Re: Finally ... A Reason To Play Video Games ... LOL

February 9, 2007

>

> Heph answered: " Hmm.. How about " Rapid Reinforcement " ? "

>

> I'm in a rush to dash off to a business meeting (yes, I checked in

> here first before heading out ... LOL) but when I get back, Heph, I

> will provide you with an example of " Rapid Reinforcement " as it

> applies to Cub. Hahahaha!

>

> Raven

> Co-Administrator

>

In the interim logical consequence based reinforcement. In my case,

steady reliable behavior of the adult (creating a safe expected

environment) coupled with making the choice and the responsibility of

the choice the child's has worked.

Example. I use a lot of " If, then: " statements. If you want(desired

object) then you must (desired outcome) Or the reverse, you didn't

(desired outcome so we cant have (desired object) If I don't cave

the expected behavior is reinforced, until it becomes both learned

and routine. (really the not caving is the hardest part!!) Children

Learn, they want things so they learn to get them. Many times I find

the adults misapplication is the real problem, Children are

innocent, they are children, untill they are teenagers. (foundation

is your only saving grace) because mutation occurs during teen years

and if parents can remain constants, children can experiment. anyway

it has worked so far 21, and 15 are still ok, even nice sometimes.

February 9, 2007

Environmental wrote-

" The mistake, I think, was naming the technique " POSITIVE

Reinforcement " instead of something like " Quick Behavioral

Reinforcement. " (I can't think of anything snappier at the moment,

but this comes close.) "

Hmm.. How about " Rapid Reinforcement " ?

That sounds catchy enough for people to cling to. It's a shame

though that people have to have a gimmicky name to associate with

the principle of a technique in order to remind them how the

technique actually works.

Tom

Administrator

February 10, 2007

I like chess :-) It is interesting to see how others play (one's

opponent) gives one quite a lot of insight into what kind of person

they are I think.

As for getting into role playing and other games - I think to some

extent it was more or less a boy's club when I was at school and

despite my being interested in such I was not accepted on the premise

of my sex (i.e being female).

I have been wanting to teach my son how to play chess for sometime

now - I taught him how to play draughts (chequers?). However he has a

lot of trouble with the losing aspect. He is fine if he wins, or I

let him win, but I also believe he needs to learn how to lose and his

reaction to losing isn't exactly pretty :-(

" If you find you can regularly play over from memory a game you have

just played then you're probably ready to start playing blindfold

chess.) "

As I was reading this part I could visually and automatically see the

chess board and pieces :-)

> >

> > What video games does your son usually play? I usually play Risk

and

> win.

> > God bless, Irelan

> >

> > ---------------------------------

> > The fish are biting.

> > Get more visitors on your site using Search Marketing.

> >

>

> ---------------------------------

> Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask

your question on Answers.

>

> ---------------------------------

> Need Mail bonding?

> Go to the Q & A for great tips from Answers users.

>

February 10, 2007

I let my son know there are consequences to actions and although

theoretically he can do what he wants, somethings have negative

consequences (this perhaps contradicting Raven's neutral theory

possibly?), but however some consequences are less desirable than

others. I make it quite clear to my son the consequences of his

actions and stick by them (the consistency part).

In my personal opinion physical punishment has never worked for my

son, therefore I have applied punishment that has more impact -

taking away of games/privelages etc (never taking away a need); my

son is well aware of the cosequences following a given action so

there is little problem and he accepts such (this was harder when he

was younger).

He also understands that I am going to be angrier, more dissapointed

and more harsh on him if he lies to me or tries to cover something

up - obviously him telling me the truth if that truth involves

bad/inappropriate behaviour that was done willfully and intentionally

is still going to get punished, but not as much as if he were to try

and lie and cover up such.

> >

> > Heph answered: " Hmm.. How about " Rapid Reinforcement " ? "

> >

> > I'm in a rush to dash off to a business meeting (yes, I checked

in

> > here first before heading out ... LOL) but when I get back, Heph,

I

> > will provide you with an example of " Rapid Reinforcement " as it

> > applies to Cub. Hahahaha!

