A question for all skeptics

[Leonardo]

No I explained that objective things can only be right or wrong statistically, while subjective things can be both right and wrong depending on personal ethics moralities and philosophies. It is impossible for something which is objectively right to be shown to be wrong.

Which is fine, except the method you use to teach your "unruly children" discipline is not an "objective thing". So your claim above is quite irrelevant to the argument you are making.

[Mr Walker]

MW, your advice on emotions are too outmoded/barbaric for me, but thank you none the less for taking the time to post.

Barbaric?. They are the way of the future. Without the ability to control and modify behaviour, via modification and control of primitive emotions evolved when we were cave men; humans will not survive in modern societies. We will self destruct, like rats in an overcrowded cage.

[Mr Walker]

Which is fine, except the method you use to teach your "unruly children" discipline is not an "objective thing". So your claim above is quite irrelevant to the argument you are making.

I am not sure that was at all what i was discussing, but if something can be demonstrated, using empirical evidence, then it has objective truth.

[Leonardo]

I am not sure that was at all what i was discussing, but if something can be demonstrated, using empirical evidence, then it has objective truth.

Nothing "has objective truth", MW. Truth is what something is, not what something has.

[Mr Walker]

Nothing "has objective truth", MW. Truth is what something is, not what something has.

The statement " 2 plus 2 equals four", is an objective truth. "I am a male," is an objective truth. Any fact which pertains to an object and can be measured and statistically evaluated to be true, is an objective truth.

Don't get all semantic on me. Subjective truths are truths held to be true, by a subject, (person) which cannot be established by objective means. Eg "I am the most handsome man alive" relies on subjective opinion to verify it, and thus cannot be an objective truth. "I am 1.75 metres tall," can be established as an objective truth, or not, by accurate measurement.. "That flower is red," is a objective truth. "That flower is pretty" is a subjective truth.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Ben Masada]

There is no definitive 'Proof' that the universe had a beginning, this is only speculation from a limited knowledge pool at this stage, albeit the only one science's modelling can come up with.

If there is no definitive proof that the universe had a beginning how could matter exist from eternity to eternity? The fact that matter has a beginning and an end is a proof of everyday life and the universe is composed of matter. Then how about the BB as a testimony for the beginning of the universe? Are our scientists no better than morons to speak publicly of the BB as the beginning of the universe?

[Leonardo]

The statement " 2 plus 2 equals four", is an objective truth. "I am a male," is an objective truth. Any fact which pertains to an object and can be measured and statistically evaluated to be true, is an objective truth.

Don't get all semantic on me. Subjective truths are truths held to be true, by a subject, (person) which cannot be established by objective means. Eg "I am the most handsome man alive" relies on subjective opinion to verify it, and thus cannot be an objective truth. "I am 1.75 metres tall," can be established as an objective truth, or not, by accurate measurement.. "That flower is red," is a objective truth. "That flower is pretty" is a subjective truth.

I'm not. You claimed your method of disciplining children using either corporal punishment or methods which involve some form of (possibly passive) physical violence was the 'right' way to correct troubled children. Then you claimed that as an "objective truth" based on your personal experience and the results.

I pointed out that what you claimed as an objective truth, and what was 'right', was actually subjective. It is only 'right' in your personal experience, and that others have achieved similar results using different methods is the proof of that.

I am not suggesting what you do is wrong, in fact I applaud anyone who seeks to help others better themselves. All I am pointing out is the "rightness" you claim is not an objective truth, because "rightness" is subjective - as you stated in reply to my post regarding whale-hunting.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Leonardo

[Mr Walker]

I'm not. You claimed your method of disciplining children using either corporal punishment or methods which involve some form of (possibly passive) physical violence was the 'right' way to correct troubled children. Then you claimed that as an "objective truth" based on your personal experience and the results.

I pointed out that what you claimed as an objective truth, and what was 'right', was actually subjective. It is only 'right' in your personal experience, and that others have achieved similar results using different methods is the proof of that.

I am not suggesting what you do is wrong, in fact I applaud anyone who seeks to help others better themselves. All I am pointing out is the "rightness" you claim is not an objective truth, because "rightness" is subjective - as you stated in reply to my post regarding whale-hunting.

I am open to argument on this, although I would argue that if a method of raising children is demonstrably effective in its intended aims, then it has an objective truth or validity in meeting those aims.

