[koolba]

> Oh, and wait to see how that scales when you have multiple children and they start to abuse each other to get the other to act out and lose candy. That'll be fun.

Learning about cause, effect, reaction, and manipulation are vital skills in life. Knowing and understanding them does not mean you’re a sociopath either. They’re widely useful in many aspects of life. Makes you a better poker player too.

[justinjlynn]

That's one heck of a justification that one. Childhood trauma and abuse sometimes also sometimes results in functioning, well-adjusted adults with decent abuse coping skills and without crippling mental illness - that doesn't mean it's the best way to achieve that goal.

[Dylan16807]

Jumping to anxiety disorders and abuse is also a heck of a justification for disliking it.

[justinjlynn]

You should very much know that the null hypothesis for a proposed behavioural modification technique is that it isn't a benefit and doesn't work and may be harmful. It's on the proposer to show otherwise.

[Dylan16807]

May.

What you're asserting goes miles beyond 'may'. You're making extremely strong claims with no evidence.

[justinjlynn]

What's less harmful when it comes to human health and safety in non-essential activities, to assume no risk of harm or injury or to assume risk of harm or injury? I assert that the null hypothesis is that it does not have a benefit and is harmful. This is not an assertion of fact, simply a position of likelihood and a judgement that doing a physical and emotional punishment to a person is generally harmful and that doing so must be balanced against ensuring a just outcome. This is not an unreasonable stance. You, on the other hand, if I understand properly, are saying that we should be able to do whatever we like to a punish person unless we show it directly causes harm. Down that road lies such human rights abuses that holding such views should be considered unconscionable.

[Dylan16807]

> What's less harmful when it comes to human health and safety in non-essential activities, to assume no risk of harm or injury or to assume risk of harm or injury?

I agree with this statement. Assume a risk.

> I assert that the null hypothesis is that it does not have a benefit and is harmful.

Why did the word 'risk' disappear here? I don't think that's a good null hypothesis at all.

> You, on the other hand, if I understand properly, are saying that we should be able to do whatever we like to a punish person unless we show it directly causes harm.

I am not saying that.