Children.

Mar. 21st, 2006 10:36 pm
conuly: (Default)
[personal profile] conuly
They're not dogs. That's why we generally don't make shock collars for children.

On the same subject (but not nearly as severe), your typical three or four year old child doesn't need to get high-fives and GOOD EATING!!!!!! for munching on some glorified potato chips. Either they're hungry, and they eat, or they're not hungry, so they don't. (Or they're hungry and they don't eat, which sucks, but assuming you haven't made something you know they can't/won't eat, that's probably a temporary situation.)

Praising a kid for eating. Eating snacks, of all things. Now I've seen everything.
From: [identity profile] duponthumanite.livejournal.com
Judge Rotenberg...why do places like that have to exist? Why can't your government close it down?

Can I presume the three/four year old was probably not typical? Perhaps she had psychosocial dwarfism for instance?

Adelaide
From: [identity profile] duponthumanite.livejournal.com
I do understand.

I don't really like the praising either. I wouldn't even praise a dog too much if I had it.

Now encouragement is good and true.

Children do learn a lot from the way adults treat them, don't they?

Maybe the adults want to show how much they value their children ... more like in public or something.

But eating is natural.

Adelaide

Date: 2006-03-22 03:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] leora.livejournal.com
Actually, I don't have a moral problem with unpleasant medical procedures being forced on children. I would force my child to be vaccinated, even though it is painful and traumatic.

I have a problem with this particular choice of shocking children because it's bad medicine and bad parenting and bad teaching. It's not very effective at getting good results (whereby good I mean actual education going on) and it's just laziness. Positive reinforcement has been show to work much better than punishment. Set up a token economy if you must, but don't go around physically hurting kids. We've shown that that doesn't work well and can be rather harmful.

Date: 2006-03-22 03:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stejcruetekie.livejournal.com
Praising a kid for eating. Eating snacks, of all things. Now I've seen everything.

Well hey, it's never too early to teach them anti-anorexia!

Cause there are plenty of people out there that we're happy if they eat *anything*...

Date: 2006-03-22 03:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] leora.livejournal.com
Except that turning eating into a big deal helps to encourage anorexia later :/ Just what you need, strong emotional connections to eating. I prefer it to just be eating.

Date: 2006-03-22 05:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] failstoexist.livejournal.com
wow. OK, shock therapy? useful in some cases of severe depression. My cousin, for example...he's not *happy* now, but he's not suicidal all the time. Probably the best thing to happen to him in the last few years. However, it's fairly scary stuff, mostly because we've got no idea how or why it works, it just *does*. That, to me, is freaky. and something that shouldn't be messed with unless completely necessary.

Date: 2006-03-22 07:04 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chem-nerd.livejournal.com
You're thinking of a different kind of shock. The shock used to treat severe, non drug-responsive depression is designed to get well and truly feaky with neurotransmitter levels, though I don't remember just how. The shock described here, I would consider inhumane to use on an ill-behaved dog, let alone a child.

Inhumane shocking

Date: 2006-03-22 07:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] duponthumanite.livejournal.com
I think both shocks here are inhumane.

But the second one is more inhumane.

The child didn't ask for this. Nor did the dog. This is on innocent people who did nothing wrong, who are acting out the dictates of their nature.

And a depressed person is usually acting out of learnt behaviour patterns, in most cases, even if it does become chemical in the end.

I think I see a distinction between nature and (lack of or dysfunctional) nurture.

Adelaide
who though she has had depression in the past would describe hers as more situational (gets worse under STRESS) than chemical

Re: Inhumane shocking

Date: 2006-03-22 07:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chem-nerd.livejournal.com
The depression one isn't exactly a shock, though it is electrical in nature. The brain basically functions via electricity. They don't really zap the brain, as I recall, they give it some kind of electrical stimulation that spikes all of the neurotransmitters. Though it's been a while since intro psych...

Re: Inhumane shocking

Date: 2006-03-22 07:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] duponthumanite.livejournal.com
Thanks for the clarification.

So the brain does run on electricity.

It's like food, isn't it? You're only giving it some of what's natural. But you can over shock, like over-vitamin or over-mineral.

Adelaide

Date: 2006-03-22 07:31 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lizziey.livejournal.com
Connie? You have seen Seth praised for eating *anything*. You have seen him eat nothing. For days. ANd what did I do the second he finally ate something? Damn right I praised him.


