If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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rewards continually, the child becomes dependent on the reward and does not continue the behavior when the rewards are withdrawn.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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Obsessive behavior in 4 year old
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Obsessive behavior in 4 year old
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Obsessive behavior in 4 year old
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Obsessive behavior in 4 year old
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Obsessive behavior in 4 year old
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Obsessive behavior in 4 year old
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Obsessive behavior in 4 year old
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Obsessive behavior in 4 year old
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Obsessive behavior in 4 year old
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Obsessive behavior in 4 year old | Michelle Spina | General | 99 | February 18th 04 05:45 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | January 16th 04 09:15 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 15th 03 09:42 AM |
Flu season could be severe this year | JG | Kids Health | 4 | November 19th 03 02:16 PM |
The year of the binder | chiam margalit | General | 131 | September 20th 03 12:53 PM |