Intention behind a rule is kind of irrelevant, compared to outcomes...

I think it depends on the authority of the person doing the punishing or incentivizing. One is punitive and the other is trying to be persuasive without being punitive.

And do the rules apply to everyone and not just one or a few?

I’m not sure that the examples reflect the question. If you have to choose between soccer and baseball, perhaps it is a time commitment? A neighbor’s daughter wanted to train with the cross-country team, as part of her soccer fitness. The XC coach said no, if you want to train you have to be on the team. (i’m thinking it had to do with school liability issues) For various reasons she couldn’t be on both, so she chose XC, and ended up state champion and earned a scholarship. So was not being able to do both a punishment? Or a choice?

A person on an ankle monitor isn’t prohibited from socializing with their ne‘er-do-wells, just from participating in nefarious shenanigans.

Another question is, does punishment or threat of punishment change a behavior internally, or just externally? Away from the threat of punishment, does the behavior occur, or does the person actually change the, I guess, desire, to perform the behavior?

i most often experience this on prix fixe menus. If I order the halibut they withhold the steak. I’d say that’s punishment.

I’ll admit I’m not fully understanding the question. In the sports example, are we talking about school level? A team may decide they require a certain level of commitment which they don’t deem compatible with academics AND playing another sport. Whether the kid agrees or not, I’d deem it neither a punishment nor an incentive, but rather a choice.

I’ll make another assumption with the ankle monitor: criminal? However limited the movement is, I’d generally assume it’s a step up from being in a prison cell. So it’s still a punishment like prison is but it’s also a priviledge, and keeping the privilege is the incentive to follow the rules.

That shiny new sports car, they have the nerve to want money for it. Is my payment punishment for wanting the car so badly, or is the car incentive to give my money away? 🙂

I think of incentives as something put in place from day one. The incentive keeps one from needing a consequence. I'm not loving the word punishment. It's not used much anymore. Consequences that work best are expected, natural outcomes of behavior that's not optimum. You don't come to practise, you sit out a game or more. In theory you are prepared so why would you play? Those that show premium effort at practise get a popcicle at the end.

I intended the sports to be about adults - I specifically didn't want the power dynamic of parent and child to be involved. And I specifically omitted the actual use, because it's political and I didn't want that to draw out a political discussion that would get the thread pulled.

Perhaps I shouldn't have posted it at all. Sorry.

TV - I hadn’t been thinking about youth sports only in considering your question. In fact, I was thinking about that only as an example to illustrate or clarify your actual question about punishent vs incentive. I think it’s a really interesting question and I’ve decided I need to hear a bona fide philosopher’s thoughts on it because I can’t satisfactorily answer the question to myself.

Any good rule has a purpose and punishment for not abiding is incentive for abiding. I’m trying to think or an example where incentive and punishment would be honestly snd sincerely presented as mutually exclusive. I’d be interested to her the specific verboten circumstance that triggered this question. I’m guessing, given the apparent topic, that ”honestly and sincerely” isn’t part of the equation.

Rules are rules, most hopefully exist for a reason. Depending on the rule and the situation, it may be either or both.

Having been a youth team coach, I have an example to cite (a team of tweenagers, old enough to know better). One of the rules I expressed clearly at the first practice was that playing time would be awarded based on many factors but among them that mattered was attendance at practices, working hard during them, and following instructions and coaching tips. I explained my view was that attendance at practices was a way of supporting the team and that that together with absorbing coaching direction was also for the benefit of the entire team. If the coaches who had jobs could show up, players could too.

A conflict may come up but when a parent calls me to say that their kid will miss practice because of a periodic dental appointment, that tells me that the team practice had a lower priority than something else. I wouldn't dispute the decision but would grant more playing time to team members who managed to give practice attendance a higher priority. In that case, I think the rule was both incentive and imposed an undesired consequence if not followed.

Edit to add:

A consequence for not following a rule doesn't have to be seen as being a punishment.

Punishment has been proven to be less effective than incentive to do the correct thing in the first place, as arcy points out. Random, unpredictable rewards elicit the desired behavior far better than punishment or promised rewards - I think Pavlov showed that long ago, and I've certainly found it to be true with the school-aged kids I've worked with over many years. It also makes for a lot less stress.

@carolb_w_fl_coastal_9/10 post reminded me about positive reinforcement - a very good training method for animals, especially dogs. It should also work for toddlers.

Indeed - IMPE, using punishment to control behavior usually results in the desired behavior in your presence, but the minute you're out of the picture, all bets are off. I learned long ago with my own child that the trick is to get them to want to do the right thing.

I do see a distinction between punishment and lack of reward here.

Incentive = reward, punishment = consequence.

Example: Not committing a crime is not an incentive not to go to jail. Nobody wants to go to jail. Rather, not committing a crime is avoidance of the consequence of going to jail.

" positive reinforcement - a very good training method for animals, especially dogs. It should also work for toddlers. "

It works very well for children too, long past the toddler stage. We used to joke that the dog training experiences we had before we had kids, made raising kids much easier.

I always thought that an element of Pavlov's demonstrations included his success in using positive reinforcement to communicate, not just to train. The thing about animals is that you can't tell them in words what you want them to do, or do only in certain circumstances, as you can with humans. Most learn eventually that a firm No means they did something wrong but that's different.

Rewarding a animal for a desired behavior, even if at first it's physically induced, gets the message across that that's what you want them to do.

^ except that in my area, the jail time may be so minimal that criminals are back out on the street commiting more crimes., so the consequence/punishment is no longer effective...