Coercion and Its Fallout

[Morkeliph]

I entitled this thread after an very interesting book written by Dr. Murray Sidman, a researcher/expert on punishment and its side-effects on behavior. He makes an interesting argument on the use of punishment for behavior management that I think we ought to discuss. However, before we can adequately discuss his argument against the use of punishment, perhaps we ought to mention a bit about what punishment is and some of its observed side effects.

Punishment is the procedure of supplying consequences for behavior that reduce the probability of that behavior occurring in the future, or its rate of occurence (presuming the two are the same). Therefore, by definition, punishment always works, because it if doesn't reduce the rate of a behavior, then it isn't punishment. In other words, we cannot say that electric shock, or a parking ticket, is a punisher, unless we can show that they reduce the rate of the behavior they are contingent upon.

There are functionally two types of punishment, positive and negative. A positive punisher is a stimulus, or event, the presentation of which decreases the rate of response upon which is contingent. A negative punisher is a stimulus, or event, the removal of which decreases the rate of response upon which it is contingent. For example, spanking a child may be seen a a positive punishment (if it reduced the rate of the behavior for which the child is being spanked) because it presents or adds something to the environment contingent upon the response. A parking fine might be viewed as a negative punisher because it removes money contingent upon a response (and presumably reduces the rate of parking violation).

Some interesting observed effects of punishment on behavior is that there are particular variables that determine the effectiveness of a punishment procedure. For instance, Azrin, Holz, and Hake (1963) found that birds would continue to respond even when intense levels of electric shock (130 V) were delivered for key pecks. This effect occurred when the punisher was introduced at 60 V or less and gradually increased. On the other hand, animals that suddenly received moderate-intensity shocks (80 V) completely quit responding. Importantly, the key pecking behavior of the birds given sudden shock was irreversibly suppressed---they never pecked the key again. Other research shows that the gradual introduction of presumed punishers is an ineffective method of punishment because the organism learns to tolerate the aversive stimuli presented (like a lobster/frog being cooked in a pot where the heat is gradually increased).

Some other factors are important in the use of aversive control to punish behavior. Punishments must be introduced abruptly, as we have mentioned, and of such severity that the organism will not tolerate, or habituate to the "punisher." Additionally, punishment is most effective at reducing responses when it closely follows behavior, as opposed to some time after the behavior has occurred. This makes intuitive sense, the organism is morelikely to associate the punisher and the behavior when they are closer together in time. Finally, punishment must be consistent in order to be effective. Consider why speeding tickets are typically a poor method of preventing individuals from speeding. More times that not, you get away with speeding and it is the rare occasion that you get "punished." Because tickets are so few and far between, you are likely to continue speeding because you more often than not get away with it. Thus speeding tickets are not true punishers because they don't reduce the rate of speeding in most cases, unless the cop is present.

As for some negative side-effects of aversive control, many studies have shown that painful and other aversive stimuli elicit aggression in many species of organisms, including humans, When two organisms are placed in the same setting and painful or otherwise aversive stimuli are delivered, the organisms may attack one another. Additionally, the phenomenon of counter-aggression is well documented in that the presentation of aversive stimuli or events may elicit or set the occasion for aggressive behavior, often directed towards the punishing agent. This form of aggression may take various forms, whther it be physical, verbal, social or even political. It is important to note that aversive stimuli often elict aggression, and aggression (which is generally aversive in itself) breeds additional aggression.

Additionally, in understanding aversive control, it is important to understand the principle of negative reinforcement. A negative reinforcer is a stimulus, or event, the removal of which increases the rate of response upon which it is contigent. This generally occurs when a response terminates or prevents an aversive event. When a response terminates an aversive stimulus or event in its presence, we call it an escape response. When a response prevents and aversive event in its absence, we call it an avoidance response. Negative reinforcement is the process primarily responsible for the social side effects of punishment and aversive control.