But of course what I see as the important qualities for human beings as individuals and societies might be different to someone else. I value discipline, and obedience to social expectation and rsponsibiltiies more highly than some modern people for example.

I know from modern neuro studies, that the minds of children are not physically developed enough to give them the freedoms and rights which modern society allows them and that in principle a child's desires should always be subject to appropriate adult authority.That's where the subjectivity comes in Some one else might like children to be simply happy and free. I'd suggest they read " the lord of the flies" and compare the children in that story with the boys, the same age, in " coral island."

[Whisperer]

Sorry Ben but matter is the result of wave form dynamics, that is that it is known to manifest in waveforms lowest vibrational frequency.

As such it cannot be destroyed, only transformed and herein lies the conundrum, what is waveform energy? Where does it come from, how does translate to 'matter' etc...

If it cannot be destroyed it is therefore eternal, no beginning, no end...

[Ben Masada]

Sorry Ben but matter is the result of wave form dynamics, that is that it is known to manifest in waveforms lowest vibrational frequency.

As such it cannot be destroyed, only transformed and herein lies the conundrum, what is waveform energy? Where does it come from, how does translate to 'matter' etc...If it cannot be destroyed it is therefore eternal, no beginning, no end...

That's illogical. Matter cannot be an accident of energy but the other way around. Sorry but you have showed nothing to demonstrate your assertion. Therefore since there is nothing eternal about matter energy would not exist without matter.

[The Id3al Experience]

That's illogical. Matter cannot be an accident of energy but the other way around. Sorry but you have showed nothing to demonstrate your assertion. Therefore since there is nothing eternal about matter energy would not exist without matter.

[Grandpa Greenman]

Matter is a form of energy, it is just going in slow-mo.

[Avallaine]

Barbaric?. They are the way of the future. Without the ability to control and modify behaviour, via modification and control of primitive emotions evolved when we were cave men; humans will not survive in modern societies. We will self destruct, like rats in an overcrowded cage.

You do know that it's been proven that positive reinforcement is far more effective than negative reinforcement in modifying behavior, right?

I'm also curious as to your opinion on teaching children empathy and compassion. In my experience, a child who learns compassion for others is far more willing to learn to control his "primitive" emotions than one who merely learns to fear authority.

[Ben Masada]

...which translated down to visible print means nothing.

[Ben Masada]

Matter is a form of energy, it is just going in slow-mo.

Which means that matter produces a form of energy as it is activated.

[Frank Merton]

Matter is a form of energy, it is just going in slow-mo.

And just what is energy?

[scowl]

And just what is energy?

Obviously energy is matter going in "fast-mo"!

Perhaps you're confused by these precise scientific terms.

[White Crane Feather]

And just what is energy?

Information.

[Mikko-kun]

And just what is energy?

Fluctuation of life force. If you look at the small pieces of the puzzle, this seems false to you, but if you keep asking what's behind it all, what's the first thing that causes it, I think it's this.

[Mr Walker]

You do know that it's been proven that positive reinforcement is far more effective than negative reinforcement in modifying behavior, right?

I'm also curious as to your opinion on teaching children empathy and compassion. In my experience, a child who learns compassion for others is far more willing to learn to control his "primitive" emotions than one who merely learns to fear authority.

Positive reinforcement is necessary and works well to promote positive behaviour, but "negative reinforcement" is needed to stop people' s behaviour and to demonstrate consequence without greater harm. The example I give is the young child about to touch a hot fire. First you prevent, (if you are there) then you give stern tone of voice. If he goes back to the fire you give a smack and reinforce with whatever words you want like NO! This will prevent him form touching the fire and hurting himself. ( If you are not there he will badly burn his hand, and the natural negative reinforcement, while much harsher than your own, will also prevent him ever going near a fire again.) Next time when he goes up to the fire and stops, you give strong positive reinforcement. t is how you also train a dog. (Children under four have much the same learning capacity as a smart dog)

As a child brain "patterns" imposed discipline it learns the pattern of thought and control to allow it internal or self discipline

