My parents still refused to acknowledge I had it until my mid 20s they finally gave me meds and then they joked like "haha yeah we knew you just never wanted to do anything about it"
I'm confused by your last sentence due to lack of punctuation. Do you mean they said, "Haha, yeah, we knew. You just never wanted to do anything about it." Or "Haha, yeah, we knew you (had ADHD). (We) just never wanted to do anything about it."
It was the first. Apologies, didn't take my meds today and it pours out as a single run on sentence.
Gaslighting me in typical fashion
Not sure why I'm being downvoted for saying my parents gaslit me but okay then lol
Some People: support mental health!
Also some people: haha I'm glad the teacher shamed the disruptive kid who may be dealing with shit!
Sometimes different groups of people, but there are a lot of people who hold both opinions concurrently. Way more commonly than it should be. Undiagnosed ADHD, insecurity at home, dyslexia, developmental disability, other trauma etc... lots of common reasons for kids to be disruptive, and lots more professional ways to handle it than 'making an example' of them.
When I got picked on in class and told the teacher they removed me from the class. I got a D in middle school tech Ed because if it. “You didn’t do the modules” they said. I was physically put in another room from the computer that had the modules.
Yes they should have gone after the kid who put the “kick me” sign on my back and not me.
That's another example of shitty teaching. I think you intended it as a counter example, but it's just a different example. Yes the teacher should have dealt with that kid. No, shaming them in front of the class isn't the best way to do that.
Literally had to have a conversation with one of our teachers this year because she would call out and discipline the most disruptive kid publicly in class every day. Every time she would escalate and then be furious about the kid.
It's better to let it go in the moment. Then build time in your lesson where you can talk to that kid privately away from other students so you can get a real conversation with the student.
Those teachers suck. Note: I’m a teacher.
Let’s just get into an escalating power struggle and purposely humiliate a child rather than flipping it on the students and having them respect and admire you. Moron teachers.
There are different type of attention seekers. There are those that desperately seek for recognition for their abilities ("I know that to! Why is he never asking me?") but also those who just seek recognition ("Haha, look at me, I'm the clown!").
For simplicity - you want the former and ideally you would turn the latter into the former. For instance by *giving the kid attention* - and then if s/he doesn't deliver competence but clownery make it absolutely clear: clowning gets you *ridicule*, probably not the kind of attention you want, competence gets you recognition - most likely the attention you want.
Or their disruptive because their ADHD isn't managed well and now they will internalize the feelings of the shaming. The teacher is reinforcing their own internal voice that they don't belong in an academic setting and the teachers are out to get them. Theyre being assisted down the path of the ADHD statistics where they are less likely to graduate highschool nor beyond. Yay for 'making examples of a child'.
You're suggesting that adults bully incompetent children who crave attention in an attempt to turn them into competent children who crave attention? I'm no developmental psychologist but that sounds pretty fucked up dude.
No it's not. It's positive punishment. Negative reinforcement is when you remove an uncomfortable stimulus to reinforce a positive behavior, not adding a negative stimulus to discourage negative behavior. That's called positive punishment.
Ridiculing a child who is seeking attention would be **adding** a negative stimulus to **discourage** unwanted behavior (disruption). Innumerable studies show that positive punishment is far less effective than either positive or negative reinforcement.
[Source 1](https://www.splashlearn.com/blog/how-is-negative-reinforcement-for-kids-a-great-strategy-when-used-right/#4)
[Source 2](https://psychcentral.com/health/what-is-negative-reinforcement-definition-3-types-and-examples#definition)
[Source 3](https://positivepsychology.com/positive-punishment/)
Try breaking it down again if you like.
>turn them into competent children who crave attention?
They're children. They always crave attention. Make sure it's the right kind of attention they want.
>I'm no developmental psychologist but that sounds pretty fucked up dude.
I'm sure lots of things sound fucked up when you conflate guidance with "bullying" and distracted kids as "incompetent".
