Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by justinjlynn 1510 days ago
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.
1 comments
Dylan16807 1508 days ago
Jumping to anxiety disorders and abuse is also a heck of a justification for disliking it.
link
justinjlynn 1506 days ago
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.
link
Dylan16807 1506 days ago
May.

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

link
justinjlynn 1504 days ago
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.
link
Dylan16807 1504 days ago
> 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.

link
justinjlynn 1504 days ago
> Why did the word 'risk' disappear here? I don't think that's a good null hypothesis at all.

What null hypothesis would you prefer?

> I am not saying that.

Then what are you saying?

link