Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (62215)	10/10/2002 2:51:04 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Actually, you offered no reasons to counter mine. You just made it a matter of freedom, which was beside the point. The question was not whether he in some sense had the right, but whether he was right, and whether we had a right to react with disapproval, granted that we have no right to impose ourselves on him, through haranguing, or lecture, or harassment. As for negative reinforcement, there have been no studies showing it to be less efficacious than positive reinforcement, and I cannot otherwise see how it is wrong. Adducing negative consequences is just one way of being persuasive, and it is a perfectly appropriate way to deal with adults. For example, if someone does not come to work on time, eventually it goes into his personnel record, and affects promotion and raises. If he shows a penchant for excessive flirtation with female coworkers, he is warned that he can be sent to sensitivity training or fired to insulate the company from liability over harassment. What, am I supposed to offer him a raise if he will stop hitting on the receptionist?