Dad Forces Son to Smash PS4 With Rock Due to Bad Grades - Sensationalist Headlines

He was born that way, just let him post. I think he was born this way, just let him post.

my argument is that it's not a big deal. "the general consensus of the world view" does not revolve around FP. all we are doing is escalating this and bringing a disturbing notion that games consoles are the most important emotional attachment to a child growing up. I can only take a few exceptions to this but it is disturbing how much we enable a society where game addiction is acceptable. A broken ps4, dismantling it, or throwing it away, selling it, should not be the determining factor in a parent/child relationship. The real world has real problems, and a box can be replaced with a few days of work.

Do you really not understand what kind of changes these actions can have on a relationship between a parent and child? You're looking at this from an adult point of view. Yes, a PS4 isn't a big deal to replace. But to a kid, that PS4 could be his only comfort in his mind (no matter how pale that sounds - this happens). He doesn't understand that it isn't a big deal. Aside from that, you keep avoiding the issue of what this does to a kid. What do you think the kid will reasonably do?: a) "My dad will destroy something else I enjoy if I don't do better at school, guess I'll become an excellent student!!" b) "I'm scared of my dad and I don't want him to destroy my stuff" c) "A PS4 is easy to replace. It's only $299 and with a few days of work, my dad will be able to afford a new one." Since you're fond of anecdotal stuff to support whatever you're saying, here's some of my own: I loved playing video games when I grew up. I didn't have many friends, and because I would always be alone when I would go outside, I didn't really have a lot of fun. The one friend I had was someone I played video games with, together. High school started, my friend moved away and I entered a new school with no one I knew. Because I was somewhat weird, I got bullied. Throughout high school, I did not have any real friends. People would sometimes pretend to be my friend to get computer help, only then to cruelly start bullying me too. I fell into depression, my grades plummeted; I wasn't in a good mental state anymore. The only things that would comfort me were my game consoles and PC. These things didn't bully me and they didn't also constantly scream at me for my grades (my parents did) - I found purpose in playing and creating video games and interacting with online forums. As my grades went further down, my parents threatened to take my PC away. I wasn't very happy about this, because I didn't know what I would even do without it. Having no source of pleasure other than my PC and consoles, I got stressed because I didn't know how to solve this issue. I physically wasn't able to concentrate at school. Parents and school blamed this on "laziness" and constantly reminded me that "I was smarted than this" but never really tried to solve my problems hand-on. I got paranoid and felt people were talking around my back and plotting to play another horrible prank on me. Neither my parents nor school recognized these problems properly. Now my computer/console didn't get smashed, in fact I got to keep it after all. But if you consider my attachment (irrational as it is) to these devices, wouldn't it be easy to see why taking away my computer would have been detrimental to my mental state? Now granted, we don't know if the kid is in a similar situation. I still, however, think it's bad parenting. If the kid is gaming too much (and they really are a lazy shit), a parent should have put a limit to that before having them smash their console. Smashing their console isn't going to teach them efficient time management. Maybe consider setting up a system where you reward the kid with extra play time on weekend nights or whatever if they get good grades. Positive reinforcement works well and doesn't have the side-effect of potentially traumatizing someone.

he should've traded it for a car like that one kid and smashed that instead

Destroying your children's possessions, regardless of what they are, is bad fucking parenting. It doesn't matter if it's a PS4 or a violin. It could be a fucking pet rock. If you teach your child to fear you, you're a bad fucking parent and you shouldn't have children.

Hello. I'm 19 years old, and I grew up in a house full of technology so my childhood was definitely spent on consoles and PC. I had very deep emotional connections to the devices, moreso than I did with any physical toy. My fondest memories as a kid were of hanging out with friends on Second Life, getting in parties with friends I'd never met in person on Halo 3 and Reach, or playing around on RP servers on Halo CE. I can guarantee you I would've been incredibly distraught if anything happened to my PS2 or my PC. These things aren't just "computer boxes with discs." They're internet enabled devices that allow you to communicate with people across the world, or hang out with physical friends past curfew. Children definitely develop emotional connections with computers, even if you're too emotionally detached to realize that. If my parents forced me to destroy my PC or my X360 as a kid, I sure as hell would never trust them with anything again, even if they "just bought another one." You're not a child, AK'z, you're an adult. You should know that your experiences and your thoughts ARE NOT THE SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE. I repeat, YOU ARE NOT PERFECT. YOU ARE NOT THE SHINING GOLDEN EXAMPLE OF HUMANITY. NOT EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH THINKS THE SAME WAY YOU DO. Sure, you don't have emotional connections to physical possessions. You're the odd one out. A majority of people DO, be it a "computer box," a car, a home, a picture, a fucking ROCK, who cares. It's how humans work.

