I have always been a fan of Skinner, possibly the most influential psychologist of the twentieth century. His ideas about operant conditioning, changing behaviour by making sure that actions produced consequences, always seemed to me ideally suited for the early education of children. It can be time consuming, frustrating and often pointless to try and reason with small children. Far better and more effective simply to work upon modifying their behaviour. Certainly, I used these methods upon my children with great success.
I have never subscribed to the theory that small children are naturally virtuous and must be given free rein for self expression. True, some will explore the world gently and respectfully, but others will pull the wings off flies or try and burn the house down. It seems to me self evidently true that the one type of behaviour should be encouraged and the other stopped. In other words, I as an adult had a pretty shrewd idea how I expect my kids to behave and I tried to find the best way of accomplishing this end. Asking children how they would feel if somebody did that to them, or giving them long explanations about what would happen if everybody acted like that are not very effective. Besides, suppose the kid is a young sociopath? He might not even care how others feel! Operant conditioning on the other hand fits the bill perfectly. Rather than agonising about the reasons for the behaviour, we just try to make it happen more often or stop it entirely. Before we look at this in detail, perhaps we should ask ourselves why it matters all that much. If a small child wishes to behave destructively or in a selfish and cruel manner, could we not just let him get on with it? Might his apparent destructiveness just be a way of exploring his environment and finding out how things work? Perhaps killing insects is in the same category. And can we really describe a toddler as greedy or cruel?
For my part, I never worried overmuch about the finer points of the motives for children's behaviour. Some behaviour must be nipped in the bud at a very early age. I have worked with disturbed youths and almost all had histories of fire setting, vandalism and cruelty to animals. Most started young. Conversely, those who did well had certain habits which started early. To my mind, moulding the habits of a child in the right way is a duty. If we can train a child to behave in a socially acceptable way, then after a while this behaviour will become second nature. As the Bible says, 'Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it' (Proverbs 22.6). Home education is particularly suited to this sort of work because of course the child is in the company of the person undertaking the conditioning for more or less twenty four hours a day.
Behaviour of the child which is desirable is rewarded. The reward can be as simple as a smile, a hug or a friendly word of praise. This is called positive reinforcement. To begin with, it should be frequent and lavish. As the child gets older, it can be reduced until the behaviour is only occasionally rewarded. Punishment or other negative consequences are called negative reinforcement. This is less effective than rewarding good behaviours. The best strategy for reducing unacceptable behaviours is of course by simply ignoring them; giving no reaction at all. This is called extinction. I am aware that some home educators view this idea with distaste. They feel that the child's love of learning and exploration should be an intrinsic thing, not forced upon her from without. This is a bit of a gamble. Some kids are like that, many are not. If one can turn a child into a decent human being who is kind to others and loves learning and studying, then I think we should do so.
It seems to me pretty obvious that a small child who can be taught to sit still and remain quiet on certain occasions will benefit from this as she gets older. She will be better able to study, as well as being less likely to get on other people's nerves. Much the same goes for eating in a civilised fashion, keeping her room tidy, and not breaking things, being nice to others and not behaving in a selfish or cruel way. Everybody benefits from these behaviours. Training a child in this way from the start is a damned sight easier than waiting until the bad behaviours have become established as habits and then trying to change them.
Of course operant conditioning is also perfect for the academic education of the child. Having trained her to sit quietly at a table, then it is fairly easy to get her to draw only when sitting at a table. This can usually be accomplished by the age of two or three. From then, it is a short step to expecting the child to write while sitting at a table. The advantages for the child of this sort of early conditioning are immense. The attention span is lengthened and concentration improved . The classic difficulty with getting children to understand why education is so important is that the goals and rewards are so distant that they mean nothing at all to the child. What child cares that she will be able to pay the mortgage in twenty years time or that her social life is apt to be filled with intelligent and cultured friends? These rewards are so remote as to be meaningless; they certainly won't act as an incentive to study at the age of six or seven! A smile or hug for a four year old is a far greater reason to sit still now than a possible mortgage in twenty years time.
