Redirect: The surprising new science of psychological change

[Oxajil]

The goal as far as I understand was to help kids label their feelings. So if someone messes up and consequently feel bad, the message given out by the parent (or teacher) is important to internalize the lesson.

The message I got from the above example (I got a reaction to it when I read it the first time because of the guilt thing) is that the point is about helping little kids learn to do the right thing even when no one is around to praise or punish them. Our behaviors - as kids or adults - seem to be driven by a desire to feel good and avoid pain. When someone feels bad after doing something, there is this motivation to cover it up in some way so that the bad feeling can be avoided. However, that action of covering up can cause behavioral problems in childhood and even hurt the chances of developing true conscience later on in life. Whereas what can start off as a feeling of guilt could help in autonomous regulation of behavior and unless the concept of guilt is inappropriately stressed or applied by others for shaming, it could ideally be transformed into remorse later in life with a concomitant development of consciousness.

Thanks a lot obyvatel for taking the time to explain. So it seems to me that by labeling in this way, one can positively help children to recognize their feelings and possibly what they could mean (to themselves and to others). Like you said, if people keep on covering up and thus not really think about the consequences of their actions (one, because they never really learned this) it can cause them to have difficulty with understanding somebody else's feelings, so they act in life even more like machines, not knowing how their behavior affects others. And, among others, responsibility issues are the result.

This also reminds me of how parents, primarily mothers I think, keep telling their children to clean up their room, which can make the child feel like s/he has to do this for their mum to make her feel happy/proud whatever, instead of knowing that having a clean room is simply nicer for anyone who would visit it, including oneself. So labeling in this case, making the child understand why a clean room is important, can be helpful. If this doesn't happen, and one simply gets orders without really developing an understanding, the same problems as you described would arise. And so, lack of discipline, lack of hygiene, difficulty with cleaning one's own room can all result from this. The same can happen when one's parents does all the work for the child (like clean up the room for the child, even at an older age), I think. Without clearly understanding why, one may unconciously think that one is incompetent to do things on their own, and again not understand why a clean room is important in the first place.

Either way, whether a parent does something for the child or requires him/her to do it, that doesn't really matter as much, what seems to be important is that there is a clear and sincere understanding between both the parent and the child. Emotional understanding seems to be key, and in a way it has to be taught or learned.

 

[Oxajil]

How is placing a child in a contrived situation, inducing him to feel "bad", presumptively questioning him about his feelings, giving him a "label" for his feelings and an opportunity to modify previous behavior judged "bad", any process other than predominately child manipulation and possibly ponerization? Maybe I'm just feeling a bit too strongly about this?

Did any experimenters report feelings of guilt or remorse for putting a child in a situation which might make him feel bad for something he wasn't really even responsible for anyway (the experimenters contrived and implemented the "mistake")? Do the experimenters have anything to feel 'bad' about?

How else do you want to gain information on how to raise a child optimally? To know how a child thinks and behaves and what way of raising a child is most beneficial? Objective research has to be done, and if it is done right, nobody is harmed. If the children knew that there was a person behind the scenes controlling the car, it would be a useless experiment (and actually, if they did know, that might've been confusing to them), and I don't see how the children are harmed this way. They were placed in a situation that can reflect any situation in real life, which is a situation in which one can practice responsibility. And the goal of the research was to see how one could best help children to behave in a responsible way, in the context given.

False in the sense that he's being "helped" to focus his attention in a narrow context and in a very specific manner and ignoring other also significant and meaningful information.

That's why parents should be available for the child at any time to help them cope and understand different kinds of situations and to help them develop an understanding of what way to behave would be most externally considerate. This way they will be best prepared to cope with real life's problems and so forth. And that doesn't mean children won't make mistakes or be harmed or learn things on their own, what matters is that they have support at home whenever they would need it and that they have the basic knowledge of what healthy behavior is, regarding relationships for example.

Who is to say that this child's best effort at telling what he felt was actually 'appropriate' 'guilt'? Why was it not simply a feeling of being at a loss (emotional confusion) to explain a discrepancy between what his own (correct) cognition informed him about the race car and what actually happened? Again, we're talking about a child here - 7 years old probably.

I don't really understand how a child could become emotionally confused here, as you understand it. What could be confusing?

This is not to suggest linguistic associations with actuality and personal narratives to be useless, rather it would seem to me to be better for self-remembering (as it seems to be for me) if the kid were to occupy the "included middle" position with regard to these feelings - the area between the similarities and differences with previous experiences and with a conscious awareness of, and acknowledgement to both. But I wonder if that may tend to prevent the experimenter's desired identification?

