[ukj]

I never quite understood the pragmatic purpose of Approach 1.

If punishment has no measurable, positive effect - why do it?

Combine with Hanlon’s razor and indeed - victims become bullies when they default to Approach 1 when harm (rather than misunderstanding) is perceived.

[boomlinde]

> If punishment has no measurable, positive effect - why do it?

Maybe you never understood it because you implicitly assume that punishment can't have measurable, positive effect. What's the basis of that assumption?

[luckylion]

Punishment is a deterrent though, at least for somewhat rational and premeditated acts, so it has an effect (though it's hard to quantify exactly). It's not a linear effect (as in threat of twice punishment = twice as effective as a deterrent), but it's certainly not zero.

Additionally, punishment often goes hand in hand with making it harder/impossible to re-offend. If you're in prison, you're not breaking into anybody's house.

[elliekelly]

I've posted this before but I think it bears repeating: Study after study[1] has shown that an individual's perception of the likely punishment (e.g., prison time) doesn't deter crime. Rather, an individual's perception of the likelihood they'll get caught seems to be the main deterrent.

This is a really interesting & related read.[2]

[1]https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398

[2]https://undark.org/article/deterrence-punishments-dont-reduc...

[luckylion]

That was my point regarding it not being a linear relationship and only working on somewhat rational actors (not on somebody that is on drugs and completely out of their mind for example). Getting caught is irrelevant if it has no consequence at all. If there is zero punishment (meaning no negative consequences and you get to keep the loot), but you are 100% sure to get caught, you have incentive to commit e.g. robbery, but zero incentive not to. If the punishment isn't negative (i.e. "you get $1000 for getting caught"), getting caught is also irrelevant. Getting caught only becomes relevant when it has consequences you'd prefer to avoid: punishment.

The point isn't that punishment isn't a deterrent, it's the only external deterrent (and you could argue that a bad conscience is self-punishment). It's that the likelihood of getting caught is a very important factor, not so much the severity of the punishment.

In RTS games, there's the idea of overkill: a unit (or set of units) does so much damage that it would kill the attacked unit multiple times. That's a problem, because you waste a lot of the damage, it's generally more efficient to do less damage more often for the same DPS (damage per second). I believe that you can think about punishment in a similar way. With the likelihood of punishment staying the same (for example: 10%), a hike of "somebody stares angrily at you" to "you spend 10 years in prison" very much acts as a deterrent. You get barely any more value out of that being 20 years though, because of "over-deterrence". Here as well, the same punishment with more frequency (=likelihood of punishment) would be more efficient.

[zepto]

The likelyhood is being caught may be the metric that determines the effectiveness of a deterrent over the severity of the punishment, but being caught implies that there is at least some negative consequence.

So in order to be a deterrent there must be punishment. Increasing the severity will do little to increase the effectiveness, but increasing the likelyhood of getting caught will.

[s_kilk]

> If punishment has no measurable, positive effect - why do it?

But it does, the positive effect is in the mind state of the punisher, or the Type-1 people being discussed here.

Now you're right of course, the punishment does not improve the situation, but it sure gives these folks that little squirt of feel-good chemicals and that's what really matters to them.

[thatcat]

If the original problem was a lifetime of low self-esteem of the victim after being bullied, then it seems they have improved their outlook over the long term - rather than the ephemeral boost you imply.

[lr4444lr]

Because the wronged demand justice, and to see your bully now cut down to size, is to be given back a sense that there is justice.

[afandian]

That's what I mean about it being incumbent to try to understand. It may not be "logical" but it still happens, so we should try to work out why.

Perhaps there is some evolutionary reason. Perhaps it is, itself, part of the cycle of abuse. Perhaps it's just easier to be nasty than nice.