Thread: Punishment is superstition.

Animal training research shows that punishing animals is counterproductive, and yet animals punish each other. They do, in other words, do something counterproductive. This can patently not be explained by evolutionary psychology.

So why do they punish each other? There is evidence for timeserving even in animals. This timeserving creates an illusion of punishment working. So animals punish each other because of an acquired superstitious belief that punishment works. That psychologists still believe anger to be a fundamental emotion only shows the strong biological effect of beliefs.

There is research, epigenetics among other things, that shows that inheritance of acquired characteristics do exist. This explains the presence of punishing behavior in individuals too young to have acquired a superstitious belief in punishment through their own experience.

But is it possible that this holds true for humans as well? Is human punishment as non-Darwinian and based on superstition as animal punishment is? Considering the fact that bans against thinking of polar bears increases the likelihood of thinking of polar bears, and that violence and many other crimes are most common in countries with severe punishment and least common in countries with mild punishment, the answer appears to be yes.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Animal training research shows that punishing animals is counterproductive, and yet animals punish each other. They do, in other words, do something counterproductive. This can patently not be explained by evolutionary psychology.

Maybe that means it isn't really true. Better go back and look at the research. I don't think a trait would survive if it didn't work.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Animal training research shows that punishing animals is counterproductive, and yet animals punish each other. They do, in other words, do something counterproductive. This can patently not be explained by evolutionary psychology.

Maybe that means it isn't really true. Better go back and look at the research. I don't think a trait would survive if it didn't work.

The counterproductiveness of punishing animals has been confirmed in multiple studies. And you clearly missed the last 3 out of the 4 paragraphs in my post, including the last one which also shows evidence that the counterproductiveness of punishment extends to humans as well. The theory I promote here is that punishment is an acquired superstitious belief based on timeserving causing environmentally based illusions, of completely non-Darwinian origin. The trait does not need to "survive" in any Darwinian sense in order to exist, since it is implanted into the individuals from the illusion-creating environment.

But today they use good rewards instead of punishment to get things done and change behavior in humans.

People are being paid money to do work they might never have done if they were punished into doing it, garbage collection as example, but still will do this work because they were paid. There are many other positive examples of people working doing things they might not have ever done for other rewards as well. So the use of punishment to get a task accomplished today can be done by using positive rewards not punishment in many cases.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Animal training research shows that punishing animals is counterproductive, and yet animals punish each other.

Could you please provide links to the studies you are referring to.
Thanks.

I don't see how this is relevant to the point that punishment is counterproductive.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

The counterproductiveness of punishing animals has been confirmed in multiple studies.

Can we have a some link on at least two of them ?

The rest of you post is a conjecture, and if I read you correctly it means : The meme of punishment has hijacked a part of functionality of many gene (that were selected by nature previously (for another meme function, which obviously was not vital))

The fact that it is observed cross species, date it back wayyyyyyyy back in times. Why not ?

Fact is: it has survived. And in many species. So it is definitely not counterproductive, selection wise.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

[
The counterproductiveness of punishing animals has been confirmed in multiple studies. And you clearly missed the last 3 out of the 4 paragraphs in my post, including the last one which also shows evidence that the counterproductiveness of punishment extends to humans as well. The theory I promote here is that punishment is an acquired superstitious belief based on timeserving causing environmentally based illusions, of completely non-Darwinian origin. The trait does not need to "survive" in any Darwinian sense in order to exist, since it is implanted into the individuals from the illusion-creating environment.

I didn't miss the paragraphs, I just think it is hogwash. A superstition supposedly arises in multiple animals (plants too?) which persists in spite of being counterproductive to the animal's survival. You're going to have to show some pretty strong evidence for that.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Animal training research shows that punishing animals is counterproductive, and yet animals punish each other.

Could you please provide links to the studies you are referring to.
Thanks.

The counterproductiveness of punishment is well-known in modern pet training, and references to it can be found on any modern pet training website. That animals punish each other is well-documented in ethology, and references to it is abundant. Don't make it sound like it is a single unique study I am referring to when it is not. I appear to be the first person to combine these two facts and use that combination to problematize evolutionary psychology, but if nobody combines facts outside the box then science cannot progress.

Originally Posted by Boing3000

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

The counterproductiveness of punishing animals has been confirmed in multiple studies.

Can we have a some link on at least two of them ?

The rest of you post is a conjecture, and if I read you correctly it means : The meme of punishment has hijacked a part of functionality of many gene (that were selected by nature previously (for another meme function, which obviously was not vital))

The fact that it is observed cross species, date it back wayyyyyyyy back in times. Why not ?

Fact is: it has survived. And in many species. So it is definitely not counterproductive, selection wise.

You misunderstood what I meant. What I meant is that the origin and continuing existence of punishment has nothing whatsoever to do with natural selection at any level. Punishment is due to a superstitious belief that it works, and that superstitious belief comes from the ecology of timeservers. Punishment causes others to hide their forbidden actions, and that hiding creates an illusion of punishment working.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Animal training research shows that punishing animals is counterproductive, and yet animals punish each other.

Could you please provide links to the studies you are referring to.
Thanks.

The counterproductiveness of punishment is well-known in modern pet training, and references to it can be found on any modern pet training website. That animals punish each other is well-documented in ethology, and references to it is abundant. Don't make it sound like it is a single unique study I am referring to when it is not. I appear to be the first person to combine these two facts and use that combination to problematize evolutionary psychology, but if nobody combines facts outside the box then science cannot progress.

I politely asked for some links and you provided nothing.
Why is that?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

[
The counterproductiveness of punishing animals has been confirmed in multiple studies. And you clearly missed the last 3 out of the 4 paragraphs in my post, including the last one which also shows evidence that the counterproductiveness of punishment extends to humans as well. The theory I promote here is that punishment is an acquired superstitious belief based on timeserving causing environmentally based illusions, of completely non-Darwinian origin. The trait does not need to "survive" in any Darwinian sense in order to exist, since it is implanted into the individuals from the illusion-creating environment.

I didn't miss the paragraphs, I just think it is hogwash. A superstition supposedly arises in multiple animals (plants too?) which persists in spite of being counterproductive to the animal's survival. You're going to have to show some pretty strong evidence for that.

It arises lots of times independently and persists because it invades the individuals from the environment. The widespreadness is due to the fact that timeserving is so easy to stumble upon. And where there are timeservers, their hiding of their forbidden actions creates the illusion that punishment works.

Martin J Sallberg can't because there are none to find.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Animal training research shows that punishing animals is counterproductive, and yet animals punish each other.

Could you please provide links to the studies you are referring to.
Thanks.

The counterproductiveness of punishment is well-known in modern pet training, and references to it can be found on any modern pet training website. That animals punish each other is well-documented in ethology, and references to it is abundant. Don't make it sound like it is a single unique study I am referring to when it is not. I appear to be the first person to combine these two facts and use that combination to problematize evolutionary psychology, but if nobody combines facts outside the box then science cannot progress.

I politely asked for some links and you provided nothing.
Why is that?