I would recommend these methods to anybody who hopes to raise a studious and well balanced child. Learning to learn and learning to behave like a civilised being are both things which can be taught painlessly to the child with very little effort. All that is required is consistency. The dividends though are stupendous and now, as my child approaches her seventeenth birthday, I am seeing more and more of those early behaviours, which were instilled in her by operant conditioning, bearing fruit. Of course the constant reinforcement is no longer needed. Instead, I moved some years ago to a schedule of variable reinforcement, which over a period of years is hugely effective. As a six year old, I had to get her to sit in a certain spot and work at her handwriting for increasing lengths of time. Now, when she gets in from college in the evening, she sits in that same spot for an hour or two with no prompting to write essays and study mathematics. The only reinforcement needed is a smile and cup of coffee, and these need not even be provided regularly. I really do not know what other technique could have yielded such impressive results for so little outlay on the part of the caregiver.
Monkeyworld have used operant conditioning, very effectively, to allow them to move animals from one area to another, or to accept medical interventions without coercion or causing distress.
ReplyDeleteThe effectiveness has varied between animals. Some animals are simply not co-operative, others reluctant, others very compliant.
I'd be interested to know how many rats and pigeons were rejected by Skinner et al because they didn't produce the expected outcome. In other words, how much individual variation there is in response to this technique.
Ah, I forget that we had somebody with a zoological background here! Don't forget that Skinner used these same methods on his own daughter. (There is of course no truth in the rumour that she subsequently went mad and killed herself.) Most humans will seek pleasure and avoid pain.
ReplyDelete"Most humans will seek pleasure and avoid pain. "
ReplyDeleteWell, of course 'most' humans will do that. It does not follow that operant conditioning will always produce a studious and well-balanced child. Or any other behaviours that the parent wants.
It's a classic error of reasoning to assume that characteristic tendencies of a species or group will be exhibited identically by all members of that species or group.
If a particular strategy doesn't work in a specific case, it's all too easy to assume that the person applying the strategy has not applied it correctly, when in fact, there might be complicating factors that also need to be addressed.
We are going to face exactly these problems with synthetic phonics. Although the technique is undoubtedly significantly more effective than other methods in teaching children to read, in pilot studies a residual proportion of the children (15% in the Clackmannanshire study) were still 'behind' their peers at the end of the primary phase.
If every child is required by law to have a suitable education, that residual number of children, whether in relation to their reading or their behaviour, needs to be taken account of as well.
"It's a classic error of reasoning to assume that characteristic tendencies of a species or group will be exhibited identically by all members of that species or group."
ReplyDeleteAll humans will recoil from a red hot piece of metal. All will welcome a meal when they are hungry. All humans wish to be warm when they are out in icy weather. There are many tastes and reponses which are practically universal. True, there will be the odd person who does not want people to smile at him, just as there are others who are indifferent to pain. These are pathological cases and I didn't really have them in mind. They are rare, far rarer I think than the 15% who fail to respond to synthetic phonics. The problem lies with those who formulate an educational philosophy based upon these freakishly rare cases rather than the great majority of humanity.
And then there's the ethical issue. It's morally WRONG to for human beings to try to train each other with stick and carrot, like performing seals. Especially their own offspring, over whom they naturally wield such potentially devastating psychological power.
ReplyDeleteAnimals bred in captivity are also far more limited and boring than their freer counterparts.
It's also more energy efficient, on the part of parent and child, when self-direction in learning is enabled and properly facilitated. Better effect for far less effort.
Oh and everyone's happier when following their own interests, but I suppose that would be such a minute consideration of yours as to be hardly relevant.
Well, I'm glad that worked for your family. I'm sure you can imagine that this sort of conscious 'training' is not my cup of tea at all. I had to laugh at the "draw only when sitting at a table" part. We travelled everywhere (and still do, often) with the means for our son to draw whenever he wanted to. This was because we noticed that he loved to draw - from about the age of two. Strangely, in spite of our not using the vital ingredient of a table, he progressed to writing very happily and loves to do that too.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I was raised in the 1970s by parents who were very much of the opinion that appeals to reason (albeit just emerging reason) and explanations based on empathy were the way to live wth small children. Perhaps that is why your talk of training is so distasteful to me. I suppose it might have been a disaster but I seem able to function without going about the place setting fires and so on - even acquired a few qualifications along the way.
"I suppose it might have been a disaster but I seem able to function without going about the place setting fires and so on - even acquired a few qualifications along the way."
