When is Magnum gonna make this guy their spokesman?
"When you're not even remotely a safe person for kids to be around, wrap a magnum around that ."
...
- "And I have some advice for you as well, Archie...Don't ever grow old."
- Bert Mustin - "All in the Family"
That was the point of my question (in general). If what you do, you would not be comfortable with someone else in the care of your child doing, you're probably wrong. If you believe in light spankings, the reason you are doing that is not to beat the child, but teach them. If you have no problem verbally scolding them, I see no difference. The punishment you believe is the question, not the type if you feel what you are doing is right (i.e. if you spank then someone else spanks or if you scold, someone else scold).
I think it's more that I wouldn't exactly want the type of punishment to be up to the discretion of someone else. Even folks who believe in corporal punishment know it's not warranted in all cases. I don't like the idea of someone hitting my kid for doing something I wouldn't hit them for. And I wouldn't want to hit someone else's kid for something their parents wouldn't hit them for. That can send all kinds of wrong messages. Also, I might not want to risk someone else going Peterson on my kids.
And as a man, I can admit when I am mistaken. I certainly was here. I hope you can do the same upon reading the research.
For someone who's so on my ass about Psychology, you don't seem to have done an iota of research on the topic yourself. I have volumes here. I figured a meta-analysis would be fine, but of course it wasn't good enough for you, despite the overwhelming validity that meta-analyses typically bring with them.Yeah, I'd much rather read an actually study than an agenda'd meta-analysis. Even the article you posted about the analysis had a dissenting view that was pretty much what I've been saying this whole time: That the studies focused on abuse, not corporal punishment in general, and were thusly biased.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx
http://www.apa.org/about/policy/corp...unishment.aspxBut spanking doesn’t work, says Alan Kazdin, PhD, a Yale University psychology professor and director of the Yale Parenting Center and Child Conduct Clinic. “You cannot punish out these behaviors that you do not want,” says Kazdin, who served as APA president in 2008. “There is no need for corporal punishment based on the research. We are not giving up an effective technique. We are saying this is a horrible thing that does not work.”[/SIZE]
http://www.ahaparenting.com/parentin...spank-my-child
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/16/living...tudes-parents/A major study at Tulane University, published in Pediatrics (http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...-2678.abstract) controlled for other factors that have been found to contribute to aggressiveness in children, including the mother's depression, alcohol and drug use, spousal abuse and even whether the mother considered abortion while pregnant with the child. Spanking remained a strong predictor of violent behavior in the child. As five-year-olds, the children who had been spanked were more likely than the non-spanked to be defiant, demand immediate satisfaction of their wants and needs, become frustrated easily, have temper tantrums and lash out physically against other people or animals.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/09/world/...unishment-ban/The research, according to Gershoff, is conclusive: spanking does not improve behavior, leads to aggression and other behavior problems like stealing and lying, makes it more likely children will have mental health issues such as depression and anxiety and could lead to learning problems at school.
I expect Sweden to collapse any day now.Oh wait, it's one of the most prosperous countries on the planet? Kids aren't running amok through Ikea? How is that possible?!?!?! Without hitting your kids they'll never learn any manners, right?
I can pull up dozens of more studies, but I implore you not to continue to be so lazy and actually do a little research yourself. Since it's so readily available on Google.
If by admitting, you mean make indignant comments, then yeah, you admitted to your mistake.
Bro, a meta-analysis is a research paper. It's no better than my term papers that I had to do in college. It's not objective; rather it is a person with a stance trying to find evidence to justify it. That's why I wanted the actual studies. I actually know how to read and evaluate research papers, so I don't need someone else to interpret it for me. Even your new link is just an article that I can't vet at all. I will read the paper you linked to see how strong it is. According to the abstract, though, it says that infrequent spankings are not part of the correlation. That means there's a lot of math to look at.For someone who's so on my ass about Psychology, you don't seem to have done an iota of research on the topic yourself. I have volumes here. I figured a meta-analysis would be fine, but of course it wasn't good enough for you, despite the overwhelming validity that meta-analyses typically bring with them.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx
I like how you've completely backed off your whole "punishment is bad" angle. Yet, you haven't admitted to being wrong on it. Great job of admitting your mistakes there.I expect Sweden to collapse any day now.