@AK'z From what I’m getting from your posts here, you’re basically arguing from a more practical (if that’s the right word here) standpoint. And from that, yeah I kinda agree with you. Thing is, that’s not what everyone else who’s replying to you is arguing from. They’re arguing from a more emotional standpoint, which is where I stand also. Yes, something like a PS4 is easily replaceable and not really a big deal. However to a kid, something being replaceable doesn’t really matter emotionally. To them, the dad making them break their PS4 with a rock as punishment is very likely going to leave some sort of lasting negative impact on them. In this case, a lasting impact of resentment towards their father. And that’s not a good thing.

it's not about the PC my dude! why can't you see that

God damn dude, could you miss the point any harder? People get emotionally attached to things, it happens when that thing is an important part of their life. When I was a kid books and video games were my only escape from a shitty life. Couldn't escape it at school because of worthless bullies and couldn't escape it at home because of a worthless father. Taking those things away from me would have taken away my only form of solace. This is not about the object. Get that through your thick skull already. This is about what that object represents to the kid and what the actions of the parent will teach the kid. And that is nothing positive. i remember my ... gameboy getting stolen and i didnt care much. Another anecdote that I can easily counter with my own, showing that your anecdotes mean exactly dick: When I was in high school I got a Gameboy Advance from one of my friends when he updated to an SP. After having it for about a month or two I was outside during break one time and had set down my coat where my GBA was in the pocket. Apparently when I picked up my coat it slipped out of the pocket and I didn't notice. When I finally noticed it was gone and went to look for it I actually had a panic attack and it completely derailed my day. And in all your bullshit you're overlooking one exceedingly important detail: Your entire argument comes from a purely logical standpoint that disregards any and all emotions. Human beings, especially children, are not logical. They are highly emotional. This is not a complicated idea so I legitimately do not understand how you could possibly fail to understand this with so many people explaining exactly how and why you are wrong.

You'll find that, outside of daddyofive facebook fan pages, you won't find many people who agree that smashing children's prized possessions is a good parenting method.

oh man reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EglOsfErtaE

isnt that faker than the moon landing?

yeah it is but they both look equally fake tbh

didnt you guys know destroying a kid's ps4 is ok cause its only a ps4? i hate when such info isnt known smh /s

Why do you keep implying that people who fucking research psychological development of children and write textbooks about it don't know more about the topic than the average parent? Normally people get emotional attachment to items that bring them happiness. When the parent forces the child to destroy such an object, it's intended to cause emotional distress. That's WHY it's used as a punishment in the first place. If the PS4 was "just a box" to the child, there would be no reason for all this. It's not 'just' a punishment. It's also a breach of trust and emotional security. No child should ever fear that they might be made to destroy things they love in an environment they're supposed to feel safe and secure in, for any reason but least of all reasons that are ultimately not their fault. You seem completely blind to this emotional aspect of this whole situation.

It's probably fake. They look really well as fuck off. Buying a PS4 ain't shit to them I'm sure. Here let's make a video with our dead Playstation and see if it goes viral

People always say this shit but never actually provide examples of what other things parents should do. You can't perfectly funnel your kid into a perfect path and refusing to do anything about them when they're misbehaving just teaches them that they can do whatever the fuck they want without any repercussions.

You ever hear of a little thing called positive reinforcement.

That's great and all, but if you don't teach consequences for actions then they'll just go out of control. You need both positive and negative reinforcement not one or the other. Doing only positive reinforcement is a great way to create a spoiled out of control child.

Contrary to what you might think, negative reinforcement is not destroying your children's possessions and teaching them that you'll go batshit insane with a fucking rock if they forget to clean their room because you're a fucking lunatic with no self control. Negative reinforcement is removing a negative stimulus as a reward for their good behavior. It is not doing abusing the shit out of your children because you're angry.

I didn't say it was, I also don't think punishing kids for bad grades is a good motivator either since bad grades can come from a number of factors. I'm taking issue with the notion that punishment in general is bad.

You kinda did.

I don't think that sentence said what you think it said bud. Thinking you need to punish kids doesn't mean I think smashing their PS4 is a good idea, taking it away would have been fine.

Sidestepping this clusterfuck of an argument I think it's inherently bad to punish your children based solely on poor performance to the standard of school education and grading, especially so in this case where one's possessions are being held hostage. It can lead to unnecessary pressure on someone who may already be struggling and require support and potentially cause them to resent their parents.

