So have you folks heard about that 5 year old kid?

Post Reply New Topic

That depends entirely on which side you're on: The side of the individual or the side of society. I don't claim to either being objectively positive nor negative.

Competition and Cooperation are both options, but Cooperation requires individual sacrifice, and the more cooperation that is involved, the more that must be sacrificed toward that aim. Individual gain becomes minimal.... but the alternative carries a far greater gamble (i.e. Competition carries chances of extreme gain but also extreme loss).


Whether you see it or not though.... we Aspergians are rather more individual than social, and in a particular niche we are more likely to be competitive than cooperative. This is especially so in the case of children who have not yet learned subtlety.... where Aspergian children will often end up being "loud and disruptive" because they are expressing themselves individually.... which seems like a far easier route to success than cooperating.



As I said... I don't particularly favour either plan. I'm attempting to speak objectively here.... Game Theory, you might say.
I know there are times when the average payout is better for cooperation, and times when the average payout is better for competition..... and it is just a matter of choosing between them carefully where the oppurtunity arises.

Society naturally advocates pure cooperation in its words, though actions speak louder. It is only natural that you would voice that same opinion as others around you do.... but it doesn't subtract from the fact that you're as likely to behave selfishly as the rest of us if the oppurtunity is there for real gain by it.

.

The thing is, cooperation would almost always have a better payout if there was a gaurentee that everyone was cooperative. Consider the prisoner's dilema as an example of that. Most of the time people won't cooperate in those cases because the risk of getting betrayed is too high, and the small chance of not getting betrayed carries the biggest reward if you are the betrayer. So following the individualistic approach is the safer bet, both sides will almost always take it. But the reward for both sides simultaneouly cooperating is greater.

Also there are long term payouts for cooperating because it builds trust. Example: When 2 chimps were put into separate cells, outside their cells they were given a long bar with a plate of food attached. The long bar had two handles, one for each chimp to pull on, and it was weighted so that it took the strength of both to pull it. The plate had 4 pieces of fruit, more than enough to share. Both chimps cooperatively pulled the bar together, but when the chance came for the chimp closest to the plate to share the reward, he took the individualistic approach and kept all the food for himself. Seemed like the obvious choice because the reward was bigger and he could, but like a chimp he wasn't thinking very far ahead. The other chimp refused to help him the next time the same task was put before them. Even though the immediate reward for being selfish looks better, the long term payouts for being cooperative should always be considered.

Oh that was a tangent...as usual. Back to the subject.

I don't know what the kid was doing wrong, and whether or not the teacher actually tried communicating his difficulties with his parents. What I do know is that regardless of what he did, regardless of his autism, regarless of the teacher's previous unsuccessful attempts at solving the problem, she didn't go about this the right way. I'm all for disciplining the young, but this isn't what it looked like to me. This looked like a very frustrated adult punishing a very young child in anger (never a good plan, punishment tends to go into overkill with often a more abusive than just result), then adding a bit of public shame by exploiting the emotions and limited understanding of the other very young children and sicking them on him.

I suppose she could have thought that he would realize how his peers felt about him when he misbehaved, and that he forfeited his privelege to be there by continually misbehaving. But 5 year olds can't learn lessons that way, they lack a huge amount of understanding and are extremely emotionally fragile. The only lesson he most likely learned from this is that everyone hates him and reinforced in his mind that he is an outcast, which will no doubt add to his anger thereby increasing his drive to act out.

Discipline needs to be done intelligently, and for kids that young it can even be subtle. If an adult is showing the same lack of emotional restraint as the child they are punishing, what exactly does that teach the child? She should never have involved the other kids. What lesson does that teach them? Then asking him how he felt...just a bit sadistic?? This is a 5 year old we're talking about (as if that hasn't been said enough). That's way too mean, and I was often corporally punished as a kid. I'd rather get belted than go through the humiliation he went through. If he did anything so much more horrible than what most typical bratty 5 year olds do, then he should probably have been sent to see a therapist. Public shame does not make someone with harmful behaviors more docile. And though kids should never be denied discipline, a child this young is morally undeveloped and not fully responsible yet for their actions. You can't deal retribution to a baby the same way you can to an adult, and their lack of understanding means not all deterences will work either. The teacher made a huge mistake. Yeah she is human, but she still needs to be educated on where she went wrong and why taking it upon herself to administer this kind of discipline is inappropriate. If expelling him was absolutely the only option, she should have gotten the school board on her side and explained it to the parents. Manipulating the other kindergardeners to kick him out for her seems mean, imature and cowerdly.

Ah yes... the Prisoner's Dilemma.
Loved that one.... but the way I personally would have gone about it, when questioned, was always different to the way everyone else responded.

At least in the class I was in, there were naturally a lot of remarks by people claiming they would risk playing the Trusting, Altruistic role and not saying a thing.

I said quite straight that not only would I take the selfish role .... BUT I would ruin my own chances of good payback by telling the other prisoner beforehand that I was going to take the selfish role, and that I'd expect them to do the same. I mean, I'd want no more than a fair share, but I wouldn't trust the other person not to screw me over, so the only way to get even results would be for us both to play selfish.
I think I'm possibly the only person I know in that respect who would play the Honest a***hole strategy. Agree to Disagree, so to speak.

.

I think learnt about something like this in economics, where if everyone agrees to produces a low amount they all will profit, but if someone goes against this and produces more they will do the best. One group just kept producing the highest.

Wow! I just read the original post and that's just cruel that teacher should get fired. people need to understand Asperger's better instead of automatically putting down a behavior.

The objective thinker in me just sniggered at your post.

How ironic it is.

.