Finally, lets move on to Sidman's argument against the use of punishment. Sidman writes in his book about our society's excessive use of coercion (the use of punishment or the threat of punishment to get others to act as we would like) in behavioral control. Unfortunately, it appears that coercion is largely responsible for a phenomenon Sidman and other researchers call social disruption. That is, the hope in using punishment is to decrease and undesired behavior without affecting other unpunished behaviors. Two factors, however, work against this: The person who delivers punishment and the setting in which punishment occurs can both become conditioned aversive stimuli, or in essence, conditioned punishers themselves. Because of this conditioning, individuals will attempt to escape from or avoid the punishing person or setting. This latter part is the role of negative reinforcement. Sidman argues that one kind of escape response is "dropping out." People drop out of education, family, personal and community responsibility, citizenship, society, and even life. An unfortunate, but common, example is the school dropout. Day after day, students are sent to schools where coercion is the predominant way of teaching. That is, often the teacher's job is to "get students to learn" by punishing them when they fail. Examples include ridicule for errors on obvious questions, written work filled with negative comments, report cards emphasize failing grades in red ink, poor students are seated in the back of the room as examples of what happens to failures, and students who cannot deal with the normal workload are required to do extra work at school and home, making those who fail social outcasts who are deprived of play and other activities. Children who fail eventually conclude that learning and pleasure are not compatible---the more learning, the less pleasure.

As aversive control escalates, escape is inevitable. Students show increasingly severe forms of dropping out. Tardiness, feigned illness, "playing hooky," and never showing up for school are common responses to the escalation of coercion in schools. Sidman states: The current discipline and dropout crisis are the inevitable outcome of a history of educational coercion. One may long for the days when pupils feared their teachers, spoke to them with respect, accepted extra work as punishment, submitted to being kept after school, and even resigned themselves to being beaten, But through the years, all these forms of coercive control were sowing the seeds of the systems destruction, Wherever and whenever coercion is practiced, the end result is loss of support of the system on the part of those who suffered from it. In every coercive environment, the coerced eventually find ways to turn upon the coercers. An adversarial relationship had developed between pupils and teachers, and the former victims, now parents, no longer support the system against their children.

These are all interesting points on the effects of coercion and punishment on our society as a whole. Is it time we thought about our practices of social and behavioral control and avoided the use of punishment as a behavioral control? What other options are available to us in reducing harmful behavior instead of punishment?

[FallenLord]

Self-interest (rationality), therefore conflict.

For harmonious results, self-interest must be either favorably manipulated or suppressed.

Manipulation is either punishment or rewards or a combination of the two.

Some religions suppress self-interest.

Combine religious supression and punishment/rewards manipulation for best results.

Humans are concerned with their own self-interest, leading to conflict.
Self-interest may be manipulated by an arbitrary system of rules to reduce conflict. (Property rights, punishment, etc.)
Many religions introduce the concept of absolute truth in such a way as to suppress self-interest. (Divine laws, morality, etc.)
Other mechanisms to suppress self-interest may exist.

Manipulating self-interest with an arbitrary system of rewards with the intent of reducing conflict is equivalent to not having the system of rewards. Rewards are granted through the system. It is therefore in the self-interest of others to steal those rewards. Therefore an equilibrium independent of the system will quickly be established where regular conflict resumes.
Manipulating self-interest with an arbitrary system of punishment with the intent of reducing conflict may shift behavior and reduce conflict. Since nothing is gained by ignoring the system and much is lost by ignoring it, self-interest dictates that the system should not be ignored.
Suppressing self-interest with an arbitrary system of 'religion' may reduce conflict. Concepts include but are not limited to: absolute truth, an afterlife.
A combination of rewards/punishment manipulation results in the system we currently have. Self-interest must weigh the positives of stealing rewards against the negatives of punishment. As stealing rewards becomes more relatively profitable, the system will converge to basic conflict.