ReplyDeleteI wasn't really suggesting Allie that child-centred education produces psychopaths a matter of routine!
"Oh and everyone's happier when following their own interests, but I suppose that would be such a minute consideration of yours as to be hardly relevant."
ReplyDeleteI wonder what grounds you have for this statement? I have noticed that many children raised in very liberal homes often seem more anxious and less happy than those raised with strong boundaries and firm parents. There are some data to back this up
"All humans will recoil from a red hot piece of metal. All will welcome a meal when they are hungry. All humans wish to be warm when they are out in icy weather. There are many tastes and reponses which are practically universal. True, there will be the odd person who does not want people to smile at him, just as there are others who are indifferent to pain. These are pathological cases and I didn't really have them in mind. "
ReplyDeleteThere are exceptions to all the examples you have cited. People have suffered terrible pain or lost limbs in order to achieve something important to them; not divulging information to a hostile power, or saving the life of another.
You appear to be assuming that there is a such a thing as normative human functioning, as distinct from the clustering of commonalities exhibited in large populations. Variations from the statistical norm are just that, variations. Whether they are pathological would depend on the outcomes of the variation.
3% of the population has difficulty recognising faces. It's likely that the percentage who struggle to identify or respond appropriately to facial expressions is higher. People show a range of responses to pain. Since reading faces and pain detection are both complex processes this variation isn't surprising.
This is why, although operant conditioning is a useful tool, its effectiveness is not dependent simply on its being consistently applied. Other factors such as the target behaviour, the child's variation from the norm, the relationship between the child and the trainer, and the child's motivation, would need to be taken into account.
Did you, on becoming a parent, embark on life with your child as some sort of operation to produce the optimum young adult?
ReplyDeleteMaybe you did. I just can't imagine setting out to do that. I hesitate to say this, but it seems more than a little arrogant. I believe that life with my children has taught me as much as them. I can't imagine myself as some sort of lion tamer.
I can find you plenty of people made anxious by strong boundaries and firm parents too. Add in a sense that you must perform like a seal to earn your parent's love and I think you're on the road to deep sadness.
I don't believe that people are inherently good or bad - I think we have the potential to be both. I believe that unconditional love and respecting a child's individuality is a 'good' way to behave. It isn't about never correcting or explaining, it isn't about abandoning a child to their own resources, it is about making sure that they know they are safe and loved for who they are. I believe that we all make better choices when we know that.
Well said, SuzyG!
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the book I am currently editing on evidence-based treatment of children with autism talks about precisely that - among the treatment parameters to be into account is the motivation of the individual.
I am sure that all parents instinctively apply operant conditioning in some areas. However, the idea of consciously setting out to apply it to all areas of a child's behaviour is abhorrent to me. For me, one of the good things about EHE is that it reduced the number of externally induced battles we had to fight and gave us time to use less training and more reasoning.
"Add in a sense that you must perform like a seal to earn your parent's love and I think you're on the road to deep sadness."
ReplyDeleteThis would be true. It was not what i was describing though.
"Did you, on becoming a parent, embark on life with your child as some sort of operation to produce the optimum young adult?"
Of course I did this. I rather assumed that everybody did!
" For me, one of the good things about EHE is that it reduced the number of externally induced battles we had to fight"
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more. I do not recollect ever having to punish my daughter or impose any sanction on her over the course of her life.
I didn't set out to consciously train my children, but I laughed when they did something funny, frowned when they hurt me, swept them up in my arms to remove them from danger, smiled at my tiny babies and tickled their tummies when I was changing their bottoms so they wouldn't try to run away, smiled at the child who brought me flowers, groaned when they smashed a favourite vase. Isn't it all just inevitable?
ReplyDeleteAlthough I felt a little nauseous at Simon's description, aren't we just fooling ourselves to claim that we don't do this on an unconscious level during all of our interactions with all other people, but most especially the ones we live with, all the time?
I didn't find a need to formulate it, rigidly scheduling a 'variable enforcement period' etc but thought of it as natural parenting. The results are the same. Young adults who love to learn, who are willing to sit at a table and study and write, among all the other things they love to do.
