|
On December 25 2008 07:33 ManBearPig wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2008 07:26 Uraeus wrote:
"Studies have shown that spanking your kids is retarded and harmful and will fuck up their minds and only morons and cavemen like Incontrol do this". You're pretty good at quoting shit nobody ever said lol.
Of course no one said exactly what I quoted. I phrased it this way for emphasis, that's all. But seriously, read all the thread again, and honestly some positions are very close to this, or even worse.
BlackStar said "And when people mention studies then that doesn't mean it's some universal undisputed truth".
Yes, yes, and yes. Yet some people in this thread claim so. Like... BlackStar (page 9)
"I don't care if I am an asshole because I am the one being right on the very critical subject of parents using violence against their own children which is severely harming society."
ManBearPig : "If you have read scientific studies on the subject and still think slapping your child can be beneficial, you are stupid (this is not so good)."
That kind of behavior bothers me especially BECAUSE I have studied sciences.
If you cite scientific studies, behave like a scientist. Be humble, and do not try to say more than the results show. "These data suggest". Not "I am the one being right". "If you [...] still think [that], you are stupid". No, I just think some precise cases, if closely studied, would give different results.
I think Klive5ive sums the results well :
You know more than I do that you can never prove anything 100% but there seems to be enough evidence in this thread to conclude that it's likely spanking is not the best way to raise your child (not the worst either).
.
Not more, not less.
I personnally think, that if given on the spot, with a proper explanation and background education, a light corporal punishment can, if used exceptionnally, be beneficial.
Unless I misunderstood, the studies you quote do not adress this particular issue at all, and do not differentiate this from brutal pointless beatings given without a reason or explanation.
Now, quote me a study that studies precisely this and comes to the conclusion that kids raised this way are more likely to become violent, and I will reconsider my opinion.
Otherwise, the funny thing is that I quite agree with you guys and do not doubt your studies at all.
|
I never contradicted myself. He is not wrong because of some study. He was wrong because of logical fallacies first and foremost and because of cognitive theories secondary.
Being humble like a scientist? I am sorry but that makes no sense. Plus I wasn't being arrogant. Mean, maybe. Not arrogant.
Science is interesting. And if you don't agree you can fuck off.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
blackstar your posts make me frown and shake my head
|
So far, I've yet to meet anyone who has been physically disciplined moderately (for example, a swat on the ass every now and then as justified punishment for bad behavior) that have sorely wished they hadn't been. The same cannot be said of those who grew up without physical discipline and those who grew up with heavy physical discipline. This, I think, should be enough to demonstrate that spanking can be (but not always is) a legitimate form of punishment.
|
On December 25 2008 08:29 SerpentFlame wrote:
So far, I've yet to meet anyone who has been physically disciplined moderately (for example, a swat on the ass every now and then as justified punishment for bad behavior) that have sorely wished they hadn't been. The same cannot be said of those who grew up without physical discipline and those who grew up with heavy physical discipline. This, I think, should be enough to demonstrate that spanking can be (but not always is) a legitimate form of punishment.
Have you ever seen an antisocial person say, "boy, I wish I wasn't so antisocial"? Your point is silly. Ofcourse children can cope with a little spanking, noone is denying that. The point however is that children who are spanked in their childhood are more likely to show antisocial behavior, namely violence, and that this can be easily avoided.
|
I was occasionally spanked a little. I don't see what good it did. Of course I don't feel it makes me a more violent person but regardless of this this has to be true to some extent. It happened occasionally but every little thing can have a little influence. Can you imagine it did even if you accept it is true?
What do you mean by 'legitimate' anyway? There's tons of arguments against it but few in support of it. And if you want to talk about legality, it's illegal in 23 countries.
|
I'll just speak from a subjective point of view:
If my parents ever would've beaten me (or spanked - I don't care about terminology) I'd loathe them more than anything else. I know this from my personality and my stance on these and similar issues.