I propose that no 'solution' to self-interest conflict exists that includes neither punishment nor suppression.
I also propose that no system of self-interest suppression can be effectively differentiated from a system of 'religion.'
In my opinion, a combination of 'religious' suppression and punishment/rewards manipulation will have the greatest effect in reducing self-interest based conflict.

[ScottieIWU]

I'd say that one of the best ways to combat negative behavior in, at least minor situations, is to ignore the behavior. Do not punish it or reward it. By withdrawing the attention the person who broke the rule he learns he will not be rewarded, and so not to waste time.

Of course, this doesn't work on crimes or things like in schools where kids beat the shit out of each other. However, for smaller transgressions (not doing homework, not being in class, child temper tantrums) this, I believe, is one of the better ways to go.

As far as more severe crimes, I agree that punishment is not the option but I simply do not know how to deter that behavior. Ignoring murder is not a good way to fight crime, however our jail system has shown that crime doesn't really get beaten by jail systems. I suppose this would be a topic for me to do more research.

However, I will add that if punishment is necessary for certain things, it should be tailored to each person. Punishment is conditional on a fear of the consequence from the person being punished. Therefore, if a person does not fear prison, he will clearly not be deterred by the threat of going to jail for his actions. Therefore, one would have to adjust his punishment ot be something he feared.

[FallenLord]

If “bad” behavior is in one’s self-interest, then the behavior is its own reward. Thus, if ignored, the behavior will continue.

Morkeliph’s punishment examples demonstrate the necessity of shock value in order for the punishment to be meaningful/effective. This is why, where punishment is used, I support erring on the side of excess.

I believe that as our justice system shifts away from punishment and towards “correction,” the purpose of the system is undermined and it will continue to become less and less effective at shifting self-interest. Punishment is necessary to shift self-interest. “Correction” is a fallacy: If people are expected to behave in their own self-interest, why would they heed “correction” that is contrary to their own self-interest? No, only punishment changes the priorities of self-interest while leaving self-interest intact.
If “correction” is to actually have any meaningful effect, it should either be in the form of mental conditioning (brainwashing and other related techniques) or religion.

[GenocideAlive]

The problem with these punishments and these experiments is that they all neglect the culture of poor behavior and perceived martyrdom. So these people think that drug-dealing and gun-running is cool and they "have" to do it to stay alive. In effect, these people are propegating the problem they pretend to be combating, but that's neither here nor there. These experiments don't feature animals communicating back-and-forth regarding the punishment, the perceived punisher, or the fitness of the punishment. I find them to be an argument via analogy and a poor analogy at that.

They command respect and gain adulation from others in society based on how poorly they behave--the worse the more respect/adulation they gain. Once they're arrested, they perceive themselves as martyrs to a life they feel "forced" to lead. The behavior they express in prison is no different than life outside, although considered sometimes worse.

If we're going to solve our prison system, we need to first change the way the prison system works (remove the social aspect). It's not going to be one big social club between prisoners anymore, but rather one bigass "re-socialization" that will amount to familarizing themselves with the law, getting education (GED), and potential job prospects/fields.

Of course, some argue that their civil liberties would be infringed, but then we're back to square one.

[FallenLord]

As an aside, if this “re-socialization” system was effective, it might be prudent to simply apply it to everyone in the first place: if people decide to not play by the rules, it should be due to a ‘perfect information’ calculation of what is in their self-interest – not because a lack of information faults their reasoning. Accordingly, punishments could be adjusted upwards towards an acceptable percentage of self-interest based conformity.

Also, I don’t consider jail time to be “punishment.” Punishment is physical/mental trauma or monetary fines/penalties. Not creating a pseudo-society for offenders to live in.

[Morkeliph]

With the few seconds I have before my lab (more to come later):

It is important to note that inprisonment is not punishment unless it decreases the rate of the target behavior. That is the functional definition of punishment, hence punishment always works. If it doesn't, then it's not punishment, just an aversive event.

More later...

[ScottieIWU]

FL, self-interest is only a motivating factor assuming it provides reinforcement. If the behavior does not provide some kind of reinforcement in itself, it can be ignored and will not continue.

