This claim (from the article) is nonsense. I've changed the behavior of my kids countless times with punishment.

I realize that the attitude I am supposed to take is that when someone with Ivy League credentials espouses a currently fashionable theory that my own observations contradict, I am supposed to believe the theory and not my own lying eyes or I'm "anti-intellectual". Credentials over evidence.

I'll take the risk. But I'm still interested in these theories, because I'm always looking for better ideas to try. A theory that is false overall can have useful parts. Maybe "punishment won't change behavior; reward will" is wrong, but some variation such as "lots of reward with a bit of punishment work much better than lots of punishment with a bit of reward" IS true, or is true for at least one of my kids. (But then, this weaker claim is something I already believe and it abandons the "never punish" enlightened part that was what really made it attractive to The Atlantic.)

Also, theories like these, even if not true, remind me not to overgeneralize from my own observations.

Their theory: Punishment doesn't change behavior. My observation: Yes, it does. So my theory: Punishment changes behavior. The truth: No, it doesn't. (As in, not necessarily) Me: Oops.

So, I'll keep reading and considering, but no, the basic claim of "don't punish, because it doesn't work" is wrong even if rewards also change behavior.

Yes, punishment gets changes behavior, but it's not always a 100% positive change.

It should have been phrased better in the article.

It follows the rules of political correctness: Any evidence supporting a taboo idea must the denied. Any advantages of a taboo practice must be denied.

"You don't try to suppress— “Don't give me attitude for all I've done for you!” What research shows is that it will lead to escape behavior on the part of the child. It will lead them to avoid you as soon as they get home from school and it will model negative interactions toward you."

We chose to punish (spank/"bad dog"/shake an empty soda can with pennies inside it) for only two things: pottying in the house, and chasing/herding the cats.

We think they were good choices for the negative reinforcement because they were things we really wanted to stop ASAP, and they happened relatively infrequently, so it's not like he was being constantly punished.

At 8 months old, he's now an ideal citizen of our house.

I do think the breed had a lot to do with the success of this technique, though. Border Collies are smart (I'm told they have the intelligence of a 4 y/o?), so I think him being able to quickly learn things, and him being able to connect things beyond just one step was important.

By "connecting things beyond one step", I mean, I suspect with a less-intelligent dog you might have the problem of like, if they potty outside and then you wait to give them a treat until you're inside (because the dog is distracted by them if you have them outside) they might not get that the treat is for pottying.

No need to hit your dog to accomplish this. Also during your training, unless you caught the dog in the act of potty in the house he might not even be able to connect the dots between potty and punishment given the time between the 2 acts and from his mind you might be arbitrarily spanking him.

If the dog pottys in the house the only one at fault is the human (assuming its not medical related) for not letting him out enough.

How can you be sure than your hitting was the the reason the dog stopping going inside and not his development of routine for "this is where I go potty" and the puppy's natural ability to develop their bladder to hold it longer?

We rescue huskies (no longer puppies). God love em, but they are not known for their intelligence or trainability. We are just proactive when house training, know that accidents happen, reflect on why they happened ("oops ya.. I did forget about them" or "OK I guess we arent ready to leave them alone for x hours yet"), and keep at the routine.

RE your "less intelligent" comment I agree. We kept them on leashes until they did their business and then rewarded on the spot. Afterwards they were let loose to run wild in the yard or go back inside.

Is that your goal?

My own observation is that both of these claims are partly true but that there is some effect that remains even when they think they are not observed. Parents often see what kids think they don't, so I have empirical evidence of this (as all parents do).

Reward works well for building a healthy rapport and relationship. I don't think punishment is entirely ineffective, but if it isn't rare and judicious it may well end up causing more harm than help. The problem is that the response to punishment is visible immediately while the downsides may only appear many years later.

Punishment primarily changes the visibility of behavior. Kids who get punished by their parents a lot learn to avoid their parents and hide their feelings and behaviors. To the parent it can look like the punishment worked.

For most people, the (cost of punishment * chance of being caught) is less than reward of whatever they're doing.

Getting angry seems to just stimulate fear in our kids which shuts down communication and halts any opportunity for them to learn something positive from a challenging situation. I want a child who can communicate and is expressive. It's a long game so I feel like having a child who learning to communicate when they're 3 is more likely to communicate when they're a teenager facing bigger, real world problems.

Good luck with yours

That being said, especially with kids older than ~3, we believe some form of negative consequences for bad behaviour are necessary. Especially if they e.g. push or hit another child. And I don't mean using physical punishment, more like "I'm taking this toy away from you now". The important thing is that the child is old enough to understand what they're doing is wrong, and that the consequence is relatively immediate.

Also, being angry is an emotion kids need to learn about. This means (IMO) it's OK for a parent to be visibly angry sometimes, as long as you are able to remain a good role model while angry. I.e. yelling at / insulting someone, hitting someone etc. is very much out of the picture. But yelling into the air "Aargh I'm so angry!!!" and then being able to cool down and acknowledge afterwards why you were angry is likely good for a child to see. Again, assuming that the child is old enough to understand, and that you discuss/explain it afterwards.

Very true. The thing is, if you are somehow able to bottle up your negative emotions in front of your kids all the time, you're either superhuman, or you're letting them fester in some other way... Kids should learn that they have an impact on their parents' lives too, and they need to see examples of how we deal with it.

Some parents get pouty and act just like a toddler until they cave and give the kid something the kid wants. Other parents get angry, maybe even raise their voice, but then take control of their emotion and apologize to the kid, but still don't cave to whatever the kid (often irrationally) desires.

Physical punishment (outside of restraint, e.g. When one kid hurts another) is a different conversation entirely, of course.

And yet getting caught in the act of doing something wrong and being "punished" (harsh words in the case of a dog) is remarkable effective, particularly in combination with positive reinforcement for the things done well.

> We adopted a puppy a little more than a year ago and this was the exact advice we were given for how to train her

This works remarkably well until you have a dog for which it doesn't work. We've adopted several dogs - some as puppies, some grown - and found that most of the time, for most of the animals, these practices work. But sometimes -and for some dogs - they don't work at all, or with greatly reduced effectiveness.

It depends on what drives the dog and that dog's personality.

> Our baby is only six months old so we'll have to report back in a decade as to whether this approach works well with kids too. :)

Yes. And no. It depends entirely on the personality of your child - and to a limited extent, your own. That's the frustrating thing about these kinds of articles (as well as dog training articles). They position themselves with such authority that we seem to be expected to believe that they're handing down a Great Universal Truth*.

It's not. In my opinion, there is only one - living things (dog or child) are complicated creatures. There are so many variables unique to each living thing in your care that there's not much room left for The One True Way.

[1] My favorite of these is a popular dog trainer who - with all sincerity - says that when you pull on a dog's collar, the dog will pull back because it's physics. The dog must provide an equal and opposite reaction. It's amazing how many people buy into the rationale. What the trainer advocates is perfectly fine in many cases - but I can't get past the pseudo-scientific non-logic.