Mrs Anon
Simon said
ReplyDelete""Did you, on becoming a parent, embark on life with your child as some sort of operation to produce the optimum young adult?"
Of course I did this. I rather assumed that everybody did!"
It depends on who decides on what's optimum. If you attempt to produce your version of an optimum young adult, isn't this a bit like living your life through them? A bit like the parents who think, I would have done better academically/with my chess playing/in my career if I'd been encouraged appropriately by my parents, so I'll make sure my child does well academically/plays chess well/has an excellent career, regardless of what they want out of life?
Simon said
"I couldn't agree more. I do not recollect ever having to punish my daughter or impose any sanction on her over the course of her life."
When parents use positive reinforcement, the withholding of praise and affection is effectively punishment. The artificial excesses you describe would make their absense far more obvious and negative for the child.
"I didn't set out to consciously train my children, but I laughed when they did something funny, frowned when they hurt me,"
ReplyDelete"Although I felt a little nauseous at Simon's description, aren't we just fooling ourselves to claim that we don't do this on an unconscious level during all of our interactions with all other people, but most especially the ones we live with, all the time?"
I think that my chief offence, the one which has made my views 'abhorrent', 'distastful' and 'nauseous' is that I openly admit that I set out to change my child's behaviour. All parents do this, as Mrs Anon says. Few perhaps describe what they have done in the terms which I used. It was probably my expreince of working with really dysfunctional parents and children which caused me to think very deeply about how best to raise my own children. My main concern was for their happiness. The children from uninvolved and indulgent parents whom I have seen were never particularly happy.
"I really do not know what other technique could have yielded such impressive results for so little outlay on the part of the caregiver."
ReplyDeleteBringing my children up autonomously has achieved this though I wouldn't necessary claim that there was less outlay on our part. But at least I know my children behave well, keep their room tidy (most of the time) and study hard because they want to, it's what they prefer, not because I want them to. At least, as far as anyone can know this. I agree, Mrs Anon, that your description of normal family behaviour is pretty typical but doubt that it would result in young people who go against their own strong preferences (for which activities to value, or how to spend their time, for instance), unlike Simon's descriptions of artificial, exagerated behaviour.
"When parents use positive reinforcement, the withholding of praise and affection is effectively punishment. "
ReplyDeleteNo, this is not so at all. There is all the difference in the world between remaining cool and neutral during a tantrum in order to discourage repetition of the behaviour and punishing it. the one will praciacally guarantee its happening agagin and the other will over time extinguish it. I never regarded having a neutral expression upon my face as punishment!
Simon said
ReplyDelete"No, this is not so at all. There is all the difference in the world between remaining cool and neutral during a tantrum in order to discourage repetition of the behaviour and punishing it."
And what about neutral activities that you don't particularly want to encourage but your child enjoys? If, for arguments sake, you didn't value art and ignored any drawings or attempts at art (I guess you probably did value art but just use this as an example) even though your child enjoyed doing this. Wouldn't the lack of praise (because you may not even notice the behaviour, much less want to encourage it because you are neutral about it) suggest to her that this behaviour is undesirable? Or did you follow her constantly and praise effusively any and every action that wasn't naughty or negative in any way?
It sounds as though bringing up Simone was an experiment of sorts. I suppose this is true to some extent of all families but it sounds far more clinical in your case. Did you send one daughter to school and keep the other at home as part of another experiment?
ReplyDeleteSimon said
ReplyDelete""Did you, on becoming a parent, embark on life with your child as some sort of operation to produce the optimum young adult?"
Of course I did this. I rather assumed that everybody did!"
I never thought about my life with my children in those terms. It's not baking a cake. I thought of opening my life to children - loving them, caring for them in a consistent and engaged way and sharing with them. I don't think of childhood as a time of preparation for life - it IS life.
Of course I hope for happy, fulfilled, productive futures for my children. But I'm not naive enough to think that I necessarily know the right paths for them to take. Maybe two hours of homework at a table will be the way to go. Maybe that's just getting in the way of something that could be far more significant for them. I don't know. The world is changing very fast. I'd rather my children acquired a firm sense of identity and values than relied on my training in a series of acceptable behaviours.
I agree with what Mrs. Anon said.
ReplyDeleteDo I get a prize for my first ever reasonably sized post ?