Example: A child throws a tantrum in a store because his mother will not buy him a toy.

If the mother ignores him the child is, in a sense, having a tantrum in a kind of "attention vacuum." Therefore, if the child enjoys throwing tantrums his tantrum is reinforced out of his self-interest to enjoy himself. However, if the child does not intrinsically enjoy throwing tantrums, his behavior will stop, as it was not reinforced.

However, don't think I'm disagreeing with you. A gang member could kill a rival gang member and never tell anybody about it, but the reinforcement of his act is that he now has one less enemy to fear. Therefore, even in that "attention vacuum" he has been reinforced mentally.

GA, you brought up the person whose acts gain him recognition among his peers, even though they're illegal, and then his incarceration becomes a kind of martyrdom. The problem is that he's not being punished at all. He is, in fact, being reinforced. This hypotheical person has been conditioned to see that selling drugs will give him respect, so he does it. Since the prison system isn't really doing much to help this, it seems like one of the other options is to attempt to extinguish the conditioning. If we could somehow remove the benefits of drug dealing from this person, he would no longer do it. The problem, then, is in feasibly extinguishing those habits.

[GenocideAlive]

The problem is that he's not being punished at all.
Also, I don’t consider jail time to be “punishment.”
I think we're getting a little carried away with what both inmates consider punishment and our own personal viewpoint meanwhile trying to hybridize both with the facts. No-one in prison LIKES being in prison, and I am sure that the overwhelming majority of those in prison WANT OUT. The fact that they are able to adapt to their lifestyle, learn, or grow in criminal capacity while there has no effect on the significance of their punishment. They're being robbed (justifiably) of years of their lives, their masculinity, and sexual identity in some cases, and they'd be hard-pressed not to realize it.

There is a distinctive class-race separation that some believe is still being propegated. To ignore this and say that everybody in prison is there because it's their fault by default is just a sweeping generalization that helps us sleep at night. I'm not advocating mob rule or lack of personal responsibility, but let us be aware of society's role in our prison system before declaring it an utter failure and a cushy resort.

Of course, this all assuming I'm using a definition out of a dictionary for punishment and not Morkeliph's dedicated psychology definition, for purposes of pigeonholing the argument.

[ScottieIWU]

Perhaps I did get a little carried away. Granted no person would sit down at night and say to himself "Damn, I really could go for some prison." However, that doesn't change the fact that the psychological effect isn't quite what it's supposed to be.

The idea of punishment is to connect some negative stimulus to the person's action. In doing so, this person would then stop doing that action to avoid this aversive stimulus. That much is obvious. The problem is that punishment has a lot of factors that make it more or less effective.

Let's say John commits murder and tries to cover it up. Eventually, he ends up in jail. However, this punishment isn't as good as it could be. For one, immediacy affects this. Time would have passed between when John murdered his victim, when the body was discovered, the police investigation, the pre-trial process, the trial process and finally his incarceration. In the US legal system this could be months to years. Punishment loses effectiveness as time passes, simply because the person being punished doesn't associate his crime with the punishment as strongly. If John were thrown in jail as soon as the victim was dead, the punishment would have more of a psychological impact.

Also, the prison system does not teach alternatives. In the case of John, the alternative would be "do not murder." This might be a moot point since John would be in prison for life, but in the case of, say, robbery, the prison system does nothing to tell people "working for money is how society does things." This reduces the psychological effectiveness of the punishment because the criminal knows what not to do, but without knowing what he should do, there's still room to commit more crime.

Of course, GA, I want to emphasize that you are completely right that people are punished in prison. However, psychologically the problems inherent in prison systems and the US legal system (i.e. the immediacy of punishment) cut down the connection between crime and punishment in the criminal's mind. The result is that the criminal isn't rehabilitated, but may in many cases just exhibit the side effects of punishment (aggression, fear toward the punisher, hostility, etc.) This I why I think a prison system focused on reforming, such as the one you suggested, would be nice.

