There are no two words in the English language more harmful than "good job".

[Kontarek]

For the record, Fletcher (J. K. Simmons) is the villain in Whiplash, and the audience isn't meant to agree with him on this. If you listen to the commentary or read any of the interviews by the director, he goes into extreme detail about how almost every aspect of the film was meticulously constructed around portraying Fletcher as a straight-up monster.

Don't believe me? Here's some of the advice the director (Damien Chazelle) gave J.K. Simmons for playing the character:

"I don't want to see a human being on-screen anymore. I want to see a monster, a gargoyle, an animal."
Source: http://www.avclub.com/article/whiplash-maestro-damien-chazelle-drumming-directin-210473

And by the way, the incident did not play out as described in Whiplash. The film twisted the story so it would better fit the narrative angle it wanted to push, reality be damned.

The film didn't twist the narrative; the character did because he's a dick and you're supposed to think he's a dick. If you haven't seen the film (and you should because it's amazing), suffice to say this scene isn't the first time Fletcher twists a story around to fit his tunnel-vision worldview.

 

[DrOswald]

For the record, Fletcher (J. K. Simmons) is the villain in Whiplash, and the audience isn't meant to agree with him on this. If you listen to the commentary or read any of the interviews by the director, he goes into extreme detail about how almost every aspect of the film was meticulously constructed around portraying Fletcher as a straight-up monster.

Don't believe me? Here's some of the advice the director (Damien Chazelle) gave J.K. Simmons for playing the character:

"I don't want to see a human being on-screen anymore. I want to see a monster, a gargoyle, an animal."
Source: http://www.avclub.com/article/whiplash-maestro-damien-chazelle-drumming-directin-210473

And by the way, the incident did not play out as described in Whiplash. The film twisted the story so it would better fit the narrative angle it wanted to push, reality be damned.

The film didn't twist the narrative; the character did because he's a dick and you're supposed to think he's a dick. If you haven't seen the film (and you should because it's amazing), suffice to say this scene isn't the first time Fletcher twists a story around to fit his tunnel-vision worldview.

Well, the character is part of the film. Though I suppose that is a distinction worth making. I want to be clear that I don't think less of the movie for doing this - the job of a movie is to be a good piece of drama or comedy or whatever it is supposed to be, and from what I hear they did a fantastic job. But I do find it problematic that people base their opinions on such things without bothering to verify the truth of it.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

While I confess I've not seen the movie and I can't watch the clip at this moment, I don't really think the phrase "Good Job" is as harmful as some people make it out to be.

Those words were vital to me growing up, they pushed me, encouraged me to improve myself through a learning disability. I didn't see it as empty praise, I saw it as, the job I did this time was good, but it won't be good next time because then it will be standard, so I must improve to get the same praise. If my parents had not been as supportive as they were, I'm not sure where I'd be today, but I have two friends who came from less fortunate situations and while they're stronger than I am in some aspects, I wouldn't trade my life with theirs.

That being said, hearing "good job" too often can certainly make it feel empty, but even empty praise at least isn't damaging. It's meaningless and a child may realize it to be meaningless, which makes it difficult to know when they've done something they should be truly proud of, but as they become adults, strangers fill that gap rather easily, because a stranger doesn't give a shit about your feelings, so they're going to tell you what they really think.

"Good job" even said too often is a better alternative than "you suck" or "you won't amount to anything" because that doesn't encourage kids to try either and damages their self esteem. Even if some study ever proved that constant praise created a false sense of self confidence, society would pop that bubble soon enough, because their boss won't tell them "good job" for failing to get the job done, their boss is going to fire them, tell them why they've been fired and hopefully they're capable of learning from their mistakes.

 

[AgedGrunt]

That guy in the movie clip is so full of shit. If "the next Charlie Parker" was, by definition, not going to be discouraged by tough love then chances are he also wasn't going to be satisfied with just doing a "good job".

Perhaps his logic doesn't consider that, but neuroplasticity would suggest that Charlie Parker would develop according to emotions and environment. With positive reinforcement, regardless of his performance, he wouldn't become the Charlie Parker that developed after the emotionally trauma of failure and humiliation.

I'd say up to that turning point Charlie Parker could have become anything, and what would become of someone in his place both depends on where he came from (his brain at the time) and ongoing experiences. If he was given "atta boys" for trying and never got knocked down and confronted with a challenge to go far beyond what he was, his brain would have changed accordingly.

It's a movie; it's said for effect.

And yeah, all this moaning over "participation award culture" or whatever you want to call it doesn't amount to any more than yet another generation wringing their hands about the supposed shortcomings of the youth of today. In this case, borderline incoherent hand-wringing.

Fear not, for the hand wringers will wither up, go senile and die and the supposed no-hope youths will grow up to be more-or-less functioning adults to eventually take their places. Y'know, much like we've been doing for the past however many thousands of years.

I don't think it's a culture. Sensitivity and coddling of the weak (eliminating red ink from grading student papers) and shaming true competitors and winners (punishment for coaches/student athletes "running up the score" on weak opponents) is becoming institutionalized. Look at college campuses, too. As much as I'd love to think of this crap as piss in the wind, it's more like a rising tide that's only growing faster.