> >

> > Raven

> > Co-Administrator

> >

> In the interim logical consequence based reinforcement. In my

case,

> steady reliable behavior of the adult (creating a safe expected

> environment) coupled with making the choice and the responsibility

of

> the choice the child's has worked.

>

> Example. I use a lot of " If, then: " statements. If you want

(desired

> object) then you must (desired outcome) Or the reverse, you didn't

> (desired outcome so we cant have (desired object) If I don't cave

> the expected behavior is reinforced, until it becomes both learned

> and routine. (really the not caving is the hardest part!!)

Children

> Learn, they want things so they learn to get them. Many times I

find

> the adults misapplication is the real problem, Children are

> innocent, they are children, untill they are teenagers.

(foundation

> is your only saving grace) because mutation occurs during teen

years

> and if parents can remain constants, children can experiment.

anyway

> it has worked so far 21, and 15 are still ok, even nice

sometimes.

>

February 10, 2007

wrote: " I let my son know there are consequences to actions

and although theoretically he can do what he wants, somethings have

negative consequences (this perhaps contradicting Raven's neutral

theory possibly?), but however some consequences are less desirable

than others. I make it quite clear to my son the consequences of his

actions and stick by them (the consistency part) ... <snip> ... "

Actually, , it doesn't contradict the Law of Neutrality. :-)

Your son chooses an action. The action is neutral. You decide how

you will react to it. You then choose an action and it is neutral

even though the emotion attached to it is negative. Hence, in your

opinion the consequence is negative.

The consequence is a neutral event. Your son decides how he will

react to it. He then chooses an action and it is neutral even

though the emotion attached to it is negative. Hence, in his

opinion the consequence is negative.

The action that precipitated the consequence just like the

consequence itself remain neutral. The emotions you and your son

have attached to all the actions determines if it is negative or

positive.

In this case, attaching negative emotions to the situation means

that you are able to guide him into actions that will elicit more

positive reactions that what he and you may be experiencing in this

particular moment. :-D

wrote: " ... <snip> ... He also understands that I am going

to be angrier, more dissapointed and more harsh on him if he lies to

me or tries to cover something up - obviously him telling me the

truth if that truth involves bad/inappropriate behaviour that was

done willfully and intentionally is still going to get punished, but

not as much as if he were to try and lie and cover up such. "

That makes sense, . You see, the first inappropriate action

warrants a reaction. Lying is a second inappropriate action itself

and as such warrants a reaction all its own. Therefore, if someone

does something against your rules that is reason enough for a

consequence. And if that same someone does something that further

muddies the waters, that is reason enough for a modified

consequence, a parallel consequence or a subsequent consequence.

It works the same way at my house as well, if that's any consolation.

I have told Cub that if he does something he knows is against my

rules and he tells me, there will still be a consequence of a

negative nature. If I find out about it before he tells me, the

consequence will be a little more involved than it would have been

in the first instance. And if I find out about it and then learn

that he purposely lied in order to hide the first act, then he will

receive a consequence for what he did that displeased me and then he

will receive a much larger consequence for the subterfuge.

Lying is, in my opinion, the most unacceptable action that can

happen in my environment. All other actions that I perceive as

being negative begin in a lie ... either to one's self or to another

(i.e. to one's self would be convincing yourself that the action is

a good idea in the first place).

Raven

Co-Administrator

February 10, 2007

In a message dated 2/9/2007 1:10:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Okay, you probably won't believe this, but one of my professors in college was the co-inventor of one of the techniques used today in modern teaching practices on the elementary, middle school, and secondary school levels.

I found this article in the Washington Times that talks about this very issue. It goes along with all that I have been reading over the years on this topic.

