greater impact on productivity
than did anything involving payment.

For children and learning the results are similar.
One group of researchers tried to sort out the
factors that helped third and fourth graders remember
what they were reading. They found that how
interested students were in the passage was 30
times more important than how *readable* the
passage was. (Not too surprising), but the fact
is that rewards dilute the pure joy that comes from
learning itself and this is demotivating for children.

LeAnn Lipps Birch and her colleagues at the University
of Illinois whose expertise was not in rewards, but in
food preferences, confirmed the demotivating effects
of rewards in this experiment. They too a group of
children and got them to drink kefir (a fruit flavored
yogurt beverage they had never tasted before). The
children were divided into three groups: some were
just handed a full glass, some were praised: "That's
very good, you drank it all the way down", some were
given a free movie ticket for drinking it. Who drank
more? Well, Skinner would say those who got the
movie tickets drank more and he would be correct.
However, the researchers were not just interested in
the short term. They found that those who got nothing
for drinking it liked the beverage just as much a week
later as they had when they first tasted it. However,
those who got the movie tickets found it much less
appealing and so did the children who were praised
for drinking it.

Mark Lepper conducted an experiment with
preschoolers along these same lines. They gave
51 preschoolers a chance to draw with magic
markers which most preschool children find very
appealing. Some of them, however, were told
that if they drew pictures they would receive a
special, personalized certificate, decorated with
a red ribbon and a gold star. Between a week
and two weeks later, the children were observed
in their classrooms. Those who had been told
in advance of the certificate they would receive
now seemed to be less interested in drawing with
magic markers than the other children were and
less interested than they had been before the
reward was offered.

There are a lot more of these studies and because
they go *against* the common wisdom, people don't
quite know what to make of them. Often they are
not well-accepted because they seem so contrary
to what we *know,* but the fact is that extrinsic
motivators decrease the intrinsic motivation in
humans. It's pretty simple. Used sparingly when
only a short term result is necessary, they may be
fine, but used continually as we do in our schools
and in some homes, they are an unwise way of
parenting and educating children.

See Punished by Rewards by Alphie Kohn for many
more references to these kinds of studies. He brings
it all together in one book so my references are from
his text.


I think your data are very dated! A more recent review looked at
145
research studies that attempted to determine whether rewards for
good
performance tend to undermine childrens inner motivation. The
authors
found, no evidence for detrimental effects of reward on measures
of
intrinsic motivation (Cameron, Blanko & Pierce, 2001).

Oh, I see. You are busy trying to patch up your somewhat frayed
image,
by "contributin" to a valid discussion that is miles over your head,
actually.

You don't know WHY this is so, only that there was a study.

Why are you not, as you usually do, laying down an argument and
support for spanking as a controlling discipline?

Or did you finally catch on that if you are to every have any
credibility again after your long record of being a pain and
humiliation parenting advocate and apologist, now would be the time
to
start? When you've been turned out of your borrowm, finally for the
slimy little dodging weasal that you are?

Well, I've heard it said that "fake it 'til you make it"' is a valid
way of changing one's own attitude and behaviors, so don't let me
stop
you from NOW and ONLY NOW, starting to support the OTHER SIDE OF THE
ARGUMENT, as you claim you have done so neutrally all along, but of
course have NOT.

Do hope and pray no one googles on your addy name and finds out what
you are really about until you have accumulated a bit more "neutral"
"balanced" history.

Doan

I told you I'd whipped your ass, and this sudden and remarkable
retreat (you'll post OTHER supports you've written here for the
OTHER
SIDE OF THE SPANKING DEBATE, RIGHTE?) into posting FOR the judicious
use of rewards is proof positive you have taken it in the butt, old
boy.

Let's just see how energetic get on THIS side of the debate, and if
it's anywhere near equal to the many long years...what, seven or
eight, that you have posted in favor and support of parents
punishing
with CP including apologist supporter for those that do NOT know
where
the dividing line is between CP and abuse.

You have a long road ahead of you, don't you Droaner.

Embarrassing too. Like not answering The Simple Question yet.
Dodging
by pretending I challenged YOU to a debate on Embry, when it was you
doing your dodge, and now you continue to pretend that I have
something to prove.

It's YOU, Droananator, that have the burden of proof for all your
nonsense.

Why not get back to aps and do as you are told after backing
yourself
into the bolt hole with no outlet, but performance of the
challenges.

You want to debate Embry with me, then do IT. Complete the debating
requirements so we have a nice clean playing field. DO IT, sucker.

Oh, and sleep well tonight. {:-

kane

"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

Let's just remind everyone on these newsgroup that Kane9 is a
"never-spanked" boy. ;-)

Doan
--------------
So what? So he wasn't abused?

I fail to understand why that ranks as some sort of useful come-back
with you.

We can't trust an abused little **** like you, because you're ****ing
damaged! Don't you understand this??

The fact that he ISN'T damaged is precisely what damns YOU and makes
you unreliable, don't you even GET THAT??
Steve

And you and him were "never-spanked, DON'T YOU EVEN GET THAT??? :-)

Doan


Is the fact that someone might not have been spanked a supporting argument
in your mind? If so, please elaborate. I know lots of people who were never
spanked, and I fail to see the categorization as useful at explaining
anything.

S