I read over the article and, while it maybe correct from mathematical perspective, it has very little application in real life.
Again, you're simply dismissing all of the research that's been done on this topic. And I mean all - that study was a review of the hundreds of existing studies on spanking. Those studies, which are mostly "real life" studies of how parents interact with their kids, show that spanking gets immediate compliance but has longer-term negative effects and no long-term positive effects (such as "education"). Dismiss the research in favor of your own opinion if you wish - you certainly wouldn't be the first - but recognize that that is what you are doing.
Quote:
Since in both groups (spanked and not spanked) there are cases where aggression and and is not manifested later in life, one can only conclude that spanking is NOT the only factor.
Of course spanking is not the only factor leading to aggression, no one would ever suggest such an absurd thing, and that doesn't mean that spanking has no effect on aggression. Smoking isn't the only factor that leads to lung cancer and heart disease either, but that doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause lung cancer and heart disease.
Quote:
Also, this information is useless unless you're trying to educate enough children at the same time to have a statistically significant group (which is why corporal punishment should never be allowed in schools). In a typical family the number of children falls far below statistically significant sample and so one can not use information gathered using such methods.
The studies examine groups of people using spanking vs not using spanking. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that statistically (and the experts who reviewed the paper and accepted it for publication agree). It still seems to me like you're simply stretching to find some reason to dismiss all the research on this topic.
It's definitely a partnership. The parents and children have to be willing for there to be a good relationship between the two. As a kid I always hated adults who enjoyed exerting authority over kids.
so after all this discussion what cha gona do, after 3 pages isn't it time to fish or cut bait??? we rarely spank we get our point across in many ways but the biggest thing is mom and dad work together, set the rules , set expectations and dole out punishment quickly and BE CONSISTENT. even if one of us disagrees, we discuss it away from the kids then we show unity and in unity is strength
so after all this discussion what cha gona do, after 3 pages isn't it time to fish or cut bait??? we rarely spank we get our point across in many ways but the biggest thing is mom and dad work together, set the rules , set expectations and dole out punishment quickly and BE CONSISTENT. even if one of us disagrees, we discuss it away from the kids then we show unity and in unity is strength
very good closing words.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
...
I'd imagine an 8-year old's goals would amount to "to collect all pieces of {random collectible items, e.g. Pokemon}" or "to have lots of cool friends to hang out with", neither of which probably cause much stir with parents to begin with.
So, please clarify what you mean by "goals" that parents and children need to work on together. Thanks! [/B]
Well, rok, dfiler, user23 and a few others said some remarkable
things about the subject, i'd pretty much sign in.
Maybe *Goals* is the wrong word i used in this context.
It sounds pretty *dramatic*, where i meant something
very basic. Maybe "common purpose" would have been
clearer.
Btw, sorry for delay, i was eventually a bit distracted by WC 2006
Again, you're simply dismissing all of the research that's been done on this topic.
Exactly which part of my post dismisses any research? I can only dismiss the research by challenging the methods or the data analysis, but I'm not.
However, when you review primary literature it is important to understand what questions is being asked and what question is being answered (the two are not always the same). And whether the answers are applicable to the questions at hand.
Quote:
suggest such an absurd thing, and that doesn't mean that spanking has no effect on aggression.
That still doesn't tell me exactly what to do.. spank or notto spank...
Quote:
Smoking isn't the only factor that leads to lung cancer and heart disease either, but that doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause lung cancer and heart disease.
Absence of something is not a proof. Science is only concerned with presence. Show me at least one publication which details direct mechaniwm how smoking cvauses cancer and I'll believe you.
[quote]
The studies examine groups of people using spanking vs not using spanking. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that statistically (and the experts who reviewed the paper and accepted it for publication agree).
[/quote[
I agree. However, you have to realise the limitations of the applicability of these studies. If the number of kids is below suare root of the sample size, you're out of luck... sorry.
I'm a scientist in biotechnology (besides other things) from the side of chmical engineering, so I really know these math things.
Quote:
It still seems to me like you're simply stretching to find some reason to dismiss all the research on this topic.
Because I get asked by journals to review papers and I have to be professional and I have to know this shit!
Parents who don't spank their kids are raising brats. Just talking never gets anything accommplished. You have to be physical or you're not going to make your point as a parent.
OK, I appreciate the humor, but I also {sigh} wanted to hear your OPINION. Yes, really. I'll read on.
At 2.5 years, we've all but dispensed with the spanking unless he is in a dangerous situation or is doing something to willfully disobey.
For those of you who say "talk to them" that may work later in life, but the little ones are usually too busy pitching a fit to listen. In those cases, drastic times call for drastic measures (time out crib). Sometimes a spanking is the only thing that gets their attention and focuses them on the problem at hand. In each case we explain why the punishment happened, and remind him of the punishment that's coming the next time he starts down that path. These days, the punishment "two-count" is usually enough to make him listen and think about his actions. Hey, he even helps me count! I say "one" and then I hear "two" from him. He gets the idea.
It's really great to be able to communicate with your child, but sometimes that communication has to be rapid and instinctual on their part. Hence absolutes like "Stop." That's a special word, and if he doesn't listen to it we punish him immediately.
