Quote:
Originally posted by JrKASperov:
I think spanking isn't needed, however, threatening to do that is good enough methinks. Certainly a twice-size angry-looking parent with a raised arm can intimidate some punk kid into submission 
|
I can't agree with this. That would work until the kid decides to test the limits - how often do kids decide to see how far they can push their parents? What's the parent going to do when the kid keeps doing whatever it is they're doing after being threatened with a smack, if they're not actually prepared to follow through? Empty threats are just as ineffective as no punishment at all, because the kids very quickly learn their parents won't put their money where their mouth is, therefore they can do whatever they want.
Quote:
Originally posted by Thoran:
Reinforcing methods don't seem to have that drawback, and thus they are far more effective over the long haul
|
No, they definitely are subject to the law of diminishing returns. The most effective reward schedule starts off very frequent and predictable, but becomes much less frequent and more unpredictable over time, otherwise it loses its effectiveness just like punishment does. But I agree with you that reinforcement is more effective than just punishment - if there's no incentive (apart from not being punished) to behave well, then why would you? That just encourages kids to hide their misbehaviour rather than actually do the right thing, plus if they're never rewarded for doing the right thing, it can be confusing to know exactly what that is sometimes!