Narked

[brrm]

I have just come across the TV programme which teaches women how to train their husbands like a dog. Can you imagine the fuss if it was "Train your wife like a dog"? I think it's partly the fact that it's done hidden-camera, without the husband's knowledge, that pisses me off.

Grrrrnghghggh.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

They actually have apologised about it for exactly the reasons you just said, and got quite a bollocking so it does work both ways apparently. It was talked about on OxIRC a while ago. Saw the apology on news.bbc.co.uk

[brrm.livejournal.com]

Hello anonymous commenter, who are you? :)

[lark-ascending.livejournal.com]

I dunno - there are one or two tricks I tend to use on boyfriends that at heart are pure Barbara Woodhouse. Rewards as a way of shaping behaviour can be remarkably effective :)

[brrm.livejournal.com]

Partners are not there to be tricked. :P
Am I being naïve if I think that shaping behaviour through reward is meant for those whose ability to work things out through reasoning is diminished or nonexistent, such as animals and children? (Hence my objection WRT the implications of applying this to husbands). Keep the tricks for use on dogs, I say. :)

It's also been pointed out to me (hi antinomy!) that the programme actually involves more altering of the wives' behaviour towards their husbands - less nagging and "gentle encouragement and praise." It depends on the nature of the reward - simplistically, I would disapprove of "if you take out the rubbish you can have steak and chips for dinner", for example, but class 'gentle encouragement and praise' under 'reasoning'. I must admit I've not watched enough of the programme to form a terribly accurate appraisal of it.

[lark-ascending.livejournal.com]

Am I being naïve if I think that shaping behaviour through reward is meant for those whose ability to work things out through reasoning is diminished or nonexistent, such as animals and children?

Yes, I do think you're being naive; human beings are complex creatures, and sometimes they behave in certain ways for reasons entirely peculiar to themselves, and which don't respond to reasoning. I think of this kind of thing as 'psychological habits', and I've found in both myself and others that they really do respond a lot better to re-education by example than to trying to talk someone into understanding themselves. Take the process of trying to learn to manage my finances that I've been through; the single most useful result of all the attention I've been paying to it is that now I feel bad if I buy things I can't pay for in real money. The emotional reaction works as a kind of automated alarm - my subconscious is far better at keeping track of my cashflow than my conscious mind, which is susceptible to ferret shock and rationalisation. I've taught myself to be happy because I'm staying within my budget, so that by managng my money well I create positive feedback and make myself feel good; win-win situation, because that way I want to do it.

[I] class 'gentle encouragement and praise' under 'reasoning'

I don't. Because the effect it has is nothing to do with the faculties of reason - you may achieve the intended goal through use of language and logic, since that's how humans communicate, but what you're actually doing is creating a positive emotional association in your training subject's mind with the particular behaviour you were aiming to encourage. You can't explain to a dog that peeing on the carpet is bad because it means you have to buy a new carpet - but you can teach it that peeing outside equals praise and a happy 'pack leader', and dogs, much like people, basically want to please. Being quietly happy with your SO when (s)he does something you like, whether or not you suggested it, has pretty much the same effect, especially since one's SO is much more sensitive to one's moods and reactions than J Random Passerby would be. I don't subscribe for a second to any notion that humans are controlled by their abstract reasoning ability; emotions are what drive all animals, for sound common-sense reasons, and psychology is slowly discovering that humans are no different. Except, that is, for our unshakeable conviction that we're somehow "better" than creatures which can't reason abstractly...

[chrisvenus]

Yeah, reminds me all of pavlov. You associate a given thing with something else. I think that this is a perfectly valid tool if somebody wants to change but the impression I get is that it is being used against somebody without their knowledge.

If you say "Yeah, I really wish that I could break the habit of leaving dirty dishes lying around after cooking" then I think its quite valid if your wife (or whatever) gives you a doggy treat (metaphorically) after you do it to "train you".

If however your wife decides she doesn't like you playing golf every saturday then her trying to train you out of that is entirely inappropriate in my opinion.


I don't subscribe for a second to any notion that humans are controlled by their abstract reasoning ability; emotions are what drive all animals, for sound common-sense reasons, and psychology is slowly discovering that humans are no different

Oooh... now there is something I can disagree with. Emotions contribute to a person's behaviour but they don't rule it. I can override my emotions at any point with a force of will and make a conscious decision not to follow a path that my emotions encourage me to. My emotions suggest things and sometimes I go along with it, other times I don't. If you can point me at any articles (preferably whcih can be easily skimmed since I don't ahve time to read huge amounts of papers) that contradict me (or support me) then I'd be interested in reading them.

ANyway, just some random thoughts.

[brrm.livejournal.com]

I've found in both myself and
others that they really do respond a lot better to re-education by
example than to trying to talk someone into understanding themselves.

This is probably a complete and utter tangent, but proponents of CBT (in the Cognitive Behaviour Therapy expansion) would probably disagree with this.

Reading through Chris' response below, I think he voices my main issue with the programme - that this behaviour modification is being attempted both *without the subject's knowledge*, and in a manner that I'm uncomfortable with, but I'm not sure why this is so. I think I need to watch some more episodes, paying attention to the suggested solutions to each problem.