Originally Posted by Mikebert

They are not unilateral. Why do woman involved with a man who they support, choose to have his children? It's not so they can access his earning power, since he has none, she is supporting him.

Let's look at my "kids" (including foster kids). Kid #1, had two kids with the now toothless guy (he had teeth then). When he was functioning as sperm donor, he lived with his mother, how supported him. Today he lives with baby mama #3, who supports him.

Kid #2 has had three kids by three sperm donors. She has always worked. SD #1 was with her for a brief time, but he hit her and she threw him out. He's in Ohia now. SD #2 was married and lives with his wife. SD #3 was the guy who was living with her, and whom she was supporting, up until a few months ago

Kid #3 (whom we adopted) has had two kids by 2 SDs and has another on the way by SD #3. We don't know who SD #1. SD #2 moved in with her biofamily as "her man" (he needed a place to live as he had no income) and together they had the second child. When they expressed an interest in moving into a crack house, my wife and I intervened and tried to help them and the two kids make it as a family, spending about $10,000 and a lot of effort on the part of my wife in the attempt. It failed, they split up. We managed to get the older child adopted by another could since his father was unknown. The younger child, call him J, could not be adopted since his father was known and he would never consent to an adoption. So J went to live with his paternal grandma and her live-in guy who doesn't work and whom she supports. When grandma took him out of school and moved into a hotel frequented by pedophiles J had to come back to my daughter and he lives with her now and her current unemployed boyfriend who she supports, who has now become SD #3.

You see the pattern?

Good God, That sounds like the social dysfunction I knew about in many families in the hick town I grew up in. Ugh.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

So when do you compel your four-year-old to pick up his room? Or do you just sit around and wait for him to come to that decision on his own?

"Jimmy, put away your toys. There's too much clutter in this room."

"No!"

"Jimmy, put away your toys or I will have to put them away for you."

"Fine! Put them away yourself!"

Hours later...

"Mr. Arkham, where are my toys?"

"I put them away, Jimmy, just as I told you I would."

"Where did you put them."

"Away."

"But where?"

"Somewhere. I know where they are, don't worry."

"But I want to play with them."

"Then I suggest that you put them away yourself next time, so that you know where to find them when you want them again. As things are, you will get your toys back when I'm ready to go get them for you. I'm too busy [fixing dinner, washing dishes, whatever] to get them for you right now, so you'll just have to wait."

"But I want them now! Now, now, now!"

"I told you, if you want to know where your toys are, you'll have to keep track of them yourself. You refused to pick up after yourself earlier, so I put your toys away, because there was too much clutter. If that bothers you, pick up your own toys next time. Then you'll be able to find them when you want them again."

"You're a meany!"

"Am I? I picked up your toys for you, Jimmy, after you refused to do it yourself. I cleaned up your mess. That is all. When you do something helpful for someone else, does that make you a meany?"

"No, but--"

"Did I not give you the opportunity to pick up the toys yourself?"

"Yeah, but--"

"And did you not refuse?"

"Yeah, but--"

"Did I not assure you that I know where the toys are and will return them to you when I'm ready to do so?"

"Yeah, but--"

"But nothing. You will get your toys back when I'm ready to give them back. If you don't like that arrangement, pick up your own toys next time."

Etc., etc.

Challenge: Identify the punishment in this scenario (I am not denying one is present) and explain how it is coercive.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Challenge: Identify the punishment in this scenario (I am not denying one is present) and explain how it is coercive.

[shrug] Obvious. The punishment for Jimmy is in being deprived of his toys. It's coercive because it imposes a penalty for failure to put his toys away/clean up after himself. We generally call behavior-shaping "coercion" when it relies on punishment for disobedience. We generally call it something else when instead it relies on reward for obedience.

But now, here's a slightly more subtle and difficult one. Suppose that instead of starting with toys that he owned and being deprived of them as a punishment, Jimmy started out in the place owning no toys at all. Instead of being given toys and then deprived of them as punishment if he failed to pick up after himself, Jimmy is allowed the opportunity to earn toys by doing chores. Is there an element of coercion in this as well? If so, what is it?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

[shrug] Obvious. The punishment for Jimmy is in being deprived of his toys. It's coercive because it imposes a penalty for failure to put his toys away/clean up after himself. We generally call behavior-shaping "coercion" when it relies on punishment for disobedience. We generally call it something else when instead it relies on reward for obedience.

