• cynar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    People forget that humans are just animals (that can sometimes reason and talk). I still stand that dog training guides make better parenting books than many parenting books. At least up till around 3 years old.

    The extension of this to adults is more challenging. Intent matters. This could be used abusively VERY easily. That is not happening here, however. With great power, comes great responsibility.

    It’s also worth noting that, if you use this, plan out how you will explain it later. A panicked, “oh shit, (s)he caught on!” will look bad, no matter what. A calm, thoughtful, positive explanation, delivered with confidence will likely get a lot more acceptance.

    A: “Ok, what’s with the M&Ms?”

    B: “You’ve noticed then. :)”

    A: “…”

    B: “I noticed chocolate made you happy. I also noticed you were trying to overcome some negative habits. I decided to help. Whenever you put effort in, I rewarded it with a bit of chocolate. It makes you happy, and helps you lock a good habit in better.”

    A: “… You’ve been conditioning me?!?”

    B: “Yes, don’t you like the improvement?”

    A “… yes, but I’m not sure I should…”

    B: “M&M?”

    • kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      You could also be even more cautious: “I noticed that they cheer you up, so I try to have them on hand for when you’re feeling down.” No mention of conditioning, wholesome, hard to argue against.

      • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        We constantly condition each other all the time. It’s a part of human interaction. We don’t usually do it consciously, but it’s conditioning nonetheless. Couples will subtly condition their behavior to be more in tune with each other.

        Consider a simple example. Imagine a you’re in a couple, and you just moved in together. You’re both used to living alone. You’re used to flicking on the bedroom light as you walk into the bedroom before bed to prepare for bed. Unfortunately your partner tends to go to sleep before you. You wake them up a few times by accident, and they understandably grumble. You feel bad about it, as you care about them and don’t want to wake them up. You wince the next day when you see how tired they seem. In time, you stop flicking the light on before you enter the room. Your partner’s actions have conditioned you to not turn the light on. Your partner conditioned you without even intending to. We condition each other constantly. We observe what effect our behavior has on others, and we adjust our own behavior accordingly. We usually just don’t refer to it as “conditioning,” as that tends to have a nefarious connotation.

        • kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          All true, but it isn’t always best to lead with that. It can provoke an emotional response that might not be productive.

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Negative reinforcement should be HIGHLY limited. It can cause unforeseen knock on effects. Any negative reinforcement should be highly targeted, without triggering a fight or flight response. It should also be accompanied by clear instructions for how to correct it. This applies to both humans and pets.

        It’s quite likely that most of the negative traits in the OP were caused by an attempt at negative reinforcement.

      • bss03@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Okay, this is just turning into the episode of TBBT where Sheldon is conditioning Penny and sprays Leonard with water and the whole gang looks up the difference between negative reinforcement and positive punishment.

  • Soup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    We’re all animals, whether or not we want to believe that is simply a fact. And on top of that we are stressed the fuck out which pushes people, to vary degrees, back towards monkey brain. I consider myself pretty self-aware and therapy has proven that but oh man did my last job do a lot to leave me defensive and short with even the people I care about.

    There’s that phrase “you can’t logic someone out of an argument they didn’t logic themselves into” that very well encapsulates the idea that trying to force some higher intelligence, some emotionless, robotic reasoning onto people does very little to actually help(though it should help more than it does and I’m disappointed in people running on pure, angry emotion all the same).

    We need to stop acting like we aren’t the way that we are, it just hurts us. I’m not saying we need to excuse bad behaviour because, unlike wild animals, we have a great capacity to know better and adjust, but we do need to be more ok with the reality of ourselves.

  • fibojoly@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    The lady has training with animals and is applying what she learnt to make a guy at ease with her… I’d say the friend is the asshole here. You do the best you can with what you got.

  • ignirtoq@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Intent matters, and methods matter. But I think what the friend is missing is that the methods aren’t bad; op is using methods developed from scientific analysis of abused animals with the intent to ethically care for them. Coming back to intent, she clearly wants to help this guy who her training is identifying as having some kind of background of abuse. The methods might be a little crude in the sense that they were developed for animals and not for people (who are animals, but animals with several distinct qualities from other animals, like the ability to communicate complex ideas), and there are different, more well-adapted methods for people, but they’re only crude in comparison to those modern human-focused methods. They’re still quite effective, and I would still consider them ethical for use on humans when paired with an altruistic intent, which she seems to be conveying. As long as she still views the guy as fully a person, a peer, then I see nothing wrong here.

    • PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The only vaguely concerning bit I see here is the penultimate sentence. Evading consent is sketchy, but I’m not a behavioral psychologist and thus have no working knowledge on how that would impact his “treatment”.

      • Lightor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think that’s what stuck for me. Manipulation takes many forms, not all look evil. She should take these observations and talk to him about it, instead of using them as tools to treat his feelings.

        • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Talk about what, though?

          “Hello, I would like to give you peanuts sometimes when you’re sad. Do you accept these terms?”

          What is he consenting to that he’s not already aware of?

          Speaking of pavlovian conditioning, the reason I don’t like casinos, loot boxes in video games, gacha mechanics, etc., is not that I think those people haven’t consented to their money being taken from them. I just don’t think those are good institutions. Or practices. Whichever word applies. They take more than they give, and I don’t think that’s fair.

          • Lightor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            You’re grossly misrepresenting what this is. She got desserts and noted him as food motivated. That’s insulting. He only got happy because there was food for him to eat, really? No discussion of why he was sad before, just get him snacks and move on? Maybe talk to him and ask why he seemed upset before desert instead of just giving him a snack and hoping it’s better.

            The woman here is trying to change his mood or behavior through dog training techniques instead of figuring out why he feels or acts a certain way. Is he aware that she is literally treating him like a dog? It comes across as her caring about his behavior in the moment more than his overall mental health.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Intent matters, and methods matter.

      pretty much agree, it’s not like she’s conditioning him to sounds CLICK-CLICK good boy…

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Gotta say, this smells a little like a top tier troll post. That out of the way, I also would like someone to carry around peanut M&Ms for me.

  • Derpenheim@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    -Listens to what he means when he is speaking -Pays attention to his nonverbal cues about his emotional state -Respects his boundaries and only assists him in expanding them, not demanding he do so -Rewards him for engaging in new healthy behaviours that he finds uncomfortable

    Fellas, is it being an asshole for checks notes engaging with your partner?

    • Signtist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, this person isn’t disrespectfully treating a human as they would a dog, they’re just respectfully treating dogs as they would a human.

      • kofe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        We can’t get a dog’s consent to engage in experiments. Continuing with this method after realizing and not talking with him about it would be intentionally ignoring consent.

        • Signtist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s not an experiment to react to someone’s fear and trauma with kindness, even if you learned those skills through helping rehabilitate dogs. She’s not doing this to try to figure out how he reacts to the stimulus of M&Ms under certain conditions, she’s giving him candy when he’s stressed because she knows it helps him calm down. That’s just being a caring and attentive girlfriend.

          • kofe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Being caring also involves including their consent in the process. Idk, I’d be really upset by my partner knowingly doing this without talking to me about it. But then again I guess it could depend how they react if I found out before they just admit to it. Like if they got defensive and didn’t understand why I’m upset. I’m not saying the whole thing is horrible, just hiding it.

            Also depends on the person and their values, I guess. If you value someone doing that kind of emotional labor for you without you having to think about it. I’m very much used to doing the emotional labor in relationships.

            Damn. I just realized maybe I’m displacing here though cuz I’m a bit jealous they’re using a method that works, whereas I’m single for a plethora of reasons.

            • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Idk, I’d be really upset by my partner knowingly doing this without talking to me about it

              What is the “this” you’d be upset about exactly?

  • qarbone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The biggest thing for me is that she’s eroding his emotional sovereignty. She’s taking covert actions to modulate and decide his mood for him.

    Sometimes, when I’m feeling down, I just want to feel that and get through on my own. But she’s deciding which of his moods isn’t appropriate and is changing his behaviour. If this were out in the open, he would be able to accept or refuse her attempts to cheer him up or divert him. But he (presumably) doesn’t even know it’s happening. That’s not cool.

    It sounds fine because it’s worded like she’s helping him but she’s still taking away his autonomy. Just bring it out in the open: “hey, I’ve noticed, when you’re sad or stressed, peanut M&Ms cheer you up. Would you like me to keep some on-hand?” With that, you’ve alerted them to behaviours about themself and got their consent to “help” them.

    If that’s the timbre of their interactions, I’ve got no qualms. But setting the context as “I train abused dogs” brings the mental image to one step above “hiding medicine in a dog treat.”

    • flicker@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I appreciate your comment.

      I’ve actually talked to my fiance about things like this, because I noticed that I was ‘handling’ him, and I felt like it was demeaning to him. Luckily for me, he considered what I said and informed me that he likes that.

      Consent makes the difference!

      Probably helps that I’m used to disturbed and abused humans, too…

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Some people take great offense when you don’t pretend humans have somehow evolved beyond the animal kingdom. Yes, we are still animals, and much of what works for them still works on us.

  • 1995ToyotaCorolla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    IDK as a guy this doesn’t seem weird at all. If anything, it sounds like she likes him and is willing to put in work to make him feel more comfortable and make the relationship successful. She doesn’t really use any dehumanizing language and the way she connects the dots between what she notices in dogs and her date seems very empathetic. If anything, the guy’s lucky to have found someone with so much emotional intelligence and hopefully she’s getting out what she’s putting in