" I openly admit that I set out to change my child's behaviour"
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is far from unusual, I certainly did, from car seat refusal, wall scribbling, using me a mobile hanky and beyond.
But I think the way you described it sounded a little "chilly". Not saying that your fatherly interactions WERE chilly, just that the description did sound clinical and detached.
"And what about neutral activities that you don't particularly want to encourage but your child enjoys?"
ReplyDeleteLike Pokémon and DSi in my house LOL.
IME it is about recognizing what make floats your kid's boat and making the extra effort to take an interest in levels beaten, additional characters won, strategies learned off my own bat, without waiting for him to jump up and down about it going "mummy LOOK !!I did it !!!!!"
I can't say I find drawn out conversations about Fipflap V wotshisface that scintillating, but he is my kid and what interests him is important to me even if the subject itself doesn't light my fire.
I mean yes, I am not immune to the negative press about what kids like today v yesteryear so I can’t enthusiastically encourage his love of strange creatures what with all the baggage of too many years hearing how awful it all is (even if I think the hoo har is overstated and lacking in pertinent details).
But he loves it, just like I love spending hours arguing the toss on the internet (much to the disapproval of my husband who drones on about "news" reports re internet addiction).
Everybody needs stuff they enjoy in their life, he has every reason to expect me to take interest and celebrate his achievements whether they be Pokémon related or some wonderful creation he has made with the masses of crafty stuff I leave lying around for him.
It’s about hitting a balance, no ? Seeking to find it and maintain it, bearing in mind both your own valued expressions of success/worthwhile pursuit and those of you child and not make one a total priority at the expense of the other.
'All parents do this, as Mrs Anon says. Few perhaps describe what they have done in the terms which I used. It was probably my experience of working with really dysfunctional parents and children which caused me to think very deeply about how best to raise my own children.'
ReplyDeleteYes, I have that background too, working with teens with SEN and what used to be known at EBD's. Not sure what it's called now.
As a result of that, and many years of longing for children who did not come, I read a lot about parenting before even having my own and began to realise what kind of parent I wanted to be. But I don't 'think' I parented according to a theory, so much as what seemed to me to be common sense.
I actually don't think our parenting styles were probably very different. You called it operant conditioning' and could probably have written a phd thesis on it. I just called it being a loving parent. LOL!
Mrs Anon
"I agree with what Mrs. Anon said.
ReplyDeleteDo I get a prize for my first ever reasonably sized post ?"
True, this is shorter than your average post, Sarah. But then yours are usually worth reading, even when you disagree strongly. You always manage to be courteous and good natured about your disagreement!
"Simon's descriptions of artificial, exagerated behaviour."
ReplyDeleteWe reach here the very crux of the matter. 'Artificial' is being used here as antonymous to 'natural', which is by implication what the writer prefers. The only problem is that all child rearing is artificail by its very nature. Wearing clothes, using spoons, not shitting on the floor, talking, not biting the cat; all these are artificaial behaviours which we train our children to accept and practice.
Anybody who kids themselves that they do not use operant conditioning in the way which I describe above is being less than honest. Hands up any parent who did not greet her child's first word with smiles and evidence of pleasure? Or anybody who kept a neutral expression if her child bit somebody's baby? This is how we train how children to use speech of course, by giving plenty of positive reinforcement. Children with severe delays in the acquisition of expressive language often come from homes where the parents do not respond so readily to their children. The point is not whether or not we use this sort of conditioning, everybody does, it is whether or not we are open about doing so.
We can use these techniques in a random, hit or miss fashion and then later try and deal with the unintended consequences, or we can start as we mean to go on and approach the thing methodically. I suppose that it is the methodical approach that readers find 'distasteful', 'abhorrent' and 'nauseous', rather than the methods themselves.
"I describe above is being less than honest. Hands up any parent who did not greet her child's first word with smiles and evidence of pleasure?"
ReplyDeleteThere's a difference between 'natural' reactions, as in the unforced, unplanned, automatic reactions of a loving parent and exagerated, planned, 'enthusiatic' reactions explicitly used to control the child. I've seen examples of this on TV programs about parenting an cringe every time. But maybe you were a better actor than those parents. Or maybe you are exagerating what you did here.