Seeing as how there are people like me; and seeing as how there are so many douchebag parents; and seeing as how these douchebags would probably be the ones exploiting pro violence vs children laws; I can't for the life of me understand how anyone could ever consider it.
|
Your kids aren't going to like you a lot probably for the rest of their lives for getting beaten for whatever reason, whether its to teach a lesson or because the dad is an asshole.
A beatings a beating, I've been beat since I was 4 (he karate chopped me into the wall before slapping me around further, my earliest childhood memory).
If it's a mild spanking, I think its ok, but the way some families do it, they go all out. My dad behaves this way because his dad did the same to him (and also culture). It's the only thing he knows on how to solve problems, get pissed off and beat the shit out of things and blame everybody else.
Whether kids become violent or not as a result of beating is a very difficult thing to study since some kids are already violent, become violent because of other shit, become violent as a result of beating, or mature and become quite mild and nice. To conduct experiences on this to me is absurd because it is difficult to form a control group ( the group with no violence on kids) and a randomly selected group with violence and receive conclusive evidence. No family really raises their kid the same exact way, so many things can go wrong in the experiment that skew the results. There's also genes to think about since people are not really completely the same. Do the results differ on different races such as Asian, Caucasian, etc? Yes we are more similar than we are different but to hear people saying EVERYBODY IS EQUAL is plain dumb because simply, we are not.
There's obviously going to be plenty of people that take both sides due to personal experience and whatever. There's more evidence for one side based on so-called scientific studies in a laboratory rather than people in their own homes but in the end, there seems to be no correct answer that applies to everybody. (Not saying that these studies are wrong, it's just that there's really no way to conduct completely effective studies without having secret cameras in people's homes for 15~ years to study their growth). People are different, born with different personalities that their environment can only mold them so much (unless you are chained in a house for 15 years since birth). I have no real evidence to base this on but it seems like people are basically 50% personality and 50% the way society made them
Psychology is really a science where you can say a lot of things about how things work and as long as you conduct some studies and base them on "evidence", your statements may be hailed as GENIUS. Sigmund Freud thinks little boys want to fuck their mothers and little girls want to fuck their dads. He based this on the fact that he thinks the kids will be jealous of the dad or mom respectively and want to kill them so they can fuck their parents. FUCKED UP. Despite all the obvious controversy, his views were published!! (he also wrote about other stuff that has some true bearing) This is obviously my personal bias but psychology definitely appeals to me in this way and is probably going to be the career I take if I don't fail at life.
|
Have you ever seen an antisocial person say, "boy, I wish I wasn't so antisocial"? Your point is silly. Ofcourse children can cope with a little spanking, noone is denying that. The point however is that children who are spanked in their childhood are more likely to show antisocial behavior, namely violence, and that this can be easily avoided.
I don't think those studies make a distinction between a) severe physical discipline, b) minor physical discipline, and c) minor physical discipline accompanied by rationale/reasoning.
Hell, we could take this website as a sample size.
We could compare the resident asian population here (since i think 90%+ of them were beaten) and compare with whites who were never physically disciplined (there are quite a few of us i think), and see which group is more physically violent.
While the above is somewhat of a jest, i do find it odd that the majority [of teamliquid] have results that conflict with all these 'studies'.
It seems common sense to me that it's the entirety of a parent's method of being a parent that is deterministic of whether their child is going to grow up to be successful and/or violent. Receiving a spanking would have far less of an impact on a child than the value system that's handed down. How a child is allowed to eat will have far more impact on them then a light spanking. The TV shows and video games and culture that a child is exposed to will have a far greater impact on them than a spanking. Hell, getting disciplined in FRONT of someone is gonna have a far greater impact on someone's psyche than physical discipline in private would. Are all these factors (plus the millions of others) taken into account in all these studies that show that spanking leads to a greater chance to be violent?
My assertation is this: shitty parenting leads to violence. the relevance of 'light spanking' is trivial.
|
Title: CHILD, MATERNAL, AND FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH SPANKING
Author(s): GILESSIMS J, STRAUS MA, SUGARMAN DB
Source: FAMILY RELATIONS Volume: 44 Issue: 2 Pages: 170-176 Published: APR 1995
Times Cited: 65
This a great article that sums up the whole thing incredibly well.
