Trick or treat?

[Umbran]

Just want to point out a few things wrong with your comment. You are using positive and negative reinforcement incorrectly. The terms have nothing to do with good or bad. The terms positive and negative refer to the presentation or removal of a stimulus (reinforcer/aversive).

I know.

You think an overweight kid receiving such a letter instead of candy *won't* feel a negative stimulus from it?

(I see your following post, that apparently you do think such a kid won't feel bad getting such a letter. I can just leave it as - while there may be individuals, I think you're generally wrong about that. Very wrong, even. I expect kids would generally feel shame and anger after getting such a letter in their trick-or-treat bag, which are generally classified in the "negative stimulus" column.)

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

I know.

You know what?

You think an overweight kid receiving such a letter instead of candy *won't* feel a negative stimulus from it?

(I see your following post, that apparently you do think such a kid won't feel bad getting such a letter. I can just leave it as - while there may be individuals, I think you're generally wrong about that. Very wrong, even. I expect kids would generally feel shame and anger after getting such a letter in their trick-or-treat bag, which are generally classified in the "negative stimulus" column.)

Nope, your assumption is wrong. I said some kids may not find it aversive. People are different. Some kids may find it to be aversive. Some people may not. It's just the truth. For example, you could tell some kid that you don't like him/her. That particular kid may 'feel' bad and may even cry. You can say the same thing to another kid, and he/she won't care.
I'm not saying that there are no kids that will see it as an aversive stimulus. I'm saying that there are some kids that won't. Hel, there may be a kid that feels the letter is quite funny.

 

[Umbran]

I said some kids may not find it aversive. People are different. Some kids may find it to be aversive. Some people may not. It's just the truth.

Truth, but of a limited sort. It is not enough to say, "some will, some won't".

So, we put it back in context:

The person giving out these letters does not generally know the kids personally, and cannot just give them to the ones who will not find it aversive. So, how many recipients are apt to take it as a positive stimulus, and how many as a negative? If more are going to take it negatively, then this is not a good way to reach the stated goal of encouraging good habits.

You may be tempted to answer, "We cannot know." I think that's not true - we can know. I expect experts in child behavior already do know. Beyond that, though, there's more plain knowledge of human nature and behavior. Do you honestly think that enough kids will find this a positive experience for it to be a good idea?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As a former fat kid and current fat adult, I disapprove this woman's message.

(FWIW, my consumption issue wasn't and isn't candy, it's portion control of the good stuff.)

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Truth, but of a limited sort. It is not enough to say, "some will, some won't".

So, we put it back in context:

The person giving out these letters does not generally know the kids personally, and cannot just give them to the ones who will not find it aversive. So, how many recipients are apt to take it as a positive stimulus, and how many as a negative? If more are going to take it negatively, then this is not a good way to reach the stated goal of encouraging good habits.

you missed one group of kids: the ones that will find the letter to be a neutral stimulus. The only way to find out how many kids will find the letter to be a reinforcing stimulus, a negative stimulus, or a neutral stimulus is to determine observe what happens to the behavior of each child after they have received the letter. Not everyone reacts the same way to the same stimulus.

You may be tempted to answer, "We cannot know." I think that's not true - we can know. I expect experts in child behavior already do know.

We don't. Sometimes some of us make calculated assumptions about how one group or another will behave in some situation, but those assumptions do a poor job of capturing the behavior of any one individual.

Beyond that, though, there's more plain knowledge of human nature and behavior. Do you honestly think that enough kids will find this a positive experience for it to be a good idea?

first, that's not what I said please go back and read my post. Second, what would you consider to be "enough?"

 

[Umbran]

We don't. Sometimes some of us make calculated assumptions about how one group or another will behave in some situation, but those assumptions do a poor job of capturing the behavior of any one individual.

Of course they do a poor job of capturing one individual. The question isn't about individuals. The question is, if someone hands out 20, or 100, of such things, are they doing more harm than good? That, ultimately, will be the measure of such a letter, and it isnt' a matter of individuals, but of statistics.

first, that's not what I said please go back and read my post.

It is acceptable for me to say things that are not about directly countering your statements, you know. I am allowed to add my own material to the conversation.

Second, what would you consider to be "enough?"

In effect, that's what I'm asking you.

 

[Kramodlog]

It will be a teaching moment. It will teach people that if you do this you will get publicly shamed and ridiculed.

Or it will reinforce her beliefs, as being snarky with someone isn't the best way to changes their mind and might have the opposite effect.

As for the kids, it won't be as efficient as banning production of sugarry food and drinks (one can only wish), but it is better than being apathetic.

 

[Robin Hoodlum]

Sugar is poison and must be banned! It is obviously the only reasonable solution!
*runs around wildly waving arms*

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Of course they do a poor job of capturing one individual. The question isn't about individuals. The question is, if someone hands out 20, or 100, of such things, are they doing more harm than good? That, ultimately, will be the measure of such a letter, and it isnt' a matter of individuals, but of statistics.

Where did that question come from?

It is acceptable for me to say things that are not about directly countering your statements, you know. I am allowed to add my own material to the conversation.

Sure, if you were doing that I'd have no problem. The problem is that you are countering a completely different argument. Like totally has nothing to do with what I said.

In effect, that's what I'm asking you.

I don't make those types of judgements. I leave that to my clients to decide. It varies from individual to individual.

 

[EscherEnigma]

Halloween? Is that still a thing? The churches in this town have effectively killed it. Ratcheting up the fear about "predators" and "thugs" and such. I mean, hello people, that's why you have an ADULT go along WITH the kids. You really think something is going to happen to your kid with you standing right there? Just how scared are you?

That aside... meh. I see the woman's point, but I question the efficacy of her delivery. Regardless, it's her choice. And it's the choice of her neighbors to shun her if they find her behavior repulsive.