Children must be taught empathy and compassion, as well as love, by both intellectual and emotional teaching Ie we must tell children we love them them, and demonstrate in every way that we love them. My parents loved their children completely; told us so, and did everything in their lives around demonstrating that love. My dad even went back to night school after a days work to learn the new high school mathematics course so he could help us all with our home work. You don't get a much greater demonstration of love than that But they knew that loving a child also demands dong what is right and best for the child even where that is hard on the parent IE physical discipline. My little sister didn't like going to school at one stage and climbed up in a high tree to escape ON the advice of dad mum (who was not able to climb up the tree) got a garden hose and squirted her until she was soaking wet .Being a bit of a princess she climbed down to get changed and mum grabbed her and took her to school. That night they talked to her about behaviour and consequence and why she had to go to school. After that, knowing how serious our parents were about education, she went to school happily every day. She had been told before, but mum's determination impressed on her more than words at the age of 6 or 7. If no action had been taken she might have thought she could get away with not going to school and developed a pattern of disobedience and refusal. As do many modern children.

I have one child in one class aged 11/12 who refuses to come to school and his mum refuses to make him. He has been at school 5 days in 12 weeks Attendance branch is involved and probably a psychologist, but in the meantime his education is irrevocably stopped while he stays home and plays on the play station IMO this is not the child's fault. His parents and the education dept. are responsible and their refusal to enforce behaviour is a form of child abuse which will have serious consequences for the child's whole life.

Right from the start I have said that BOTH love and discipline must be taught and modelled to a child so that they can lean these qualities for them selves. One without the other can be harmful The lack of both can be disasterous. A child who is, or believes them selves to be unloved will be as troubled and as anti social as one without self discipline.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

Positive reinforcement is necessary and works well to promote positive behaviour, but "negative reinforcement" is needed to stop people' s behaviour and to demonstrate consequence without greater harm. The example I give is the young child about to touch a hot fire. First you prevent, (if you are there) then you give stern tone of voice. If he goes back to the fire you give a smack and reinforce with whatever words you want like NO! This will prevent him form touching the fire and hurting himself. ( If you are not there he will badly burn his hand, and the natural negative reinforcement, while much harsher than your own, will also prevent him ever going near a fire again.) Next time when he goes up to the fire and stops, you give strong positive reinforcement. t is how you also train a dog. (Children under four have much the same learning capacity as a smart dog)

As a child brain "patterns" imposed discipline it learns the pattern of thought and control to allow it internal or self discipline

Children must be taught empathy and compassion, as well as love, by both intellectual and emotional teaching Ie we must tell children we love them them, and demonstrate in every way that we love them. My parents loved their children completely; told us so, and did everything in their lives around demonstrating that love. My dad even went back to night school after a days work to learn the new high school mathematics course so he could help us all with our home work. You don't get a much greater demonstration of love than that But they knew that loving a child also demands dong what is right and best for the child even where that is hard on the parent IE physical discipline. My little sister didn't like going to school at one stage and climbed up in a high tree to escape ON the advice of dad mum (who was not able to climb up the tree) got a garden hose and squirted her until she was soaking wet .Being a bit of a princess she climbed down to get changed and mum grabbed her and took her to school. That night they talked to her about behaviour and consequence and why she had to go to school. After that, knowing how serious our parents were about education, she went to school happily every day. She had been told before, but mum's determination impressed on her more than words at the age of 6 or 7. If no action had been taken she might have thought she could get away with not going to school and developed a pattern of disobedience and refusal. As do many modern children.

I have one child in one class aged 11/12 who refuses to come to school and his mum refuses to make him. He has been at school 5 days in 12 weeks Attendance branch is involved and probably a psychologist, but in the meantime his education is irrevocably stopped while he stays home and plays on the play station IMO this is not the child's fault. His parents and the education dept. are responsible and their refusal to enforce behaviour is a form of child abuse which will have serious consequences for the child's whole life.

Right from the start I have said that BOTH love and discipline must be taught and modelled to a child so that they can lean these qualities for them selves. One without the other can be harmful The lack of both can be disasterous. A child who is, or believes them selves to be unloved will be as troubled and as anti social as one without self discipline.

