Logical Consequences? -- malarky. Natural Consequences? -- maybe...

[Alan]

This morning I posted a message on FaceBook, and I will cross-post it here.  The message:

About the term "logical consequences" ... they are consequences that are "designed" by the person doing the disciplining, and are totally artificial. To me there are "natural" consequences, and there are "artificial" consequences, the latter of which is somehow held up as "logical" because somehow they are "connected" with the wrong behavior... yeesh we make up fancy sounding terms for doing the same ol' thing.

I was too limited in space to add more to it; I think I'll just leave it at that for my first post on this subject.

Alan

[jsiegman]

After spending a lot of time and energy (3 minutes, maybe) it became obvious to me that you have fallen into the trap of binary dichotomy when I can see a larger continuum available. (Aside - in grade school we were taught that "vacuum" was the only word in English with a double "u"). You have used at least 4 different words - logical, natural, artificial, designed - to classify the type of consequences while trying to maintain that there are only two types, one or the other.

Sometimes, there is only one logical or natural consequence to an event, say a moving pool ball striking one at rest. There can be only one outcome to this particular event but that outcome is based on numerous outside factors such as whether or not it occurs within a gravitational field, or an atmosphere, or upon a flat or sloping surface, and so on. Nevertheless, once all of the factors acting upon those objects are known, the outcome can be predicted with 100% accuracy.

Other events may have many different outcomes depending on the principles of those involved. What may be logical for one person may not be logical for another. If this wasn't true, jury trials would be a total waste of effort. Heck, there is a small group of 12 people who have, in theory, been presented with the same set of events leading up to a particular act and yet getting the 12 of them to agree on one of only two possible outcomes can take days or weeks of debate. As such, the real goal is to take the twelve opinions as to the "logical" consequence and debate things until the 12 become merged into one.

I can  only presume from the abrupt nature of your original note that you ran across a particular application of this terminology and you decided to comment on the phrase out of context. Awaiting further details as to the missing context.

jks

[Lana]

I never really thought about it in such a way as you have described, but now i will.
first off i was trying to discipher terms a bit, and like always, we think of their roots.
so for discipline i reach for deciple, and then to teacher. So for there to be consequences
in the discipline, i certainly do not think of the use of this term with wrong teaching.
However i do connect it with wrong views on the decipleship. Self oriented perhaps.

Logical Consequences to me means that it is obvious what the consequences will be.
Not MIGHT be...but the actuality of the consequences. Perhaps better termed, with full
knowlege and consent. This would lead me to believe that in knowing, we accept the
terms as factual.

Natural consequences i believe have a lot to do with the driver of this thought. What might
be natural for one might be totally horrific for another. Natural leads me to believe that this is
where the artificiality might hide beneath, acording to ones plans and outcome.

Still as one can clearly see, it is open to interpretation in so many ways that the official terminology
is misleading...and almost trusted in a safe zone. Thinking for onself in this matter is more eminant
than ever now that thiese discrepancies are put to the light of day...at least MY day!

Thanks Alan

[Lana]

...and then i am further thrown into a scientific point of view with James.

The key word for me is the term, "principles". I guess this brings a self
diagnostic morality to the board. Not scientific at all really, and can really
throw a curve ball.

But yes, i will await the outcome before further commenting between brothers!
I interjected once before, and it went south, if you know what i mean!

Lana

[jsiegman]

... it went south, if you know what i mean!

South, the furthest point south being the south pole in the heart of Antarctica. Or, with a few minor exceptions, going where no man has gone before.

JKS

[Lana]

Many tried...but i suceeded in driving my POINT as south as south could go.
And i guess that it might be better worded, where no man (or woman) has gone before....

hmmm...why does this sound like the Enterprise i am conversing with?

Lana

[jsiegman]

.why does this sound like the Enterprise i am conversing with?

Would that be HMS, USS, SS, OT, TS, NCC, OV, or VSS?  (I think there are more but that gets most of them}.

jks

[Lana]

 ...um, yup, that covers it quite well!

I was orriginally thinking of the USS i believe...
Spock comes to mind when i think of it!

dare i ask for definitions...*ducks*

Lana

[jsiegman]

The starship USS Enterprise had numerous registration numbers but the original series used NCC-1701. Each time it was destroyed and replaced, it went to NCC-1701A, NCC-1701B, NCC-1701C and so on.

The HMS Enterprise refers to one of approximately 15 different ships in the British navy over the years.

There are about 20 reincarnations of the USS Enterprise in the America navy, the first of which was an old fashioned sailing ship which I think fought in the Revolutionary war.

The VSS Enterprise is still under construction and is being built by the Virgin Galactic company. It is supposed to be the first commercially operated space shuttle for tourism.