Self-esteem to the extreme

By GreenbergFebruary 5, 2007

Remember self-esteem? It was one of the sillier -- and more dangerous -- fads in educational circles, which keep going round and round. The theory was that promoting kids' self-esteem would convince them they were great. And it just might. But that's no guarantee they are great. On the contrary, this kind of psychological scam could have the opposite effect. Having been told how well they're doing throughout their well-insulated school years, these kids could be in for the shock of their nice, cushioned lives when they're thrown into the real world. And discover that their education wasn't so great after all. Or that a better word for it might be shoddy. The realization might be so crushing they would just give up. Some of us had hoped this fad had come and gone. It had. But now it's come back. Bad ideas apparently never die; they just go underground for a while. There they lurk, like an infection, waiting to crop up again in the strangest places. As in a statement from Arkansas' new governor, Mike Beebe. Mr. Beebe came out against schools' sending reports home about overweight kids lest we hurt their "self-esteem." What kind of report? It's called a body-mass index, which measures how fat or skinny a kid is -- based on factors like height, weight, age and sex. Why be concerned about kids' weight? Because obesity is a real problem in this country. It saps kids' mental and physical development, and can lead to serious problems down the road -- like diabetes, stroke and heart attacks. Overweight kids are also prime candidates for psychological disorders like anorexia and bulimia. Adolescents are notoriously sensitive about their appearance and their peers' opinion of it. The teasing that fatties get in school can be cruel -- and lead them to do dangerous things. A simple report from school about a child's weight might get parents' attention, or even move them to do something about their kid's dietary habits or lack of exercise. It's worth a try. We check kids' eyesight and hearing, don't we? Why not their physical fitness? Because we're told it would hurt their self-esteem. Well, some kids have entirely too much self-esteem already. A geometry teacher I once knew had a phrase for it: climbing Fool's Hill. The tumble down can be painful. Are teachers even allowed to say such things any more? Or has it been decided that folk wisdom is psychologically impairing, too? Some of these kids may be all et up with self-esteem, but they're woefully short on self-respect, which is quite another thing. Self-respect flows from self-discipline and the real achievement it leads to. It doesn't depend on psychological gamesmanship. And it's not just kids. Have you taken a good look lately at American politics, academia, fashion, journalism and public life in general? It over-runneth with the kind of self-esteem that cometh before a fall. There is such a thing as unearned grace -- don't I know it -- but self-esteem is unearned folly. Its fruit is pride, not humility. You can tell a lot about an educational system by its vocabulary. When Calvinistic terms like grace and works are replaced by educantisms like self-esteem, you know the system is in trouble. Or is even to think on grace and works now considered a violation of the separation of church and state? The mere mention of a religious idea in public has been known to make some of our more advanced thinkers break out in hives and litigation. As for those of us inclined to sneak a biblical allusion into our prose now and then, we need not fear; our "educated" classes may no longer recognize it. The theory behind the Cult of Self-Esteem is simple: First get the cart, then put it before the horse. Just feel good about yourself and achievement will follow automatically. It would be too much to call this approach instant gratification; it's really more like pre-gratification. What we have here is one more high-cost detour into the weedy lots of educanto. What a pity the self-esteem fad wasn't lost forever in all that verbal high grass. Want to build real self-esteem, the kind that is the fruit of self-respect and not just an inadequate substitute for it? Expect, even insist on, competence. Don't pretend it's there when it isn't. If that sounds too hard, that's the catch with self-respect -- it has to be earned. Self-esteem, on the other hand, costs little or nothing. And it's worth just what you pay for it. Greenberg is a nationally syndicated columnist.

February 10, 2007

In a message dated 2/9/2007 1:10:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Okay, you probably won't believe this, but one of my professors in college was the co-inventor of one of the techniques used today in modern teaching practices on the elementary, middle school, and secondary school levels.

I found this article in the Washington Times that talks about this very issue. It goes along with all that I have been reading over the years on this topic.