What exactly do you mean with ''included middle'' position? Perhaps you can name an example, besides labeling, of how you think one could help children develop and eventually understand good behavior from bad?

Hope you don't mind me asking these questions, thanks in advance Buddy.

 

[go2]

The experimenter, the racing car, and the children come together in a perfect demonstration of the Evil Magician hypnotizing the sheep. One group of children has a hypnotic suggestion inserted into the mind, to do and believe as the authority instructs. This child is taught to be compliant; an authoritarian follower created before our eyes. Of course it is labeled educating the child. A child’s fear is labeled guilt and parents, church, and state have created a good little soldier, drafted into the world wide army of civilization and progress.

The other child has a hypnotic suggestion inserted into his mind that it is alright to do as he pleases, but to hide it from authority. No wonder people are nuts. Life programs them to feel good and avoid pain and the Evil Magician comes along and installs a contradictory program. People need buffers between contradictory programs of Life and the agenda of the Evil Magician or the internal stress destroys them. This experiment illustrates the education of a normal human being. This is the education of each of us, and main stream psychology seeks to perfect and/or transform what is a lie to begin with. The deformed psyche structure needs to be torn down, so a new psyche structure can be built on the bed rock of truth.

The installation of the guilt program leads a sensitive human being to internal and external bankruptcy. Bankruptcy may lead a person to question the purpose of living if he can avoid prison, mental hospitals, and cancer. The guilt program does not, nor can it lead to real conscience or remorse of conscience. Guilt is one of the lies which are to be removed by the root or the chaff to be separated from grain in the language of parable. The conscience is already present in the emotional connection to higher centers, but we do not hear conscience over the din of inner conflict between Life’s program and the Evil Magician’s agenda. I have heard the voice of conscience in rare moments and it is not guilt transformed, but guilt observed and overcome.

 

[Maat]

How is placing a child in a contrived situation, inducing him to feel "bad", presumptively questioning him about his feelings, giving him a "label" for his feelings and an opportunity to modify previous behavior judged "bad", any process other than predominately child manipulation and possibly ponerization? Maybe I'm just feeling a bit too strongly about this?

Did any experimenters report feelings of guilt or remorse for putting a child in a situation which might make him feel bad for something he wasn't really even responsible for anyway (the experimenters contrived and implemented the "mistake")? Do the experimenters have anything to feel 'bad' about?

How else do you want to gain information on how to raise a child optimally? To know how a child thinks and behaves and what way of raising a child is most beneficial? Objective research has to be done, and if it is done right, nobody is harmed. If the children knew that there was a person behind the scenes controlling the car, it would be a useless experiment (and actually, if they did know, that might've been confusing to them), and I don't see how the children are harmed this way. They were placed in a situation that can reflect any situation in real life, which is a situation in which one can practice responsibility. And the goal of the research was to see how one could best help children to behave in a responsible way, in the context given.

That's all the problem of ethics in psychological experiments. The subjects are living human beings and you have always to lie to them for the purpose of the experiment.
I passed a master in psychology and I remember that we were taught to never let the subjects alone with his fantasy, emotions etc after the experiment. Well, put you in the shoes of a subject of a Milgram's experiment... how it could be disturbing...

So normally, after the experiment, you take the subject and ask how he feels, explain things to him (even lie to him again if it's for the sake of his well-being !!), and follow him for weeks if necessary

But I'm pretty sure that some researchers don't bother themselves so much with that

That said, I've always found that harsch so social psychology was not my cup of tea !

 

[Buddy]

Hope you don't mind me asking these questions, thanks in advance Buddy.

Hi Oxajil. Don't mind at all.

How else do you want to gain information on how to raise a child optimally? To know how a child thinks and behaves and what way of raising a child is most beneficial?

Actually, I was speaking specifically, but your questions set the level of my response to general, so all I can say ATM is that, were I to again be in need to "gain information on how to raise a child optimally", and I'm using my own understanding of 'optimally', I'm more apt to consider any method other than one whose basis rests on placing a child in a situation that forces him to mistrust his own normally working perceptual faculties.

I don't really understand how a child could become emotionally confused here, as you understand it. What could be confusing?

How about this part:

...a feeling of being at a loss (emotional confusion) to explain a discrepancy between what his own (correct) cognition informed him about the race car and what actually happened?

...if you understood the above, then I'm unsure of what's confusing you or what you're really wanting to know.