I can pull up dozens of more studies, but I implore you not to continue to be so lazy and actually do a little research yourself. Since it's so readily available on Google.
Again, it's odd having this debate with you, because you've had to change your stance so much over the course of the discussion. Your only hope is that I'll be unable to read the papers who've posted and be able to make my own judgments on them. Clearly, you seem unable to navigate the field without getting hung up.
You and Chump have a child?
I don't know about that logic. To me, if you can't trust someone to make that judgement call, then I don't think I would leave my kids with them in the first place. With me, my brothers openly communicate their beliefs and how they discipline their kids and the things they really look out for and are teaching at any given moment. It was pretty clear they trusted my judgement, believe in what they do and only leave their kids with someone they trust completely when it comes to loving their child, watching out for them and being a strong support system in the way they raise their kids.
He lost Nike and Wheaties so there is certainly an opportunity!
All right. So I've read the study a couple of times (not uber closely, but I did make sure to go through the important parts at least once).
It looks like the set-up is that they (meaning the FFCWS) went to the houses of a bunch of women and asked them how often they hit their kids over the course of the previous month. Then, they asked them how much of an asshole their kids were in school (or wherever three-year-olds go). Two years later, they visited the same women and ask how big of an asshole their kids were now. They (meaning the researchers) gave asshole rating based on what I assume was a pre-determined quantification scale (which is typical and completely reasonable).
There are a few things wrong with this methodology. First, is that relying on self-reporting is a big deal. Parents who abuse their kids are likely to under report, which drives the critical value down significantly (or can). Secondly, the parents are not necessarily reliable sources for reporting the misconduct of their kids. I imagine (but don't know) that parents who don't hit their kids may be more likely to see their children favorably than parents who are more combative. That's idle speculation on my part, but it's something to be considered. Also, the demographic distribution seems to be skewed, since self-reporting and participation in general is usually done by certain types of people. Really abusive parents or apathetic parents probably don't want to be part of such a study.
As far as the stats go, they try to control for a ton of demographic factors, but in doing so, they end up getting non-significant results from folks who spanked their kids to a moderate extent. One thing that seems to be missing is a distribution chart for numbers of CP incidents, which would be interesting for me to see. They don't even seem to have that data available, so I can't even see a variance or mean.
In the end, it looks like the study says that if you hit your kids a lot, then they end up being aggressive (which is defined extremely generously here). But this is a very noisy study, and the numbers don't look nearly as good when you start to parse through them. I'd like to see some raw data, since having only three barrels (but still using a continuous scale for some reason) doesn't instill in me much confidence.
Please show me where I made indignant comments. Just because I was wrong about one detail does not throw my entire argument out, nor allow you to make ridiculous statements.
Bro, I know what a meta-analysis is. And your definition is off. It CAN be a research paper -- it can also be a very powerful study that seeks to attain greater clarity over a mul ude of other studies. There's a reason meta-analyses are accepted at all levels of research. Unless you think that research is fine UNLESS it's a meta, in which case it's completely invalid, despite being accepted by every academic ins ution that does research.Bro, a meta-analysis is a research paper. It's no better than my term papers that I had to do in college. That's why I wanted the actual studies. Even your new link is just an article that I can't vet at all. I will read the paper you linked to see how strong it is.
Ex...cept, you know, they're only using past studies to do so. They are using data that's already there. They can't conflate subject and hypothesis here because it's all been done already.It's not objective; rather it is a person with a stance trying to find evidence to justify it.
Which is why I linked SEVERAL studies, all of which are referenced in the material. Why are you not bringing those up? Is it really that tough to admit when the science is basically saying that you're wrong, full stop? There's no math to look at here, dude.According to the abstract, though, it says that infrequent spankings are not part of the correlation. That means there's a lot of math to look at.
This is all aside from the issue, however. I don't think parents should be thrown in jail for spanking their kids once in a while. I don't even think it makes them bad parents. I disagree with the decision and think it's a bad one, but I also don't expect parents to be perfect.