But now, here's a slightly more subtle and difficult one. Suppose that instead of starting with toys that he owned and being deprived of them as a punishment, Jimmy started out in the place owning no toys at all. Instead of being given toys and then deprived of them as punishment if he failed to pick up after himself, Jimmy is allowed the opportunity to earn toys by doing chores. Is there an element of coercion in this as well? If so, what is it?

What's the difference between being given the toys and having them taken away vs earning the toys and having them taken away in the mind of a child?

Originally Posted by The Rani

That might be a generational difference.

I don't think so, unless Gen-X, as a whole, subscribes to the philosophy that, "Well, we can't succeed 100% so we better oppose any efforts to move in that direction."

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

[shrug] Obvious. The punishment for Jimmy is in being deprived of his toys. It's coercive because it imposes a penalty for failure to put his toys away/clean up after himself. We generally call behavior-shaping "coercion" when it relies on punishment for disobedience. We generally call it something else when instead it relies on reward for obedience.

Your definition of coercion is so lax as to render it meaningless, it seems. Jimmy was not forced to do anything. In fact, he was assisted in his irresponsibility -- the toys were put away for him. The natural consequence, however, was that he lost track of his toys and could not find them again when he wanted them. Mr. Arkham did not yell at Jimmy or spank him or send him to his room without dinner. He even told Jimmy he would get his toys back, after Mr. Arkham had finished the task with which he was preoccupied. (Work before play, you could say.) Mr. Arkham 1) offered Jimmy a choice, 2) withdrew cooperation when Jimmy erred in his judgment*, and 3) walked the child through the dynamics of the situation in order to make clear to him the mistake he had made. None of these acts constitute coercion.

* Had an explanation here of what I considered the error to be, but removed it, because I think it'd be more revealing of people's attitudes to see their interpretations. I already know my opinion.

But now, here's a slightly more subtle and difficult one. Suppose that instead of starting with toys that he owned and being deprived of them as a punishment, Jimmy started out in the place owning no toys at all. Instead of being given toys and then deprived of them as punishment if he failed to pick up after himself, Jimmy is allowed the opportunity to earn toys by doing chores. Is there an element of coercion in this as well? If so, what is it?

How is Jimmy to earn toys by picking up toys he does not have to begin with? Not being facetious. This requirement seems to preclude the behavior it seeks to reinforce, like telling a young worker who is seeking to build experience that he can't have a job because he lacks experience.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I don't think so, unless Gen-X, as a whole, subscribes to the philosophy that, "Well, we can't succeed 100% so we better oppose any efforts to move in that direction."

You're young, booksmart and idealistic. We're middle aged, experienced and pragmatic.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Your definition of coercion is so lax as to render it meaningless, it seems. Jimmy was not forced to do anything. In fact, he was assisted in his irresponsibility -- the toys were put away for him. The natural consequence, however, was that he lost track of his toys and could not find them again when he wanted them. Mr. Arkham did not yell at Jimmy or spank him or send him to his room without dinner. He even told Jimmy he would get his toys back, after Mr. Arkham had finished the task with which he was preoccupied. (Work before play, you could say.) Mr. Arkham 1) offered Jimmy a choice, 2) withdrew cooperation when Jimmy erred in his judgment*, and 3) walked the child through the dynamics of the situation in order to make clear to him the mistake he had made. None of these acts constitute coercion.

* And the error in judgment, for the sake of clarity, was not failing to pick up after himself, but abdicating responsibility to someone else and thereby losing track of his toys. If Jimmy cares about the whereabouts of his toys, then it is incumbent on him -- not Mr. Arkham -- to take care of them. If Jimmy does not care about his toys, on the other hand...the situation is hopeless. His behavior will not be modified by any combination of punishment or reward.

No, the error in judgement was the failure to pick up the toys as directed.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

No, the error in judgement was the failure to pick up the toys as directed.