What exactly do you mean with ''included middle'' position?

Apologies for that. What I mean to convey resembles more a viewpoint that sticks neither in all similarities nor all differences, but one where a person can perceive all similarities and all differences and most everything else available to perceive within his capability ATM. That strikes me as a 'position' enhancing existing perceptual acuity (as contrasted with editing out information) and more likely to contribute to a more balanced psychological development - at least in terms of understanding what makes an "Identity" - what goes in and what gets left out, or what gets attention and what gets ignored.

Perhaps you can name an example, besides labeling, of how you think one could help children develop and eventually understand good behavior from bad?

I'm assuming by "eventually understand" you are thinking of some 'standard' currently out of reach of the child? Am I correct in assuming that by "good behavior from bad", you are referring to behavior that meets with general family and social approval and doesn't necessarily regard the child's own independent development needs which likely includes the need to evolve further than his teachers? Further, I'm going to take a chance here and ask: do you think children cannot or will not learn anything that is not explicitly taught them?

Thanks for your response.

 

[obyvatel]

The installation of the guilt program leads a sensitive human being to internal and external bankruptcy. Bankruptcy may lead a person to question the purpose of living if he can avoid prison, mental hospitals, and cancer. The guilt program does not, nor can it lead to real conscience or remorse of conscience. Guilt is one of the lies which are to be removed by the root or the chaff to be separated from grain in the language of parable. The conscience is already present in the emotional connection to higher centers, but we do not hear conscience over the din of inner conflict between Life’s program and the Evil Magician’s agenda. I have heard the voice of conscience in rare moments and it is not guilt transformed, but guilt observed and overcome.

The way the experiment was conducted was devious as the author of the book put it. However, in general, labeling one's feelings does not necessarily imply installation of a program. There is the law of three - the good, the bad and the context.

From Remorse vs sense of guilt
[quote author=Needleman]
Guilt is founded on the illusory premise that we should have and could have acted differently in this or that situation, with this or that person or in the light of this or that ideal. Remorse, on the other hand, is rooted in the objective perception that it is the state of our being that has been revealed, that this is what we are—contrary to what we have believed about our moral capacities.
[/quote]

When a young child makes a mistake if it is accepted that an adult's role is to help the child understand what happened and internalize a certain lesson, an explanation of the concept of remorse as put forward above is not likely to be helpful. What is appropriate for an adult is not necessarily applicable for a young child.

I think it is a possibility that the word "guilt" evokes a strong emotional response due to religious programming in the Western world. The concept has indeed been misused and abused, creating authoritarian followers. However, I do not think if we take it as a possibility that "we could have acted differently in a situation or with a person", it is harmful by itself - specially in the context of childhood development. A young child can learn important developmental lessons without the installation of an automatic guilt program if he learns to label his feelings and with help, understand how he could make different choices in a given situation - or so it seems to me. As he grows up and expands his cognitive horizons, he could move naturally into a more mature understanding of his own behaviors and choices.

 

[Biomiast]

Hi to all,

I tend to agree with Buddy that these children are used and manipulated to learn something about labeling by the researchers and by their parents as well. In scientific research, it is sometimes necessary to use animals which I feel depressed about sometimes, but usage of these innocent children really get me mad. The children are not able to comprehend what went wrong since the guy at the back was messing with their observations and comes along another guy who says he was supposed to be looking at the cars. Imagine how a small child would feel in that case.

I don't know the whole experiment, but it seems to me there could also be a control group whose feelings were not labeled to see how they react in that case. Does such a control group exist in this case?

BTW, Maat, thank you for your input, it is interesting to know how these psychological researchers operate.

My two cents.

 

[Oxajil]

Hi to all,

I tend to agree with Buddy that these children are used and manipulated to learn something about labeling by the researchers and by their parents as well. In scientific research, it is sometimes necessary to use animals which I feel depressed about sometimes, but usage of these innocent children really get me mad. The children are not able to comprehend what went wrong since the guy at the back was messing with their observations and comes along another guy who says he was supposed to be looking at the cars. Imagine how a small child would feel in that case.

Messing with their observations? This is how it was set up, as obyvatel wrote:

"Wilson sites a study which he terms devious (the above situation where a kid messes up is a little difficult to study in a straight forward way) where a researcher took second graders to a room where there was a race car slowly going around race tracks. The kid was asked to keep a watch on the car and was shown how to stop the car if it was going too fast so that it did not jump tracks. Unknown to the child, there was a guy in another room who had control of the car and could see what the child was doing and when the child's attention went away from watching the car, he would speed up the car and make it jump tracks. Then the first researcher would come back and would be dismayed at the broken car.