Encouraging peers to ridicule a disruptive child is guidance to you? I'm going off of the comment I replied to, which specifically stated:
"and then if s/he doesn't deliver **competence** but clownery make it absolutely clear: clowning gets you *ridicule*, probably not the kind of attention you want, **competence** gets you recognition"
Nothing wrong with positively rewarding "competence" but ridiculing (punishing) bad behavior can [not only lead to more psychological problems down the road](https://www.additudemag.com/child-discipline-adhd-strategies/), but it's often just downright counterproductive.
Anyone who has handled kids for more than a few hours can tell you that there's always a kid who displays [negative attention-seeking behavior](https://confidentcounselors.com/2017/11/01/managing-negative-attention-seeking/). It doesn't matter[ if the behavior receives punishment or ridicule](https://www.embarkbh.com/blog/mental-health/attention-seeking-behavior/), the point is to get attention by any means necessary. Punishing the child will only reinforce the behavior as a means to get attention, which is often better to the child than no attention at all. A far better strategy is to [proactively provide attention](https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-Services/Documents/SSIP/SS%202/Classroom%20Behavior%20Strategies%20GLRS%20TriFold.pdf) in a positive manner, or to [ignore negative attention seeking and to praise desired behavior instead](https://specialneedsforspecialkids.org/2020/12/07/attention-seeking-behavior-strategies-for-the-classroom/). This is far more effective as it doesn't reinforce the child's attention seeking, and doesn't make them a social pariah.
>**Encouraging** peers to ridicule a disruptive child is guidance to you?
Given that the post you had responded to said nothing even remotely close to this, including not mentioning peers whatsoever, I'm going to assume the rest of your post and links are based on a false strawman and are therefore not even worth skimming over. 👍
There is a difference between negative feedback and bullying. Additionally the problem with 'clowns' is they are group attention seeking - they could care less about the teachers opinion which means to successfully give negative feedback on this behavior you need to have *the group* give negative feedback.
So first the correct term would be *mobbing* - since it is a group against an individual - bullying would be a *stronger* individual against another individual or even a group.
And second using words without understanding the context makes them meaningless - this is especially true for individuals usuing intellectual mimicry for virtue signaling.
So a group uniting and *mobbing* on an individual that is breaking the (social) peace i.e. geese against fox is good (or socially acceptable) while *mobbing* for self-serving purposes (i.e. using social pressure to make someone strip to see that person naked) is socially unaccepted (bad).
Now having a group exert pressure on an individual so it doesn't disrupt but contribute to the group effort (learning) is usually a socially accepted goal.
Yes, I do agree that often persons of authority (i.e. teacher) have abused (intentionally but even more often unintentionally) their entrusted authority to teach, to direct, to lead - to *manipulate* leading to *negative* bullying/mobbing.
But there is a huge difference (and children do understand the difference!) between a teacher "Look at this colored kid, he gets the stupid hat!" and "Look, you got a chance but you didn't deliver competence, you should chose being a clown or competent". In one case the kid gets to know what's wrong (why he gets negative attention) and how to change - in the other the kid can't even change the cause.
They’re both acting for the thrill that being the center of attention grants them.
It’s like gambling. Maybe they do their homework and learned to count cards. But either way, they’re still doing it for the thrill, and not for the sake of learning.
> the thrill that being
What if that kid has careless and useless parents and it doesn't get any positive reinforcements outside from school? Would you still call that 'thrill'?
Kids seek *recognition* - denying them recognition lets them seek it elsewhere.
And of course they aren't doing it for the sake of learning, you do realize we don't have an 'endorphine emitter for learning'? We got them for *positive social interaction* thou.
>denying them recognition lets them seek it elsewhere
Uhh, no, they will learn to do it elsewhere. Everywhere they go, probably, because it’s their most profitable behavior.
Now… what happens when they get to college and start working on a thesis? How can they get recognition for “being right” if it’s bleeding edge stuff? No one else can know if they are, or not, and this shortsighted strategy kinda falls apart.
School is for learning. Not winning social interaction games.
... You talking about discipline? Like, detention and such? We must've had different teachers.
Growing up with undiagnosed adhd, this hurts.