Only if you accept reflexive obedience as the definition of good judgment. I do not. The kid has to come to understand why he should pick up after himself, not simply that he must, else the whole episode is just an arbitrary exercise in adult tyranny, so far as he knows.

from such seeds does inhuman Purism grow:

Originally Posted by The Voice of Progressive Reform

".... There's too much clutter {for a Progressive Reformer} in this room."

"There are too many notes in this music, Amadeus."

I think it sad when INTP children are in the charge of Levellers.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You have the most peculiar views I have ever encountered on the web. You call yourself a libertarian. Libertarianism is a philosophy for life's winners. People who would kill themselves before they would let themselves become your heroin-using friend.

There are many sorts of libertarianism and many sorts of libertarians.

You are a libertarian advocating for life's losers, the very people whose needs are ignored in a libertarian world.

This is only problematic if you insist that one must be either libertarian or an advocate for the downtrodden. I do not accept this binary formulation, therefore I perceive no paradox.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Your definition of coercion is so lax as to render it meaningless, it seems.

No, it's the standard definition: behavior shaping via threat of punishment. The same way people are coerced (if unwilling) into paying taxes; the same way a slave was coerced into working.

Jimmy was not forced to do anything.

Strictly speaking, very rarely is anyone actually "forced" to do anything, in the sense of being deprived of will. If you tell a kid, "go to your room," he refuses to go, and you actually physically pick him up, toss him on his bed, and shut and lock the door, that would qualify, I suppose. But that's not what we really mean by coercion. We mean that someone has been made to so something he doesn't want to do by threat of punishment.

In fact, he was assisted in his irresponsibility -- the toys were put away for him. The natural consequence, however, was that he lost track of his toys and could not find them again when he wanted them.

LOL yeah, that's what Arkham told Jimmy, but the fact is that Jimmy losing track of his toys was intended on Arkham's part -- he deliberately put them where Jimmy couldn't find them -- and so it was not a "natural outcome" of Jimmy's failure to pick up after himself. The natural outcome, absent Arkham's interference, would have been that the toys would have been right where Jimmy left them and he could have found them just fine.

Mr. Arkham did not yell at Jimmy or spank him or send him to his room without dinner. He even told Jimmy he would get his toys back, after Mr. Arkham had finished the task with which he was preoccupied.

True, but that only describes the nature of the punishment inflicted, and notes that it was not certain other forms of punishment. It was still a punishment (as you said yourself). And behavior shaping through threat of punishment is coercion.

Mr. Arkham 1) offered Jimmy a choice, 2) withdrew cooperation when Jimmy erred in his judgment*

You left out a step: Arkham putting the toys away where Jimmy couldn't find them. That was the punishment. #2 would be withholding a reward -- but it was a "reward" only in the sense of being an early end to the punishment.

None of these acts constitute coercion.

I disagree. I hasten to add that I don't consider them wrong. That's quite a clever and elegant way to shape a sloppy kid's behavior, and much better than more common ways (probably more effective, too). But it's still coercion. Perhaps where we disagree is that I don't consider coercion automatically wrong, as you do, and so I don't have a problem with recognizing that I sometimes used to use it with my kids.

For that matter, I sometimes do it with the employees under my management. I had to tell someone recently that she would be terminated if she didn't follow proper procedures when quoting short-term liability insurance, because she had misquoted some things and potentially gotten the firm in lots of trouble. That was coercion: a threat of punishment intended to shape behavior. I see nothing wrong with it. Interestingly enough, if I'd just fired her. without giving her a chance to correct her mistakes, that would NOT have been coercion.

How is Jimmy to earn toys by picking up toys he does not have to begin with? Not being facetious.

LOL sorry, my bad.

The chores I was referring to were others besides picking up toys. Say, doing the dishes, or sweeping the floor, or bringing in wood for the fireplace.

Originally Posted by Odin

Yep, Kohlberg's levels of moral development. Kids have to go through the "I must to this so I won't be punished" phase before they get to the "I must do this because it is the right thing to do" phase. Kids need to be taught boundaries that shouldn't be crossed, exactly what the Silents forgot to teach their Xer kids.

Bullcrap.