Oh, and GA, it is good to see you back. The IR was kinda quiet while you were gone.

[FallenLord]

Scottie:
I'm certain you are not disagreeing with me, either.

Your 'gang member' example is accurate. It is in his self-interest to kill a rival gang member. This behavior is logically sequential because it gratifies self-interest. It does not need to be reinforced.

The 'temper tantrum' example is inaccurate. Since there is nothing inherently self-gratifying about throwing a temper tantrum (except where it a pure emotional outlet, I suppose), it reoccurs, as you suggested, only if a doting parent reinforces the behavior. Thus, in this case, ignoring the unwanted behavior produces the desired result. But this is because the unwanted behavior is non sequitor and does not inherently gratify self-interest; the only reason the behavior arises is because it is reinforced. (Circular logic.)

An accurate 'child' example would be: You have a toy I want. Self-interest dictates I take it from you. Therefore, I do. Alternatively, the store has a toy I want. Therefore I take the toy from the store. (Etc.) This behavior is logically sequential because it gratifies self-interest. It does not need to be reinforced. (Ignoring will not curb it.)

self-interest is only a motivating factor assuming it provides reinforcement. If the behavior does not provide some kind of reinforcement in itself, it can be ignored and will not continue.Behavior dictated by self-interest is, by definition, 'reinforcing,' though I think suggesting that self-interest 'reinforces' is redundant and cheapens the term. Self-gratifying behavior is logically sequential, not circular, thus it does not need to be reinforced.

Alternatively, I think you will find that self-interest can never not be reinforcing.

In the 'gang member' and 'child' examples, punishment is necessary to alter behavior.

...

GA:
I'm not suggesting that anyone likes prison, nor that prison does not punish, nor am I disagreeing with your analysis in general.

However, I think it is very clear that prison does not solely "punish," nor is it designed to. If punishment is the intention, there are vastly more efficient and effective ways to carry it out.

The prison system has more to do with sequestering people we don't like than punishing them; the punishment seems like a consequence rather than a cause.

...

Scottie #2:
The idea of punishment is to connect some negative stimulus to the person's action. In doing so, this person would then stop doing that action to avoid this aversive stimulus.That follows if you are dealing with a being incapable of reason such as a child or an animal. Adults can reason. They plan and calculate; they are not guided simply by instinct or present events.

That is why I believe associating punishment with negative stimulus and psychological impact is inaccurate.

If years (or perhaps even hours) passed before an animal was rewarded with negative stimulus, it would not draw a connection. However, adults can still draw a connection because they have the ability to reason.

I believe it is more accurate to think of punishment in terms of 'shifting' self-interest. Knowing that certain actions (otherwise in one's self-interest) would lead to punishment should enter into one's calculation and reduce the relative value of those actions. With an appropriate level of punishment, a rational being would find it in his self-interest to spend his time in other ways.

[Morkeliph]

Okay, first let's provide some functional terminology before I go off using them repeatedly in my posts.

Reinforcement: the process of supplying consequences for behavior that increase or maintain the rate of response of the behavior they are contingent upon. These consequences can either be the presentation (positive) of a "desirable" stimulus/event or the termination (negative) of an aversive stimulus or event. Reinforcement hasn't occurred unless the rate of behavior increases.

Punishment: the process of supplying consequences for behavior that decrease the rate of response of the behavior they are contingent upon. These consequences can either be the presentation (positive) of an aversive stimulus/event or the removal of a "desirable" stimulus or event. Punishment hasn't occurred unless the rate of behavior decreases.

Of course, this all assuming I'm using a definition out of a dictionary for punishment and not Morkeliph's dedicated psychology definition, for purposes of pigeonholing the argument.Though I appreciate the pun, these are the functional definitions of these terms as used in the field of the experimental analysis of behavior, and the terms that Sidman is using in the argument of his text. Since the very nature of the topic which we're discussing is the functional analysis of behavior management, it only makes sense to use the proper terms of the functional analysis of behavior as a whole.