Or you can actually just talk to your kid like an adult, which they will actually respond to, about why certain things are good or bad. I can say beyond a shred of doubt that every single time I faced a punishment that involved something being taken away or me being arbitrarily punished, it did nothing but make me resentful and better at hiding the behavior that caused it. What actually changed my behavior was my parents talking to me, spending time with me, and making me actually think about my actions. You literally don't need to punish your kid to teach them that their actions have consequences. If you need to make your kid feel bad for something they're doing, because it's that reprehensible, just make sure that they know that they should be ashamed and why they should be ashamed, and that you want to help them right their wrong. If it's not something that they should be ashamed about, then it's not something you should have been punishing them for anyway.

Except kids sometimes don't respond to that, in which case what do you do then? Just let them do what they like? Like these are all well and good when they do work, but for some kids it doesn't and that's not necessarily the parents fault. Kids sometimes cannot be reasoned with and sitting around doing nothing when they can't is just terrible parenting in its own right.

you can't just say that and not actually cite those sources

There seems to be some mix-up in definitions here, so lets set some common ground by defining things. In regards to operant conditioning, which is the method of learning via rewards and punishments for behavior, there are punishments and reinforcements, that can both be either positive or negative/ Shamelessly stolen from Lumen: Positive reinforcement: Something desireable is added to increase the likelihood of a behavior. For example, getting toys (added desired stimulus) for cleaning your room (desired behavior) Negative reinforcement: Something undesireable is removed to increase the likelihood of a behavior. For example, the loud beeping noise you hear in a car is removed when you buckle your seatbelt. Positive punishment: Something undesireable is added to decrease the likelihood of a behavior. For example, scolding a student (added undesired stimulus) to get the student to stop texting in class (desired behavior). Negative punishment: Something desireable is removed to decrease the likelihood of a behavior. For example, smashing your kids PS4 so he doesn't get bad grades anymore. The most effective way to encourage behavior is positive reinforcement. For example, you tell your five-year-old son, Jerome, that if he cleans his room, he will get a toy. Jerome quickly cleans his room because he wants a new art set. Let’s pause for a moment. Some people might say, “Why should I reward my child for doing what is expected?” But in fact we are constantly and consistently rewarded in our lives. Our paychecks are rewards, as are high grades and acceptance into our preferred school. Being praised for doing a good job and for passing a driver’s test is also a reward. Positive reinforcement as a learning tool is extremely effective. Punishment, especially when it is immediate, is one way to decrease undesirable behavior. For example, imagine your four year-old son, Brandon, hit his younger brother. You have Brandon write 50 times “I will not hit my brother” (positive punishment). Chances are he won’t repeat this behavior. While strategies like this are common today, in the past children were often subject to physical punishment, such as spanking. It’s important to be aware of some of the drawbacks in using physical punishment on children. First, punishment may teach fear. Brandon may become fearful of the hitting, but he also may become fearful of the person who delivered the punishment—you, his parent. Similarly, children who are punished by teachers may come to fear the teacher and try to avoid school (Gershoff et al., 2010). Consequently, most schools in the United States have banned corporal punishment. Second, punishment may cause children to become more aggressive and prone to antisocial behavior and delinquency (Gershoff, 2002). They see their parents resort to spanking when they become angry and frustrated, so, in turn, they may act out this same behavior when they become angry and frustrated. For example, because you spank Margot when you are angry with her for her misbehavior, she might start hitting her friends when they won’t share their toys. While positive punishment can be effective in some cases, Skinner suggested that the use of punishment should be weighed against the possible negative effects. Today’s psychologists and parenting experts favor reinforcement over punishment—they recommend that you catch your child doing something good and reward her for it. --- This is barely breaking the ice on operant conditioning. Shaping, primary and secondary reinforcers, etc. are all described in that Lumen link and I highly recommend any parent (or someone interested in understanding how to influence behavior) reads up on it. The last thing I'd like to mention is that while psychologists recommend positive reinforcement, it is not the only method that should be used, and punishment when used well can be effective when weighing the downsides. However, in the case of this parent, smashing his son's PS4 will likely breed resentment and fear in the child and will probably not affect the likelihood of his grades improving. The father should attempt to reinforce his son and shape his behavior, probably by helping him study, actually trying to understand the conditions leading to his son's poor grades, and reinforcing him when he makes good progress.

Yes. This is also what you learn in Psychology 101 so it's not exactly anything that SHOULD be controversial.

Dude... This goes for anything the kid has an attachment to. Not just a ps4. This is like that bulshit of "killing what makes you weaker". That just makes weirdos and nutjobs. This isn't the general consensus of fp. The disturbing notion here is that the dad made the kid destroy what he has grown an attachment to.