/snip

I think you have completely missed the point.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Positive reinforcement works for some people. Negative reinforcement works for others. I am one of the former types of people. My sister growing up was more of the latter. My sister likes competition and uses that drive to improve her performance. When I presented with some sort of "contest," I shut down and immediately do not care. It just doesn't motivate me the way it does other people. I was on an "everybody wins" T ball team as a child where everyone got a trophy, but it was pretty much understood who was the "best" at it and who was not. I think they handed them out as "first place, second place," etc. And that was pretty much it for me and competitive sports. It wasn't that I was crushed because I wasn't good enough, it was because I sucked and I didn't care and I didn't pursue it after that point. Leave it to the kids of the coaches who took it seriously.

But, if you offer me some sort of benefit by succeeding, I will bust my own ass of my own accord. I got pretty amazing grades in school when I felt I had a good motivation to, and when I knew exactly what I needed to do to achieve them. If I were ever on the jazz band of Whiplash, I'd quit as fast as possible. I don't care about jazz anyway. I would rather go be in a "band" as they say with derision in the film. Charlie Parker didn't go to JK Simmons' jazz school. Besides, you might get to impress women while in a band (positive reinforcement).

 

[major_chaos]

The key thing that prevents this from really being an issue is that thus far the "participation awards" really only get given out to children. I have seen both College classmates (BTW I find an interesting correlation between teachers who have no tolerance for laziness and those with horrible rating on ratemyproffessor and the like. Its almost like the babies fresh out of highschool don't like effort) and co-workers around my age fail pathetically because they though they could half-ass it and get rewarded. Newsflash: they don't give paychecks for "almost" doing your job.

So yes the "red ink hurts self esteem!" bullshit might produce bratty entitled children, but once they finish basic education they either very quickly learn that holding out your hand for the next unearned reward isn't gonna cut it anymore, or they washout completely and end up with a miserable existence.

Now personally I think "self-esteem" is often code for "grotesquely unwarranted self-importance" and we could all stand to admit we are a bit shit and that for 99.99% of people you could die tomorrow and the world wouldn't miss a beat, but that comes down to the personal philosophy of an unhealthy mind and I generally don't expect others to accept it.

 

[Zhukov]

And yeah, all this moaning over "participation award culture" or whatever you want to call it doesn't amount to any more than yet another generation wringing their hands about the supposed shortcomings of the youth of today. In this case, borderline incoherent hand-wringing.

Fear not, for the hand wringers will wither up, go senile and die and the supposed no-hope youths will grow up to be more-or-less functioning adults to eventually take their places. Y'know, much like we've been doing for the past however many thousands of years.

I don't think it's a culture. Sensitivity and coddling of the weak (eliminating red ink from grading student papers) and shaming true competitors and winners (punishment for coaches/student athletes "running up the score" on weak opponents) is becoming institutionalized. Look at college campuses, too. As much as I'd love to think of this crap as piss in the wind, it's more like a rising tide that's only growing faster.

Meh. More hand-wringing. More hyperbole.

"It's the end times, we'll all be drowned in a rising tide of noncompetitive pussies!"

Whatever decade you were born in, at some point your elders collectively wrote you off as indicative of the disastrous decline of society. In the post-war prosperity of the 50s people were worried sick that the youngsers were soft and weak because they hadn't lived through the Great Depression or fought in the war. In the liberated, free-lovin' 60s folks were saying that the youngsters were all going to grow up as drug-addled layabouts who would never be able to hold down a job.

And so on and so forth. Yet here we are, still ambling along.

Oh, but this time, this time it's real. Unlike every previous generation of aging alarmists staring down the barrel of impeding irrelevance, you're right when you say the youth of today are going down the shitter. You're actually on to something! This time it's serious!

Y'know, just like every other time.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Huh... I thought this was going to be a thread about how even positive extrinsic motivation can reduce intrinsic motivation, which has been supported by numerous studies to date. Instead it's pages of rambling about how we're too nice to kids, which is supported by absolutely nothing.

 

[WhiteNachos]

I don't buy the idea that the next Charlie Parker would never be discouraged. I'm not sure where the line is exactly but I don't think someone can have potential to be great at the sax only if they aren't sensitive to a ton of heckling, if that makes sense.

But I'm not too worried about everyone getting a trophy crowd. I always knew that the trophy everyone got was worthless, that it wasn't a real achievement, just some fake one designed so people didn't feel bad. Even as a kid.

 

[Zhukov]

Am I the only one who has never seen any of this coddling participation "last winner" culture? I really haven't so every time it gets brought up I'm scratching my head at what people are talking about.

I can only really think of one personal example.

When I was in primary school ("elementary school" I think it's called in The Land of the Free) at athletics carnivals we would get a blue ribbon for coming first in a race, a red ribbon for coming second, a yellow for third and a green for fourth. Everyone else got a white ribbon that said, "I Ran In A Race" on it.