From the first page:
Almost all children in the United States are spanked by their parents at some point in their lives. Spanking as a form of discipline receives support based on religious traditions (Greven, 1991) and widespread beliefs in the positive effects of corporal punishment on children (Graziano & Na- maste, 1990; Straus, 1991); however, research indicates that spanking increases a child's risk of both short- and long- term negative side effects (Straus & Kaufman Kantor, in press). Having been spanked as a child and/or adolescent is related to later psychological problems including an increased chance of being depressed and thinking about suicide (Straus, in press), becoming violent and delinquent (Straus, 1991), and experiencing alienation and lower economic achievement (Straus & Gimpel, 1992; Straus, in press).
The quoted studies are are peer reviewed and showed significant statistical differences between spanked and not spanked.
@Mora, the severity of the punishment here is defined as what is tolerated by the law, so a little tap, spanking, stuff like that. If it exceeds that it will count as abuse and is not included in the study obviously.
|
On December 25 2008 08:22 BlackStar wrote:
Being humble like a scientist? I am sorry but that makes no sense.
Yes it does. Real scientists are humble (or should be) in a sense that they don't gather data in order to prove their point. They have a theory, gather data, and check whether the data confirm their theory or not. If not, they try to come up with a new theory instead of twisting the data so they fit their initial theory.
Plus I wasn't being arrogant. Mean, maybe. Not arrogant.
You said "I don't care being an asshole because I am the one who is right" or something close. Arrogant.
Science is interesting. And if you don't agree you can fuck off.
Yes. I have studied sciences for years and I am still really interested in them. Plus I don't see where I said it isn't.
One of the things that makes science interesting is the scientists' ability to question themselves and their beliefs. You are obviously lacking this, so further debate is futile.
Merry Christmas and good luck with your kids, should you ever have any.
PS : insulting people gets you nowhere. This is verbal violence and studies show that using violence to educate people makes them all the more violent.
|
On December 25 2008 06:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2008 06:54 BlackStar wrote:
{88}iNcontroL.if you aren't trolling then you are very very very very very, let me emphasis, very stupid.
I thought you were smart. Sorry, my mistake. I stil find it hard to believe. I guess I overestimate the US. Suddenly I am the conclusive representative of the overall intelligence of a country of 300 million people? And I am the one who is stupid?  what?!?!?
Lol. Haven't you learnt your lesson yet? An american is ALWAYS a representative for all other americans when he says something that some non-americans find stupid.
That's why people all over the world think america and americans are stupid.
Of course, that's stupid too. But that doesn't matter, because no american said it.
|
Norway28739 Posts
there are big differences in "abusing" children and "spanking your child". there are also big differences regarding the age of the child in question. the fact is, I see a lot of people argue in favour of spanking children through stating that "the child is too young to properly understand the words". this is the worst time possible to spank or hit the child, because it also cannot understand why what it did was wrong, only that if it pisses you off, you will hit it. spanking a child younger than 5 should ALWAYS constitute abuse - while these children will test their limits and possibly succeed in pissing you the fuck off, the limits do not have to be drawn with violence.
I think hitting kids is damaging later on as well. but say, my dad has a pdh in children psychology. he is also a pacifist, and never hit me during my upbringing. his dad spanked him once, which was after my dad had been part of a group that bullied some jehova's witness family, like chanting shit and throwing stones at their house, obviously really bad shit that my dad knew very well not to do even before my granddad caught him.
being spanked like that, once during your upbringing, or maybe even twice or three times, after you are say, 10 years old, capable of discerning right from wrong, yet still grossly misbehaving in a way that conflicts with everything you have been told about how to be a good person, is not going to permanently fuck you up.