Or maybe you are exagerating what you did here.
ReplyDelete"
Hard to see what my motive would be for exaggerating my actions. Parents all use artificial smiles and expressions. I have never known a mother yet who if she found her child playing with a lump of shit would not wrinkle her face up in a grotesque way and say, 'Yuk, nasty!' We all do this with babies. They only react to exaggerated reactions and we use these to mould their reactions constantly. The over the top wide smiles and grimaces which we see at playgroups, the special tone of voice and simplified language used (the so-called 'motherese') are common features whenever you watch parents and babies. When a baby does something clever, we cry 'Good boy!' in a demented fashion, while grinning like an ape! I can only think that all the playgroups and under fives clubs which I have knocked around were very weird and atypical!
"I've seen examples of this on TV programs about parenting an cringe every time"
ReplyDeleteThat's cos they are still learning.The parents on those programmes are learning something that doesn't come naturally for them, because what DID come naturally wasn't working.
It'd take them time to get past the initial cringeworthy efforts, and the presenter is usually hamming it up a bit for the cameras, so they too would most likely be less (but not completely, in some cases) less hurl inducing, doing the same thing off camera or in a non-instructional context.
By and large I like these programmes cos they refocus the parents away from thinking the child is "the problem" and shows them that they, the parents, are the ones creating the behavoir they don't like. Which puts the "blame" in the right place and makes some kind of solution possible. Potentially.
"The over the top wide smiles and grimaces which we see at playgroups, the special tone of voice and simplified language used (the so-called 'motherese') are common features whenever you watch parents and babies. When a baby does something clever, we cry 'Good boy!' in a demented fashion, while grinning like an ape!"
ReplyDeleteSo do you think these are false, forced reactions of the type, 'I must adjust my child's behaviour by controlling how I react to this', rather than automatic 'because the child is mine and everything they do is brilliant', or 'yuk, anyone playing with shit, even my own child, is disgusting' type reactions? Have you not seen the difference between these two types of behaviour in action? One appears genuuine, the other acted and false - you can often see the difference in the eyes. I suspect children can tell the difference, I know mine can, because they have remarked on this type of behaviour when they have experienced it from people running courses or sometimes relatives.
"That's cos they are still learning.The parents on those programmes are learning something that doesn't come naturally for them, because what DID come naturally wasn't working."
ReplyDeleteYes, they are mimicking behaviour they have been told is good in the hope that they develop natural reactions as a result, but Simon's descriptions of his interactions with his child sound like the hammed up version. As I said, maybe he exaggerated his behaviour in his description here and it wasn't as hammed up and artificial as it sounded.
"but Simon's descriptions of his interactions with his child sound like the hammed up version"
ReplyDeleteWell you have to factor in
a) The blog is designed to provoke debate, and that will obvious impact his turn of phrase to maximize the potential for discussion. If he toned it all down it would be as exciting as tomato soup and the discussion would trickle along like said soup down a toddlers bib. And then I would be sad. Cos I love a good tussle of words and this is about the only place where I can get a regular dose of it and HE is my current mini obsession.
b) Lots of people here have a long and possibly rather hostile history with him, so that will impact their perception of what he says and potentially colour it darker than it actually is.
I probably parent much along the same lines as him, just wouldn't put it in those words because I find them hard to relate to.
But I can pretty much hazard a guess at why he opted to portray the "clinically experimenting to create an optimum adult based on the principles of Skinner" version of his parenting and I'd put good money on it having been engineered to extract a particular strand of debate. Probably via a post yet to come that references the responses in this one. Which takes us back to a)
Re " mimicking behavior they have been told is good in the hope that they develop natural reactions as a result"
Basically yes, as a starting point, because once they have shifted the "problem" status from the child to themselves, created strategies that relieve the tension and frustration in the shorter term and have the opportunity to feel competent and successful, then they will have the space to mix it up with what feels natural.
It is a good quick fix when things are going horribly wrong, to create the mindset that will allow for a more permanent change for the better, with the adult taking responsibility for how issues are created by their own hand.
I appreciate if you are on the autonomous spectrum it probably looks distasteful and wrong on so many levels. However people who are finding it hard to engage with their kids, or recognize their needs, probably aren't prime candidates for that lifestyle in the first place.
