Discipline and Punish

Modern parents are terrified of two frequently juxtaposed words: discipline and punish.

They evoke images of prisons, soldiers and jackboots. The distance between disciplinarian and tyrant or punishment and torture is, indeed, easily traversed. Discipline and punish must be handled with care.

The fear is unsurprising. But both are necessary. They can be applied unconsciously or consciously, badly or well, but there is no escaping their use.

It's not that it's impossible to discipline with reward. In fact, rewarding good behaviour can be very effective.

The most famous of all behavioural psychologists, B.F. Skinner, was a great advocate of this approach. He was expert at it. He taught pigeons to play ping-pong, although they only rolled the ball back and forth by pecking it with their beaks.

But they were pigeons. So even though they played badly, it was still pretty good. Skinner even taught his birds to pilot missiles during the Second World War, in Project Pigeon (later Orcon). He got a long way, before the invention of electronic guidance systems rendered his efforts obsolete.

Skinner observed the animals he was training to perform such acts with exceptional care.

Any actions that approximated what he was aiming at were immediately followed by a reward of just the right size: not small enough to be inconsequential, and not so large that it devalued future rewards.

Such an approach can be used with children, and works very well. Imagine that you would like your toddler to help set the table. It's a useful skill. You'd like him better if he could do it. It would be good for his (shudder) self-esteem.

So, you break the target behaviour down into its component parts. One element of setting the table is carrying a plate from the cupboard to the table. Even that might be too complex.

Perhaps your child has only been walking amfew months. He's still wobbly and unreliable. So, you start his training by handing him a plate and having him hand it back.

A pat on the head could follow. You might turn it into a game. Pass with your left. Switch to your right. Circle around your back. Then you might give him a plate and take a few steps backward so that he has to traverse a few steps before giving it back. Train him to become a plate-handling virtuoso. Don't leave him trapped in his klutz-dom.

You can teach virtually anyone anything with such an approach. First, figure out what you want. Then, watch the people around you like a hawk.

Finally, whenever you see anything a bit more like what you want, swoop in (hawk, remember) and deliver a reward. Your daughter has been very reserved since she became a teenager. You wish she would talk more.

That's the target: more communicative daughter. One morning, over breakfast, she shares an anecdote about school. That's an excellent time to pay attention. That's the reward. Stop texting and listen. Unless you don't want her to tell you anything ever again.

Parental interventions that make children happy clearly can and should be used to shape behaviour. The same goes for husbands, wives, co-workers and parents. Skinner, however, was a realist.

He noted that use of reward was very difficult: the observer had to attend patiently until the target spontaneously manifested the desired behaviour, and then reinforce. This required a lot of time, and a lot of waiting, and that's a problem.

He also had to starve his animals down to three-quarters of their normal body weight before they would become interested enough in food reward to truly pay attention. But these are not the only shortcomings of the purely positive approach.

Negative emotions, like their positive counterparts, help us learn. We need to learn, because we're stupid and easily damaged. We can die. That's not good, and we don't feel good about it. If we did, we would seek death, and then we would die. We don't even feel good about dying if it only might happen.

And that's all the time. In that manner, negative emotions, for all their unpleasantness, protect us. We feel hurt and scared and ashamed and disgusted so we can avoid damage.

And we're susceptible to feeling such things a lot. In fact, we feel more negative about a loss of a given size than we feel good about the same-sized gain. Pain is more potent than pleasure, and anxiety more than hope.

Emotions, positive and negative, come in two usefully differentiated variants. Satisfaction (technically, satiation) tells us that what we did was good, while hope (technically, incentive reward) indicates that something pleasurable is on the way. Pain hurts us, so we won't repeat actions that produced personal damage or social isolation (as loneliness is also, technically, a form of pain).

Anxiety makes us stay away from hurtful people and bad places so we don't have to feel pain.

All these emotions must be balanced against each other, and carefully judged in context, but they're all required to keep us alive and thriving.

