Hacker News Reader

Comment by Evan_Hellmuth | Hacker News Reader

> To keep young kids behaving on a car road trip, have a bag of their favorite candy and throw a piece out the window each time they misbehave.

This guy is my hero

View on HN

My kids would immediately use this against each other.

A psychological game of mutually assured destruction.

Lol, this would not go well with my kids. Might work for some families, but I'm pretty sure all four of us would spend most of the ride crying.

Maybe, be nice to kids and don't harm them ? You are teaching and encouraging the behavior "blackmail to get what you want" by doing that.

Instead you could use non violent communication to get by. Tell them how you feel, how you feel hurt by their behavior. Maybe they start talking about how they are hurt being stuck 8h in the car ? And maybe both of you will feel compassion and a way to minimize the damages.

Like I said elsewhere in the thread, do not actually do this: candy is toxic to lots of birds and animals, and if not toxic, it is sticky, and can cause them to choke.

I mean, sure, if your end goal is to give your children anxiety, eating disorders, and unhealthy emotional associations with food (and especially w/ sweets). Not only that, but then you have to give them a bag of candy and give it to them at the end of the trip every trip or they learn that your "punishment" means absolutely nothing because you never give them "their" candy anyway. Oh, and wait to see how that scales when you have multiple children and they start to abuse each other to get the other to act out and lose candy. That'll be fun.

But I guess it'll work well to keep kids quiet in the short term, sure. Advice is a form of nostalgia - a way of picking up the past, dusting it off, and selling it for more than it's worth; and, like nostalgia, it's never as good as it is remembered.

> Oh, and wait to see how that scales when you have multiple children and they start to abuse each other to get the other to act out and lose candy. That'll be fun.

Learning about cause, effect, reaction, and manipulation are vital skills in life. Knowing and understanding them does not mean you’re a sociopath either. They’re widely useful in many aspects of life. Makes you a better poker player too.

That's one heck of a justification that one. Childhood trauma and abuse sometimes also sometimes results in functioning, well-adjusted adults with decent abuse coping skills and without crippling mental illness - that doesn't mean it's the best way to achieve that goal.

Jumping to anxiety disorders and abuse is also a heck of a justification for disliking it.

You should very much know that the null hypothesis for a proposed behavioural modification technique is that it isn't a benefit and doesn't work and may be harmful. It's on the proposer to show otherwise.

May.

What you're asserting goes miles beyond 'may'. You're making extremely strong claims with no evidence.

What's less harmful when it comes to human health and safety in non-essential activities, to assume no risk of harm or injury or to assume risk of harm or injury? I assert that the null hypothesis is that it does not have a benefit and is harmful. This is not an assertion of fact, simply a position of likelihood and a judgement that doing a physical and emotional punishment to a person is generally harmful and that doing so must be balanced against ensuring a just outcome. This is not an unreasonable stance. You, on the other hand, if I understand properly, are saying that we should be able to do whatever we like to a punish person unless we show it directly causes harm. Down that road lies such human rights abuses that holding such views should be considered unconscionable.

> What's less harmful when it comes to human health and safety in non-essential activities, to assume no risk of harm or injury or to assume risk of harm or injury?

I agree with this statement. Assume a risk.

> I assert that the null hypothesis is that it does not have a benefit and is harmful.

Why did the word 'risk' disappear here? I don't think that's a good null hypothesis at all.

> You, on the other hand, if I understand properly, are saying that we should be able to do whatever we like to a punish person unless we show it directly causes harm.

I am not saying that.

> Why did the word 'risk' disappear here? I don't think that's a good null hypothesis at all.

What null hypothesis would you prefer?

> I am not saying that.

Then what are you saying?

> What null hypothesis would you prefer?

"It has no lasting effects", probably.

And you need to make sure you're looking for both positive and negative effects.

"It's harmful" is a huge bias for a null hypothesis.

> Then what are you saying?

That you shouldn't assume it is harmful.

I didn't say anything about what parents should be "able to do". I didn't even give an opinion on the candy thing. I just think your justification is a big overreach.

But also a null hypothesis implies you're currently doing the testing, so that's a different scenario too...

I love the vision of trying to manage this with multiple kids with different candy dislikes and likes. It'd be a free-for-all to see who could get you to throw the most of their siblings favorite candy. Honestly I think they'd have a ball.

Plus you're littering all over the place. That sucks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com