Here are some:

Cat’s spraying is sign of stress

Open Paw- building lifelong relationships with pets: Jumping up: How to teach your dog a polite greeting


I do not know if the links work. I cannot spend all day searching for functioning URL links to pet training websites, especially not when you are drowning the thread with misposed assumptions. Maybe you could google something yourself? I provided you with two phrases to google, and also recommend "punishment is counterproductive" animal.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Martin J Sallberg can't because there are none to find.

There are. I provided them here:

h=1]Cat’s spraying is sign of stress [/h]Open Paw- building lifelong relationships with pets: Jumping up: How to teach your dog a polite greeting

and you could google some yourself too instead of asking me to search the Internet while you drown my thread with unsubstantiated claims!

That's weird, when I hit my mom's cats, they don't jump on the counters, when they go unpunished, they roam freely on the counters. Same experience with any pet I've been around....huh...

while you drown my thread with unsubstantiated claims!

It was YOU who made the claims not me, so why not show everyone where you get your "facts" from?

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Martin J Sallberg can't because there are none to find.

There are. I provided them here:h=1]Cat’s spraying is sign of stress [/h]Open Paw- building lifelong relationships with pets: Jumping up: How to teach your dog a polite greetingand you could google some yourself too instead of asking me to search the Internet while you drown my thread with unsubstantiated claims!

This is not research

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

I cannot spend all day searching for functioning URL links to pet training websites,

It is a two step, select the text, and click on the planet with a chain.

especially not when you are drowning the thread with misposed assumptions.

It is you doing that. These are not studies, but link on blogs. sonomapets.com is not likely to be a "study" or a "research". They do not even bother linking to those either.

You assume too much, especially that "evolutionary psychology" has anything to do with pet-training.

My bet is that if you think teaching a dog a polite greeting is not a punishment, you don't know what punishment means either.


Do you feel punished ? You should not, because it is counter productive.

So what are the options ? Maybe you can try to answer politely to us that you have no such links, that you mean something else, and then try to explain it, without assuming too much.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

and you could google some yourself too instead of asking me to search the Internet while you drown my thread with unsubstantiated claims!

Why should I hunt down evidence to support YOUR claims?
You made the claim: you support it.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

h=1]Cat’s spraying is sign of stress [/h]Open Paw- building lifelong relationships with pets: Jumping up: How to teach your dog a polite greeting

Most of those links are broken - and the one that works does not support your claims.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Animal training research shows that punishing animals is counterproductive, and yet animals punish each other. They do, in other words, do something counterproductive.

So - please provide some links that show that the punishment that animals use is counter-productive.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

You made an assertion, you were asked to support it, you didn't, then you get defensive and post one website and ask other people to search to find evidence for YOUR assertion, this is not how science works YOU made the assertion YOU need to provide the evidence. The road to crankdom beckons...

Who retrieves the evidence is irrelevant, as is who made the claim. And if you really want me to retrieve specific links, please give me some time. Stop spamming the thread.

I've been training animals, dogs, horses, cats, etc.... for most of my life
and occasionally, punishment is part of that---------but it needs to have the opposite directly attached
punishment and reward---even if the reward is just a "good dog" accompanied with a petting and scratching behind the ears.(though a pocket full of snacks ain't a bad idea)(food is love)
but first, trust, friendship, and love/mutual respect should be established-------with you(the human) always in charge

eg: a dog that chases the chickens and tries to bite them--------grab the dog by the neck, and force it up against the chicken wire where the chickens have fled, while screaming NO NO NO, and slapping at it's head, then pull it away from the chickens, with a "good dog" and friendly petting-------------repeat, etc, (as necessary) then take the dog farther away and kneel down with it for awhile re-establishing the love part, and that usually gets a dog to walk around the chickens, and after awhile, it may lay down in the yard within feet of the chickens and ignore them, after which, it becomes their protector
horses roughly the same----but first, you have to be on a friendly basis with them(food helps here too)
cats, however don't take as well to training via negatives and positives------and, i've found that it is best to train them with positives---------kinda like training children but that means that you have to "keep your head "in the game" 100% and be real forgiving of most of what they do wrong------once love is established, then showing displeasure is punishment enough.

Originally Posted by mat5592

That's weird, when I hit my mom's cats, they don't jump on the counters, when they go unpunished, they roam freely on the counters. Same experience with any pet I've been around....huh...

What they do when you see them is one thing. What they do when you do not see them is something completely different. Punishment appears to work when you look at them, that is why you get the illusion that it works. The counterproductiveness of punishment refers to the whole, which includes when you do not look at them.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

while you drown my thread with unsubstantiated claims!

It was YOU who made the claims not me, so why not show everyone where you get your "facts" from?

You claimed that there was no links. And if you want me to find more, give me time to search the Internet!

Originally Posted by mat5592

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Martin J Sallberg can't because there are none to find.

There are. I provided them here:h=1]Cat’s spraying is sign of stress [/h]Open Paw- building lifelong relationships with pets: Jumping up: How to teach your dog a polite greetingand you could google some yourself too instead of asking me to search the Internet while you drown my thread with unsubstantiated claims!

This is not research

What do you mean with "not research"? That is as scientific as it gets in the field of pet training. Official "scientific" papers rarely publish anything about pet training.

Originally Posted by Boing3000

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

I cannot spend all day searching for functioning URL links to pet training websites,

It is a two step, select the text, and click on the planet with a chain.

especially not when you are drowning the thread with misposed assumptions.

It is you doing that. These are not studies, but link on blogs. sonomapets.com is not likely to be a "study" or a "research". They do not even bother linking to those either.

You assume too much, especially that "evolutionary psychology" has anything to do with pet-training.

My bet is that if you think teaching a dog a polite greeting is not a punishment, you don't know what punishment means either.


Do you feel punished ? You should not, because it is counter productive.

So what are the options ? Maybe you can try to answer politely to us that you have no such links, that you mean something else, and then try to explain it, without assuming too much.

Your whole post is just a gish gallop of distortions of what I said.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

and you could google some yourself too instead of asking me to search the Internet while you drown my thread with unsubstantiated claims!

Why should I hunt down evidence to support YOUR claims?
You made the claim: you support it.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

h=1]Cat’s spraying is sign of stress [/h]Open Paw- building lifelong relationships with pets: Jumping up: How to teach your dog a polite greeting

Most of those links are broken - and the one that works does not support your claims.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Animal training research shows that punishing animals is counterproductive, and yet animals punish each other. They do, in other words, do something counterproductive.

So - please provide some links that show that the punishment that animals use is counter-productive.

Theories must be treated regardlessly of who created them. It is the evidence that counts. So any imperatives about who should provide the evidence is nonsense. And I am too busy answering all the silly questions here. Can you please google instead of ONLY using functioning links? And no, there are no published papers saying explicitly that animal punishment of each other is counterproductive, but it follows logically from counterproductive punishing of animals plus that animals punish each other.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by PhDemon

You made an assertion, you were asked to support it, you didn't, then you get defensive and post one website and ask other people to search to find evidence for YOUR assertion, this is not how science works YOU made the assertion YOU need to provide the evidence. The road to crankdom beckons...

Who retrieves the evidence is irrelevant, as is who made the claim. And if you really want me to retrieve specific links, please give me some time. Stop spamming the thread.

