We learn by taking action and then experiencing consequences. We usually don’t learn from somebody telling us what the consequences will be. And we NEVER learn when there are no consequences. Our society today is one of endless second chances and almost never real consequences. Way back in the 1950’s, a lay analyst named Helmuth Kaiser wrote an article entitled: The Problem of Responsibility in Psychotherapy. His point was that the outcome of psychotherapy belongs with the therapist, not the patient. And of course, it is true across healthcare which often blames the patient when they don’t respond positively to treatment. If the patient dies in surgery, the surgeon and the surgery failed. No one had to do anything wrong but the outcome is always the responsibility of the doctor. Too often in our society, we obscure the concept of responsibility by pointing out reasons why the person acted in the way they did. Murdering parents is an understandable consequence of sexual abuse. A politician misspeaks rather than lies.
In behavioral health, we say that doing something for someone that they can do for themselves is ENABLING. Enabling is a very bad word because it weakens the recipient. By way of example, politicians seem particularly adept at enabling. They often promise something for nothing. A recent case in point is the move to “forgive” student loan debt. In its most blatant form, a student secures a loan for college, fails to make payments and then the entire debt is forgiven. From a learning and responsibility standpoint, this is dumb. Since the beginning of time, fifty percent of people who begin college do not graduate. Question: should the debt of a student who didn’t go to class, didn’t graduate and didn’t make payments be treated the same way as a student who did go to class, did graduate and made loan payments? I think not but I’ve seen no such distinctions being made in the government’s proposals. I coined a concept for parents dealing with kids that has wider applicability. It’s called the “second dollar”. In short, I tell parents to almost never provide the “first” dollar when their kids want something that cost money. The adolescent should be required to provide the “first” dollar before the parent provides the “second” dollar. The “first” dollar might be fifty dollars and the “second” dollar a thousand dollars but the principal is established that the child takes responsibility for initiating the transaction. Without the “first” dollar, nothing happens. The promise to provide the “first” dollar is not enough. And the” first” dollar might not be money at all. It could be an action like keeping their room clean for a month. Obviously, parents can give gifts but gifts are initiated in most instances by the parents, not the child.
To apply the “second dollar” concept to the student loan situation, I would make distinctions about how the loan money was used e.g. rent and beer vs tuition, academic performance i.e. class standing or GPA and payment history. These factors would help constitute the “first” dollar which would initiate or trigger the “second” dollar. A blanket loan forgiveness may buy votes but it violates the basic laws of good learning and the concept of taking responsibility for one’s actions.
Throughout our society, we seem to want to avoid consequences. Students want to be able to be able to retake a test or resubmit a paper. Criminals want probation. Credit card users want the interest reduced or waived. Everyone it seems wants a second chance. But a second chance avoids responsibility and, without responsibility, there is no learning, no change. It is true that everyone makes mistakes but mistakes are opportunities for learning if there are consequences. A society without consequences is a society in which there is no predictability or order and, without order, there is chaos.
As always, your thoughts?
Comments