Now that's out of the way, let's address the issue of "self-interest." It should be first be understood that all behavior occurs because it is being maintained by reinforcement on some schedule. Therefore, the organism engages in all behavior because it "gets something out of it." Depending on how we're defining "self-interest" here, it should probably be asserted that all behavior occurs out of "self-interest." Yes, even seemingly altruistic behavior reliably occurs because of some form of reinforcement. When it is asserted that "some religions suppress self-interest" it is more appropriate to say that "some religions redirect self-interest." That is to say, the organism engages in the said behavior (giving alms to the poor or tithing to God) because of conditioned reinforcement supplied by adherence to a social rule (in this case, either the promise that God will supply reward, or more likely the threat that God will punish the sinner. See below on escape and avoidance responding).

Now, you might ask, what of self-destructive behavior? This only illustrates the power of reinforcement in shaping and maintaining behavior. Conditioned reinforcement (that is reinforcement that can acquired its strength through contiguous pairing with primary, or unconditioned, reinforcement (or other conditioned reinforcers as in the case of a behavioral chain)) is typically responsible for these behavioral tendencies. Often, negative reinforcement plays a role that is difficult to detect. This is because negative reinforcement often occurs when an aversive consequence is prevented from occurring and thus immediate consequences are easy to miss. Nonetheless, consequences are responsible for the behavior's reoccurrence and the result is generally something "desirable" to the organism. All being said, there is no need to consider that "self-interest" will or can be suppressed because "self-interest" is part of the genetic endowment of the organism necessary for survival and reproduction. Without innate "self-interest" all organisms would be incapable of learning and would ultimately die and go extinct. Even punishment would not occur without "self-interest" because it is in the organisms best interest to avoid aversive stimuli and events, which is what makes them punishing.

That being said, in reference to Scottie's suggestion of "just ignoring" the behavior, this can be effective in appropriate situations. Generally we call this procedure extinction because the reinforcement that maintains the behavior (in the "ignoring" example, attention) is withheld and no longer selects the behavior for persistence. This approach can be applied in other situations as well where attention is not the reinforcer by withholding or preventing the reinforcement that maintains the response. Unfortunately with extinction, this is generally a painful and longer process and there are also unfortunate side-effects. Extinction, which is aversive in itself (because of the lack of reinforcement), elicits aggression similar to that of punishment and other emotional responses, one of which being an initial increase in the rate of response before it gradually declines. Additionally, spontaneous recovery may occur in which after a long period of time from extinction training, the rate of responding returns to higher levels which then gradually decline again to low levels (assuming extinction is still in effect). Also, extinction isn't always possible where reinforcement is unwithholdable or unpreventable. Finally, as Scottie mentioned, there are some circumstances in which extinction is too gradual a process and ethically unsound, particularly in situations of destructive behavior to self or others. FallenLord also makes a good point that in if '"bad" behavior isin one's self-interest, the behavior is its own reward." In these situations, an alternative solution is necessary for decreasing the rate of the target response, and typically (and unfortunately) punishment is generally the first approach we use.

Alternative methods of behavioral control, that avoid the use of punishment, can be used with dramatic results. One method is the differential reinforcement of other behavior, or DRO. That is, making the reinforcement maintaining behavior available contigent upon another incompatible response. In the case of a screaming child who wants candy, candy can be made available contigent upon some other response, like helping with the carry the grocery bags, and never available contingent upon crying. This is particularly useful when coupled with some form of moderate punishment for the undesired response, but can also be done without using punishment. This, in essence, shifts the child's "self-interest" in the appropriate direction and teaches an appropriate response for obtaining the desired reinforcement (remember that one of the weaknesses of punishment alone is that it does not teach the organism what is appropriate behavior). Scottie illustrated this well I think:Also, the prison system does not teach alternatives. In the case of John, the alternative would be "do not murder." This might be a moot point since John would be in prison for life, but in the case of, say, robbery, the prison system does nothing to tell people "working for money is how society does things." This reduces the psychological effectiveness of the punishment because the criminal knows what not to do, but without knowing what he should do, there's still room to commit more crime.