So, the child might think ''Oops, I didn't pay attention, and now it jump tracked''. I really don't see the negativity you guys are talking about in this particular experiment.

You also say that the ''children are used and manipulated to learn something about labeling by the researchers and by their parents''. I'm curious to know what your definition of manipulation is? It's one thing to use a certain technique to help children with recognizing their feelings and supporting their development of understanding other people's feelings too etc. and it's another thing to use a technique to harm children and is eventually self-serving. And I don't see how this is a harmful practice?

 

[Laura]

You also say that the ''children are used and manipulated to learn something about labeling by the researchers and by their parents''. I'm curious to know what your definition of manipulation is? It's one thing to use a certain technique to help children with recognizing their feelings and supporting their development of understanding other people's feelings too etc. and it's another thing to use a technique to harm children and is eventually self-serving. And I don't see how this is a harmful practice?

I agree. Your only other option is to say and do nothing and raise a characteropath.

Just look at how kids are turning out with the "praise only" and "positive reinforcement" systems that have been popular for the last generation or so.

 

[Buddy]

[quote author=Oxajil]
I really don't see the negativity you guys are talking about in this particular experiment.[/quote]

Well, my feelings regarding that particular experiment and the way it was conducted have softened a bit, but I still seem to think this kind of experimentation can be done without the deviousness.

I'm beginning to wonder how many characteropaths or other disturbed people (including, possibly me), have reported an accumulation of devious treatment in their life histories? Of course I'm guilty of "projecting a possible future" in this case, but I'm not trying to offend anyone.

[quote author=Oxajil]
So, the child might think ''Oops, I didn't pay attention, and now it jump tracked''.[/quote]

Interesting how you worded that because it sounds like a healthier outlook than what may be actually induced in the child. Being a second grader the child might think this, but I believe his logic will be slightly distorted and manifest as 'negative' feelings. In this case, the car did not speed up and jump track because he wasn't paying attention, it sped up and jumped track when he wasn't paying attention. For the experiment to work, this non-trivial information is used as a variable. As a manipulation, it's based on knowing that the child is going to do what children that age do when they have short attention spans - stop performing an activity that is boring, and in no way dangerous to anyone if he does so, and go to something more interesting. And that's going to be a part of his "guilt", OSIT. That's what bothered me most I believe.

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=Oxajil]
I really don't see the negativity you guys are talking about in this particular experiment.

Well, my feelings regarding that particular experiment and the way it was conducted have softened a bit, but I still seem to think this kind of experimentation can be done without the deviousness.

I'm beginning to wonder how many characteropaths or other disturbed people (including, possibly me), have reported an accumulation of devious treatment in their life histories? Of course I'm guilty of "projecting a possible future" in this case, but I'm not trying to offend anyone.
[/quote]

And this may be the crux of the emotional thinking and projection that is happening in the context of this experiment.

[quote author=Buddy]
[quote author=Oxajil]
So, the child might think ''Oops, I didn't pay attention, and now it jump tracked''.[/quote]

Interesting how you worded that because it sounds like a healthier outlook than what may be actually induced in the child. Being a second grader the child might think this, but I believe his logic will be slightly distorted and manifest as 'negative' feelings. In this case, the car did not speed up and jump track because he wasn't paying attention, it sped up and jumped track when he wasn't paying attention.
[/quote]

My take on the child's reaction was the same as what Oxajil stated above. And I think, though I could be mistaken, that if a child has not had significant prior history of emotional trauma where he was blamed or shamed, it is a more likely reaction. Children often accept things as they are presented to them and do not necessarily start seeing hidden meanings in situations at an early age. The experiment was designed to induce the thought that the car jumped track because he was not paying attention. The first researcher had taught the child to stop the train if it moved too fast and had asked him to watch the train.

[quote author=Buddy]
For the experiment to work, this non-trivial information is used as a variable. As a manipulation, it's based on knowing that the child is going to do what children that age do when they have short attention spans - stop performing an activity that is boring, and in no way dangerous to anyone if he does so, and go to something more interesting. And that's going to be a part of his "guilt", OSIT. That's what bothered me most I believe.
[/quote]

I believe there is more projection here from an adult mindset. Watching a race car go around the track is not necessarily boring activity for a kid of that age - I have observed kids playing with similar toys for long periods of time. Nor does a kid that age usually figure out that it is a "harmless thing and so I can afford to be distracted". In the experimental setup, the kid was set up to be distracted by other toys in the room in order to induce the "mistake".