The other initials have other designations that are somewhat insignificant.

JKS

[Lana]

I think you could work for Ripleys...

I should have known you were a Treckie!

Lana

[Alan]

James,

You have used at least 4 different words - logical, natural, artificial, designed - to classify the type of consequences while trying to maintain that there are only two types, one or the other.

That doesn't make sense.  If I use four words to divvy up the problem ... unless there are synonyms ... and only allow them to be categorized by only two types?  Anyway here are some ideas what I might have meant by those terms:

Discipline: usually means consequences that are imposed by a "disciplinarian" but can be can either be "positive" or "negative" reinforcement -- whichever way this person takes it.

Logical: I use to mean the types of consequences and reasoning that "logical parenting" proponents push.

Natural: I mean everything that happens as a result of behavior, that is *not* imposed by the one attempting to dish out discipline but instead is administered by "the world."

Artificial:  consequences that are made-up and applied to behavior.  For example, being grounded for use of foul language -- the rest of the world may be giving "natural" consequences either positive or negative -- such as losing a potential job because of bad language, or gaining peer acceptance for same behavior.

Here is another example: to me, touching a hot stove is self-teaching, and uses the "operant conditioning" method of R-S, response first and then consequences, which are natural and totally logical.  If I ground a kid for touching a hot stove, then that is *not* logical or natural.

Sometimes, there is only one logical or natural consequence to an event, say a moving pool ball striking one at rest. There can be only one outcome to this particular event but that outcome is based on numerous outside factors such as whether or not it occurs within a gravitational field, or an atmosphere, or upon a flat or sloping surface, and so on. Nevertheless, once all of the factors acting upon those objects are known, the outcome can be predicted with 100% accuracy.

You remind me of a Mechanical Engineering prof who taught our Dynamics classes at Rose-Hulman.  He would say to the class, "the ball knows exactly where it is going to land, but you don't... so you guys are dumber than that steel ball?" (use of "guys" is sanctioned, since it was all-male school at the time.)

Other events may have many different outcomes depending on the principles of those involved. What may be logical for one person may not be logical for another. If this wasn't true, jury trials would be a total waste of effort. Heck, there is a small group of 12 people who have, in theory, been presented with the same set of events leading up to a particular act and yet getting the 12 of them to agree on one of only two possible outcomes can take days or weeks of debate. As such, the real goal is to take the twelve opinions as to the "logical" consequence and debate things until the 12 become merged into one.

Not sure what you mean, or how it relates to the topic.  You know I have been selected for two juries, though I was "thrown out" at least three times.  The first time I was impressed at how we worked together and the second type was absolutely astounding what blithering idiots 10 out of 12 jurors can be.  If you haven't heard the stories, maybe I will tell them again at some point.

I can  only presume from the abrupt nature of your original note that you ran across a particular application of this terminology and you decided to comment on the phrase out of context. Awaiting further details as to the missing context.

Nahh, nothing like that.  This has been a peeve of mine ever since I heard parenting *experts* (most of whom have some training but less experience than I have) promoting "logical consequences."  It seemed to me this term was being applied to plain ol' disciplining but with impunity -- because "logical" word was thrown around to justify whatever.

I had been reflecting on all this for some reason; it just seemed like a good time to bring it up.

Alan

[Alan]

Logical Consequences to me means that it is obvious what the consequences will be.
Not MIGHT be...but the actuality of the consequences. Perhaps better termed, with full
knowlege and consent. This would lead me to believe that in knowing, we accept the
terms as factual.

About the full knowledge and consent, I once listed elements that I feel MUST be in place for discipline to actually *be* discipline.  For one, the child must have known (or should have known -- but be careful "assuming" that they "should have known" -- many times they really don't) that the behavior was wrong.  Second, the child must have been taught or expected to have been taught, how to have handled the situation in a way that avoids the ostensible *bad* behavior.  Third... darn I forgot the third thing...  that might have been akin to your "full knowledge and consent" --

Anyway I had three or four criteria, and I ran them past my own psychiatrist; I asserted that any punishment (negative discipline) and the corresponding behavior, if it does not meet all the requirements I've outlined, is in fact child abuse -- punishing for no good purpose.  The shrink agreed with me.

I have allowed myself one particular exception to these rules, and that is when a small child runs away, as in joking or playing a game, when I call the child to come here.  The logical consequences would be getting lost in a store, getting kidnapped, getting run over by a car, etc., and I wish to teach my children FIRST not to run away when I call rather than let "logical" or "natural" consequences take effect.  This has applied to all of my kids, even as the sheer amount of negative reinforcement I used went down with each one, some of them received their first spanking over running away.