Also, as FallenLord as stated:Alternatively, I think you will find that self-interest can never not be reinforcing.I think this has been touched upon already by explaining that reinforcement and punishment both occur because of innate "self-interest." It should be reiterated, however, that all behavior is maintained by reinforcement and therefore due to "self-interest." Hence the redundant emphasis on "self-interest" is generally unnecessary because "self-interest" itself isn't what we're attempting to change but that the behavioral direction of "self-interest" is where change must occur.

Conclusively, there are obviously situations in which punishment is in fact appropriate to use, but due to the negative side-effects mentioned in post 1, punishment should be used in strict moderation. Our current system relies too heavily on punishment as a behavioral management technique (partly because using punishment is negatively reinforcing for the punishing agent) and this has led to several negative consequences in our society. In order to avoid these effects, what can we do to change our system in order to terminate or minimize the production of these side-effects?

In other words, what we are meant to be discussing is: Is habitually using punishment worth all the negative side-effects that it produces? If you don't know what effects I mean:Finally, lets move on to Sidman's argument against the use of punishment. Sidman writes in his book about our society's excessive use of coercion (the use of punishment or the threat of punishment to get others to act as we would like) in behavioral control. Unfortunately, it appears that coercion is largely responsible for a phenomenon Sidman and other researchers call social disruption. That is, the hope in using punishment is to decrease and undesired behavior without affecting other unpunished behaviors. Two factors, however, work against this: The person who delivers punishment and the setting in which punishment occurs can both become conditioned aversive stimuli, or in essence, conditioned punishers themselves. Because of this conditioning, individuals will attempt to escape from or avoid the punishing person or setting. This latter part is the role of negative reinforcement. Sidman argues that one kind of escape response is "dropping out." People drop out of education, family, personal and community responsibility, citizenship, society, and even life. An unfortunate, but common, example is the school dropout. Day after day, students are sent to schools where coercion is the predominant way of teaching. That is, often the teacher's job is to "get students to learn" by punishing them when they fail. Examples include ridicule for errors on obvious questions, written work filled with negative comments, report cards emphasize failing grades in red ink, poor students are seated in the back of the room as examples of what happens to failures, and students who cannot deal with the normal workload are required to do extra work at school and home, making those who fail social outcasts who are deprived of play and other activities. Children who fail eventually conclude that learning and pleasure are not compatible---the more learning, the less pleasure.

As aversive control escalates, escape is inevitable. Students show increasingly severe forms of dropping out. Tardiness, feigned illness, "playing hooky," and never showing up for school are common responses to the escalation of coercion in schools. Sidman states:

Quote:



Originally Posted by Coercion and Its Fallout, p. 107


The current discipline and dropout crisis are the inevitable outcome of a history of educational coercion. One may long for the days when pupils feared their teachers, spoke to them with respect, accepted extra work as punishment, submitted to being kept after school, and even resigned themselves to being beaten, But through the years, all these forms of coercive control were sowing the seeds of the systems destruction, Wherever and whenever coercion is practiced, the end result is loss of support of the system on the part of those who suffered from it. In every coercive environment, the coerced eventually find ways to turn upon the coercers. An adversarial relationship had developed between pupils and teachers, and the former victims, now parents, no longer support the system against their children.

[GenocideAlive]

Ugh, Mork. You're turning debates into 3 page dronings. You've got to make your posts more succinct and stop spreading everything so thin. Your posts as a whole are starting to starve for poignancy; I don't want to be writing 3 page replies to merit a 6 page rejoinder and so on.

And thanks to my well-wishers, sorry about the longer-than-necessary absence--but I'm not usually one to watch idly as injustice is perpetrated. *Knightly Pose*