"Deterrence is a function of swiftness, certainty, and severity."
This is simply Skinner's behavior modification, which demonstrably works on all organisms. Given an undesired behavior, if a negative stimulus is applied to the actor, the promptness with which the stimulus is applied, and its strength and consistency, reduces the behavior …
"Deterrence is a function of swiftness, certainty, and severity."
This is simply Skinner's behavior modification, which demonstrably works on all organisms. Given an undesired behavior, if a negative stimulus is applied to the actor, the promptness with which the stimulus is applied, and its strength and consistency, reduces the behavior in proportion. If the behavior is repeated, the negative stimulus must be re-applied consistently.
This works to reduce the identified undesired behavior, it has been demonstrated to work predictably on every organism from humans to mollusks, and it is so intuitively apparent that all sentient humans can see this unless they are in denial.
I concede that many indeed *do* deny this, or dismiss its effectiveness, but this is due to an surfeit of empathy in which the sympathizer imagines how he/she would feel if they were the subject of such negative stimuli, becomes uncomfortable with this feeling, and wants it to go away so that they can be mentally comfortable again. So they oppose effective countermeasures so that they no longer have to think of them and become queasy.
But I'd posit that beyond a certain localized point empathy is a luxury, and that costs are involved. If one is a member of a group that can afford, and indulge in, excessive and indiscriminate empathy, and yet is insulated from these costs, this undesired behavio (excessive empathy), too, will continue and perhaps expand.
"Deterrence is a function of swiftness, certainty, and severity."
This is simply Skinner's behavior modification, which demonstrably works on all organisms. Given an undesired behavior, if a negative stimulus is applied to the actor, the promptness with which the stimulus is applied, and its strength and consistency, reduces the behavior in proportion. If the behavior is repeated, the negative stimulus must be re-applied consistently.
This works to reduce the identified undesired behavior, it has been demonstrated to work predictably on every organism from humans to mollusks, and it is so intuitively apparent that all sentient humans can see this unless they are in denial.
I concede that many indeed *do* deny this, or dismiss its effectiveness, but this is due to an surfeit of empathy in which the sympathizer imagines how he/she would feel if they were the subject of such negative stimuli, becomes uncomfortable with this feeling, and wants it to go away so that they can be mentally comfortable again. So they oppose effective countermeasures so that they no longer have to think of them and become queasy.
But I'd posit that beyond a certain localized point empathy is a luxury, and that costs are involved. If one is a member of a group that can afford, and indulge in, excessive and indiscriminate empathy, and yet is insulated from these costs, this undesired behavio (excessive empathy), too, will continue and perhaps expand.
Yet another irony...