As a large chubby kid who wasn't much good at any athletics other than shot-put, I had quite the collection of 'I Ran In A Race" ribbons.

Thing is, nobody was exactly fooled. Every kid knew damn well which ribbons were the good ones. Weren't anybody in a great hurry to show off their white ribbons.

 

[Jadak]

This sort of talk is always completely meaningless. I mean, maybe it's not wrong, but the thing is, it doesn't matter how 'soft' the world becomes.

That concern overlooks the most important thing, kids are dicks. Peer pressure is all defining. It doesn't matter if parents or teachers go too easy on kids, kids aren't going to go easy on each other.

There will always be the drive to be better than your friends, and feelings of inadequacy when you are worse. It doesn't matter how the adult world treats you, there's always going to be someone to make you feel like shit when you suck at something.

 

[Win32error]

I stopped reading when i saw the "i'm the last generation" thing. It just happens every goddamn couple of years doesn't it? And every generation will in the end say that they knew how to do it right, despite the fact that the previous one told them they sucked. As for the movie, haven't seen it. But the character Simmons is playing seems to just be a cranky old guy, someone who can't accept that things change.

 

[Risingblade]

Congrats you've officially become a bitter old man. Don't take it to hard, it'll happen to all of us eventually.

 

[Kontarek]

Well, the character is part of the film. Though I suppose that is a distinction worth making. I want to be clear that I don't think less of the movie for doing this - the job of a movie is to be a good piece of drama or comedy or whatever it is supposed to be, and from what I hear they did a fantastic job. But I do find it problematic that people base their opinions on such things without bothering to verify the truth of it.

The point I'm trying to make is that when a film all but tells you "This character is a complete asshole and you probably shouldn't trust anything he says," then the film is not responsible for anyone who takes that character's advice at face value--it's the viewer's fault for not paying attention to the damn movie.

The OP presents us with a film clip backing up an argument he wants to make, but doesn't seem to realize that said clip comes from a film that is almost entirely about how much of a wrong-headed dick the character supporting his argument is. The whole thread was pretty much void right out the door.

Also, most of the people in this thread don't seem to have seen the movie, and I want to make sure they know that it's definitely not pushing this b.s. "young people are useless" narrative.

 

[chikusho]

Encouragement will always produce better results than punishment. Especially in children. You simply have a stronger motivation to improve and succeed in a safe environment where you're allowed, even encouraged to fail. Because failures are probably the best teachers you can find. Punishment on the other hand discourages people from continuing, trying again and ultimately improving.
And even if you punish someone for failing, and that person works through it and still wants to continue, the punishment a rather nasty side effect: it makes the person want to do what's right instead of creating something completely new. Punishment effectively forces people into molds of what is considered acceptable and correct, instead of thinking outside of the box and developing the field in a new direction.

The "participation award" problem is nothing more than a myth - and a harmful one at that, since that kind of shallow logic actually resonates with people.

 

[Cowabungaa]

And there's no single word in the English language (or your regional equivalent) than "just".

"Just do it!" "Just cheer up!"

No, fuck off you oversimplifying piece of shit. There's not a single word that shows a complete lack of ability to look beyond your own perspective and ignore any kind of context. Screw it and screw it royally.

As for "Good job!", eh as has been said in the comments already; every generation whines about the next.

 

[AgedGrunt]

Yet here we are, still ambling along.

Oh, but this time, this time it's real. Unlike every previous generation of aging alarmists staring down the barrel of impeding irrelevance, you're right when you say the youth of today are going down the shitter. You're actually on to something! This time it's serious!

Y'know, just like every other time.

I think you need to look at how different today's world is from just 30 years ago. There has been no "other time" of an interconnected world, 24-hour media, the Internet, instant communication and mass message propagation, made easy when mega-entertainment companies own most of that media I mentioned before.

I could talk about a lot of ways the world looks nothing like it did a few generations ago, not even close, and how it looks to be turned on its head again in the future, but you're either too optimistic about society or pessimistic about the likelihood of declining civilizations.

You know, the fall of empires, just like every other time in history that's happened.

 

[Olas]

I am a member of the last generation that played dodgeball in school.

No you're not, people still play dodgeball in school. I have a sibling who's still in school and I know that she plays dodge-ball in gym class the same way I did a few years ago.

Anyway, there's a difference between encouraging people, and congratulating them unconditionally. There's little to no benefit in dwelling on failure, but you can't refuse to acknowledge it either. Analyze what went wrong, figure out what has to be done to avoid repetition. Reach a system solution.

The problem is people will always compare themselves to others, even in situations where relative skill is meaningless. So if you congratulate some but not others, the others tend to feel they've done poorly and get discouraged. Perhaps those who do exceptionally well should be congratulated, but in private manner.

Let's be honest, we all had that kid in school: the one who always went above and beyond on everything, and who all the teachers and adults loved to hold up as an example to the rest of us. We all hated that kid, he typically becomes ostracized from his peers. Perhaps things would be better for everyone if his praise was less public.