We therefore do our children a disservice by failing to use whatever is available to help them learn, including negative emotions, even though such use should occur in the most merciful possible manner.

Skinner knew that threats and punishments could stop unwanted behaviours, just as reward reinforces what is desirable. In a world paralyzed at the thought of interfering with the hypothetically pristine path of natural child development, it can be difficult even to discuss the former techniques.

However, children would not have such a lengthy period of natural development, prior to maturity, if their behaviour did not have to be shaped. They would just leap out of the womb, ready to trade stocks.

Children also cannot be fully sheltered from fear and pain. They are small and vulnerable. They don't know much about the world. Even when they are doing something as natural as learning to walk, they're constantly being walloped by the world.

And this is to say nothing of the frustration and rejection they inevitably experience when dealing with siblings and peers and uncooperative, stubborn adults.

Given this, the fundamental moral question is not how to shelter children completely from misadventure and failure, so they never experience any fear or pain, but how to maximize their learning so that useful knowledge may be gained with minimal cost.

In the Disney movie Sleeping Beauty, the King and Queen have a daughter, the princess Aurora, after a long wait. They plan a great christening, to introduce her to the world.

They welcome everyone who loves and honours their new daughter. But they fail to invite Maleficent (malicious, malevolent), who is essentially Queen of the Underworld, or Nature in her negative guise.

This means, symbolically, that the two monarchs are overprotecting their beloved daughter, by setting up a world around her that has nothing negative in it. But this does not protect her. It makes her weak.

Maleficent curses the princess, sentencing her to death at the age of sixteen, caused by the prick of a spinning wheel's needle. The spinning wheel is the wheel of fate; the prick, which produces blood, symbolizes the loss of virginity, a sign of the emergence of the woman from the child.

Fortunately, a good fairy (the positive element of Nature) reduces the punishment to unconsciousness, redeemable with love's first kiss.

The panicked King and Queen get rid of all the spinning wheels in the land, and turn their daughter over to the much-too-nice good fairies, of whom there are three.

They continue with their strategy of removing all dangerous things— but in doing so they leave their daughter naïve, immature and weak. One day, just before Aurora's sixteenth birthday, she meets a prince in the forest, and falls in love, the same day. By any reasonable standard, that's a bit much.

Then she loudly bemoans the fact that she is to be wed to Prince Philip, to whom she was betrothed as a child, and collapses emotionally when she is brought back to her parents' castle for her birthday. It is at that moment that Maleficent's curse manifests itself.

A portal opens up in the castle, a spinning wheel appears, and Aurora pricks her finger and falls unconscious. She becomes Sleeping Beauty. In doing so (again, symbolically speaking) she chooses unconsciousness over the terror of adult life.

Something existentially similar to this often occurs very frequently with overprotected children, who can be brought low—and then desire the bliss of unconsciousness—by their first real contact with failure or, worse, genuine malevolence, which they do not or will not understand and against which they have no defence.

Take the case of the three-year-old who has not learned to share. She displays her selfish behaviour in the presence of her parents, but they're too nice to intervene. More truthfully, they refuse to pay attention, admit to what is happening, and teach her how to act properly.

They're annoyed, of course, when she won't share with her sister, but they pretend everything is OK. It's not OK. They'll snap at her later, for something totally unrelated. She will be hurt by that, and confused, but learn nothing.

Worse: when she tries to make friends, it won't go well, because of her lack of social sophistication. Children her own age will be put off by her inability to cooperate. They'll fight with her, or wander off and find someone else to play with.

The parents of those children will observe her awkwardness and misbehaviour, and won't invite her back to play with their kids.

She will be lonely and rejected.

That will produce anxiety, depression and resentment. That will produce the turning from life that is equivalent to the wish for unconsciousness.

Parents who refuse to adopt the responsibility for disciplining their children think they can just opt out of the conflict necessary for proper child- rearing. They avoid being the bad guy (in the short term).