Self-esteem to the extreme

By GreenbergFebruary 5, 2007

Remember self-esteem? It was one of the sillier -- and more dangerous -- fads in educational circles, which keep going round and round. The theory was that promoting kids' self-esteem would convince them they were great. And it just might. But that's no guarantee they are great. On the contrary, this kind of psychological scam could have the opposite effect. Having been told how well they're doing throughout their well-insulated school years, these kids could be in for the shock of their nice, cushioned lives when they're thrown into the real world. And discover that their education wasn't so great after all. Or that a better word for it might be shoddy. The realization might be so crushing they would just give up. Some of us had hoped this fad had come and gone. It had. But now it's come back. Bad ideas apparently never die; they just go underground for a while. There they lurk, like an infection, waiting to crop up again in the strangest places. As in a statement from Arkansas' new governor, Mike Beebe. Mr. Beebe came out against schools' sending reports home about overweight kids lest we hurt their "self-esteem." What kind of report? It's called a body-mass index, which measures how fat or skinny a kid is -- based on factors like height, weight, age and sex. Why be concerned about kids' weight? Because obesity is a real problem in this country. It saps kids' mental and physical development, and can lead to serious problems down the road -- like diabetes, stroke and heart attacks. Overweight kids are also prime candidates for psychological disorders like anorexia and bulimia. Adolescents are notoriously sensitive about their appearance and their peers' opinion of it. The teasing that fatties get in school can be cruel -- and lead them to do dangerous things. A simple report from school about a child's weight might get parents' attention, or even move them to do something about their kid's dietary habits or lack of exercise. It's worth a try. We check kids' eyesight and hearing, don't we? Why not their physical fitness? Because we're told it would hurt their self-esteem. Well, some kids have entirely too much self-esteem already. A geometry teacher I once knew had a phrase for it: climbing Fool's Hill. The tumble down can be painful. Are teachers even allowed to say such things any more? Or has it been decided that folk wisdom is psychologically impairing, too? Some of these kids may be all et up with self-esteem, but they're woefully short on self-respect, which is quite another thing. Self-respect flows from self-discipline and the real achievement it leads to. It doesn't depend on psychological gamesmanship. And it's not just kids. Have you taken a good look lately at American politics, academia, fashion, journalism and public life in general? It over-runneth with the kind of self-esteem that cometh before a fall. There is such a thing as unearned grace -- don't I know it -- but self-esteem is unearned folly. Its fruit is pride, not humility. You can tell a lot about an educational system by its vocabulary. When Calvinistic terms like grace and works are replaced by educantisms like self-esteem, you know the system is in trouble. Or is even to think on grace and works now considered a violation of the separation of church and state? The mere mention of a religious idea in public has been known to make some of our more advanced thinkers break out in hives and litigation. As for those of us inclined to sneak a biblical allusion into our prose now and then, we need not fear; our "educated" classes may no longer recognize it. The theory behind the Cult of Self-Esteem is simple: First get the cart, then put it before the horse. Just feel good about yourself and achievement will follow automatically. It would be too much to call this approach instant gratification; it's really more like pre-gratification. What we have here is one more high-cost detour into the weedy lots of educanto. What a pity the self-esteem fad wasn't lost forever in all that verbal high grass. Want to build real self-esteem, the kind that is the fruit of self-respect and not just an inadequate substitute for it? Expect, even insist on, competence. Don't pretend it's there when it isn't. If that sounds too hard, that's the catch with self-respect -- it has to be earned. Self-esteem, on the other hand, costs little or nothing. And it's worth just what you pay for it. Greenberg is a nationally syndicated columnist.

February 10, 2007

In a message dated 2/9/2007 1:47:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

, Being a war buff as you are, and a follower of the American and world political psyche, I just wondered if you have noticed these three slight hypocrisies that I have noticed:

I'm not exactly a way buff as a history buff. The old adage of learning history or being doomed to repeat it is true. Military history is a vital part of history. It is a shame that our leaders, both military and civilian don't bother to learn these lessons. The civilian Joe on the street especially hasn't been taught the first hint of a lesson about war and what it really is.