.
"Probably via a post yet to come that references the responses in this one."
ReplyDeleteYou're so sharp you'll be cutting yourself, Sarah! Yes, there is a follow up to this post coming in the morning.
"a) The blog is designed to provoke debate, and that will obvious impact his turn of phrase to maximize the potential for discussion."
ReplyDeleteYes, that's what I meant when I suggested that Simon may have exaggerating his behaviour. I wondered if he was exaggerating to generate a reaction - I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
I agree it probably can be a useful technique as part of a treatment process for a dysfunctional family, but this is not how Simon used it (though it sounds as though his experiences with dysfunctional families triggered his interest in this technique). I think there is a danger that anyone taking him literally could cause more problems than they solve unless they are severely deficient in this area. This type of behaviour in adults meant the end of any further contact for my children as they disliked spending time with them so much. Luckily it didn’t happen often!
"You're so sharp you'll be cutting yourself, Sarah! Yes, there is a follow up to this post coming in the morning. "
ReplyDelete______________
Well I'm not going to preempt the post by speculating on its specific focus, but if I guess the strand of debate you were looking to spring board into, I will claim ten points.
If I got it wrong, I may sulk mildly.
I didn't know what we are doing had a name. Since day 1 we have got very excited about good behaviour and completely ignored bad behaviour (to the extent of sitting and reading a book while at 3 my son had a major tantrum and showering him with kisses and cuddles and performing a little dance the first few times he used his potty successfully). It has worked pretty well so far and we trust him to be polite to others, not harm anyone and to generally behave in a way that is acceptable in society and allows him to be included. And we have had the added reward of being told on various separate occasions by complete strangers that our son is very well behaved and a real credit to us.
ReplyDeleteI don't really get why everyone has to have an 'approach' to parenting or educating. If asked I say we are taking the winging it approach and hoping for the best. He is only 5 so who knows, in the future I might be desperately devouring books on child rearing seeking guidance and a suitable 'approach' but so far so good.
Thanks for the blog Simon, I'm really enjoying it.
Skinner devised his techniques to control animals in his vivisection laboratory. Only a madman would think these techniques are applicable for use with children. I would certainly remove children from such an abusive situation.
ReplyDelete"This is how we train how children to use speech of course, by giving plenty of positive reinforcement. Children with severe delays in the acquisition of expressive language often come from homes where the parents do not respond so readily to their children."
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by 'expressive language' Simon?
"But I can pretty much hazard a guess at why he opted to portray the "clinically experimenting to create an optimum adult based on the principles of Skinner" version of his parenting and I'd put good money on it having been engineered to extract a particular strand of debate."
ReplyDeleteQuite possibly. But operant conditioning is used widely (and often ineptly) in schools:
http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/behsys/operant.html
and given Simon's structured approach to his daughter's education it wouldn't surprise me if he adopted similar principles in regard to her upbringing.
"I didn't know what we are doing had a name."
ReplyDeleteI think that a lot of parents just do this naturally, because it works. When put into clinical language though, some recoil in disgust! I'm glad you enjoy the blog.
"What do you mean by 'expressive language' Simon?"
ReplyDeleteSpeaking! Just as one can encourage or trian good behaviour, so too can talking be encouraged. Most parents do this automatically, talking to their babies and showing pleasure when the baby vocalises or attempts to speak. These kids are often early talkers. Those who ignore their babies and are neutral about vocailising often have kids who are late in talking.
"and given Simon's structured approach to his daughter's education it wouldn't surprise me if he adopted similar principles in regard to her upbringing."
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing here suzyg, that despite your background you didn't put your baby in a Skinner box?
"Skinner devised his techniques to control animals in his vivisection laboratory. Only a madman would think these techniques are applicable for use with children. I would certainly remove children from such an abusive situation."
ReplyDeleteThis makes all comment superfluous!
"But operant conditioning is used widely (and often ineptly) in schools:"
ReplyDeleteIncluding the language variety. Had Skinner shoved down my throat sideways during training.
" I think there is a danger that anyone taking him literally could cause more problems than they solve unless they are severely deficient in this area"
Most people dump changes like a hot potoato if they don't work for them. It's getting people to stick with them long enough to give them the chance to work that is the problem.