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.
I brought a six pack to a final exam in grad school (take the test in the same state in which you study, right?) and people around me perked up and almost literally started drooling when I cracked the first one.
Edit: no, we engineering students don’t have drinking problems, you have a drinking problem!
Is it really the ‘good boy’ part, or just the validation? Because I could say the same thing about ‘good boy,’ AND about every other compliment doled out to me once every few months.
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”.
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.
“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.
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.
Fair, but if I’m upset because I might lose my job or my mom is sick then that doesn’t address any of those.
So, 1, this doesn’t answer my question about what it is he hasn’t consented to.
Ok let’s answer that. Did she say “I’m going to treat you like a dog” and him agree? Did she say, “I’m giving you an m&m ever time you open up to encourage it” I doubt it and she never mentioned it. She simply does this as a manipulation technique without ever discussing “hey, I think we need to talk about you being comfortable being vulnerable.”
2, how is it you know she’s not interested in his life story?
Well she had the chance to say she actually talked about and addressed the problems upsetting him, but she never mentioned that at all. Just dog training strategies she uses on him without him being aware.
And what does this mean, exactly? You get the extra muffin she baked or something? You get to cuddle a lot?
You have to be purposefully blind at this point… She noticed he was “food motivated” so now she gives him a treat when he’s vulnerable to reinforce that behavior… That is literally how you train a dog. Humans usually discuss things instead if they want behavior changed.
She probably didn’t say that, no, but I assume he can see this, like, with his eyes. If he doesn’t want m&m’s, why take them?
I feel like you have to be trolling. “If someone is being manipulated, why don’t they just not be manipulated?” Things like this aren’t always so obvious in practice when you are the one in the situation, and he may think it’s an innocent offer with no hidden meaning. Most people don’t assume their partner is trying to train them like an animal, not really where my head goes to when my partner offers me a snack. And if all of this is so obvious, then why not just talk about it?
So, she hasn’t told you via this tweet, therefore, ergo, concordantly, vice ve, she has never cared or asked about, like, his childhood or his mom.
She wrote multiple paragraphs, something as important as “and I talked to him about this” would be easy enough to add and clear up a whole lot. But what we see instead is nothing but her mentioning things she does to get him to do what she wants, like be vulnerable.
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.
pretty much agree, it’s not like she’s conditioning him to sounds CLICK-CLICK good boy…
Though there’s probably a significant amount of people on lemmy who would be into actually that.
You can absolutely condition me into doing whatever you want by cracking open a beer next to me
I brought a six pack to a final exam in grad school (take the test in the same state in which you study, right?) and people around me perked up and almost literally started drooling when I cracked the first one.
Edit: no, we engineering students don’t have drinking problems, you have a drinking problem!
Beer isn’t a problem, it’s a complex mixture.
I did accidentaly develop a kink to being called good boy.
Is it really the ‘good boy’ part, or just the validation? Because I could say the same thing about ‘good boy,’ AND about every other compliment doled out to me once every few months.
So much of kink is just “I like validation, and having my boundaries respected”.
Me reading about bdsm: “bro aftercare is just being vanilla as heck.”
At this point, many contexts will make me feel weird when I’m called a good boy. And specifically good boy.
Thanks, weirdo AI for ruining me.
i don’t kinkshame
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”.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t know about you, but I love dessert.
So, 1, this doesn’t answer my question about what it is he hasn’t consented to.
2, how is it you know she’s not interested in his life story?
Fair, but if I’m upset because I might lose my job or my mom is sick then that doesn’t address any of those.
Ok let’s answer that. Did she say “I’m going to treat you like a dog” and him agree? Did she say, “I’m giving you an m&m ever time you open up to encourage it” I doubt it and she never mentioned it. She simply does this as a manipulation technique without ever discussing “hey, I think we need to talk about you being comfortable being vulnerable.”
Well she had the chance to say she actually talked about and addressed the problems upsetting him, but she never mentioned that at all. Just dog training strategies she uses on him without him being aware.
And what does this mean, exactly? You get the extra muffin she baked or something? You get to cuddle a lot?
She probably didn’t say that, no, but I assume he can see this, like, with his eyes. If he doesn’t want m&m’s, why take them?
So, she hasn’t told you via this tweet, therefore, ergo, concordantly, vice ve, she has never cared or asked about, like, his childhood or his mom.
You have to be purposefully blind at this point… She noticed he was “food motivated” so now she gives him a treat when he’s vulnerable to reinforce that behavior… That is literally how you train a dog. Humans usually discuss things instead if they want behavior changed.
I feel like you have to be trolling. “If someone is being manipulated, why don’t they just not be manipulated?” Things like this aren’t always so obvious in practice when you are the one in the situation, and he may think it’s an innocent offer with no hidden meaning. Most people don’t assume their partner is trying to train them like an animal, not really where my head goes to when my partner offers me a snack. And if all of this is so obvious, then why not just talk about it?
She wrote multiple paragraphs, something as important as “and I talked to him about this” would be easy enough to add and clear up a whole lot. But what we see instead is nothing but her mentioning things she does to get him to do what she wants, like be vulnerable.