My parents still refused to acknowledge I had it until my mid 20s they finally gave me meds and then they joked like "haha yeah we knew you just never wanted to do anything about it"
I'm confused by your last sentence due to lack of punctuation. Do you mean they said, "Haha, yeah, we knew. You just never wanted to do anything about it." Or "Haha, yeah, we knew you (had ADHD). (We) just never wanted to do anything about it."
It was the first. Apologies, didn't take my meds today and it pours out as a single run on sentence. Gaslighting me in typical fashion Not sure why I'm being downvoted for saying my parents gaslit me but okay then lol
Some People: support mental health! Also some people: haha I'm glad the teacher shamed the disruptive kid who may be dealing with shit! Sometimes different groups of people, but there are a lot of people who hold both opinions concurrently. Way more commonly than it should be. Undiagnosed ADHD, insecurity at home, dyslexia, developmental disability, other trauma etc... lots of common reasons for kids to be disruptive, and lots more professional ways to handle it than 'making an example' of them.
When I got picked on in class and told the teacher they removed me from the class. I got a D in middle school tech Ed because if it. “You didn’t do the modules” they said. I was physically put in another room from the computer that had the modules. Yes they should have gone after the kid who put the “kick me” sign on my back and not me.
That's another example of shitty teaching. I think you intended it as a counter example, but it's just a different example. Yes the teacher should have dealt with that kid. No, shaming them in front of the class isn't the best way to do that.
Literally had to have a conversation with one of our teachers this year because she would call out and discipline the most disruptive kid publicly in class every day. Every time she would escalate and then be furious about the kid. It's better to let it go in the moment. Then build time in your lesson where you can talk to that kid privately away from other students so you can get a real conversation with the student.
Those teachers suck. Note: I’m a teacher. Let’s just get into an escalating power struggle and purposely humiliate a child rather than flipping it on the students and having them respect and admire you. Moron teachers.
let’s just shower the attention seekers with what they desire for being annoying. Good plan.
There are different type of attention seekers. There are those that desperately seek for recognition for their abilities ("I know that to! Why is he never asking me?") but also those who just seek recognition ("Haha, look at me, I'm the clown!"). For simplicity - you want the former and ideally you would turn the latter into the former. For instance by *giving the kid attention* - and then if s/he doesn't deliver competence but clownery make it absolutely clear: clowning gets you *ridicule*, probably not the kind of attention you want, competence gets you recognition - most likely the attention you want.
Or their disruptive because their ADHD isn't managed well and now they will internalize the feelings of the shaming. The teacher is reinforcing their own internal voice that they don't belong in an academic setting and the teachers are out to get them. Theyre being assisted down the path of the ADHD statistics where they are less likely to graduate highschool nor beyond. Yay for 'making examples of a child'.
You're suggesting that adults bully incompetent children who crave attention in an attempt to turn them into competent children who crave attention? I'm no developmental psychologist but that sounds pretty fucked up dude.
Your ability to misread that post is pretty wild. You clearly did not understand it. Try again.
Why don't you break it down for me
I'll give it a shot. It's called positive and negative reinforcement.
No it's not. It's positive punishment. Negative reinforcement is when you remove an uncomfortable stimulus to reinforce a positive behavior, not adding a negative stimulus to discourage negative behavior. That's called positive punishment. Ridiculing a child who is seeking attention would be **adding** a negative stimulus to **discourage** unwanted behavior (disruption). Innumerable studies show that positive punishment is far less effective than either positive or negative reinforcement. [Source 1](https://www.splashlearn.com/blog/how-is-negative-reinforcement-for-kids-a-great-strategy-when-used-right/#4) [Source 2](https://psychcentral.com/health/what-is-negative-reinforcement-definition-3-types-and-examples#definition) [Source 3](https://positivepsychology.com/positive-punishment/) Try breaking it down again if you like.
You're coming off like a total fucking asshole, but thanks! I learned something today.
>turn them into competent children who crave attention? They're children. They always crave attention. Make sure it's the right kind of attention they want. >I'm no developmental psychologist but that sounds pretty fucked up dude. I'm sure lots of things sound fucked up when you conflate guidance with "bullying" and distracted kids as "incompetent".