its not the ideal way to deal with an issue, everything that can be taught through spanking can be taught through conversation and positive/negative rewards, it might be harder, but it is also better because it does not teach the added message that might makes right and that violence is a proper way to deal with things. but being spanked once or twice or thrice during your upbringing after you, as a child, do something you know is grossly wrong, and where the spanking is followed by a lenghty talk and explanation, isnt gonna fuck you up permanently, or at all, it's just slightly less than ideal. the reason why spanking has been outlawed in civilized countries is not this kind of spanking, it's the slippery slope allowing this kind of spanking to exist brings forth.
and like, the problem with studies is that, while they certainly show negativity associated with spanking children, there's just different degrees of it you know.. it's impossible to study "will my son become more prone to violence if he is spanked twice during his upbringing and where he was thoroughly explained the reason behind the spanking" because the sample size will be so huge and diverse and spread out over 18 years.. this cannot be accurately scientifically studied..
the problem is, it is provable that being hit many times is much, much worse than not being hit at all, and it is also provable that it is very possible to sufficiently raise a child without ever resorting to violence, this merely requires competence. it is thus logical to assume that being hit some is also worse, just to a smaller level. most of the cases of abused children, those who truly end up scarred for life by the abuse, are hit hundreds if not thousands of times during their childhood. if you make a line between someone who is never hit and someone whom is abused, someone whom is spanked even 10 times during his or her childhood will be significantly closer to the person who is never hit or spanked than to the abused person.
|
there are some very ignorant posts/people in this thread, such as the guy above me [parasitJonte]. stereotypes persist because people like him keep pushing it along further.
i feel bad for all those who misunderstood incontrol's point about randomly saying "studies show" without any proof. it's the same as saying "statistics show"... i dont see how it was so hard to understand what he wrote. he just wanted those people to cite some evidence instead of randomly spouting "so called" proof
as for this thread, NO spanking or ALL spanking... they're both bad, and it really just depends on the child.
still nobody has addressed my argument. if you dont spank your child, what do you suggest? talk it out? not always possible. what about those families with language barriers between parent and child?
|
And by the way. Has anyone brought up monkeys? How do we get monkeys to behave and do as we please (that is, "be good")?
Have you ever watched the discovery channel and hear the zookeeper go:
"Well, the way we do it is that if they don't gather the coins and place them in the vending machine, we go in there and break their legs. It takes them awhile to understand what's going on but they get it eventually."
Only to hear the narrator conclude:
"...and so little Chuaka finally gets his banana. With no bones left to support himself, he has learned a valuable lesson."
|
Norway28739 Posts
if there exists a language barrier between parent and child it would seem like you did not spend enough time talking to the child when it was growing up.
and either way, spanking without the necessary followup talk is abuse by default. you're not teaching the child anything at all then.
|
On December 25 2008 09:26 29 fps wrote:
there are some very ignorant posts/people in this thread, such as the guy above me [parasitJonte]. stereotypes persist because people like him keep pushing it along further.
Lol. I hope for your sake that you don't mean my post where I explain why it's always valid to hold one american as representative for the entire nation as soon as he says something that you find stupid.
Because that was irony/satire (w-ever).
|
On December 25 2008 09:03 Frits wrote:Title: CHILD, MATERNAL, AND FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH SPANKING Author(s): GILESSIMS J, STRAUS MA, SUGARMAN DB Source: FAMILY RELATIONS Volume: 44 Issue: 2 Pages: 170-176 Published: APR 1995 Times Cited: 65 This a great article that sums up the whole thing incredibly well. From the first page: Show nested quote +Almost all children in the United States are spanked by their parents at some point in their lives. Spanking as a form of discipline receives support based on religious traditions (Greven, 1991) and widespread beliefs in the positive effects of corporal punishment on children (Graziano & Na- maste, 1990; Straus, 1991); however, research indicates that spanking increases a child's risk of both short- and long- term negative side effects (Straus & Kaufman Kantor, in press). Having been spanked as a child and/or adolescent is related to later psychological problems including an increased chance of being depressed and thinking about suicide (Straus, in press), becoming violent and delinquent (Straus, 1991), and experiencing alienation and lower economic achievement (Straus & Gimpel, 1992; Straus, in press). The quoted studies are are peer reviewed and showed significant statistical differences between spanked and not spanked. @Mora, the severity of the punishment here is defined as what is tolerated by the law, so a little tap, spanking, stuff like that. If it exceeds that it will count as abuse and is not included in the study obviously.