MW, IMO your confusion lies in how you understand negative reinforcement versus punishment. They are not the same thing. Negative reinforcement subtracts something from a situation to avoid an issue, a few examples would be: I am going to go on a hike so I put on SPF of 30 (sunscreen) to avoid getting sunburned. A friend of mine has stayed up all night catching up on a college project, so he asks for a ride to school the next day to avoid putting himself or anyone else in a situation that could be harmful,(such as falling a sleep at the wheel and getting in an accident.) These are examples of negative reinforcements-- removing unwanted issues. You are offering punishment as opposed to a negative reinforcement, taking your example so you can understand why you are in error. A four year old and a fire would never be a good combination( you are correct the child most likely will not grasp the seriousness of the situation, and it is a situation where you would not put the child in it to begin with.) so by removing the child from a dangerous situation to avoid him being burned would be the negative reinforcement. To put the child in the situation knowing he is not equipped to handle it then punish him for getting harmed would be nonsensical and speak of one who does not know how to parent a child. The parent is putting the child into the situation knowing the dangers, knowing the child is not equipped to navigate the situation, and then blames/punishes the kid. I think it is really clear on the issue here and the problem is how the parent understands their role in application. If the parent understood negative reinforcement they could then use it and there would never be a reason to punish the child. Punishing the child makes absolutely no sense in this context. I hope this helps.

It is in using the tools of child rearing we also teach/model [for] our children how to be responsible adults. The ideas you contribute are not being drawn from child rearing practices as set forth by professionals, they are simply your opinion.

[Mr Walker]

MW, IMO your confusion lies in how you understand negative reinforcement versus punishment. They are not the same thing. Negative reinforcement subtracts something from a situation to avoid an issue, a few examples would be: I am going to go on a hike so I put on SPF of 30 (sunscreen) to avoid getting sunburned. A friend of mine has stayed up all night catching up on a college project, so he asks for a ride to school the next day to avoid putting himself or anyone else in a situation that could be harmful,(such as falling a sleep at the wheel and getting in an accident.) These are examples of negative reinforcements-- removing unwanted issues. You are offering punishment as opposed to a negative reinforcement, taking your example so you can understand why you are in error. A four year old and a fire would never be a good combination( you are correct the child most likely will not grasp the seriousness of the situation, and it is a situation where you would not put the child in it to begin with.) so by removing the child from a dangerous situation to avoid him being burned would be the negative reinforcement. To put the child in the situation knowing he is not equipped to handle it then punish him for getting harmed would be nonsensical and speak of one who does not know how to parent a child. The parent is putting the child into the situation knowing the dangers, knowing the child is not equipped to navigate the situation, and then blames/punishes the kid. I think it is really clear on the issue here and the problem is how the parent understands their role in application. If the parent understood negative reinforcement they could then use it and there would never be a reason to punish the child. Punishing the child makes absolutely no sense in this context. I hope this helps.

It is in using the tools of child rearing we also teach/model [for] our children how to be responsible adults. The ideas you contribute are not being drawn from child rearing practices as set forth by professionals, they are simply your opinion.

That is not the form of negative reinforcement i was asked if i supported. We can prevent negative behaviour by giving negative consequences for that behaviour while rewarding positive behaviour with positive reinforcement. This is offical policy in every government school in my state, so i give stickers and rewards of many types for any positive behaviour, such as being on task or exceptional individual work/effort..I give detentions, tasks like picking up papers or cleaning desks, notes home to parents, and a good beating to any child who is disruptive in class, or refuses to work, or continues to graffiti or litter the yard.

Ps if you are succesful in never letting your child endager themself, how to they learn not to do so Sometime they have to be faced with a situation and make an individual choice. Can you seriously protect your child from every danger, until they are old enough to be self aware and self disciplined? What about when you are not with them? (But of course home schooling your children gives you an advantage in this regard which most parents do not have.

[+Sherapy]

That is not the form of negative reinforcement i was asked if i supported. We can prevent negative behaviour by giving negative consequences for that behaviour while rewarding positive behaviour with positive reinforcement. This is offical policy in every government school in my state, so i give stickers and rewards of many types for any positive behaviour, such as being on task or exceptional individual work/effort..I give detentions, tasks like picking up papers or cleaning desks, notes home to parents, and a good beating to any child who is disruptive in class, or refuses to work, or continues to graffiti or litter the yard.

Ps if you are succesful in never letting your child endager themself, how to they learn not to do so Sometime they have to be faced with a situation and make an individual choice. Can you seriously protect your child from every danger, until they are old enough to be self aware and self disciplined? What about when you are not with them? (But of course home schooling your children gives you an advantage in this regard which most parents do not have.