I like how you're now attempting to ad-hominem me to death instead of addressing the mul ude of research I've posted. I've said from the BEGINNING that discipline is necessary in children. And I haven't wavered from my stance that physical punishment is a bad choice.I like how you've completely backed off your whole "punishment is bad" angle. Yet, you haven't admitted to being wrong on it. Great job of admitting your mistakes there.
Again, it's odd, because now the debate seems to be shifting to me instead of the research I presented. Funny how that works, isn't it?Again, it's odd having this debate with you, because you've had to change your stance so much over the course of the discussion. Your only hope is that I'll be unable to read the papers who've posted and be able to make my own judgments on them. Clearly, you seem unable to navigate the field without getting hung up.
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 09-16-2014 at 06:05 PM.
I think it's funny how I linked 5 different studies (that internally refer to OTHER studies conducted on the issue) and you keep referring to "the study" I've linked. That's cool. I mean, it's 1000% intellectual dishonest, but that's cool, bro. Keep it up.
Were you spanked as a child? Then you may think it's a good way to guide a child. Or maybe you don't want to spank, but you find yourself doing it because you don't know how else to get through to your child. Interestingly, adults who were not spanked as children don't spank their kids. It just feels wrong to them. And you know what? They find other ways to get through to their kids. And their children turn out fine. In fact, it's the kids who are spanked who have a harder time regulating their emotions, and who get into more trouble.
The last thirty years of research give us very clear results. (The citations are at the end of this post.) Kids who are spanked are less emotionally healthy than kids who aren't. What's more, kids who are spanked behave worse over time.
So if you were spanked and think you came out alright, it wasn't because of the spanking. And while you fine, hopefully, you would probably be a bit healthier emotionally if you hadn't been spanked.
A 2013 study by Elizabeth Gershoff and her team (cited below) reviewed the previous two decades of research and confirmed that children who are spanked are more likely to exhibit depression, anxiety, drug use, and aggression as they get older. Children who have suffered more severe corporal punishment have been shown to have less gray matter in their frontal cortex, and to have amygdalas that are more hyper-vigilant. The only positive outcome that's ever been shown from spanking is immediate compliance; however, corporal punishment is associated with less long-term compliance. Corporal punishment has repeatedly been linked with nine other negative outcomes, including increased rates of aggression, delinquency, mental health problems, and problems in relationships with their parents.
Large, peer-reviewed studies repeatedly show that the more children are hit, the more likely they are to hit others, including peers and siblings. As adults, they are more likely to hit their spouses. The more parents spank children for antisocial behavior, the more the antisocial behavior increases. All of the peer reviewed studies being published continue to confirm these findings.
A major study at Tulane University, published in Pediatrics (http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...-2678.abstract) controlled for other factors that have been found to contribute to aggressiveness in children, including the mother's depression, alcohol and drug use, spousal abuse and even whether the mother considered abortion while pregnant with the child. Spanking remained a strong predictor of violent behavior in the child. As five-year-olds, the children who had been spanked were more likely than the non-spanked to be defiant, demand immediate satisfaction of their wants and needs, become frustrated easily, have temper tantrums and lash out physically against other people or animals.
Quite simply, spanking produces WORSE behavior, not better behavior. It also begets more violence, because hitting children teaches them that it is acceptable to hit others who are smaller and weaker. “I'm going to hit you because you hit your sister” is a hypocrisy not lost on children. As every parent knows, kids do what we do, not what we say.
Discipline means “to teach." If we're serious about raising good kids, we need to use methods that teach kids to manage themselves. Spanking does not do that. Instead, it teaches kids to be afraid of us, which is no basis for love. It teaches them to be sneaky so they won't be caught doing something wrong. It teaches kids that they are bad, so they are more likely to behave badly. It teaches kids to use violence when they want to solve a problem. And it keeps them from taking responsibility to improve their own behavior, because they "externalize the locus of control," which means they only behave because an authority figure makes them, rather than behaving because they want to. I haven't seen any research on this, but my anecdotal report is that if you talk to people in prison, you'll find they were all spanked.
The unfortunate thing is that spanking not only doesn't work, it is totally unnecessary. When children are raised with age-appropriate expectations and limits accompanied by empathy, they tend to behave and cooperate. Those children don't need much in the way of discipline at all, and they become self-disciplined adults. (Want more info on how to guide your kids without spanking?)