Three words - "Burden of proof" you may want to look this up and how it relates to the scientific method before posting any more crap...

The whole concept of "burden of proof" comes from the false assumption that there must somehow be an official viewpoint. Real science includes that when you do not know, then admit that you do not know. Any invoking of "burden of proof" is like rounding a number. If you round all the numbers in a long mathematical calculation that includes multiplications or divisions, then the end answer will not even remotely resemble the true end answer.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Whille you're looking up "Burden of proof" also look up how scientists use the word theory and see if you can work out why your unsupported assertions are not a theory. Before you say you have provided support read what you wrote here:

"there are no published papers saying explicitly that animal punishment of each other is counterproductive" so no proper evidence or support at all then...

What you did there was an out of context quotation. You omitted the part about evidence for all the components and logical inferrence. Out of context quotations are a classic hallmark of pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by sculptor

I've been training animals, dogs, horses, cats, etc.... for most of my life
and occasionally, punishment is part of that---------but it needs to have the opposite directly attached
punishment and reward---even if the reward is just a "good dog" accompanied with a petting and scratching behind the ears.(though a pocket full of snacks ain't a bad idea)(food is love)
but first, trust, friendship, and love/mutual respect should be established-------with you(the human) always in charge

eg: a dog that chases the chickens and tries to bite them--------grab the dog by the neck, and force it up against the chicken wire where the chickens have fled, while screaming NO NO NO, and slapping at it's head, then pull it away from the chickens, with a "good dog" and friendly petting-------------repeat, etc, (as necessary) then take the dog farther away and kneel down with it for awhile re-establishing the love part, and that usually gets a dog to walk around the chickens, and after awhile, it may lay down in the yard within feet of the chickens and ignore them, after which, it becomes their protector
horses roughly the same----but first, you have to be on a friendly basis with them(food helps here too)
cats, however don't take as well to training via negatives and positives------and, i've found that it is best to train them with positives---------kinda like training children but that means that you have to "keep your head "in the game" 100% and be real forgiving of most of what they do wrong------once love is established, then showing displeasure is punishment enough.

Just because the negative effects of punishment can be partially mitigated does not mean that they are not there in the first place.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by mat5592

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Martin J Sallberg can't because there are none to find.

There are. I provided them here:h=1]Cat’s spraying is sign of stress [/h]Open Paw- building lifelong relationships with pets: Jumping up: How to teach your dog a polite greetingand you could google some yourself too instead of asking me to search the Internet while you drown my thread with unsubstantiated claims!

This is not research

What do you mean with "not research"? That is as scientific as it gets in the field of pet training. Official "scientific" papers rarely publish anything about pet training.

if there's not actually research to support it, then you probably shouldn't state there is any and/or claim that a blog is any form of research. it's not.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

In science the "official viewpoint" is that for which there is evidence and that fits the observations. As your assertions may have neither evidence or observations to support them the onus is on you to back up your claim. This is how science works, when you publish, your work is peer reviewed and compared against the "official viewpoint", any interpretation beyond the "official viewpoint" needs some pretty strong evidence to back it up if it is to be taken seriously. As someone who works in the sciences, trust me, this is how science advances. As you have provided no credible evidence I dismiss your theory. There is no point posting any more here you refuse to back up your assertions and are coming across as a crank.

Official acceptance by academia means plus minus zero for the probability of a theory. There are many sociological factors besides actual evidence that may affect what theories official academia accept. It is ONLY the evidence that matters, treat the official status as completely black box.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Whille you're looking up "Burden of proof" also look up how scientists use the word theory and see if you can work out why your unsupported assertions are not a theory. Before you say you have provided support read what you wrote here:

"there are no published papers saying explicitly that animal punishment of each other is counterproductive" so no proper evidence or support at all then...

What you did there was an out of context quotation. You omitted the part about evidence for all the components and logical inferrence. Out of context quotations are a classic hallmark of pseudoscience.

Irrelevant, logical to you maybe, logical inference without data/observations to back it up is not accepted as science, it is acceptable to speculate but without observations it cannot be called science.

It was logical inferrence FROM actual observational data, which means that actual data does exist.

Originally Posted by mat5592

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by mat5592

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Martin J Sallberg can't because there are none to find.

There are. I provided them here:h=1]Cat’s spraying is sign of stress [/h]Open Paw- building lifelong relationships with pets: Jumping up: How to teach your dog a polite greetingand you could google some yourself too instead of asking me to search the Internet while you drown my thread with unsubstantiated claims!

This is not research

What do you mean with "not research"? That is as scientific as it gets in the field of pet training. Official "scientific" papers rarely publish anything about pet training.

if there's not actually research to support it, then you probably shouldn't state there is any and/or claim that a blog is any form of research. it's not.

Pay at least some attention to the following factors:

#Research about pet training is extremely rare in official "scientific" papers, which means that it takes a long time to search for.

#The tsunami of comments flooding this thread makes me really short of time to do anything but post.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Bollocks, I'm an academic, I know how academia works. You have proven beyond a doubt that you haven't a clue about, well, anything. There is only one place for such people - the ignore list, you won't hear from me again...

Well, I never claimed that academia followed the pure scientific method. Any prestige, "burden of proof" and so on are violations of the scientific method. In the pure scientific method there is no room for anything except testing the theories with evidence equally regardless of their origin. See Pure science Wiki

Talk about straining at gnats to pick cherry's.
Completely wasted my time reading this, thanks a lot.


Edit- Your link: Light - Pure science Wiki
Absolute zero - Pure science Wiki

Very profound...

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Official acceptance by academia means plus minus zero for the probability of a theory. There are many sociological factors besides actual evidence that may affect what theories official academia accept. It is ONLY the evidence that matters, treat the official status as completely black box.

The progression of this thread topic would have moved along far more if you'd only provide the references/studies requested of your conclusions that "punishment is superstition" & "punishment is counterproductive". It isn't an overly ridiculous request by other members here that you back up what you have said in your OP. Perhaps the time you have spent replying could have been put to much better use by locating the studies you said to exist so that we may evaluate what you have posted in your OP.

I'm not trying to take sides here, but the longer you tally in providing the sources repeatedly asked of you, the more likely members here will dismiss your conclusions.

Hi Martin,

I might be misinterpreting what you’re getting at. Are you suggesting, if you were to attempt punishing a puppy to stop it pooing on your rug, it’ll eventfully stop and learn to go to the garden instead. However, if you leave puppy unattended for awhile, come back home, you’ll then find that the puppy will have left you a pile of poo on your carpet regardless?

He is claiming that evolution is false because abusing an animal to train it is not effective.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

You claimed that there was no links. And if you want me to find more, give me time to search the Internet!

Honestly you should have had links to support you claims from the OP onward-- research from credible sources, such as peer review journals about behavior, animals (and others) not a blog without references.

Using the word "superstition" is rather awkward as well, if a parent for example used punishment as their primary means to teach their children, that might show lack of parenting skills, but most wouldn't consider that superstitions. Likewise the word superstitious wouldn't apply if an alpha male wolf bites an omega wolf after he tries to mount the alpha female.