MW, you say you are preventing unwanted negative behaviors by punishing, if this is the school policy then the behaviors are not being prevented they are being managed. As the authority the first step is to foster a mutual respect, it is in this that you can prevent unwanted behaviors. You speak of how you know the mind of a teenager, yet you do not reflect this in your solutions. Punishment does not create the behavior that you do want, (it may put it on hold for a second) but it will be back. Teaching what you do want and encouraging that is the key; too often adults fight to be right as opposed to solving the problems. I am not a fan of the public school system, I think the methods they use are not deeply understood and lead to issues as opposed to preventing them. IMO

[+Sherapy]

That is not the form of negative reinforcement i was asked if i supported. We can prevent negative behaviour by giving negative consequences for that behaviour while rewarding positive behaviour with positive reinforcement. This is offical policy in every government school in my state, so i give stickers and rewards of many types for any positive behaviour, such as being on task or exceptional individual work/effort..I give detentions, tasks like picking up papers or cleaning desks, notes home to parents, and a good beating to any child who is disruptive in class, or refuses to work, or continues to graffiti or litter the yard.

Ps if you are succesful in never letting your child endager themself, how to they learn not to do so Sometime they have to be faced with a situation and make an individual choice. Can you seriously protect your child from every danger, until they are old enough to be self aware and self disciplined? What about when you are not with them? (But of course home schooling your children gives you an advantage in this regard which most parents do not have.

As a parents of teenagers my job is to foster independence, self sufficiency, and impulse control, I can read in your many posts so do you. You share the same vision for the kids you guide. I see that you have the right idea, but you are going about it in skewed way.(IMO) If you really are wanting to teach how to be a mature responsible adult that is. If not you are not obliged to read further. If you impose a negative consequence every time the kid acts out you are not teaching anything, you are managing behaviors for the moment. What you are correct about is to effectively teach a child-- you need a lot of time to get to know the child, and learn what makes this child tick. You have said many times that you are not allowed to do this in the school setting. I think this is the major issue with education. How can you possibly help/teach a kid you do not know who they are? Often interactions are limited to snap judgements of their behaviors according to the schools perception.. If they veer from the quo they are a problem/nuisance. I tutor a girl for 3 years now maybe four, I'll tell you this young lady is astounding. I have seen her grow in ways that humble me. She has a family that give 110 percent to help her. She has learning disabilities, it takes her several times to get a concept, but she will get it, she never gives up-- no matter how hard it gets for her..Do you know the majority of her teachers judge her negatively and in error, every year it is the same drill for us (her grandma, her aunt, and me.) Every year we have to jump through hoops just to get a meeting with her teachers so we can appeal to their sense of humanity and compassion.so we get a chance to tell them who she is and ask them for help. It sucks for us all, but we adore this kid and we see her progress and fight for that, regardless. We tell her do not give up, no matter what, we will do what we can. There are no quick fixes, it takes time and commitment and effort, a lot on the parents part, teachers part, communities part. Sure some kids are a problem. but many are treated unfairly. I had to post this. Maybe by reading this you will look upon a child a bit differently,. That is my hope. Thank you for listening, MW.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

MW, you say you are preventing unwanted negative behaviors by punishing, if this is the school policy then the behaviors are not being prevented they are being managed. As the authority the first step is to foster a mutual respect, it is in this that you can prevent unwanted behaviors. You speak of how you know the mind of a teenager, yet you do not reflect this in your solutions. Punishment does not create the behavior that you do want, (it may put it on hold for a second) but it will be back. Teaching what you do want and encouraging that is the key; too often adults fight to be right as opposed to solving the problems. I am not a fan of the public school system, I think the methods they use are not deeply understood and lead to issues as opposed to preventing them. IMO

In a school the first essential priority IS to eliminate poor or dangerous behaviour. ONLY THEN can students be safely educated into how and why they can control their own behaviour. Otherwise children are physically and emotionally hurt by other children, sometimes so badly that they commit suicide. When a child sends a nude picture of them selves or another child, (15 yar old) to another, they already know this is a criminal offence and morally wrong, but they still chose to do so.

They will then FIRST be punished by the courts and second given counselling. But the punishment is necessary to prevent OTHERs from doing the same thing. No consequence no reason not to do what you want to do. Same with chidren's arson and violence.