Still as one can clearly see, it is open to interpretation in so many ways that the official terminology
is misleading...and almost trusted in a safe zone. Thinking for onself in this matter is more eminant
than ever now that thiese discrepancies are put to the light of day...at least MY day!

Here is an example I just looked up by Googling "logical consequences" and pick the first one with a cool sounding site name, called www.positivediscipline.com.  Apparently I am not alone in being wary of "logical consequences."  The URL is: http://www.positivediscipline.com/articles_teacher/NO%20MORE%20LOGICAL%20CONSEQUENCES.html
and here is an excerpt from that page:
NO MORE LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES
At least hardly ever!
FOCUS ON SOLUTIONS
by Jane Nelsen
During a class meeting, students in a fifth grade class were asked to brainstorm logical consequences for two students who didn't hear the recess bell and were late for class. Following is their list of "consequences:"
 
Make them write their names on the board.
Make them stay after school that many minutes.
Take away that many minutes off tomorrow's recess.
No recess tomorrow.
The teacher could yell at them.

The students were then asked to forget about consequences and brainstorm for solutions that would help the students be on time.       
Following is their list of solutions:
Someone could tap them on the shoulder when the bell rings.
Everyone could yell together, "Bell!"
They could play closer to the bell.
They could watch others to see when they are going in.
Adjust the bell so it is louder.
They could choose a buddy to remind them that it is time to come in.

The difference between these two lists is profound. The first looks and sounds like punishment. It focuses on the past and making kids "pay" for their mistake. The second list looks and sounds like solutions that focus on "helping" the kids do better in the future. It focuses on seeing problems as opportunities for learning. It other words, the first list is designed to hurt, the second is designed to help.
In the first list, the kids try to disguise punishment by calling it a logical consequence. Why do they do that? Could it be that this is what they are learning from adults? The Four Rs of Logical Consequences (Related, Respectful, Reasonable, and Revealed in advance) were conceived in an attempt to stop the trend of logical consequences sounding like punishment, but they have not totally eliminated this problem.

Where did we ever get the crazy idea that in order to make children DO better first we have to make them FEEL worse? When people first hear this quote from "Positive Discipline," they usually laugh as they think about how it doesn't make sense. However, when it comes to application, it seems that parents, teachers, and students have difficulty accepting that people do better when they feel better.

[jsiegman]

Hmm.. how to address that without an all-night ramble.

Let me strip out some of the verbage.

About the term "logical consequences" ... they ... are "designed" ... and are totally artificial.

To me there are "natural" ... and ... "artificial" consequences, the latter of which is somehow held up as "logical" ...

See? You declared "natural" and "artificial" and then added that "logical" and "designed" as synonyms for artificial. Two types with four words.

He would say to the class, "the ball knows exactly where it is going to land, but you don't... so you guys are dumber than that steel ball?"

The ball has no clue where it is headed -- it just goes with the flow. That is its nature, to follow the rules. The humans involved hope they know where it is going but they are just estimating everything. The more experience they have, the better their estimates, and the more accomplished a player they become. Still, in the scope of things, they are just getting better at SWAGing.

This has been a peeve of mine ever since I heard parenting *experts*

That sentence fragment right there makes my blood boil. There is nothing i despise more that a self-proclaimed expert, especially when they never watched a kid outside a laboratory or some other controlled setting. <Click -- rant and rave interrupt engaged>

topic change
Comedian on TV just laid out a good line -- routine about how impatient people are about getting their food fast at the drive through -- everything has a number by it so we don't have to discuss things with the order taker -- "Give me a 4 and a Coke" -- and they can just throw the cheeseburger and fries at your window when you drive by.

Getting tired -- byebye till tomorrow.

JKS

[jsiegman]

Where did we ever get the crazy idea that in order to make children DO better first we have to make them FEEL worse?

Oh, come now, are you sitting in idle?

Negative reinforcement may not be the optimum technique for behavior modification but it is one of the most ingrained and basic, especially if I call it by another term -- establishing a pecking order.

Short term knee-jerk reactions are the most common way of controlling behavior in weaker or younger members of the group. Lion cubs learn real fast when Daddy lion is not in a playful mood. One or two paws upside da head is plenty of negative reinforcement.

Need I elucidate more?

JKS

[Alan]

Oh, come now, are you sitting in idle?

What's with the "Oh come now" thing?  I don't necessarily endorse every word in that article; take it to Jane Nelsen who wrote it. 

Negative reinforcement may not be the optimum technique for behavior modification but it is one of the most ingrained and basic, especially if I call it by another term -- establishing a pecking order.

Short term knee-jerk reactions are the most common way of controlling behavior in weaker or younger members of the group. Lion cubs learn real fast when Daddy lion is not in a playful mood. One or two paws upside da head is plenty of negative reinforcement.