Official "scientific" papers rarely publish anything about pet training.

Than it's not research from a scientific perspective.

Your statement is also inaccurate, so as a means of providing an example, I did a 15 second search on Google Scholar and immediate found a link about the subject. I'll let you read it. Warning, like most things, it shows things are more complex than first meets the eye. Punishment certainly does work, but risk some behavioral problem in dogs that might be avoided using other techniques:
http://www.azs.no/artikler/art_training_methods.pdf

Originally Posted by scoobydoo1

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Official acceptance by academia means plus minus zero for the probability of a theory. There are many sociological factors besides actual evidence that may affect what theories official academia accept. It is ONLY the evidence that matters, treat the official status as completely black box.

The progression of this thread topic would have moved along far more if you'd only provide the references/studies requested of your conclusions that "punishment is superstition" & "punishment is counterproductive". It isn't an overly ridiculous request by other members here that you back up what you have said in your OP. Perhaps the time you have spent replying could have been put to much better use by locating the studies you said to exist so that we may evaluate what you have posted in your OP.

I'm not trying to take sides here, but the longer you tally in providing the sources repeated asked of you, the more likely members here will dismiss your conclusions.

See:

Punishment.

Aggressive Behavior in Dogs - Google böcker, resultat

Training Policy - Managing Manners

K-911 Dog Training Information » Dog Training Terms and ...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

He is claiming that evolution is false because abusing an animal to train it is not effective.

I am NOT claiming that evolution is false. I am claiming that evolution (at least of behavior) is not Darwinian.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

...
Just because the negative effects of punishment can be partially mitigated does not mean that they are not there in the first place.

What in hell are you talkiing about-------------?????
If I can get a dog to protect the chickens rather than killing them--that is a positive, not a negative effect----

remember rodney king's famous comment during the riots------"Can't we all just get along?"

Me, the dog, the chickens are getting along just fine, thank you.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Talk about straining at gnats to pick cherry's.
Completely wasted my time reading this, thanks a lot.


Edit- Your link: Light - Pure science Wiki
Absolute zero - Pure science Wiki

Very profound...

Ah, I missed this as the fool is on ignore but linking to crank websites in support of any argument is a good indicator that the poster is:
a) a fool
b) dishonest
c) madder than a box of frogs

I'll leave it to others to decide...

The presence of stubs on a wiki does not make it crank. YOU cherry-picked the stubs!

None of that supports your absurd O.P. that Evolution must be false simply because abusing an animal is less effective than positive reinforcement.
In the meantime, non-abusive punishment is effective and efficient. And if you lack the evidence because you cannot find any links- that is your problem. It is your claim, your problem. The premise of this thread is exceptionally stupid.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

He is claiming that evolution is false because abusing an animal to train it is not effective.

Oh! Well I guess that probably won’t go down well with the scientific community, I’m guessing.

TRASH CAN
please

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

...
Just because the negative effects of punishment can be partially mitigated does not mean that they are not there in the first place.

What in hell are you talkiing about-------------?????
If I can get a dog to protect the chickens rather than killing them--that is a positive, not a negative effect----

remember rodney king's famous comment during the riots------"Can't we all just get along?"

Me, the dog, the chickens are getting along just fine, thank you.

What does that have to do with punishment?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

None of that supports your absurd O.P. that Evolution must be false simply because abusing an animal is less effective than positive reinforcement.
In the meantime, non-abusive punishment is effective and efficient. And if you lack the evidence because you cannot find any links- that is your problem. It is your claim, your problem. The premise of this thread is exceptionally stupid.

I am NOT saying that evolution is false! I am saying that, at least for behavior, evolution isn't Darwinian!

Originally Posted by pineapples

Oh! Well I guess that probably won’t go down well with the scientific community, I’m guessing.

Well, considering the two threads he started, it appears as though he is trying to say evolution is nonsense- which I interpreted as false. It is possible that his intention is to support some "alternative" "theory" and must undermine mainstream theory in order to do so. He really could have gone about it a better way...

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

I am NOT saying that evolution is false! I am saying that, at least for behavior, evolution isn't Darwinian!

No, it's DrPhillian.

in the meantime i was able to find research that contradicts your assertion; punishment is effective. it's old and i'm not sure if you can get access to it, but still better than anything you've provided.

Maier N, Klee J. Studies of abnormal behavior in the rat. XII. The pattern of punishment and its relation to abnormal fixations. Journal Of Experimental Psychology [serial online]. May 1943;32(5):377-398. Available from: PsycARTICLES, Ipswich, MA.

from the article
"Next a frustrating condition was presented for the animals in all groups, i.e. they received punishment for one half of their responses. 90% of the animals exhibited fixation."

Originally Posted by mat5592

in the meantime i was able to find research that contradicts your assertion; punishment is effective. it's old and i'm not sure if you can get access to it, but still better than anything you've provided.

Maier N, Klee J. Studies of abnormal behavior in the rat. XII. The pattern of punishment and its relation to abnormal fixations. Journal Of Experimental Psychology [serial online]. May 1943;32(5):377-398. Available from: PsycARTICLES, Ipswich, MA.

from the article
"Next a frustrating condition was presented for the animals in all groups, i.e. they received punishment for one half of their responses. 90% of the animals exhibited fixation."

Old, and outdated. I was talking about modern research.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Talk about straining at gnats to pick cherry's.
Completely wasted my time reading this, thanks a lot.


Edit- Your link: Light - Pure science Wiki
Absolute zero - Pure science Wiki

Very profound...

Ah, I missed this as the fool is on ignore but linking to crank websites in support of any argument is a good indicator that the poster is:
a) a fool
b) dishonest
c) madder than a box of frogs

I'll leave it to others to decide...

The presence of stubs on a wiki does not make it crank. YOU cherry-picked the stubs!

Nope, I read most of the links and stubs on the site and it is definitely crank. All of the "stubs" I read are either woefully incorrect for example "The outer electron layer of uncharged (as opposed to ionized) oxygen contains 2 electrons, allowing it to have 2 chemical bonds" or so dumbed down I don't know why they bother example: Environmental stress is stress caused by the environment. The fact that the homepage has the audacity to say "The pure science wiki is a platform for the pure scientific method without any of the unscientific practices perpetrated by the official "scientific" community" when there is little science on the site and what is there is woefully wrong or inadequate screams CRANK.

You are still only linking to the stubs (not the long articles) and quoting out of context.

by the official "scientific" community

Rant:
It is not a community. A community is;
1 A group of people living together in one place, esp. one practicing common ownership: "a community of nuns".
2 All the people living in a particular area or place: "local communities".

The United States is not a community. It is a Nation.

Scientific consensus is international.

By using the word, "community," the author intends to lead the reader to the erroneous conclusion that a small, specific group of people are working together to make all of science.
This is false.
Science is simply a method and it is employed by a very large and diverse group of people.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Old, and outdated. I was talking about modern research.

...Which you're unable to provide...

"I reject your evidence on the grounds that I don't like it!" (Pounds fist on table.)

