[ignorantshithead]

What is it called when an authority figure responds to a grievance by implimenting a policy that is even less desirable to the complaining party than the policy being complained about?

E.g. two siblings are arguing over whose turn it is to play with a toy, and Mom resolves the dispute by... taking the toy away altogether.

Or... a child complains that recess doesn't begin until 2pm, and the teacher decides "Ok, have it your way. No more recess at all, period."

Sociologically, what is that thought process called? I'm looking for the scientific term, sort of like "reverse psychology," except that's not what this is called.

 

[Kratosx23]

Trolling.

 

[ignorantshithead]

Anyone wanna give me a serious answer?

 

[Kratosx23]

That was a serious answer, that's what it is. I may not know the exact scientific term, but why is that important?

 

[ignorantshithead]

I may not know the exact scientific term, but why is that important?

Because I need it for a court case.

Do you think the judge is going to take very kindly to me using the word "trolling?"

Ok, true, you didn't know it was for a court case, but at the same time, why was THAT important? Why wasn't it enough that I specifically asked for the scientific term?

 

[wkdsoul]

No idea, closest i could thing of is "defusing the situation" by changing the conflicting parameter..

 

[ignorantshithead]

No idea, closest i could thing of is "defusing the situation" by changing the conflicting parameter..

Well... at least thanks for keeping the thread bumped.

 

[wkdsoul]

Maybe there isn't one.. i had a search to find but the net can be uncooperative sometimes.. you might have to just say implemented a stricter regime/policy/solution etc.

sorry dude.

 

[ignorantshithead]

Maybe there isn't one.. i had a search to find but the net can be uncooperative sometimes.. you might have to just say implemented a stricter regime/policy/solution etc.

sorry dude.

Well... it's not like there's such thing as a reverse dictionary.

 

[dude69]

being a fucking dick

 

[bettythebomber]

What is it called when an authority figure responds to a grievance by implimenting a policy that is even less desirable to the complaining party than the policy being complained about?

E.g. two siblings are arguing over whose turn it is to play with a toy, and Mom resolves the dispute by... taking the toy away altogether.

Or... a child complains that recess doesn't begin until 2pm, and the teacher decides "Ok, have it your way. No more recess at all, period."

Sociologically, what is that thought process called? I'm looking for the scientific term, sort of like "reverse psychology," except that's not what this is called.

im not sure, sorry :cool2

 

[LINK]

That is emotional abuse for one.

I think it is just negative reinforcement though. For one the example and the description are different. The children are not grieving to their Mom like the description suggests, they are arguing with each other. So the mother negatively enforces their behavior by punishing both of them. Which seems harsh and would be considered abuse nowadays.

Even as the description though it is just negative reinforcement. For example, the IWC complains constantly on Vince's WWE Universe and the company usually does the opposite (aka DB at mania). This is a tactic of narcissists and bullies.

Unfortunately, both bullies and narcissists always end up with all the power and high paying jobs so the rest of the world suffers in result. Successful people are always so insecure about their intelligence, looks or something they develop patterns of behavior where they lie, punish or ignore you until you submit to their will without even knowing it.

This actually relates a lot to the thread I put in this section about a possible nuclear war. America and NATO are global bullies and Russia has actually been a victim to their abusive tendencies for a long time. America/NATO wants to 'conveniently' put anti ballistic missiles on the Russian border for 'protection' from Iran and whoever else(it doesn't matter because it is a bold face lie in fear of a Putin statement in December). Putin was elected President a few days ago and the day after he told NATO/US that he is not going to the G8 convention at Camp David next week and that if these ABM's are put on his border his only option is a pre-emptive nuclear attack.

The way it relates is that Putin(child) is making a threat/request for US/NATO(mother) to not put those ABM's on his border. What is going to happen is the US/NATO is either going to remove Putin from office or they will put even more ABM's on the border.

This is the typical idiotic behavior in the time of an economic world collapse that starts wars. Like WW1 was the assassination of archduke Ferdinand(although the economy wasn't bad until after, it was more a bad karma from all the 'imperial' idiots still running wild) or WW2 when Hitler invaded Poland.

It amazes me that all the 'brilliant' scientists, doctors, lawyers and billionaires of the earth have not identified one single cause for all the world's problems (and no it is not money or greed). It is a sense of pride that causes ignorance. A sense of I am better than you so I am a scientist or a whatever title. If a simple plumber tells a scientist he has a picture with an ET as well as a living specimen next to him from zeta reticulum, the scientist will discredit the photo until his SOCIAL peers agree with him or her. This kind of sickening behavior is why no subject other than politics or sociology (other than math and the kinds of sciences that are provable such as chemistry and physics NOT the corporate scandal MEDICINE)even matters.

I had to chime in with this though because I am tired of everyone always blaming religion or money for all the world's problems. If people strictly followed the bible, koran or any form of religion they would be more predictable at the least, so that is not the problem. If you gave everyone a million dollars, not a whole lot would get done so that theory is out as well. What the world really needs is people to just let go of the pride that makes them punish and damn other people.

 

[Crona]

Either negative reinforcement or negative punishment (omission training).

 

[#1 Hater]

Behaviour modification.

 

[ignorantshithead]

I think it is just negative reinforcement though. For one the example and the description are different. The children are not grieving to their Mom like the description suggests, they are arguing with each other. So the mother negatively enforces their behavior by punishing both of them. Which seems harsh and would be considered abuse nowadays.

Ok, let me try this example.

See as how I need this for a court case, how's this:

JUDGE: The Plaintiff accuses your client, Apartments, Inc., of evicting him as a tenant from their apartment on discriminatory grounds. What say you?
DEFENSE: Well, Your Honor, the state court has already ruled in our favor in the unlawful detainer action, so according to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this court is without jurisdiction to overturn that decision.
PLAINTIFF: But the state court didn't even have jurisdiction to decide discriminatory animi!
DEFENSE: Be that as it may, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the Plaintiff's relief.
JUDGE: Ok, I know what to do: The Defendants can just give the Plaintiff an entire fucking house! That doesn't violate the unlawful detainer decision, does it?
DEFENSE: ...Wait a minute, Your Hon-
JUDGE: CASE CLOSED! *gabble*

What did the judge just do?

 

[ViolenceIsGolden]

I wouldn't call it emotional abuse. OP gave example of child situations but the actual term, whatever it may be is not classified as only emotional abuse or emotionally abusive in every situation.

 

[ignorantshithead]

I wouldn't call it emotional abuse. OP gave example of child situations but the actual term, whatever it may be is not classified as only emotional abuse or emotionally abusive in every situation.

I gave another example on page 2 of this thread. Actually, it was immediately before your comment.

 

[vamp1ro]

Simply put, it is substitution. It is substituting one policy for another. I'm not aware of any definite term for this.

 

[LINK]

ViolenceisGolden is misunderstanding no one said simply emotional abuse? I was kidding really but I said emotional abuse for the child scenario but either way if anything the term is negative reinforcement.

OP I am 95% sure that this behavior has no definition other than negative enforcement, unless you want a legal term? But receiving a harsher outcome when requesting something is really just bad luck or I like Vamp1ro's substituting.

Not to get too personal but what exactly happened? If the above scenario did I would appeal.

 

[ignorantshithead]

Not to get too personal but what exactly happened?

Sorry, can't tell you. Protected by confidentiality laws.