So next time you get so angry you want to hit someone, tell your kids you’re taking a timeout and you’ll deal with them later. Then go into the bathroom, run the water, and calm yourself down. Use the time to get calm, not to justify your anger. When you come out, tell them you need to think hard about what they did, but right now you need to fix dinner (do the laundry, whatever.) Tell them you need them to be little angels, and you will talk when you are all calm later. Then follow through.
Your discipline and teaching will be so much more effective. They’ll learn a lot better when they aren’t in the flush of flight or flight hormones. And you will be so grateful to see yourself becoming the kind of parent every child deserves. (For more on this, see For Parents: How to Handle Your Own Anger.)
“As 5-year-olds, the children who had been spanked were more likely than the non-spanked to be defiant, demand immediate satisfaction of their wants and needs, become frustrated easily, have temper tantrums and lash out physically against other people or animals” 33( Time, Physical Punishment Increases Aggression in Children)
“Physical punishment is also associated with a variety of mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety and use of drugs and alcohol” 34 (Science Daily, Canadian Medical Association Journal: Long-term Negative Effects of Physical Punishment)
“IQs of children ages 2 to 4 who were not spanked were 5 points higher four years later than the IQs of those who were spanked” 35 (Science Daily, Research Shows Children Who Are Spanked Have Lower IQ’s)
“Dr. Brazy at Duke University and Ludington-Hoe and colleagues at Case Western University showed in 2 separate studies how prolonged crying in infants causes increased blood pressure in the brain, elevates stress hormones, obstructs blood from draining out of the brain, and decreases oxygenation to the brain. They concluded that caregivers should answer cries swiftly, consistently, and comprehensively.” 36 (Dr. William Sears: Studies on the Effects of Excessive/ Prolonged Crying in Infancy)
“Dr. Allan Schore (1996), of the UCLA School of Medicine has demonstrated that the stress hormone cortisol can damage nerve connections in significant areas of the infant’s brain. His research suggests that not only does stress damage connections in these areas of the infant’s brain but when the areas of the infant’s brain responsible for bonding, emotional control, and attachment are not nurtured in a healthy way, those areas remain undeveloped or underdeveloped” 37 (Cambridge Journal, Studies on the Effects of Prolonged Crying in Infancy)
MORE REFERENCES:
Elizabeth Gershoff is recognized as the leading researcher on spanking in the United States today. Here's her most recent report: Report on Physical Punishment in the United States: What Research Tells Us About Its Effects On Children.
Joan Durrant at the University of Manitoba is one of the leading researchers in Canada and gives a round-up of the research citations here: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/184/12/1373#ref-36
There's an avalanche of research that is in 98% of agreement about the negative effects of spanking. Here are just a few:
Berlin, L.J., Ispa, J.M., Fine, M.A., Malone, P.S., Brooks-Gunn, J., Brady-Smith, C., et al. (2009). Correlates and consequences of spanking and verbal punishment for low-income White, African American, and Mexican American toddlers. Child Development, 80, 1403-1420.
Gershoff, E.T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and association behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review.Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539-579.
Gershoff, E. T. (2013). Spanking and child development: We know enough now to stop hitting our children. Child Development Perspectives, 7 (3), 133-137.
Gershoff, E.T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2013). Spanking and its consequences for children: New meta-analyses and old controversies. Manuscript under review.
Gershoff, E.T., Lansford, J.E., Sexton, H.R., Davis-Kean, P.E., & Sameroff, A.J. (2012). Longitudinal links between spanking and children’s externalizing behaviors in a national sample of White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian American families. Child Development, 83, 838-843.
"I don't think parents should be thrown in jail for spanking their kids once in a while. I don't even think it makes them bad parents. I disagree with the decision and think it's a bad one, but I also don't expect parents to be perfect."
For visibility's sake.
oh a gay joke. Nice work.You and Chump have a child?
"I'm aware of the meanings of positive and negative, thank you." You said that when you clearly didn't know what the words meant in this context.