But they do not at all rescue or protect their children from fear and pain. Quite the contrary: the judgmental and uncaring broader social world will mete out conflict and punishment far greater than that which would have been delivered by an awake parent.

You can discipline your children, or you can turn that responsibility over to the harsh, uncaring judgmental world—and the motivation for the latter decision should never be confused with love.

You might object, as modern parents sometimes do: why should a child even be subject to the arbitrary dictates of a parent?

In fact, there is a new variant of politically correct thinking that presumes that such an idea is "adultism:" a form of prejudice and oppression analogous to, say, sexism or racism.

The question of adult authority must be answered with care.

That requires a thorough examination of the question itself. Accepting an objection as formulated is halfway to accepting its validity, and that can be dangerous if the question is ill-posed. Let's break it down.

First, why should a child be subject? That's easy. Every child must listen to and obey adults because he or she is dependent on the care that one or more imperfect grown-ups is willing to bestow.

Given this, it is better for the child to act in a manner that invites genuine affection and goodwill. Something even better might be imagined.

The child could act in a manner that simultaneously ensures optimal adult attention, in a manner that benefits his or her present state of being and future development. That's a very high standard, but it's in the best interests of the child, so there is every reason to aspire to it.

Every child should also be taught to comply gracefully with the expectations of civil society. This does not mean crushed into mindless ideological conformity.

It means instead that parents must reward those attitudes and actions that will bring their child success in the world outside the family, and use threat and punishment when necessary to eliminate behaviours that will lead to misery and failure.

There's a tight window of opportunity for this, as well, so getting it right quickly matters. If a child has

not been taught to behave properly by the age of four, it will forever be difficult for him or her to make friends. The research literature is quite clear on this. This matters, because peers are the primary source of socialization after the age of four.

Rejected children cease to develop, because they are alienated from their peers. They fall further and further behind, as the other children continue to progress.

Thus, the friendless child too often becomes the lonely, antisocial or depressed teenager and adult.

This is not good.

Much more of our sanity than we commonly realize is a consequence of our fortunate immersion in a social community. We must be continually reminded to think and act properly.

When we drift, people that care for and love us nudge us in small ways and large back on track. So, we better have some of those people around.

It's also not the case (back to the question) that adult dictates are all arbitrary. That's only true in a dysfunctional totalitarian state. But in civilized, open societies, the majority abide by a functional social contract, aimed at mutual betterment—or at least at existence in close proximity without too much violence.

Even a system of rules that allows for only that minimum contract is by no means arbitrary, given the alternatives.

If a society does not adequately reward productive, pro-social behavior, insists upon distributing resources in a markedly arbitrary and unfair manner, and allows for theft and exploitation, it will not remain conflict-free for long.

If its hierarchies are based only (or even primarily) on power, instead of the competence necessary to get important and difficult things done, it will be prone to collapse, as well.

This is even true, in simpler form, of the hierarchies of chimpanzees, which is an indication of its fundamental, biological and non-arbitrary emergent truth.

Poorly socialized children have terrible lives. Thus, it is better to socialize them optimally. Some of this can be done with reward, but not all of it. The issue is therefore not whether to use punishment and threat. The issue is whether to do it consciously and thoughtfully.

How, then, should children be disciplined? This is a very difficult question, because children (and parents) differ vastly in their temperaments. Some children are agreeable.

They deeply want to please, but pay for that with a tendency to be conflict-averse and dependent. Others are tougher-minded and more independent. Those kids want to do what they want, when they want, all the time.

They can be challenging, non-compliant and stubborn. Some children are desperate for rules and structure, and are content even in rigid environments.

Others, with little regard for predictability and routine, are immune to demands for even minimal necessary order. Some are wildly imaginative and creative, and others more concrete and conservative. These are all deep, important differences, heavily influenced by biological factors and difficult to modify socially.

It is fortunate indeed that in the face of such variability we are the beneficiaries of much thoughtful meditation on the proper use of social control.