Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your video, The Greatest "No Comment" of ALL TIME!!, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 13 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 3 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^StukaFox:

"Oh Maggie, Maggie what did we do?"


))) Roger Waters ftw.

Akin to seeing something on the Sift that you didn't care for and just moving on.

>> ^BoneRemake:

That is the perfect protest.

>> ^Grimm:

His mother always told him, "If you don't have anything nice to say...".


My mother always told me that, too. Now she complains when I never talk to her.

In reply to this comment by Barseps:
Cheers for that m'dear
In reply to this comment by pumkinandstorm:
*promote


Anytime

I just read this article this morning...then I read your comment and remembered you're a psych guy, right? You seem to be on the psych kick as of late, are you finishing up a masters or PhD by any chance?



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=redefining-mental-illness
In reply to this comment by berticus:
The sad, cold truth of things is that there are some severely autistic children who engage in the most horrific self-injurious behaviour, and aversive punishment is the ONLY treatment (in conjunction with a broader treatment plan, naturally) that works. And yes, it DOES work.

I'm not talking about kids with minor problems. I mean the ones who will do things like smash their own face into the ground over and over until they lose so much blood they pass out. The ones who will, left to themselves, die.

Positive punishment is horrible. But, it's either that, or let these kids maim or kill themselves (or possibly others) through their behaviour.

(I make no comment regarding this specific incident, I just want you to know the issue is far more complicated than this mind-bite would have you believe.)

I don't know what your background is (?), but my colleagues and I have no trouble understanding what "aversive punishment" means. No incoherence, no confusion. It's one part of behaviourist principles that are taught in undergraduate psychology. It is often referred to as positive punishment.

Would you care to cite the relevant evidence that shows the effects are vanishingly small? Because punishment, from everything I have learned, is an excellent means of behaviour control -- it just has many drawbacks, which is why reinforcement is the preferred alternative. The problem is that there are severe cases where nothing else works. What then do you do?

Reductions in social skills, communication skills, and cognitive ability are all possible outcomes. However, every one of those will depend on the punisher used, its properties, the behaviour in question, and a large variety of other factors. Your brush paints thickly.

I'm not sure what to make of your last paragraph. It reeks of ad-hom.

>> ^RhesusMonk:

"Aversive punishment" is not a coherent term in the realm of emotional/behavioral psychology. What's more, the practice to which this term seems to refer has vanishingly small effect on "self-injurious" behavior (which is actually called self-stimulating behavior). What effects it may have are significantly offset by the reduction in social and communications skills, and a decrease in cognitive ability. These reasons are why, when aversive conditioning is used in the developmental setting, it is as a last resort and the aversive stimulus is sparing and lenient. In this case, the video and other evidence around the boy's condition and behavior are sparse, and any judgment whether this was the correct course of action based on the information we have is laughable. Great measures require great evidence in their justification.
In any event, cooling people off their outrage at authority who inflict barbaric emotional and physical pain in an effort to encourage compliance for its own sake with quasi-psychology based claims is sophomoric at best. There may be some intellectual satisfaction with the idea that some minds are so beyond reason that they only respond to pain of this kind, but that idea only smacks true when the thinker lacks the creativity necessary to actually manage these kinds of malfunctions. Seems Nurse Ratched would pass muster with at least some of our Sifters.

>> ^berticus:
The sad, cold truth of things is that there are some severely autistic children who engage in the most horrific self-injurious behaviour, and aversive punishment is the ONLY treatment (in conjunction with a broader treatment plan, naturally) that works. And yes, it DOES work.
I'm not talking about kids with minor problems. I mean the ones who will do things like smash their own face into the ground over and over until they lose so much blood they pass out. The ones who will, left to themselves, die.
Positive punishment is horrible. But, it's either that, or let these kids maim or kill themselves (or possibly others) through their behaviour.
(I make no comment regarding this specific incident, I just want you to know the issue is far more complicated than this mind-bite would have you believe.)

"Aversive punishment" is not a coherent term in the realm of emotional/behavioral psychology. What's more, the practice to which this term seems to refer has vanishingly small effect on "self-injurious" behavior (which is actually called self-stimulating behavior). What effects it may have are significantly offset by the reduction in social and communications skills, and a decrease in cognitive ability. These reasons are why, when aversive conditioning is used in the developmental setting, it is as a last resort and the aversive stimulus is sparing and lenient. In this case, the video and other evidence around the boy's condition and behavior are sparse, and any judgment whether this was the correct course of action based on the information we have is laughable. Great measures require great evidence in their justification.

In any event, cooling people off their outrage at authority who inflict barbaric emotional and physical pain in an effort to encourage compliance for its own sake with quasi-psychology based claims is sophomoric at best. There may be some intellectual satisfaction with the idea that some minds are so beyond reason that they only respond to pain of this kind, but that idea only smacks true when the thinker lacks the creativity necessary to actually manage these kinds of malfunctions. Seems Nurse Ratched would pass muster with at least some of our Sifters.