Yeah, meta-analyses are actually weaker, since they have to ignore a lot of factors to increase the sample size. It's like synthesizing AIDS research from Africa and the US has to basically ignore the infrastructural differences between the two places. Meta-analyses are fine for discussing major tends, but they themselves don't say a whole lot.Bro, I know what a meta-analysis is. And your definition is off. It CAN be a research paper -- it can also be a very powerful study that seeks to attain greater clarity over a mul ude of other studies. There's a reason meta-analyses are accepted at all levels of research. Unless you think that research is fine UNLESS it's a meta, in which case it's completely invalid, despite being accepted by every academic ins ution that does research.
Have you ever written a research paper? You can change a thesis any time you want. It's even easier with a meta-analysis, since you don't have to worry about going against your own research.Ex...cept, you know, they're only using past studies to do so. They are using data that's already there. They can't conflate subject and hypothesis here because it's all been done already.
I am not looking for a CNN article about a study. I read the AAAP one you linked. That one certainly had faulty math.Which is why I linked SEVERAL studies, all of which are referenced in the material. Why are you not bringing those up? Is it really that tough to admit when the science is basically saying that you're wrong, full stop? There's no math to look at here, dude.
A perfectly reasonable stance, and one on which we could agree to disagree without all the fracas.This is all aside from the issue, however. I don't think parents should be thrown in jail for spanking their kids once in a while. I don't even think it makes them bad parents. I disagree with the decision and think it's a bad one, but I also don't expect parents to be perfect.
You're the one who was mixed up on your definitions. You completely backed off the "Punishment is wrong" angle, and still had the gall to assert that you admit to mistakes.I like how you're now attempting to ad-hominem me to death instead of addressing the mul ude of research I've posted. I've said from the BEGINNING that discipline is necessary in children. And I haven't wavered from my stance that physical punishment is a bad choice.
The research itself is what it is. As I said before, when I get a paper, I actually read it. I don't go around touting some article about it as proof. The reason why you seem to be the subject of this discussion (you're not, but whatever) is because it's taken you this long to actually get to the debate. , we still haven't really gotten there.Again, it's odd, because now the debate seems to be shifting to me instead of the research I presented. Funny how that works, isn't it?
See my previous point. As far as I saw, you linked one actual research paper, which I read and evaluated. I can read more if you like, or you can read them yourself and stop letting the researchers tell you their spin through main-stream articles.I think it's funny how I linked 5 different studies and you keep referring to "the study" I've linked. That's cool. I mean, it's 1000% intellectual dishonest, but that's cool, bro. Keep it up.
Yeah, that's the study (the link) I read. That's the one that found NS values when they controlled for all those factors.
Anyway, that's not a study (the whole text you posted, not the link). It's an article that at best is a research paper. Maybe that's why there's a hangup in our discussion. Articles are extremely biased, as anyone who's worked in journalism can tell you. They don't necessarily have a political agenda or anything like that, but they have angles and want to illuminate stances.
I linked 5. You realize the CNN piece has a direct link to the paper in question in the article, right?
Do you want me to link 20? 30? They're right there on Google, and they aren't hard to find. You're giving these responses like research on child abuse is some aberration or anomaly. It's not. We're talking hundreds of studies pointing to the same thing here. Perhaps fewer that SPECIFICALLY refer to spanking only, but those aren't hard to find, either.
From the CNN article:
http://www.phoenixchildrens.org/comm...ive-discipline
I'd also like to see some studies that actually show corporeal punishment improves behavior in children. Got any of those, Chinook? Surely if it is in fact so effective there must be some peer-reviewed literature on the topic.
So do you think that linking a Wikipedia article means you've linked the dozens of studies it cites? Nope. It's one thing to tell me to research it. It's another to post articles and use those as proof unless I object.
Did you even read this first?
I can look, but I don't off the top of my head. I didn't study humans much in school. Have a feeling those aren't all that easy to find, since social pressures drive research as well.I'd also like to see some studies that actually show corporeal punishment improves behavior in children. Got any of those, Chinook? Surely if it is in fact so effective there must be some peer-reviewed literature on the topic.
All this stuff when it's simply a guy too damn strong to be whipping anyone.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