You know... Relativity is much older than that paper is.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

by the official "scientific" community

Rant:
It is not a community. A community is;
1 A group of people living together in one place, esp. one practicing common ownership: "a community of nuns".
2 All the people living in a particular area or place: "local communities".

The United States is not a community. It is a Nation.

Scientific consensus is international.

By using the word, "community," the author intends to lead the reader to the erroneous conclusion that a small, specific group of people are working together to make all of science.
This is false.
Science is simply a method and it is employed by a very large and diverse group of people.

I agree that the scientific method is not a community or organization. The scientific method is the scientific method. However, academia is an organization, and it does not properly follow the scientific method. Prestige is incompatible with the scientific method.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

I agree that the scientific method is not a community or organization. The scientific method is the scientific method. However, academia is an organization, and it does not properly follow the scientific method. Prestige is incompatible with the scientific method.

Possibly and you would need to support your assumptions. Either way- and it is my fault- this is an off topic tangent.

You should try supporting your other assertions first.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Old, and outdated. I was talking about modern research.

...Which you're unable to provide...

"I reject your evidence on the grounds that I don't like it!" (Pounds fist on table.)

You know... Relativity is much older than that paper is.

Now you are just providing unsubstantiated accusations. Why not talk to veterinaries, modern animal psychologists and the like? Instead of obsessing with the empty shell formality of "who claimed what".

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Old, and outdated. I was talking about modern research.

...Which you're unable to provide...

"I reject your evidence on the grounds that I don't like it!" (Pounds fist on table.)

You know... Relativity is much older than that paper is.

Now you are just providing unsubstantiated accusations. Why not talk to veterinaries, modern animal psychologists and the like? Instead of obsessing with the empty shell formality of "who claimed what".

lol!

there isn't a single "unsubstantiated" accusation there.

Well, there may be controversy among veterinaries on the counterproductiveness of punishment in animals, but the correlation between punishment severity and crime rates across countries worldwide is undeniable.

Originally Posted by mat5592

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Old, and outdated. I was talking about modern research.

...Which you're unable to provide...

"I reject your evidence on the grounds that I don't like it!" (Pounds fist on table.)

You know... Relativity is much older than that paper is.

Now you are just providing unsubstantiated accusations. Why not talk to veterinaries, modern animal psychologists and the like? Instead of obsessing with the empty shell formality of "who claimed what".

lol!

there isn't a single "unsubstantiated" accusation there.

"I reject your evidence on the grounds that I don't like it!" (Pounds fist on table.) is clearly an unsubstantiated accusation. And since multiple sociological factors affect what is published in official "scientific" papers, absence of such publications cannot be used to deny that the research is evidence.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Now you are just providing unsubstantiated accusations. Why not talk to veterinaries, modern animal psychologists and the like? Instead of obsessing with the empty shell formality of "who claimed what".

You could do the same. Thing is, can you demonstrate that any punishment of any kind is utterly ineffective?

What you've quoted or linked to so far only says that abusive punishment is less effective than positive reinforcement.
Both punishment and positive reinforcement are very effective. Extremes of either loss effectiveness.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by mat5592

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Old, and outdated. I was talking about modern research.

...Which you're unable to provide...

"I reject your evidence on the grounds that I don't like it!" (Pounds fist on table.)

You know... Relativity is much older than that paper is.

Now you are just providing unsubstantiated accusations. Why not talk to veterinaries, modern animal psychologists and the like? Instead of obsessing with the empty shell formality of "who claimed what".

lol!

there isn't a single "unsubstantiated" accusation there.

"I reject your evidence on the grounds that I don't like it!" (Pounds fist on table.) is clearly an unsubstantiated accusation. And since multiple sociological factors affect what is published in official "scientific" papers, absence of such publications cannot be used to deny that the research is evidence.

well he was just being silly there, but no, that's pretty much what you did.

but let's recap.

-you make the claim "Animal training research shows that punishing animals is counterproductive"

-you provide zero evidence to support said claim

-i provide evidence that entirely contradicts your claim

-you deem the research invalid (while still refusing to provide any research that supports your claim)

glad this isn't how the real world works!

Originally Posted by mat5592

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by mat5592

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Old, and outdated. I was talking about modern research.

...Which you're unable to provide...

"I reject your evidence on the grounds that I don't like it!" (Pounds fist on table.)

You know... Relativity is much older than that paper is.

Now you are just providing unsubstantiated accusations. Why not talk to veterinaries, modern animal psychologists and the like? Instead of obsessing with the empty shell formality of "who claimed what".

lol!

there isn't a single "unsubstantiated" accusation there.

"I reject your evidence on the grounds that I don't like it!" (Pounds fist on table.) is clearly an unsubstantiated accusation. And since multiple sociological factors affect what is published in official "scientific" papers, absence of such publications cannot be used to deny that the research is evidence.

well he was just being silly there, but no, that's pretty much what you did.

but let's recap.

-you make the claim "Animal training research shows that punishing animals is counterproductive"

-you provide zero evidence to support said claim

-i provide evidence that entirely contradicts your claim

-you deem the research invalid (while still refusing to provide any research that supports your claim)

glad this isn't how the real world works!

Well, what is "non-abusive punishment" for an animal? Absence of rewards? A sound?

And besides, why are NOBODY even responding to the other evidence I stated, that countries with severe punishment have the highest crime rates?

maybe because....that has nothing to do with punishment being an effective option for modifying animal behavior?

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Well, what is "non-abusive punishment" for an animal? Absence of rewards? A sound?

How about an electric fence? Those seem to work.

And besides, why are NOBODY even responding to the other evidence I stated, that countries with severe punishment have the highest crime rates?

There are a lot of factors that affect the reported crime rate, including the reporting of the crime rate. Maybe countries with high crime rates tend to pass stricter laws, in an attempt to reduce the crime rate. You didn't provide any references for this assertion, either.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Well, what is "non-abusive punishment" for an animal? Absence of rewards? A sound?

You tell us.
You made the claim... Surely, you have a strong understanding of the topic, right?

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

And besides, why are NOBODY even responding to the other evidence I stated, that countries with severe punishment have the highest crime rates?

i.e. Abusive?

I do agree that overly-punishing people is counter productive. But what does that have to do with Evolution considering the natural behaviors of animals?

What does kitty think of this?



...and what makes you think that?


"OOhh Ohh...I know the answer....He used his full name plus initial in his username.... He made unsupported claims and became defensive when asked to show evidence. He said he didn't have the time to look it up for us...but has plenty of time to post crap. He used large multicolored fonts...and he's kind of a jerk."

That's right Answer Cat. What do you think screaming cat?



"Put it in the TRASH CAN!!!!"

Punishment is compulsory and keeps people in control . It is not kindness or well wishes that keep the situation of law and order, it is fear of punishment that keeps society under law.
In a society like many African and Asian countries where there is no justified and timely punishment available, there is huge violence and situation is out of control of law.
Output of punishment is Fear that is a key factor for control on crime.

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

It is not kindness or well wishes that keep the situation of law and order, it is fear of punishment that keeps society under law.

So you're confessing that the only reason you don't commit crimes is out fear of being caught and punished?
You're admitting to being dishonest, deceitful, potentially murderous etc etc and that there's nothing preventing you doing any of that except the fear of societal retribution?