The media in general is against the war in Iraq and against terrorism. Why? Quite cynically I think it is because a Republican is running it. Bill Clinton ordered more military deployments than any previous president and bombed the daylights out of a European nation, including blocking the Danube River which was a major commercial waterway, but there was never anything but praise. Even when bombs killed civilians and hit the Chinese embassy, all that was mentioned then slipped under the rug. There was one chance that he had to get Bin Laudin, but to do so would have meant cruise missiling a city which would have killed thousands of civilians. The Navy Officer in charge of the flotilla refused to fire in spite of very heavy pressure from the White House. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened then.

Also bear in mind that the media is over 85% Democrat based on political registration. During the last Presidential Election, the entire behind the scenes staff at one of the major news networks was cheering and having parties for Kerry. Editorial and newspaper staffs are just as bad.

Not only is there political bias, but also the old standard, "if it bleeds it leads." In order to get the biggest audience, the media tries to put forward the bloodiest and most gruesome stories possible to get a leg up on the competition. You can see how blatantly thin all this is with the death. This trivium has been front and center for days now. Why? Because it is the latest salacious bit of tripe. That they would drop their war coverage for this clearly shows they media is just whoring for ratings. Still, I'd rather see them rip into the life of that tart than lambasting the troops.

There is an article in the latest Armchair General magazine about the media in war. They point out that the media has been a power since the American Civil War, though I would say much earlier than that. Many of the first news reports coming from battlefields was wrong. Other stories were usually highly biased for or against one side or the other. That still goes on today. All you have to do is look at the Israeli attack on Lebanon. Reporting there was incredibly biased and shoddy with many made up, staged or doctored images being presented. Also conveniently ignored were things like the continued attacks into Israel, especially from Gaza. Even today there are daily rocket attacks, clear violations of the cease fire, but that never makes the news, only Israeli retaliations do.

It is the same in Iraq. There is a political bias around the world against the war so the vultures are doing their best to portray the US and its allies in the worst light possible. Again, a lot of the images are staged or taken out of context. Some of the pictures that have been posted were actually from training exercises teaching the troops how to handle certain situations, but presented as real life events. There is a lot good going on over there, but rarely is it mentioned.

The public also has no patience anymore. Well, it never really did. Even during WWII there were major morale problems with the civilians and even a possibility of pulling out of the war before it was won. Even during the Civil War, Lincoln was hated by the North, ruthlessly mocked and derided far worse than Bush is today. At least in WWII, people were willing to endure heavy losses. Then, it was not uncommon for a single battle to result in more losses than have occurred in all of Iraq and Afghanistan in these years.

I agree that Afghanistan will probably be like Korea. We are doing well there so far, probably better than in Iraq. However, we are facing the same problem of a basically tribal society where most tribes hate each other. It has always been like that and trying to get them to cooperate is probably a lost cause. This isn't helped by the fact that Northwest Pakistan is just as bad and is full of Al Quida supporters and is a Wild West that the government has no control over.

Again, Iraq was probably a mistake. Students of history would have known this and not bothered with an invasion. Iran certainly would have been easier to control with Sadaam still in power. They also would have learned that if they were determined to invade, not to fight the war "on the cheap" as Rumsfeld put it. Turkey refused to allow several divisions to invade Iraq from its territory for a number of reasons. We should have waited the couple of months to allow them to move to Kuwait and Saudi. Then, we would have had enough force to secure the areas we took and maintain civil order.

That period of chaos sowed the seeds for much of today's problems. Had the peace been maintained, the local militias that are causing so much of the trouble today would not have reached the strength that they have and would be no real problem. We also could have crushed the Sunni, who were the original troublemakers, swiftly before things got so messy. It would also have been easier to keep the Shia under control as well. By the same token, the greater show of strength, will and success would have intimidated Iran and kept them from fooling around in Iraq like they have been. Our showing so far has shown them that we aren't serious about fighting and won't be a threat to them. That's what happens when you play at war rather than fight one.

February 10, 2007