>> ^berticus:

The sad, cold truth of things is that there are some severely autistic children who engage in the most horrific self-injurious behaviour, and aversive punishment is the ONLY treatment (in conjunction with a broader treatment plan, naturally) that works. And yes, it DOES work.
I'm not talking about kids with minor problems. I mean the ones who will do things like smash their own face into the ground over and over until they lose so much blood they pass out. The ones who will, left to themselves, die.
Positive punishment is horrible. But, it's either that, or let these kids maim or kill themselves (or possibly others) through their behaviour.
(I make no comment regarding this specific incident, I just want you to know the issue is far more complicated than this mind-bite would have you believe.)

The sad, cold truth of things is that there are some severely autistic children who engage in the most horrific self-injurious behaviour, and aversive punishment is the ONLY treatment (in conjunction with a broader treatment plan, naturally) that works. And yes, it DOES work.

I'm not talking about kids with minor problems. I mean the ones who will do things like smash their own face into the ground over and over until they lose so much blood they pass out. The ones who will, left to themselves, die.

Positive punishment is horrible. But, it's either that, or let these kids maim or kill themselves (or possibly others) through their behaviour.

(I make no comment regarding this specific incident, I just want you to know the issue is far more complicated than this mind-bite would have you believe.)

This crime has nothing to do with race. Put a black man in the same situation, and the same would happen.

1. He wasn't targeted because he was white. He was targeted because he was drunk, alone and unable to defend himself. The same thing would have happened to a black dude in an equivalent situation, except then you wouldn't care.

2. As I pointed out in a similar video, that's Baltimore. Black people are robbed, beaten, and killed in that violent city every fucking day. There are enough of these disgusting videos online to show that these thugs will attack anyone of any demographic.

3. Apparently you don't realize that white people commit crimes too. Every day. Sometimes in groups (called "gangs"). And some of those crimes target black people. The instances where a gang or a group of drunk, rowdy white boys attack a black victim are not all national news. >> ^chilaxe:

If a black person was targeted by not a lone white criminal but an entire white mob for this because of their ethnicity, it'd be national news.
Videosift always supports that because racism, and in particular group hate crimes, are seen as representing larger cultural and practical realities.
There'd be no comments that it should be downplayed by the media and restricted to sites like WorldStarHipHop.
>> ^longde:
Of course not. Why would I say that a bunch of white thugs robbing Urkel represented white culture? Also, I have encountered enough criminals of all colors to know that a mugging -even an extravagant one- isn't a political statement. >> ^chilaxe:
>> ^longde:
I don't necessarily have anything against the video; frankly though it fits better on WorldStarHipHop than videosift. I downvoted for your tags, which imply that criminals somehow comprise the culture of some group, which shall remain nameless. And your description, which attempts to make a criminal act political.
If the cultural groups in this video were reversed, wouldn't you take the opposite position on those points?

If a black person was targeted by not a lone white criminal but an entire white mob for this because of their ethnicity, it'd be national news.

Videosift always supports that because racism, and in particular group hate crimes, are seen as representing larger cultural and practical realities.

There'd be no comments that it should be downplayed by the media and restricted to sites like WorldStarHipHop.

>> ^longde:

Of course not. Why would I say that a bunch of white thugs robbing Urkel represented white culture? Also, I have encountered enough criminals of all colors to know that a mugging -even an extravagant one- isn't a political statement. >> ^chilaxe:
>> ^longde:
I don't necessarily have anything against the video; frankly though it fits better on WorldStarHipHop than videosift. I downvoted for your tags, which imply that criminals somehow comprise the culture of some group, which shall remain nameless. And your description, which attempts to make a criminal act political.
If the cultural groups in this video were reversed, wouldn't you take the opposite position on those points?

This is not some half-baked excuse to create controversy for controversy's sake. I'm not a teenager. And I'm sure if I put my mind to it, I could manufacture some real harm. Rather, I embrace John Milton's Areopagitica, which is fundamental to the concept of free speech.
And I agree that as a community we have to instill certain rules and regulations. Also, I agree that each one of these people has proven incapable of "playing well with others." But they have contributed good videos. And because banning prevents these people from submitting videos, I'm being "robbed" of the opportunity to watch them. In effect, the pool that I drink from gets smaller. This is a negative. In my opinion, it's better have options than not.
Surely, we can hobble people to the point that they have no opportunity to lash out, self-destruct or hurt another member. Also, I'm fairly certain members can block other members if they want to.
I suggest that because that is all they are capable of doing, as demonstrated repeatedly by themselves, that that should be all they are allowed to do: submit videos and upvote. No comments allowed. No powers. Nothing but a few videos a month a handful of upvotes?
Also, it seems to me that banning is ineffective and indiscriminate, on top of minimizing the potential to watch good videos, which is the main reason I'm here.