Remind me to avoid you like the plague if we ever meet in real life.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Theories must be treated regardlessly of who created them. It is the evidence that counts.

Ok - please provide links to the evidence.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

And no, there are no published papers saying explicitly that animal punishment of each other is counterproductive

Oh - you don't have any evidence.
Fair enough.

You have provided nothing to support your claim and refuse to do so.
Therefore I reject your claim on the basis that it is unevidenced.
Thanks for playing.


Next!

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

It is not kindness or well wishes that keep the situation of law and order, it is fear of punishment that keeps society under law.

So you're confessing that the only reason you don't commit crimes is out fear of being caught and punished?
You're admitting to being dishonest, deceitful, potentially murderous etc etc and that there's nothing preventing you doing any of that except the fear of societal retribution?

Remind me to avoid you like the plague if we ever meet in real life.

There are many people in society. And what's not ok to one person may seem permissible to another. Just because an average group will have many traits does not mean all members of the group have all traits- or even that most members of a group have all the traits.

OK, I grant that punishing pets is not ALWAYS counterproductive per say. However, this does not contradict the principle that pressure to justify one's actions paralyzes self-correction, although that is off the topic of this thread. Can we close this thread?

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

OK, I grant that punishing pets is not ALWAYS counterproductive per say. However, this does not contradict the principle that pressure to justify one's actions paralyzes self-correction, although that is off the topic of this thread.

In other words, you haven't a leg to stand on. The thing is; punishment can correct behavior. Positive reinforcement can correct behavior. Both are observed in the natural world.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Can we close this thread?

Seconded.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

It is not kindness or well wishes that keep the situation of law and order, it is fear of punishment that keeps society under law.

So you're confessing that the only reason you don't commit crimes is out fear of being caught and punished?
You're admitting to being dishonest, deceitful, potentially murderous etc etc and that there's nothing preventing you doing any of that except the fear of societal retribution?

Remind me to avoid you like the plague if we ever meet in real life.

He said nothing of the sort. Criminals commit crimes unless they are punished, which does not imply that Raj_K is a criminal.

This thread have drifted completely off topic. Please close it!

Originally Posted by Harold14370

He said nothing of the sort. Criminals commit crimes unless they are punished, which does not imply that Raj_K is a criminal.

Really?
Let's take another look at what he actually wrote:

It is not kindness or well wishes that keep the situation of law and order, it is fear of punishment that keeps society under law.

Plus:

Punishment is compulsory and keeps people in control

Nothing whatsoever about morality or conforming for any other reason than fear.
The direct implication is that law and order is maintained purely through the fear of punishment.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Harold14370

He said nothing of the sort. Criminals commit crimes unless they are punished, which does not imply that Raj_K is a criminal.

Really?
Let's take another look at what he actually wrote:

It is not kindness or well wishes that keep the situation of law and order, it is fear of punishment that keeps society under law.

Plus:

Punishment is compulsory and keeps people in control

Nothing whatsoever about morality or conforming for any other reason than fear.
The direct implication is that law and order is maintained purely through the fear of punishment.

If 98% of the people are conforming due to morality, and 2% are conforming only due to fear of punishment, then it is still fear of punishment that keeps the situation of law and order.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

If 98% of the people are conforming due to morality

Which was ignored altogether in his argument.

and 2% are conforming only due to fear of punishment

Um, let's try again - it is fear of punishment that keeps society under law.
That 2% isn't society.

It's the 98%'s conformity to "morality" that establishes and maintains society.

In addition to which how about this: is it punishment (and/ or the fear of) that deters would-be criminals or is the fact that once caught they no longer have the proceeds of their crime?
10-15 years (or whatever they get) in jail vs. X million in the bank - sounds worth it to me.

wild guess du jour

"fear of punishment" kicks up the adrenaline for some folks and they really get off on it.
so
fear of punishment would likely have an opposite effect than that which is desired
for them, it would be a big part of the thrill

morality seems a fickle beast, warped by class, race, and religion
(edit: - guy on the news said that the mother of the bombers didn't diserve to grieve, and that her "sham" grief was an insult to..bostonians, etc...)
kiss compassion good by, then wave to morality as it thunders down the road)

did we address greed?

I suspect that most people conform to their society's mores due to a combination of lazyness, fear, and morality in varying ammounts.
And, a lot do so just because they'd rather not think outside of the box.

............................
but, then again,
i am ofttimes wrong

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Harold14370

If 98% of the people are conforming due to morality

Which was ignored altogether in his argument.

So you were wrong**, but you have really strange way to apologies.

And has some other said, sweet explanation seems to elude you. Maybe it is time to to try punishment, to see if you can learn how to keep your accusation in the dark pit that is your soul.

and 2% are conforming only due to fear of punishment

Um, let's try again

lol, in fact you did not get it** ?

- it is fear of punishment that keeps society under law.
That 2% isn't society.

Crackpot color coding on ? You must be desperate to make an argument, as usual. Being helpless is one of the motives that will turn any of the 100 into the 2% of rogues. That is why care, help, solidarity, are some of the great tools to have social peace.

But then, the 2 % occasional loonies (ring a bell ?) will just decide to arras the 93.456% of the rest of the population concerned. It is well enough to render the group in question dysfunctional.

So some moderation process is needed, mainly in the form of punishment. very very effective.

It's the 98%'s conformity to "morality" that establishes and maintains society.

By waving hand, or by wishful thinking ?

In addition to which how about this: is it punishment (and/ or the fear of) that deters would-be criminals or is the fact that once caught they no longer have the proceeds of their crime?
10-15 years (or whatever they get) in jail vs. X million in the bank - sounds worth it to me.

I think some accountability is mandatory here. What is worth again ?

Resort to punishment isn't based on superstition, but it's not necessarily the most effective means to change behavior either.

Lashing out at the source of irritation, pain or fear for self or others is effective enough under most circumstances to make the annoyer think twice. I think that's something immediate and not a matter of deliberate and conscious thought (or superstition) on either side. But that is something different to conscious and deliberate invoking of laws and punishment of lawbreakers - something that is often more about the feelings and urges of those participating or observing than any intent to change the offender.

Monty Roberts, the famous horse trainer does not use pain and consistently opposes it's use - even to opposing the use of whips by jockeys, but his methods do use a measure of fear via the mimicking of the behavior of alpha mares. But that fear is temporary, followed by acceptance and inclusion -

Problem members of the herd are 'disciplined' by being exiled apart and have to show that they accept and defer to the dominant mare as leader before being allowed back. Roberts does this in a confined round-yard, mimicking the body language of the alpha mare to establish himself as the dominant leader - "unbroken" (Roberts doesn't call what he does horsebreaking, it's "join-up") horses will quietly submit to having saddles put on and having rider on back because of that sense of belonging trust in the dominant leader.

I don't know if I can find the reference but there was a study being discussed on a blog a few years back that showed that people experience pleasure at seeing offenders (a staged bag-snatch the participants got to witness IIRC) punished. To me it revealed a serious problem with the urge to punish, a linkage to pleasure that doesn't need thorough investigation or weighing of evidence in a fair trial - they witnessed actors doing their job, not a crime but felt pleasure regardless.

