(no subject)

[randomness]

The older you get, the more serious the consequences of your actions tend to be. Best to learn about those consequences early, from someone who loves you and means you well, rather than later, from the cold, cruel world, which cares about you not at all.

With the caveat that I am not a parent, it strikes me that delivering those consequences is a crucial--though often difficult and sometimes heartrending--aspect of parenting.

Comments

[plumtreeblossom.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

Ironically, however, I think that one of the marks of maturity is that a lot of things become less consequential. When I think back on my high school and college years, the big difference is how important so many things seemed and how short-term set-backs became blown so far out of proportion. That level of high drama became simply too tiring and tiresome to maintain in adulthood.

[in-parentheses.livejournal.com]

Well-put. Adults all talk about how the consequences of their actions are more serious than they were when they were kids/teenagers, and they are, objectively speaking. But everything *feels* so much more intense as a teenager that I think it maybe balances out.

[in-parentheses.livejournal.com]

I guess my point, though, is that feelings are real consequences. I mean, I know what you're saying, of course -- there aren't as many consequences for other people, there aren't as many life-or-death consequences. But how we feel -- and how we are made to feel by others -- has a huge impact on our lives, and can even be life or death. (Take a look at teenage suicide statistics.)

I try as a teacher to remind myself that a lot of the stuff kids get worked up about is real to them, and therefore is real, period. Even when my reaction is, "Why on earth would anyone care about that??"

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Sure. I do think that it's essential if one is to understand someone to be able to take their concerns seriously. And I'm not discounting that it feels awful to make a mistake when young.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

So, yeah, I guess I'm talking about objective consequences rather than how they feel.

I've always liked this quote from the 1st Earl of Balfour: "Nothing matters very much, and few things matter at all."

(from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/arthurjame153126.html)

On the other hand, this is the man who wrote the Balfour Declaration, so clearly some things really do matter.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I'm more thinking of what happens if you break the law, or become violent.

There's a sense that if you're a youth, and you commit some transgression on that level, society cuts you a break. This is what juvenile court is all about, after all. And even when you're in your late teens and early 20s, there's a sense that "you're young, you made a mistake".

A guy who commits a crime at age 40 is getting little slack, if any. What he needs then is good legal representation and a lot of luck.

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

Well, yes. I get tired, actually, of hearing the excuse "he's young." I recently heard it applied to a 29 year old and it infuriated me. When do the adult rules kick in?

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

29 is really kind of skating the edge, I'd think.

I made my mistakes at 18, and I feel lucky that they worked out the way that they did. And I've watched 20 year olds have similar outcomes with similar sorts of mistakes. But 29 starts to be a bit of a different story.

[dpolicar]

And not all 20-year-olds are the same age.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

My friends list is testimony to the truth of that statement.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Or, for example, if someone is simply obnoxious, or socially inept: in high school or college, this can get you snubbed, and perhaps it will ruin your social life for a week, or even a semester.

Later in life, that can become a career-limiting move. It might ruin a business partnership. You might get fired.

Objectively, the consequences are worse as an adult. They *feel* worse as a youth, but that's because as a youth you're generally shielded from some of the repercussions, and you have insufficent perspective with which to judge.

[dpolicar]

Hm.

Hm.

So, after some ruminating, I think I agree... with the clarification that sometimes the most valuable examples involve positive consequences. I stress this because when people talk about "consequences of actions" they usually seem to mean negative consequences.

Said differently: one of the most valuable things parents (and managers and mentors of all sorts) can provide is guiding someone through the experience of doing something right and having it work.

We have a cultural myth that people learn best from their mistakes, especially mistakes that cause them to suffer.

In a sense that's true: positive punishment is the most powerful force for behavioral change.

In a more important sense it's false: it's often too powerful a force. A sledgehammer can deliver more force than a ball-peen hammer, but it isn't always the right tool.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Oh, definitely. The particular event which got me posting was actually a positive consequence. But then I got to thinking about negative consequences, which I think affected my phrasing.

But yes, I'm fonder of carrots than sticks, and I think many (most?) people respond better to positive reinforcement.

On Good Responses

[dpolicar]

Well... the thing is, "respond better" is an ambiguous idea.

If you want to instill an aversion to hot stoves, you get fastest most powerful effect by letting the subject burn itself on a hot stove -- positive punishment. The problem is it's too powerful; you're likely to also get an aversion to cold stoves, pots, kitchens, any number of other things.

Rewarding not-touching the hot stove (positive reinforcement) is a weaker, slower and more tedious process, but avoids those side-effects. But even there you may end up creating an unwanted dependency on reinforcement, and associated side effects like lack of initiative. That is, positive reinforcement is often still too powerful. (This tends not to matter too much when training pets, since lack of initiative is often not considered a liability in a pet. It's more of a problem when raising a child.)

Setting the situation up so you get to play the "you've shown yourself to be trustworthy enough that I no longer feel I have to watch you all the time to make sure you don't burn yourself" card (negative reinforcement) is practically powerless by comparison to the other two, and therefore far more difficult to use, but by the same token has fewer side-effects.

We have this tendency to use the most powerful available tool to address a problem, because it's rewarding to see the short-term effect, and it's very much not-rewarding to work on something and see no obvious results for a long time. (This is frequently cited as a difference between "modern/Western medicine" and "alternative/Eastern medicine", though as you no doubt know better than I, this is mostly a bullshit dichotomy.)

But often it's not the most useful tool in the long run. Often a "good" (in the sense of strong, robust, noticable) response isn't actually a good response.

Re: On Good Responses

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Yeah, when I said "respond better" I really meant, I like it more more. :)

I sense that your experience with Sasha informs much of this discussion.