I had stumbled onto a significant fact of the human condition: the feedback to which life exposes us is perverse. Because we tend to be nice to other people when they please us and nasty when they do not, we are statistically punished for being nice and rewarded for being nasty.
So you (or at least Kahneman) implicitly admit that punishment is effective at changing behavior.
Everyone who’s looked at the data thinks that punishment can change behavior. The question is whether punishment makes the changes you want- and people dramatically overestimate the usefulness of punishment and dramatically underestimate the usefulness of positive reinforcement.
The question is whether punishment makes the changes you want
Also it depends on the definition of what you “want”—for example if you punish someone for bad behavior, what exactly is your goal?
to help them improve their behavior?
to signal to other people that you care?
to have higher status that the punished person?
All three goals are pleasant, though only the first one is officially desirable. The punishment works in all directions. Perhaps this is the reason why behavior change by punishment is popular more than it deserves; and why people rationalize its usefulness even when the first goal visibly fails.
Everyone getting an A isn’t reinforcement. Reinforcement has to be conditional on something. If you give everyone who writes a long paper an A, that’s reinforcing writing long papers. If you give everyone who writes a well-written paper an A, that’s reinforcing well-written papers (and probably more what you want to do).
But if you just give everyone an A, that may be positive, but it simply isn’t reinforcement.
I see a difference between ‘niceness’ and ‘positive reinforcement’. The “everyone deserves an A for trying” approach is ‘nice’ but it generally isn’t skillful positive reinforcement; I think a major problem with it is underestimating how much it rewards behaviors that look like trying but aren’t trying.
There’s also a basic value question- if you’re trying to build self-esteem, it’s not clear that an “A for trying” approach overvalues positive reinforcement, though if you’re trying to build understanding, it clearly would be a misapplication of positive reinforcement.
Yes, I think so and apparently so does Kahneman. I don’t think this is particularly controversial. Kahneman does say that positive reinforcement is more efficient (both in animals and humans).
So you (or at least Kahneman) implicitly admit that punishment is effective at changing behavior.
Everyone who’s looked at the data thinks that punishment can change behavior. The question is whether punishment makes the changes you want- and people dramatically overestimate the usefulness of punishment and dramatically underestimate the usefulness of positive reinforcement.
Also it depends on the definition of what you “want”—for example if you punish someone for bad behavior, what exactly is your goal?
to help them improve their behavior?
to signal to other people that you care?
to have higher status that the punished person?
All three goals are pleasant, though only the first one is officially desirable. The punishment works in all directions. Perhaps this is the reason why behavior change by punishment is popular more than it deserves; and why people rationalize its usefulness even when the first goal visibly fails.
Agreed. Hopefully, instructors care most about the first- but in general human interaction, the others can easily rise to prominence.
Depends, the current “everyone is special, everyone deserves an A for trying” culture almost certainly overvalues positive reinforcement.
Everyone getting an A isn’t reinforcement. Reinforcement has to be conditional on something. If you give everyone who writes a long paper an A, that’s reinforcing writing long papers. If you give everyone who writes a well-written paper an A, that’s reinforcing well-written papers (and probably more what you want to do).
But if you just give everyone an A, that may be positive, but it simply isn’t reinforcement.
I see a difference between ‘niceness’ and ‘positive reinforcement’. The “everyone deserves an A for trying” approach is ‘nice’ but it generally isn’t skillful positive reinforcement; I think a major problem with it is underestimating how much it rewards behaviors that look like trying but aren’t trying.
There’s also a basic value question- if you’re trying to build self-esteem, it’s not clear that an “A for trying” approach overvalues positive reinforcement, though if you’re trying to build understanding, it clearly would be a misapplication of positive reinforcement.
Yes, I think so and apparently so does Kahneman. I don’t think this is particularly controversial. Kahneman does say that positive reinforcement is more efficient (both in animals and humans).