Kids don't learn anything worthwhile from punishment. The goal of parenting (so far as I see it, of course) once you've established the baseline of keeping your children alive and healthy, is to help them be good people. That is, good as [strongly] opposed to obedient. Not only does the one not lead to the other; the two are mutually exclusive.

Good is reasoning for oneself the right course of action and following through with it, obedient is turning off one's reasoning and simply allowing oneself to be the instrument of another.

Arguing -- as some here seem to be doing -- that kids are incapable of moral reasoning is nothing more than evidence of laziness on the part of those who are supposed to be teaching it to them. People are social creatures who, particularly in their youth exist to learn. That's the focus of a kid's life, regardless the particular details. The path of which Arkham gave an example, and which Rani alluded to as 'natural consequences' requires rather a fair bit more energy and attention than does "because I said so or else...", but so what? Just because a path is the easiest doesn't mean it is the right one.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

LOL yeah, that's what Arkham told Jimmy, but the fact is that Jimmy losing track of his toys was intended on Arkham's part -- he deliberately put them where Jimmy couldn't find them -- and so it was not a "natural outcome" of Jimmy's failure to pick up after himself. The natural outcome, absent Arkham's interference, would have been that the toys would have been right where Jimmy left them and he could have found them just fine.

HAH! That's an interesting version of 'natural' you have. Because, in the world we actually inhabit, Jimmy is not the only person around to affect his environment. In that reality, when something unattended discomforts a person, they tend to take action to remove the discomfort. If Arkham had taken the toys away while Jimmy was playing with them, that would be one thing -- but when Jimmy just dumped them and walked away... in any social context, that's just asking for someone else to clean up your mess in whatever way they seem fit.
It's not about forcing someone to be tidy, or even about teaching them the benefits of organization -- as I mentioned above, the goal is helping a child learn how to thrive in his natural environment -- society.

You probably know from your own kids; it takes them a little while between the time they start talking and the time they actually come to believe, deep down (as shown by their actions ) that the other people around them are just as legitimate as they are themselves. Some people never get to that point...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

HAH! That's an interesting version of 'natural' you have. Because, in the world we actually inhabit, Jimmy is not the only person around to affect his environment.

Words mean what they mean in context, Justin. In this case, "natural" meant "this is what happens when you do X, it has nothing to do with me doing Y."

In a completely different context, which you seem to have grafted onto this discussion through a remarkable linguistic feat resembling advanced genetic engineering, "natural" would indeed have the connotations you presented, but in that context I would not have used the word in the sense I did -- and neither would Arkham.

Edit: Besides, it's obvious that the result of the toys being where Jimmy couldn't find them didn't just happen; Arkham didn't put them away in the most logical or convenient places. He deliberately hid them.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Arguing -- as some here seem to be doing -- that kids are incapable of moral reasoning is nothing more than evidence of laziness on the part of those who are supposed to be teaching it to them.

Kids ARE incapable of moral reasoning until they reach a certain age and achieve certain accomplishments, viz: mastery of spoken language, development of empathy, expansion of consciousness beyond the self.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Only if you accept reflexive obedience as the definition of good judgment. I do not. The kid has to come to understand why he should pick up after himself, not simply that he must, else the whole episode is just an arbitrary exercise in adult tyranny, so far as he knows.

That depends on his age. I'm a great believer in logical consequences - you didn't pick up your toys so I put them away is a good one - but below a certain age, reasons go right over their heads. I say this as the mother of two very bright daughters, now in their 40s, from having observed their development.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Kids ARE incapable of moral reasoning until they reach a certain age and achieve certain accomplishments, viz: mastery of spoken language, development of empathy, expansion of consciousness beyond the self.

Yep. In in terms of Kohlberg's stages most kids are Pre-Conventional (ego-centric), Most adolescents and adults are Conventional (authoritarian-ish internalizing and conforming to social rules), and only some adults reaching the Post-Conventional stage (abstract moral concepts of social contracts and ethical principles).

