🚀 go-pugleaf

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Kevin LaFramboise writes:

> Psychology tells us that a certain level of fear &
> pressure is necessary to assure focus.

Well, no.  What psychology (EAB) tells us is that aversive
contingencies do work in the short term -- they drive the desired
behavior in the desired direction; but, in the long term, they are
inefficient or even counterproductive.  Plus they have problem side
effects, which may compromise progress in and of themselves.

With aversive methods, what is learned is to avoid or escape stimulus
delivery.  E.g. the employee leaves.  Even when the employee can't
escape (e.g. needs the job) avoidance will be seen (e.g. sick days,
poor quanity/quality output).  Generalization is poor, e.g.  the
employee only makes progress toward goals accompanied with threats.
Administrative overhead is high.  E.g., the employee performs when
under observation.  Development of complex behavior is
difficult. E.g. the employee completes only simple tasks delineated
with simple threat contingencies.

What fifty years of EAB has discovered is that not only do nonaversive
methods work, they work as well as aversive, and lack those problem
side effects.  They do, however, require greater sophistication from
the trainer, and often a greater upfront investment of time.

That accounts for most of the popularity of aversive methods
throughout history.  They work for lazy, stupid, thoughtless, and
uninformed people, with little regard for the future.

It also predicts how to reverse the process: training the trainer.
Teach him how to apply nonaversive training and why it pays.
This prediction has been confirmed in the field.

-- Jon
--
Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com