The same urge and same pleasure would be present whether the 'perp' actually committed the crime or not; just thinking they did, perhaps because someone told you, would probably be enough. I suspect the same emotions are what make crime shows so compelling - the bad guy gets slammed against a wall, kicked in testicles, put in cell with big mean homosexual rapist - hooray! Of course we are set up to know they did it and that they are really BAD as well. I was going to say that is unlike how we deal with real crime but I'm not so sure we are that detached and dispassionate - we are routinely "informed" via the media how (allegedly) guilty and BAD they are and encouraged to believe they deserve what they get.

But if the play acting of theatre can replicate those feelings, they are not reliable as a means of dispensing justice - no matter that amongst small groups of hunter gatherers they are better than having no effective means of dealing with rogue members - a means that binds the rest together in righteous indignation and satisfaction at punishment seen to be delivered.

It probably arose in evolutionary terms because of that binding together to do what otherwise would be dangerous (commit violence), and do it without provoking shame or guilt, not for the effectiveness at changing the behavior of offenders.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

It is not kindness or well wishes that keep the situation of law and order, it is fear of punishment that keeps society under law.

So you're confessing that the only reason you don't commit crimes is out fear of being caught and punished?
You're admitting to being dishonest, deceitful, potentially murderous etc etc and that there's nothing preventing you doing any of that except the fear of societal retribution?

Remind me to avoid you like the plague if we ever meet in real life.

There are many people in society. And what's not ok to one person may seem permissible to another. Just because an average group will have many traits does not mean all members of the group have all traits- or even that most members of a group have all the traits.

My means to say is fear of punishment keeps people under control. This does not mean all people do not commit crime due to fear of punishment. There are kind and good persons. I am just talking for some portion of people.

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by mat5592

That's weird, when I hit my mom's cats, they don't jump on the counters, when they go unpunished, they roam freely on the counters. Same experience with any pet I've been around....huh...

What they do when you see them is one thing. What they do when you do not see them is something completely different. Punishment appears to work when you look at them, that is why you get the illusion that it works. The counterproductiveness of punishment refers to the whole, which includes when you do not look at them.

Being able to understand the difference between being seen and not being seen by someone else, and adjusting your actions based on whether you are seen or not seen, requires theory of mind, which is associated with a high level of intelligence (e.g. humans, other apes and a small number of other animals).

Originally Posted by Alec Bing

Originally Posted by Martin J Sallberg

Originally Posted by mat5592

That's weird, when I hit my mom's cats, they don't jump on the counters, when they go unpunished, they roam freely on the counters. Same experience with any pet I've been around....huh...

What they do when you see them is one thing. What they do when you do not see them is something completely different. Punishment appears to work when you look at them, that is why you get the illusion that it works. The counterproductiveness of punishment refers to the whole, which includes when you do not look at them.

Being able to understand the difference between being seen and not being seen by someone else, and adjusting your actions based on whether you are seen or not seen, requires theory of mind, which is associated with a high level of intelligence (e.g. humans, other apes and a small number of other animals).

I'm not so sure the cat needs a theory of mind to know he will get swatted when he gets on the countertop, only if somebody is there to swat him.

As far as whether threat of punishment is effective on people, I would say it's effective on me. I tend to slow down when there is a police car in my rear view mirror. I don't drink and drive, but I used to do it a long time ago before the penalties were increased. I pay my taxes, which I probably might not do, or wouldn't pay as much, if it were just a suggestion instead of a law. (Any law without a penalty is merely a suggestion).

Originally Posted by Harold14370

As far as whether threat of punishment is effective on people, I would say it's effective on me. I tend to slow down when there is a police car in my rear view mirror. I don't drink and drive, but I used to do it a long time ago before the penalties were increased. I pay my taxes, which I probably might not do, or wouldn't pay as much, if it were just a suggestion instead of a law. (Any law without a penalty is merely a suggestion).

Well put. I've never done the drink and drive thing, because of the fear of killing an innocent. I do fear the legal penalties and I stay around the speed limit As far as driving goes, though.
There are some things I do (or things I do not do) because I think it's ethical. There are some things I do (or do not do) because I fear the consequences.
The average criminal is not usually a "Bad" person, just an unlucky one that got caught. Few criminals are the rape, murder, burglar type. Most of them are just average folks. Hell, even some of the murderers are just average folks that got pushed too far.

I find the whole prison punishment system to be archaic and rather unjust. I think it creates more problems than it solves.
A quick punishment is good for prevention or deterrence, but when it comes to major crimes, the threat of legalities is not really a deterrent.

Punishment is not a superstition. It is just overused- mainly because it is either a source of revenue for a city or county or because it's politically motivated. Victims of crimes (Or their families) want revenge and they believe that if the label revenge as "Justice" then that makes it Ok. So... that's not cost effective but it keeps the crowd happy.

Humans are stupid animals that think they are "civilized."

random thoughts:

"Animal training research shows that punishing animals is counterproductive, and yet animals punish each other."

Yes because they haven't read the research

Animals have been wrong about the shape of the earth all along, they have survived without realizing that we live on a somewhat spherical ball of molten rock. In fact they are so wrong about the shape of the earth, that they probably dont know theres an earth to begin with. I'm missing the part between genetics and understanding.

Punishment is primitive, it works in a primitive situation because the subject might not understand or one might not have time to explain, etc. Humans have been primitive and still have a way to go.
You dont need to punish an adult or threaten to punish an adult if he puts his hand in fire. If a toddler is about to cross the street when there's an incoming truck, you dont have time to explain about potential trajectories and kinetic forces and cellular integrity, you need to grab that kid against his will and yank him out of there.

Alternatives to punishment are potentially more constructive, but they require a suitable environment. Shaping and designing the environment to avoid the emergence of the problem (prevention) is better than punishment (an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, or something like that). Years ago, since people were falling to their death in elevator shafts of high buildings, they decided to put little signs saying "waring, you will be charged with a 100$ penalty if you fall to your death in the elevator shaft", but people were distracted by the sign and falling in, so they decided to put doors on the 12th floor that open with the elevator door, it was a technical solution instead of a rule/punishment/reactionary solution, but just before they instated the technical solution right wing people were crying for stiffer penalties, the penalty for falling to death should be increased from 100$ to 200$!
(just kidding of course)

Addendum: Additional poking-for-fun thoughts:
Uncivilized people, typically require extra rules, because they are uncivilized, they see the world from their selfish libertarian individual perspective, and have not mentally digested the fact that in a civilization resulting from massive interaction between individuals, individual actions can be beneficial to the larger group (synergy), well adapted to avoid interference (coordination) or crowbar-in-the-wheel causing interference and problem on a large scale even if the action appears inoffensive on an individual basis (like, sure, if YOU run a red light like a selfish maniac, it might be faster if you are a cowboy on the remote range [low density, low interaction] or it might work out in a city one time, but if EVERYONE in a city [high density, high interaction] runs red lights like selfish maniacs theres going to be crashes, piles ups, bumper to bumper trafic and mayhem and **massive** wastes of time).
Over time rules can no longer be enforced/needed once a behavior is integrated in the culture as a given/common-sense, like old rules saying you cant take a shit on the street, over time people have found ways to live without the libertarian freedom to take a shit right on the sidewalk of a city street like freedom-liberty animals would in nature, and as a counterpart they benefit from the freedom-liberty to walk on the sidewalk without stepping in the feces of other people whose liberty to do so was oppressed by rules in the past later replaced by social norms from the culture, which incidently people coming in from another time(time machine) or from another culture might not have integrated yet.