My 10yo niece is a high stage 2 (self-interest driven), when I am baby-sitting her I discipline her accordingly, using arguments based on my stage 5 1/2 thinking won't work, instead I guide her towards developing to stage 3 (filling social roles and conformity to them).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Kids ARE incapable of moral reasoning until they reach a certain age and achieve certain accomplishments, viz: mastery of spoken language, development of empathy, expansion of consciousness beyond the self.

As to the first: you will note that I mentioned it in my post. As to the second, those are mileposts on the path of moral reasoning, not prerequisites. The ability to be a moral being, of course, is a continuum rather than a binary. And the instilling of an obedience-reflex is only an impediment to attaining the necessary mileposts in the appropriate context.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

That depends on his age. I'm a great believer in logical consequences - you didn't pick up your toys so I put them away is a good one - but below a certain age, reasons go right over their heads.

Prior to a certain developmental level, language goes over childrens' heads as well. And yet we speak to them from birth anyway -- recognizing that the best way for them to pick up the linguistic framework is to be immersed in it as early and as often as possible.

Much like talking to a baby, sharing reason with a too-young kid is mostly just making noises at an unresponsive (at least on that level) lump. But it's hard to see how that matters, since such experience is absolutely critical to how we develop.

Originally Posted by The Rani

As I've said many times before, providing natural consequences (or as natural as you can make them) works a lot better than coercion.

Unpleasant consequences are still coercive. The boy has been temporarily deprived of his property just as a night in jail temporarily deprives one of freedom. Natural consequences are best because it is easier for the subject to see the need for coercion, but there is still coercion.

Actually, our family had a strong test of that. Their dad, feeling that logical consequences were cruel, disciplined them the way he had been disciplined: by getting them off the hook for the consequences of their actions and then yammering at them for an hour or more.

I did explain as much as I thought they were capable of understanding, being a strong believer in giving minds of any age reasons for what they should be doing. Which BTW does not work with a lot of adults either. I hope they appreciated it. But there were times it merely ended in the endless "Why?" cycle as well.

Note: we're talking toddlers here, not 10-year-olds.

Originally Posted by The Rani

It was an observation not a research study, but yeah the "controls" are when dad is around and the boys shape up.

And I don't know what made you think that I was talking about going to college.

You said that boys don't do as well without a father figure. You left it pretty open. I was thinking along the lines of life outcomes as young adults. I didn't know that what you had in mind was obedience to authority.

FWIW, libertarianism makes use of a different definition of coercion by bringing it in line with the NAP.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

As to the first: you will note that I mentioned it in my post. As to the second, those are mileposts on the path of moral reasoning, not prerequisites. The ability to be a moral being, of course, is a continuum rather than a binary.

Nevertheless, what I stated were basic prerequisites for ANY moral sense. (Except in fact I would remove the one we both agreed on, speech. Non-human social animals such as chimps and gorillas achieve moral consciousness without language. I put it in there because learning speech is instinctive for our species, and comes before development of empathy or expansion of consciousness beyond the self.)

It is empathy and expanded consciousness that are a contiuum in my opinion, and morality is a product of those two traits. If you have none of them, you cannot engage in moral thinking.

And the instilling of an obedience-reflex is only an impediment to attaining the necessary mileposts in the appropriate context.

I disagree, although I do agree that obedience can be (and often is) taken too far. Living as part of a community requires (qualified) obedience to its laws and leaders. I say (qualified) because, in either a primitive or an advanced society (although not in a classical civilization), obedience is not supposed to be unquestioned, and there is a civic duty to oppose unjust laws and leaders which sets one behavioral parameter, while obedience to those judged acceptable sets the other. It's a fine line to draw. Too much obedience begets tyranny, too much disobedience, anarchy. ()

Some societies and sub-societies tend to be more libertarian, encouraging questioning more, while others tend to be more authoritarian, demanding more obedience. A perfect example of the latter is the military. While the duty to question orders in the military isn't totally set aside (i.e. there is such a thing as an "unlawful order"), it is greatly curtailed compared to almost any civilian society, because of the danger of disobedience in a combat situation. Some very small and informal groups, at the other extreme, may exist without personal leadership, but even such groups have rules, even if the rules are informal.

So in short, I would say that acquiring a tendency to obey authority is a part of moral maturation, and counter-moral only if it rises too far.