OK, no argument from me, with one caviat; I hope you aren't advocating whacking kids in the head. 

Need I elucidate more?

More?   

Alan

[Alan]

See? You declared "natural" and "artificial" and then added that "logical" and "designed" as synonyms for artificial. Two types with four words.

OK, I guess you got me. 

The ball has no clue where it is headed -- it just goes with the flow. That is its nature, to follow the rules. The humans involved hope they know where it is going but they are just estimating everything. The more experience they have, the better their estimates, and the more accomplished a player they become. Still, in the scope of things, they are just getting better at SWAGing.

I know the ball has no clue; for all I know the ball has no consciousness.  The teacher knew that, too, and so do you.  That all said, I thought it was a pretty funny way to try to "awaken" his class -- he was really quite a boring teacher except he got totally into what he was doing.  Gosh I can't even remember his name now, but I remembered his comments 30 years later.

That sentence fragment right there makes my blood boil. There is nothing i despise more that a self-proclaimed expert, especially when they never watched a kid outside a laboratory or some other controlled setting. <Click -- rant and rave interrupt engaged>

Agreed.

topic change
Comedian on TV just laid out a good line -- routine about how impatient people are about getting their food fast at the drive through -- everything has a number by it so we don't have to discuss things with the order taker -- "Give me a 4 and a Coke" -- and they can just throw the cheeseburger and fries at your window when you drive by.

Nice.

Getting tired -- byebye till tomorrow.

ttyl

Alan

[Alan]

But yes, i will await the outcome before further commenting between brothers!
I interjected once before, and it went south, if you know what i mean!

LOL -- don't you think we need a referee? 

Alan

[Alan]

For reference, here is the rest of the article I began to quote in reply #11.

Alan

*******************************************
For example, many teachers like Nos. 2 and 3 on the first list above, ("Make them stay after school that many minutes," and "Take away that many minutes off tomorrow's recess.") It is true that those suggestions are related, reasonable, and could be enforced respectfully and revealed in advance. However, they all focus on making the child pay for the past mistake instead of finding a solution to solve the problem in the future. In other words, they are designed to make the children feel bad in the hopes that that will motivate them to do better. Punishment often stops misbehavior, but it hardly ever motivates children to do better in the future — unless they are approval junkies. Instead, they are motivated to rebel, get revenge, or to be more careful about getting caught.

Kay Rogers, a recently retired teacher from Sharon School in North Carolina said, "After I heard about the possibility of focusing on solutions instead of consequences, it was the hardest habit for me to break. All my life I had believed that kids learned from punishment -- or at least from consequences. I can now see that my students and I both tried to disguise punishment by calling it consequences -- even though the consequences weren't as harsh as blatant punishment. I had to learn about the effectiveness of focusing on solutions right along with my students. We were all surprised by the difference it made in our classroom. The level of respect and caring for each other was raised ten fold. Students became pleased to find their name on the agenda because they knew, as Jane Nelsen had told us, that we would have a whole room full of consultants to give them valuable suggestions. And, the solutions they found were much more effective in changing behavior than anything we had done before."

This does not mean logical consequences cannot be effective when properly understood and appropriately used. Hopefully the chapter on Natural and Logical Consequences in the newly revised edition of Positive Discipline will help. However, logical consequences are rarely necessary and are only one possibility. Rudolph Dreikurs taught that logical consequences are effective ONLY for the mistaken goal of undue attention (and are only one option even for that goal) . Too many adults look for logical consequences "to punish" every behavior. Looking for solutions is more effective in most situations.

Many teachers have switched and now teach the Three Rs and an H for Solutions: Related, Respectful, Reasonable and HELPFUL. Once students have brainstormed for solutions to a problem, it is extremely important to let individual students choose the solution he or she thinks will be most helpful. A vote should be taken only if the problem involved the whole class.

Of course, focusing on solutions instead of consequences is more effective in homes also. On parent said, "I can't believe how many power struggles I created by trying to impose ‘logical consequences'. We have so much more peace in our home now that we focus on solutions."

The chapter on logical consequences in Positive Discipline explains when and how to use effective logical consequences. However, in most cases, it is much simpler and much more helpful to focus on solutions.

[Lana]

LOL -- don't you think we need a referee? 

Alan

This is as far as i am willing to get!

*runs away*

[jsiegman]

OK. With the rest of the article it makes a lot more sense, especially of the common variety.

However, one thing started nagging at me while reading it. What happens if the people who employ the solution finding approach get so involved in the process they start applying it to everything? You end up with someone who thinks he always knows a better way to do things and insists on "forcing" it on you. You know those type of people; some of us call them democrats.

So that's where they came from. Kinda of a "Solutions Gone Wild" situation. Live and learn, eh?

JKS