I think superstition is punishment.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Uncivilized people, typically require extra rules, because they are uncivilized, they see the world from their selfish libertarian individual perspective, and have not mentally digested the fact that in a civilization resulting from massive interaction between individuals, individual actions can be beneficial to the larger group (synergy), well adapted to avoid interference (coordination) or crowbar-in-the-wheel causing interference and problem on a large scale even if the action appears inoffensive on an individual basis (like, sure, if YOU run a red light like a selfish maniac, it might be faster if you are a cowboy on the remote range [low density, low interaction] or it might work out in a city one time, but if EVERYONE in a city [high density, high interaction] runs red lights like selfish maniacs theres going to be crashes, piles ups, bumper to bumper trafic and mayhem and **massive** wastes of time).

I is a uncivilized barbarian libertarian and I will eat your brains given the chance.

Primates live in complex ocieties that require cooperation to survive. If they didn't naturally feel empathy toward others and behave altruistically, Homo sapiens wouldn't exist. If all the adults in your life when you were a baby were completely selfish and acted in their own self interest as long as they weren't threatened with punishment, you wouldn't exit. We have evolved to be empathic and altruistic (some of us more than others), and empathy and altruism precede civilization.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Addendum: Additional poking-for-fun thoughts:
Uncivilized people, typically require extra rules,

What is your evidence for this and how are you defining uncivilized? There are plenty of rules in hunting-gathering societies, although they are not written rules.

because they are uncivilized, they see the world from their selfish libertarian individual perspective, and have not mentally digested the fact that in a civilization resulting from massive interaction between individuals, individual actions can be beneficial to the larger group (synergy), well adapted to avoid interference (coordination) or crowbar-in-the-wheel causing interference and problem on a large scale even if the action appears inoffensive on an individual basis (like, sure, if YOU run a red light like a selfish maniac, it might be faster if you are a cowboy on the remote range [low density, low interaction] or it might work out in a city one time, but if EVERYONE in a city [high density, high interaction] runs red lights like selfish maniacs theres going to be crashes, piles ups, bumper to bumper trafic and mayhem and **massive** wastes of time).
Over time rules can no longer be enforced/needed once a behavior is integrated in the culture as a given/common-sense,

Evidence please. Show me any society that operated without rules.

like old rules saying you cant take a shit on the street, over time people have found ways to live without the libertarian freedom to take a shit right on the sidewalk of a city street like freedom-liberty animals would in nature, and as a counterpart they benefit from the freedom-liberty to walk on the sidewalk without stepping in the feces of other people whose liberty to do so was oppressed by rules in the past later replaced by social norms from the culture, which incidently people coming in from another time(time machine) or from another culture might not have integrated yet.

You don't think there are laws against shitting on the sidewalk? I can't figure out what you are trying to say. You are opposed to libertarianism, but you don't think we need laws? You aren't making much sense.

Originally Posted by Alec Bing

Primates live in complex ocieties that require cooperation to survive. If they didn't naturally feel empathy toward others and behave altruistically, Homo sapiens wouldn't exist. If all the adults in your life when you were a baby were completely selfish and acted in their own self interest as long as they weren't threatened with punishment, you wouldn't exit. We have evolved to be empathic and altruistic (some of us more than others), and empathy and altruism precede civilization.

What's your point? Yes, primates behave altruistically. They also behave selfishly. So do lots of other animals. Game theory shows that a tit-for-tat strategy or some variation is most successful among animals that cooperate. This is also observed in nature.

Originally Posted by Ken Fabos

It probably arose in evolutionary terms because of that binding together to do what otherwise would be dangerous (commit violence), and do it without provoking shame or guilt, not for the effectiveness at changing the behavior of offenders.

I just noticed this part. It's hogwash. Behaviors don't arise in evolutionary terms for such nebulous reasons as not provoking shame or guilt. They arise because of their effectiveness.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I just noticed this part. It's hogwash. Behaviors don't arise in evolutionary terms for such nebulous reasons as not provoking shame or guilt. They arise because of their effectiveness.

How so? You make it sound like only advantageous or effective traits are passed on. This is not the case at all- it's only that which survives and any traits carried with the survivor remain.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I just noticed this part. It's hogwash. Behaviors don't arise in evolutionary terms for such nebulous reasons as not provoking shame or guilt. They arise because of their effectiveness.

How so? You make it sound like only advantageous or effective traits are passed on. This is not the case at all- it's only that which survives and any traits carried with the survivor remain.

Allowing for the possibility that a useless trait could be passed on, if not excessively harmful, the reason given by Ken Fabos was nonsensical. "binding together to do what otherwise would be dangerous (commit violence), and do it without provoking shame or guilt" is not an evolutionary reason, unless the committing of violence serves an evolutionary benefit. Besides that, such behaviors arose in many species, which would make it unlikely to be just a random occurrence.

Fear of punishment plays a very important role to check the crime , indicpline
It is fear of my boss ,I go daily job at time
If fears eliminate completely, more people at my job place would make indiscipline
It is fear , that a country does not use nuclear weapons, not only mercy

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

It is fear of my boss ,I go daily job at time

Nothing to do with losing money when your pay is docked?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

It is fear of my boss ,I go daily job at time

Nothing to do with losing money when your pay is docked?

It is fear my job would be effected

Otherwise there should no police no weapons
But it is not possible

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Allowing for the possibility that a useless trait could be passed on

Of course useless traits can be passed on. Poor traits can be passed on. I'm sure male pattern baldness is not exactly giving men the edge, here. You get older, you have some kids and then Boom- hair falls out. Wife goes and finds a hot hairy guy. Meanwhile, the kids you just had carry your genes.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

the reason given by Ken Fabos was nonsensical. "binding together to do what otherwise would be dangerous (commit violence), and do it without provoking shame or guilt" is not an evolutionary reason, unless the committing of violence serves an evolutionary benefit. Besides that, such behaviors arose in many species, which would make it unlikely to be just a random occurrence.

I'm not following you, here. The only guide we have that is reasonable for the development of our species is evolution.
Considering that we have these traits- if it is not evolved- what is the source of these traits?
The group mentality Fabos described is one in which humans will band together to make seeking revenge safer.
Humans are not a product of isolation, either. We share behaviors with many other mammals and common ancestry.

I think you need to expand a bit more on what you're trying to convey, here.

The evolution of humans includes our behaviors along with our physical traits. Our behaviors give our species direction.

What's bothering me about your post is that you suggest several things that are in direct contradiction to current understanding:
-That only advantageous or effective traits are passed on ( A common misconception)
-That behavior is not a product of our evolved state (What is it a product of, then?)