I think the idea isn't so much that punishment doesn't get results, but rather that those results come with side effects. Usually, this is some harboured anger, or avoidance of the parent.

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

It should have been phrased better in the article.

You're projecting your own reasonable beliefs onto the article. It really was as stupid as SiVal said.

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.

Calling out something for "political correctness" (or any one of another dozen or so convenient shorthands for political footballs) is a lazy argument. I'm sure there are things you disagree with in the article. What are they? Why? Do you have something more to add to the point SiVal made? Personal experience? References to research? Add something constructive to the discussion.

I think the article is talking about this here:

"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."

My wife and I got a 5 month old border collie about 3 months ago. The approach that ended up working for us was to use positive reinforcement for almost all the things we wanted trained, and then only use negative reinforcement for one or two things we really didn't want him to do.

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.

> 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.

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.

Punishment always changes behavior only when you're looking/enforcing. You'll never know if you police kid enough.

Is that your goal?

Replace your first word with "Reward" and re-read it.

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).

I don't buy the idea that punishment and reward are just different sides of the same coin.

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.

Rewarding someone when they do what you want is just as sleazy and manipulative as punishing them when they do what you don't want. It might be the fact that a child doesn't realize that, but an adult undoubtedly (eventually) would, and be just as resentful.

Similar to what I've been reading about in a book about democracy. Rules that are regarded as legitimate barely require enforcement, people will follow them of their own volition. Rules that don't have legitimacy are actively resisted.

If punishment changes behavior, why does anyone get more than one speeding ticket? Why does recidivism exist at all?

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.

If you were trown in jail, brutally raped and had 50% of your income confiscated for the rest of your life as a punishment, trust me, pretty much nobody would be speeding.

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

Then increase the reward. It's not a coincidence that most criminals are poor people. They have less to lose.