Most of all, I think consistency is important. It pays off.
EDIT: After having read the thread.
BRussell, thanks for sending the other stuff along. Yes, really.
My only real complaint about the citations/research mentioned is that it doesn't present alternatives that are effective. In other words, we know that corporal punishment causes all these bad things, so the recommendation from the child development literature has to be that instead of corporal punishment we do technique X on a regular basis. If corporal punishment is done with other things, then technique X should fit in those situations as well. What's our technique X? What works as well as corporal punishment, and how did they possibly measure something like that consistently?
Also, from a methodology standpoint, you can always point to "corporal punishment" and then measure its "effects" without controlling for everything else that's not as easily categorized, such as bullying, nagging, guilting, other forms of mental abuse. It's hard to target and measure the detrimental/positive effects of other childrearing techniques (or the lack of outcomes/discipline of any kind) because these methods are harder to isolate and describe in a narrow fashion. After all, how many parents will acknowledge guilting their kids in order to get obedience? How many will acknowledge other types of abuse and/or manipulation? How many researchers will identify children who had poor development due to the lack of imposed discipline, whatever the type available?
I haven't read the stuff in a while, but it's just like any other research -- subject to learned interpretation.
There are certainly some kids that benefit from getting spanked. I guess you have to wait and find out, but if your kid is a brat, then you'll do worse for yourself, everyone else, and for the kid if you don't spank. In these cases it is inconsiderate not to spank.
I used some of your keywords to find out if there are examples of those brats in the web.
The result was astonishing. Here are just two examples:
I have a two and a half year old and never felt the need to spank him. We do "time out" but don't use it much anymore because he gives us little cause. Maybe he's an easy kid but he listens to me and I listen to him.
When he has a tantrum and is very upset ... hitting him will only make him more upset. Why not just say, "Stop your crying or I'll give you a reason." How intelligent. Rather than that I try to calm him down which is what I really want anyway. If he pitches a fit in public, which doesn't happen often, we just leave.
When he runs in the street, which he doesn't do, I run after him and yell "STOP". We talked to our son a lot about holding hands in the parking lot. Now it's an important part of his life.
When he throws food, he gets his plate taken away. If he's still hungry he can have one bite at a time. But he doesn't really throw food.
These two year olds are a whole bunch more fucking smarter than anyone gives them credit for. I encourage future parents to be on the look out for when their child first starts to manipulate them. At that age they can be reasoned with. It happens between one and two years old.
It's funny when people say they use spanking as a "last resort". Of course it's the last resort. What would you do next? Lock them in the closet? Beat them?
Enjoy spanking your kids 'cause they sure wont enjoy it.
Well I didn't read all the posts, but I thought I'd contribute anyway.
I am in no way a father..or even close to being one since I'm 16. I also don't really intend to have kids. Regardless, it will ALWAYS depend on the type of child you have. My brother and I never really got spanked, if we did something wrong, we were 'growled at' or given a slap on the hand. Now, I'm not a scallywag (honest ), but I can tell you that from some kids I go to school with (not a bad school either), they get ABSOLUTELY NO punishment of any kind. This leads to serious..um...assholes?
I guess what I'm trying to say is:
1. The amount of punishment needed is dependant on the child's personality (i.e. a 'naturally' good kid will likely never need to be HARSHLY punished), and the childs actions (i.e.vandalising the house and breaking windows deserves a harsher punishment than getting 40% on a maths test). I guess thats obvious to most people though.
2. Beating is not acceptable. Ever.
3. Harsh punishments can lead to resentment...no punishment leads to dropkicks.
4. Spanking on the head, etc, is not right.
5. ALL children require discipline, not necessarily punishment, but discipline. Discipline referring to rules and boundaries. This is the most important thing and like someone said before, parents should learn to say "no".
Comments
Originally posted by skatman
I read over the article and, while it maybe correct from mathematical perspective, it has very little application in real life.
Again, you're simply dismissing all of the research that's been done on this topic. And I mean all - that study was a review of the hundreds of existing studies on spanking. Those studies, which are mostly "real life" studies of how parents interact with their kids, show that spanking gets immediate compliance but has longer-term negative effects and no long-term positive effects (such as "education"). Dismiss the research in favor of your own opinion if you wish - you certainly wouldn't be the first - but recognize that that is what you are doing.
Since in both groups (spanked and not spanked) there are cases where aggression and and is not manifested later in life, one can only conclude that spanking is NOT the only factor.
Of course spanking is not the only factor leading to aggression, no one would ever suggest such an absurd thing, and that doesn't mean that spanking has no effect on aggression. Smoking isn't the only factor that leads to lung cancer and heart disease either, but that doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause lung cancer and heart disease.
Also, this information is useless unless you're trying to educate enough children at the same time to have a statistically significant group (which is why corporal punishment should never be allowed in schools). In a typical family the number of children falls far below statistically significant sample and so one can not use information gathered using such methods.
The studies examine groups of people using spanking vs not using spanking. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that statistically (and the experts who reviewed the paper and accepted it for publication agree). It still seems to me like you're simply stretching to find some reason to dismiss all the research on this topic.
