I don’t think anyone would argue that behavioral interventions are always a bad idea, but I agree (I think I agree) with Thrust that behavioral interventions are generally a treatment of symptoms as opposed to a treatment of the disease. My kid needs to brush his teeth, sure, but the point is ultimately to get him to respond to long term considerations about his own good and the good of others. Behavior interventions generally get someone to respond to immediate considerations of their good, and in order to be effective they generally have to be calibrated so as to reduce or eliminate consideration on the part of the kid as to whether or not to comply. With a young child, that’s what you have to do to build up good habits. But as the kid gets older, my sense is that one has to switch over to conversations about what reasons the kid can see for doing the right thing, instead of creating more immediate reasons that require less reflection.
Anyway, what my boy observed, correctly, was that there was no forcing him to do anything. I could adjust the incentives around brushing his teeth, or I could force a situation where his teeth are brushed, but it’s entirely impossible for me to force him to do anything.
behavioral interventions are generally a treatment of symptoms as opposed to a treatment of the disease.
In the examples of your son and mine, what is the difference between symptom (socially inappropriate behavior) and the disease (occurrence of socially inappropriate behavior?
Regarding ThrustingVector, it is pretty clear that his parents misunderstood the function of the problematic behavior (not completing school work) and targeted a stimuli that was not closely related to the problem behavior. And so they didn’t have much success.
Anyway, what my boy observed, correctly, was that there was no forcing him to do anything. I could adjust the incentives around brushing his teeth, or I could force a situation where his teeth are brushed, but it’s entirely impossible for me to force him to do anything.
This is an important point, but it’s a more abstract point that the one I was making about families as dictatorships. Certainly it is important for any manager of any organization to recognize that there is no Imperius Curse.
my sense is that one has to switch over to conversations about what reasons the kid can see for doing the right thing, instead of creating more immediate reasons that require less reflection.
Yes, this is the ultimate goal, and it is an important factor in analyzing what behaviors to try to change. But in my defense, I think that this question is a be beyond the scope of my family-as-dictatorship metaphor.
In the examples of your son and mine, what is the difference between symptom (socially inappropriate behavior) and the disease (occurrence of socially inappropriate behavior?
I was thinking of the ‘disease’ as an irrational indifference to the long-term good, a disease of which no one is entirely cured.
But in my defense, I think that this question is a be beyond the scope of my family-as-dictatorship metaphor.
Fair point. Dictators can’t force anyone to do anything either, so that point hardly pulls agains the dictatorship metaphor. I think even if there were an Imperius Curse it would be impossible. Come to think of it, this seems like a point of metaphysics: nothing could be the case such that forced action would be possible. Wait, that seems crazy. Am I getting something wrong here?
I don’t think anyone would argue that behavioral interventions are always a bad idea, but I agree (I think I agree) with Thrust that behavioral interventions are generally a treatment of symptoms as opposed to a treatment of the disease. My kid needs to brush his teeth, sure, but the point is ultimately to get him to respond to long term considerations about his own good and the good of others. Behavior interventions generally get someone to respond to immediate considerations of their good, and in order to be effective they generally have to be calibrated so as to reduce or eliminate consideration on the part of the kid as to whether or not to comply. With a young child, that’s what you have to do to build up good habits. But as the kid gets older, my sense is that one has to switch over to conversations about what reasons the kid can see for doing the right thing, instead of creating more immediate reasons that require less reflection.
Anyway, what my boy observed, correctly, was that there was no forcing him to do anything. I could adjust the incentives around brushing his teeth, or I could force a situation where his teeth are brushed, but it’s entirely impossible for me to force him to do anything.
In the examples of your son and mine, what is the difference between symptom (socially inappropriate behavior) and the disease (occurrence of socially inappropriate behavior?
Regarding ThrustingVector, it is pretty clear that his parents misunderstood the function of the problematic behavior (not completing school work) and targeted a stimuli that was not closely related to the problem behavior. And so they didn’t have much success.
This is an important point, but it’s a more abstract point that the one I was making about families as dictatorships. Certainly it is important for any manager of any organization to recognize that there is no Imperius Curse.
Yes, this is the ultimate goal, and it is an important factor in analyzing what behaviors to try to change. But in my defense, I think that this question is a be beyond the scope of my family-as-dictatorship metaphor.
I was thinking of the ‘disease’ as an irrational indifference to the long-term good, a disease of which no one is entirely cured.
Fair point. Dictators can’t force anyone to do anything either, so that point hardly pulls agains the dictatorship metaphor. I think even if there were an Imperius Curse it would be impossible. Come to think of it, this seems like a point of metaphysics: nothing could be the case such that forced action would be possible. Wait, that seems crazy. Am I getting something wrong here?