The line of force behind the presentation of the experiment and the conclusion was the concept of helping children label their feelings appropriately as they occur naturally as a part of growing up, without being artificially induced.

 

[Buddy]

Thanks for sticking with me on this, obyvatel. I'm seeing how easy it is for me to put myself in the position of that child but using my own experience to evaluate his? I think so.

 

[Laura]

Thanks for sticking with me on this, obyvatel. I'm seeing how easy it is for me to put myself in the position of that child but using my own experience to evaluate his? I think so.

Thing is, any good and conscientious parent will make some experiments with each child in terms of how to help them understand their reality and guide them in proper development. And each child will be different and react differently to situations and labels. You can't always get it right, but it's the responsibility of the parent to help the child understand and frame reality and respond to it appropriately. That CAN be done without twisting the child's mind or installing a bunch of buffers.

Oh, certainly, the study shows that the twisting and installing of buffers probably works the same way, how impressionable children are, but I'm talking about a good and conscientious parent here... A bad parent can do a lot of damage via the same pathways and even more.

In the case of this study, I think that it was a useful way of making a discovery about how children learn without inflicting damage. Afterward, corrections can be made to reframe things for the kids. (I would think.)

The main point is: by knowing how this works, people can be better parents and find the right balance for the particular child. It is a VERY useful book.

Using these methods, a parent can help a child to NOT feel guilty when it is not appropriate and, at the same time, to grow up feeling response-able to their environment - including the other people within it. It also gives a rather clear explanation of what NOT to do and why.

There's some really good info in the "Character Disturbance" book by Simon which explains why praise for the wrong reasons can produce a child that thinks the world owes them everything with no effort on their part and can lead to psychopath-like behavior in a person who is otherwise normal.

 

[Biomiast]

You also say that the ''children are used and manipulated to learn something about labeling by the researchers and by their parents''. I'm curious to know what your definition of manipulation is? It's one thing to use a certain technique to help children with recognizing their feelings and supporting their development of understanding other people's feelings too etc. and it's another thing to use a technique to harm children and is eventually self-serving. And I don't see how this is a harmful practice?

Hi Oxajil,

My intention was to say the researchers use this children to conduct research and disregard their feelings. I imagined myself in the situation and I think I would be ashamed if a guy came to me and asked what happened. This may be my projection but my point was, these children are coming from variety of backgrounds and some of them may suffer guilt program because they didn't do what these researchers wanted them to do. And it seemed to me the researchers do not take this into consideration. I can understand from obyvatel's response that this shouldn't always be necessary in every case. But I wonder if a child would randomly feel guilt, or was it instilled by his/her parents. If it was instilled in a bad way, the child is feeling parental fear and guilt programs over this insignificant thing, because researchers told them other people felt guilty because they didn't watch the car.

I think the results are quite useful in this experiment, but I reacted to the fact that these children were considered as subjects that can give information to the researchers who do not care how this process would affect children. The same may go with parents who subject their children to this experiment. I don't know it is true in every case or in this case, but at the time I perceived is such that children were being manipulated for the personal gain of researchers and their parents.

But that's just my take on it.

 

[Buddy]

Using these methods, a parent can help a child to NOT feel guilty when it is not appropriate and, at the same time, to grow up feeling response-able to their environment - including the other people within it. It also gives a rather clear explanation of what NOT to do and why.

Thanks for that. I'd likely be a lot more comfortable with those experiments as long as I think that those involved were thinking with a way that corresponds to that way of looking at it.

FWIW, I still seem to think the child was looked at as an 'object' whose feelings were also of the 'object' variety in the sense that emotions can somehow be 'stopped' for measuring and dialectically analyzed in binary terms as if there is some emotional zero-reference frame to provide a starting point. But I'm a lot more comfortable with the way you described the process and its connected purpose.

So, if that's the best the conventional psychology offers man right now, then at least the purpose being served is related to improving someone's quality of life, or so I now think.

...praise for the wrong reasons can produce a child that thinks the world owes them everything with no effort on their part and can lead to psychopath-like behavior in a person who is otherwise normal.

Agreed, and it seems to me that as all this wrong praise becomes accepted and approved of by the receiver as natural and normal for him, a sub-liminal "you-owe-me" "thing" probably gains a bit of gravity within him and the criminal mind may as well be considered as growing around that.

Thanks again for your input. :)