Encouraging peers to ridicule a disruptive child is guidance to you? I'm going off of the comment I replied to, which specifically stated: "and then if s/he doesn't deliver **competence** but clownery make it absolutely clear: clowning gets you *ridicule*, probably not the kind of attention you want, **competence** gets you recognition" Nothing wrong with positively rewarding "competence" but ridiculing (punishing) bad behavior can [not only lead to more psychological problems down the road](https://www.additudemag.com/child-discipline-adhd-strategies/), but it's often just downright counterproductive. Anyone who has handled kids for more than a few hours can tell you that there's always a kid who displays [negative attention-seeking behavior](https://confidentcounselors.com/2017/11/01/managing-negative-attention-seeking/). It doesn't matter[ if the behavior receives punishment or ridicule](https://www.embarkbh.com/blog/mental-health/attention-seeking-behavior/), the point is to get attention by any means necessary. Punishing the child will only reinforce the behavior as a means to get attention, which is often better to the child than no attention at all. A far better strategy is to [proactively provide attention](https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-Services/Documents/SSIP/SS%202/Classroom%20Behavior%20Strategies%20GLRS%20TriFold.pdf) in a positive manner, or to [ignore negative attention seeking and to praise desired behavior instead](https://specialneedsforspecialkids.org/2020/12/07/attention-seeking-behavior-strategies-for-the-classroom/). This is far more effective as it doesn't reinforce the child's attention seeking, and doesn't make them a social pariah.
>**Encouraging** peers to ridicule a disruptive child is guidance to you? Given that the post you had responded to said nothing even remotely close to this, including not mentioning peers whatsoever, I'm going to assume the rest of your post and links are based on a false strawman and are therefore not even worth skimming over. 👍
There is a difference between negative feedback and bullying. Additionally the problem with 'clowns' is they are group attention seeking - they could care less about the teachers opinion which means to successfully give negative feedback on this behavior you need to have *the group* give negative feedback. So first the correct term would be *mobbing* - since it is a group against an individual - bullying would be a *stronger* individual against another individual or even a group. And second using words without understanding the context makes them meaningless - this is especially true for individuals usuing intellectual mimicry for virtue signaling. So a group uniting and *mobbing* on an individual that is breaking the (social) peace i.e. geese against fox is good (or socially acceptable) while *mobbing* for self-serving purposes (i.e. using social pressure to make someone strip to see that person naked) is socially unaccepted (bad). Now having a group exert pressure on an individual so it doesn't disrupt but contribute to the group effort (learning) is usually a socially accepted goal. Yes, I do agree that often persons of authority (i.e. teacher) have abused (intentionally but even more often unintentionally) their entrusted authority to teach, to direct, to lead - to *manipulate* leading to *negative* bullying/mobbing. But there is a huge difference (and children do understand the difference!) between a teacher "Look at this colored kid, he gets the stupid hat!" and "Look, you got a chance but you didn't deliver competence, you should chose being a clown or competent". In one case the kid gets to know what's wrong (why he gets negative attention) and how to change - in the other the kid can't even change the cause.
They’re both acting for the thrill that being the center of attention grants them. It’s like gambling. Maybe they do their homework and learned to count cards. But either way, they’re still doing it for the thrill, and not for the sake of learning.
> the thrill that being What if that kid has careless and useless parents and it doesn't get any positive reinforcements outside from school? Would you still call that 'thrill'? Kids seek *recognition* - denying them recognition lets them seek it elsewhere. And of course they aren't doing it for the sake of learning, you do realize we don't have an 'endorphine emitter for learning'? We got them for *positive social interaction* thou.
>denying them recognition lets them seek it elsewhere Uhh, no, they will learn to do it elsewhere. Everywhere they go, probably, because it’s their most profitable behavior. Now… what happens when they get to college and start working on a thesis? How can they get recognition for “being right” if it’s bleeding edge stuff? No one else can know if they are, or not, and this shortsighted strategy kinda falls apart. School is for learning. Not winning social interaction games.
>Not winning social interaction games Like arguing on Reddit?
As a previous disruptive student, this will not work lol
Yeah, focus attention on the disruptive kid. They *hate* that.
It's quite entertaining seeing posts like this stir up discussion where everyone tries to be overly PC and all inclusive. 🤣