The mother comments that if they relented at this point and took the child out of the store, her daughter would be rewarded for behaving this way.
That is probably true. If you are in pain, and you scream “Ouch!” and someone comes running and relieves your pain, you’ll probably yell “Ouch” again the next time something hurts you.
Is that… bad?
Um…ok. [The ideas of] ‘neutrality’ […] and ‘consequences are supposed to be neutral’
we were trained to be as neutral as possible when “administering/”following through with” consequences.” This is so the kid could derive minimal pleasure out of it, in case they wanted to make the therapist frustrated. The whole idea of negative attention reinforcing bad behavior.
Like the whole process was discussed non emotionally during training. You were “administering.” It was a “procedure.” You would just grab the bottle and do it and look like you weren’t even thinking about it, that this was just naturally what happens when you change the subject when you’re supposed to be talking about your reading assignment.
So. I don’t understand why neutrality is brought up as a defense here. Is spraying water in a kids face less abusive when you look stone cold or something?
Errorless learning is not actually a good or kind way to teach someone. It is profoundly disrespectful.
When you ignore responses that deviate from prompts, that means that you’re ignoring a human being whenever they did something unexpected or different from what you wanted them to do. It means you’re treating their unscripted responses as meaningless, and unworthy of any acknowledgment.
That’s not a good thing to do, even with actual errors. When people make mistakes, they’re still people, and they still need to be acknowledged as thinking people who are making choices and doing things.