Thank you for the reference, it's nearly impossible to hold things in context without one.
As towards the specifics of the study, this is where i believe controversy over its validity may still occur. The article discusses frequency - particularly in terms of how many times per week or year that a child is spanked. Seemingly, it discusses incidents where children are spanked more than once a year.
Now, i'm inclined to believe that most of the people in this thread are condoning 'fairly regular' spankings (as in they feel it is probably necessary about once a month or more), but by my personal consideration of what is an 'appropriate use of spanking', a person should be spanked no more than 10 times in their lifetime. (from my perspective, the only time that i would ever even contemplate physical discipline is if my child is a) too young to understand reason, and b) has done something that threatens their life without giving them correlating feedback [ie: if they touch a stove, they will get burned and learn their lesson. If they suck on a nozzle of a bottle of chemical cleaner, they may get no negative feedback at all]. By giving them a quick slap on the ass, the memory will be stronger because it is associated with another sensation, and more importantly, will be memorable because it is highly irregular. So the question in my scenario would be: how often do children under the age of 6 - after that, reason should be strong enough - do something that is extremely life threatening and has no immediate negative feedback? Well, i'm guessing under 10)
But making claims like 'physical discipline is never the best answer' does not allow for this. It is this hard-line approach that i contest. Moreover, while i'm certain the rest of the people in this thread who are pro-physical discipline are probably so in situations i wouldn't be, it then begs the question: where do you draw the 'hard' line? It is for this reason that the studies are called into question; particularly when there are so many other factors that influence whether a person turns out violent or not.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
great post eri and that is something I agree with entirely. I kind of thought it was assumed that too much spanking would be a bad thing but I guess it isn't safe to assume those kind of things here.
I think too much scolding is bad just like too much spanking. But like the story of your father I would not rule out spanking entirely as a form of punishment.
|
On December 24 2008 13:19 Klogon wrote:
Which is a good message. And which will make parents think twice between hitting their kids, which is healthy. When even the kid knows this, they know they REALLY crossed the line when they get hit, and sometimes they really did cross that line.
Take a step back from the psychological thinking and think instead of it in an economics model. You, the parent, are the government. The kid is the people. In order to best serve the people, you need to set rules. Some people (kids) cross a line that shouldn't be crossed, so negative reinforcement must unfortunately be there in the form of prisons (and in our case, spankings). They are positively reinforced when working hard by a good, steady income.
Each child has their own utility functions (or in non-econ lingo, ways of deriving pleasure). And everything has a price to it, may it be an price of time of leisure or cash, or even comfort. By letting the kid know that there is the possibility of negative reinforcement implicitly increases the price of doing such a bad action. For if the personal utility the child gets from doing the bad is greater than the utility of your reward, he'll choose the bad everytime. There are two ways to decrease this gap: increase the price of him doing such activity with negative reinforcement or to increase the reward significantly. Sometimes, both are needed.
You can even bring in political science theory into this. Take the stance US takes on Taiwan. The fact that we will not rule out using extreme force in the chance that China gets really aggressive with Taiwan DETERS any action significantly from China to take over Taiwan. Sure, we didn't explicitly say it, but we didn't rule it out. Once the child knows you've ruled out physical punishment, some children may be more bold in what they do because the price they pay is significantly less for such actions. Sure, we can positively reinforce China with economic incentives as the trade will benefit them greatly, but the negative reinforcement helps a lot in keeping them in line.
EDIT: The main point is that every child is different. So taking the government example, just because you never murdered anybody doesn't mean we don't need a prison system and life-sentences for people who do.
i still think this is the best post. it's not a black and white world with spanking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