But then, you know Seth isn't (wasn't? he eats fine now...) normal when this was going on. :-\

Being objective

Date: 2006-03-22 07:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] duponthumanite.livejournal.com
It's different when it's one's own children or one's own family, though.

Adelaide
From: [identity profile] duponthumanite.livejournal.com
Judge Rotenberg...why do places like that have to exist? Why can't your government close it down?

Can I presume the three/four year old was probably not typical? Perhaps she had psychosocial dwarfism for instance?

Adelaide
From: [identity profile] duponthumanite.livejournal.com
I do understand.

I don't really like the praising either. I wouldn't even praise a dog too much if I had it.

Now encouragement is good and true.

Children do learn a lot from the way adults treat them, don't they?

Maybe the adults want to show how much they value their children ... more like in public or something.

But eating is natural.

Adelaide

Date: 2006-03-22 03:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] leora.livejournal.com
Actually, I don't have a moral problem with unpleasant medical procedures being forced on children. I would force my child to be vaccinated, even though it is painful and traumatic.

I have a problem with this particular choice of shocking children because it's bad medicine and bad parenting and bad teaching. It's not very effective at getting good results (whereby good I mean actual education going on) and it's just laziness. Positive reinforcement has been show to work much better than punishment. Set up a token economy if you must, but don't go around physically hurting kids. We've shown that that doesn't work well and can be rather harmful.

Date: 2006-03-22 03:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stejcruetekie.livejournal.com
Praising a kid for eating. Eating snacks, of all things. Now I've seen everything.

Well hey, it's never too early to teach them anti-anorexia!

Cause there are plenty of people out there that we're happy if they eat *anything*...

Date: 2006-03-22 03:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] leora.livejournal.com
Except that turning eating into a big deal helps to encourage anorexia later :/ Just what you need, strong emotional connections to eating. I prefer it to just be eating.

Date: 2006-03-22 05:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] failstoexist.livejournal.com
wow. OK, shock therapy? useful in some cases of severe depression. My cousin, for example...he's not *happy* now, but he's not suicidal all the time. Probably the best thing to happen to him in the last few years. However, it's fairly scary stuff, mostly because we've got no idea how or why it works, it just *does*. That, to me, is freaky. and something that shouldn't be messed with unless completely necessary.

Date: 2006-03-22 07:04 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chem-nerd.livejournal.com
You're thinking of a different kind of shock. The shock used to treat severe, non drug-responsive depression is designed to get well and truly feaky with neurotransmitter levels, though I don't remember just how. The shock described here, I would consider inhumane to use on an ill-behaved dog, let alone a child.

Inhumane shocking

Date: 2006-03-22 07:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] duponthumanite.livejournal.com
I think both shocks here are inhumane.

But the second one is more inhumane.

The child didn't ask for this. Nor did the dog. This is on innocent people who did nothing wrong, who are acting out the dictates of their nature.

And a depressed person is usually acting out of learnt behaviour patterns, in most cases, even if it does become chemical in the end.

I think I see a distinction between nature and (lack of or dysfunctional) nurture.

Adelaide
who though she has had depression in the past would describe hers as more situational (gets worse under STRESS) than chemical

Re: Inhumane shocking

Date: 2006-03-22 07:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chem-nerd.livejournal.com
The depression one isn't exactly a shock, though it is electrical in nature. The brain basically functions via electricity. They don't really zap the brain, as I recall, they give it some kind of electrical stimulation that spikes all of the neurotransmitters. Though it's been a while since intro psych...

Re: Inhumane shocking

Date: 2006-03-22 07:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] duponthumanite.livejournal.com
Thanks for the clarification.

So the brain does run on electricity.

It's like food, isn't it? You're only giving it some of what's natural. But you can over shock, like over-vitamin or over-mineral.

Adelaide

Date: 2006-03-22 07:31 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lizziey.livejournal.com
Connie? You have seen Seth praised for eating *anything*. You have seen him eat nothing. For days. ANd what did I do the second he finally ate something? Damn right I praised him.


But then, you know Seth isn't (wasn't? he eats fine now...) normal when this was going on. :-\

Being objective

Date: 2006-03-22 07:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] duponthumanite.livejournal.com
It's different when it's one's own children or one's own family, though.

Adelaide

Profile

conuly: (Default)
conuly

January 2026

S M T W T F S
     12 3
4 5 6 7 8 910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 8th, 2026 06:12 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios