• cynar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    1 day ago

    People forget that humans are just animals (that can sometimes reason and talk). I still stand that dog training guides make better parenting books than many parenting books. At least up till around 3 years old.

    The extension of this to adults is more challenging. Intent matters. This could be used abusively VERY easily. That is not happening here, however. With great power, comes great responsibility.

    It’s also worth noting that, if you use this, plan out how you will explain it later. A panicked, “oh shit, (s)he caught on!” will look bad, no matter what. A calm, thoughtful, positive explanation, delivered with confidence will likely get a lot more acceptance.

    A: “Ok, what’s with the M&Ms?”

    B: “You’ve noticed then. :)”

    A: “…”

    B: “I noticed chocolate made you happy. I also noticed you were trying to overcome some negative habits. I decided to help. Whenever you put effort in, I rewarded it with a bit of chocolate. It makes you happy, and helps you lock a good habit in better.”

    A: “… You’ve been conditioning me?!?”

    B: “Yes, don’t you like the improvement?”

    A “… yes, but I’m not sure I should…”

    B: “M&M?”

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Negative reinforcement should be HIGHLY limited. It can cause unforeseen knock on effects. Any negative reinforcement should be highly targeted, without triggering a fight or flight response. It should also be accompanied by clear instructions for how to correct it. This applies to both humans and pets.

        It’s quite likely that most of the negative traits in the OP were caused by an attempt at negative reinforcement.

    • kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      24 hours ago

      You could also be even more cautious: “I noticed that they cheer you up, so I try to have them on hand for when you’re feeling down.” No mention of conditioning, wholesome, hard to argue against.

      • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        22 hours ago

        We constantly condition each other all the time. It’s a part of human interaction. We don’t usually do it consciously, but it’s conditioning nonetheless. Couples will subtly condition their behavior to be more in tune with each other.

        Consider a simple example. Imagine a you’re in a couple, and you just moved in together. You’re both used to living alone. You’re used to flicking on the bedroom light as you walk into the bedroom before bed to prepare for bed. Unfortunately your partner tends to go to sleep before you. You wake them up a few times by accident, and they understandably grumble. You feel bad about it, as you care about them and don’t want to wake them up. You wince the next day when you see how tired they seem. In time, you stop flicking the light on before you enter the room. Your partner’s actions have conditioned you to not turn the light on. Your partner conditioned you without even intending to. We condition each other constantly. We observe what effect our behavior has on others, and we adjust our own behavior accordingly. We usually just don’t refer to it as “conditioning,” as that tends to have a nefarious connotation.

        • kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          22 hours ago

          All true, but it isn’t always best to lead with that. It can provoke an emotional response that might not be productive.

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        20 hours ago

        It also hides the conditioning aspect. We hide things when we consider them negative. If they are asking, they have potentially noticed a lot more. If you hide it, you believe it was a bad thing you were doing, and they will react VERY strongly to you doing it.

        By being upfront it will derail their train of thought on the matter. I personally used this a few times in my youth. It pulls the teeth of an argument quickly.

        Here it is basically acknowledging what you have been doing, while defusing the various “ah ha!” reveals and got-yas they had mentally planned. At that point they have to actually think, rather than just react according to the script they built in their head. Once they are thinking, it’s a lot easier to communicate properly.

        • Soup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I’m very much a “direct communication” kinda person but even I know that timing is important. True it took learning it and that was certainly an experience but it happened.

          If the person is feeling vulnerable and a little worried you’re manipulating them and you dive straight in with a scientific, emotionless reduction of “choco make boyo happy” then you’ll probably scare them. You’re excited about this thing and have had a lot of time to explore it but they haven’t had such time to be more comfortable with that kind of wording. You don’t want to derail their argument, that really only protects you and actually puts you back in hiding a negative aspect and that person now feels possibly even more confused and angry. They were probably hoping that it was just a mistake or that you were being nice, which you probably were, and now you’ve taken their “best case scenario” and told them straight-faced that you were consciously manipulating them.

          After they feel better, after they’ve had some time to sit with it, sure maybe, but in the moment it’s good to soften it a little.