iNow

Decades of research in the field of psychology. I also went into more detail all those years ago, but that’s the gist. If behavioral change and societal improvement are the objective, then punishment is the wrong project plan / wrong strategy to use in achieving it. And that feedback is immediate. It’s a reflex. In crime, however, the punishment comes weeks or even months later so the association in our minds is lost. If you stole a bike and got collared right there at the bike rack, that’s one thing. But if you stole a bike then got arrested at your front door 3 weeks later, that’s something else entirely when viewed in terms of learning. You don’t give the rat in your experiment cocaine 3 days after solving the maze for the same reasons. The feedback must be immediate for the association to form strongly enough to alter behavior. Punishment teaches us not to get caught. It doesn’t so much teach us to avoid the criminal act entirely.

Ten years ago, I touched on this topic suggesting punishment teaches people to avoid getting caught, not to avoid the crime. I advocated for a focus on rehabilitation and argued that prison is largely a waste of money. https://thescienceforum.org/criminality-why-do-we-never-seem-to-learn-or-chang-t187.html

Wild Assed Guess

My doubt was well placed. Biden has rejected calls from other world leaders to extend the removal deadline and remains committed to being out by next week.

And yet you continue posting / failing to engage meaningfully Don’t disagree. How do we meet those basic requirements is my question. Availability of resources isn’t the issue. Allocation of them (and accurately identifying those most in need of them) is.

Right. Okay. I thought maybe you wanted to have an intelligent conversation about this, but you’re contenting yourself with platitudes and flowery language. “Be better” and “be more awesome” isn’t a plan. It can’t be actioned. We share many of the same desires. I’m asking you how you wish to make them a reality, not convince me that we should.

Agreed, but you said we must prevent kids from turning bad. I asked how, and found the following bits too far removed to enable us to achieve that: Uhmmm… sure. Okay, but how does this prevent individual kids from turning bad? These too: How does that prevent kids from turning bad? I’m not following. Sounds like a bumper sticker. This last bit was the closest you came to giving a direct answer: Totally agree, but I can’t do anything with that, can we? Assume we have a magic wand / a blank check to prevent kids from turning bad. Gonna need much more detail than “put more effort and thought into their welfare” when asking the genie for those wishes or writing those checks. “Be more awesome” is a rallying cry, not a metric against which we can measure ourselves nor a plan to get there. Prevent kids from turning bad is a laudable goal, but is a complex and extremely nuanced objective.

Since you replied to my question with new questions of your own, I don’t feel any more clear on what you’re actually proposing.

Who gets to make that decision, and what are the objective metrics / thresholds when doing so? What does this look like in practice? Is there like a pill you can give them, maybe shock therapy, cut out parts of the brain? How do you operationalize it?

Then it would depend on your coworkers and students... customers... suppliers... and all other relevant variables. You're looking for a binary answer to a question which lives on a spectrum.

That resonated with me, too. They could've fought, but knew they'd be overtaken soon and their decision to battle would lead to consequences / retribution for them and their families. They made a rational calculation to just lay down arms now and increase likelihood of surviving. He'll have a video teleconference with other world leaders today where many (including Boris Johnson from UK) are expected to push him to keep troops in longer. I'm doubtful he'll agree, though might be willing to share the burden if other countries add troops of their own... as you mention... we'll see.

Thx for confirming

Uhm. Ok. It’s hard. What point are you trying make other than adding to your post count?

He also has been advocating leaving for over a decade. Even former chairman of the joint chiefs, admiral Mike Mullen, has applauded him for being right on this the whole time when the admiral and other generals were wrong.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3

How is it that you think those with high conscientiousness scores differ from those with lower scores? Depends entirely on the nature of the work, the individual, and countless other variables.

Victoria Bitter, a Melbourne based lager… basically the most popular beer in Australia

Don’t have a link handy, but early in lockdown there was a noticeable drop in soot and smog, much from airlines, but while the rate of CO2 growth had slowed, amount of CO2 still went up. Airlines are flying again now too. Big issue is waste from PPE… lots of masks and gloves etc in landfills.

Ability to edit is removed within an hour of posting. When available, it’s found via the 3-dot drop down at the top right of the post. Your 5 posts per day restriction is an anti-spamming measure and will be gone within 24 hours.

I believe it’s the same things that drove the Nazis. Answer that and you can answer this.

And yet here we are, arguing with people who think masks are more dangerous than Covid and who while frothing at the mouth attack doctors and teachers in parking lots outside of school board meetings for daring to suggest otherwise.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. My point stands.

Current events rather strongly suggest otherwise.

I filtered it for logged in users. You can choose other filters, too. It defaults to no filter, but that's not the link I gave you.

You can still find that info here: https://www.scienceforums.net/online/?filter=filter_loggedin