Originally posted by dmz
I'm just hoping Ann Coulter doesn't take the 'cigarette burn' approach in her rhetoric ---oh, wait.
Come now, the right deserves their BRussell's as well.
Love ya BRussell,
Nick
Originally posted by NOFEER
so after all this discussion what cha gona do, after 3 pages isn't it time to fish or cut bait??? we rarely spank we get our point across in many ways but the biggest thing is mom and dad work together, set the rules , set expectations and dole out punishment quickly and BE CONSISTENT. even if one of us disagrees, we discuss it away from the kids then we show unity and in unity is strength
very good closing words.
Originally posted by Chucker
...
I'd imagine an 8-year old's goals would amount to "to collect all pieces of {random collectible items, e.g. Pokemon}" or "to have lots of cool friends to hang out with", neither of which probably cause much stir with parents to begin with.
So, please clarify what you mean by "goals" that parents and children need to work on together. Thanks!
Well, rok, dfiler, user23 and a few others said some remarkable
things about the subject, i'd pretty much sign in.
Maybe *Goals* is the wrong word i used in this context.
It sounds pretty *dramatic*, where i meant something
very basic. Maybe "common purpose" would have been
clearer.
Btw, sorry for delay, i was eventually a bit distracted by WC 2006
Again, you're simply dismissing all of the research that's been done on this topic.
Exactly which part of my post dismisses any research? I can only dismiss the research by challenging the methods or the data analysis, but I'm not.
However, when you review primary literature it is important to understand what questions is being asked and what question is being answered (the two are not always the same). And whether the answers are applicable to the questions at hand.
suggest such an absurd thing, and that doesn't mean that spanking has no effect on aggression.
That still doesn't tell me exactly what to do.. spank or notto spank...
Smoking isn't the only factor that leads to lung cancer and heart disease either, but that doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause lung cancer and heart disease.
Absence of something is not a proof. Science is only concerned with presence. Show me at least one publication which details direct mechaniwm how smoking cvauses cancer and I'll believe you.
[quote]
The studies examine groups of people using spanking vs not using spanking. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that statistically (and the experts who reviewed the paper and accepted it for publication agree).
[/quote[
I agree. However, you have to realise the limitations of the applicability of these studies. If the number of kids is below suare root of the sample size, you're out of luck... sorry.
I'm a scientist in biotechnology (besides other things) from the side of chmical engineering, so I really know these math things.
It still seems to me like you're simply stretching to find some reason to dismiss all the research on this topic.
Because I get asked by journals to review papers and I have to be professional and I have to know this shit!
Originally posted by BRussell
Parents who don't spank their kids are raising brats. Just talking never gets anything accommplished. You have to be physical or you're not going to make your point as a parent.
OK, I appreciate the humor, but I also {sigh} wanted to hear your OPINION. Yes, really. I'll read on.
At 2.5 years, we've all but dispensed with the spanking unless he is in a dangerous situation or is doing something to willfully disobey.
For those of you who say "talk to them" that may work later in life, but the little ones are usually too busy pitching a fit to listen. In those cases, drastic times call for drastic measures (time out crib). Sometimes a spanking is the only thing that gets their attention and focuses them on the problem at hand. In each case we explain why the punishment happened, and remind him of the punishment that's coming the next time he starts down that path. These days, the punishment "two-count" is usually enough to make him listen and think about his actions. Hey, he even helps me count! I say "one" and then I hear "two" from him. He gets the idea.
It's really great to be able to communicate with your child, but sometimes that communication has to be rapid and instinctual on their part. Hence absolutes like "Stop." That's a special word, and if he doesn't listen to it we punish him immediately.
Most of all, I think consistency is important. It pays off.
EDIT: After having read the thread.
BRussell, thanks for sending the other stuff along. Yes, really.
My only real complaint about the citations/research mentioned is that it doesn't present alternatives that are effective. In other words, we know that corporal punishment causes all these bad things, so the recommendation from the child development literature has to be that instead of corporal punishment we do technique X on a regular basis. If corporal punishment is done with other things, then technique X should fit in those situations as well. What's our technique X? What works as well as corporal punishment, and how did they possibly measure something like that consistently?
Also, from a methodology standpoint, you can always point to "corporal punishment" and then measure its "effects" without controlling for everything else that's not as easily categorized, such as bullying, nagging, guilting, other forms of mental abuse. It's hard to target and measure the detrimental/positive effects of other childrearing techniques (or the lack of outcomes/discipline of any kind) because these methods are harder to isolate and describe in a narrow fashion. After all, how many parents will acknowledge guilting their kids in order to get obedience? How many will acknowledge other types of abuse and/or manipulation? How many researchers will identify children who had poor development due to the lack of imposed discipline, whatever the type available?
I haven't read the stuff in a while, but it's just like any other research -- subject to learned interpretation.
Thanks for chiming in.
There are certainly some kids that benefit from getting spanked. I guess you have to wait and find out, but if your kid is a brat, then you'll do worse for yourself, everyone else, and for the kid if you don't spank. In these cases it is inconsiderate not to spank.
I used some of your keywords to find out if there are examples of those brats in the web.
The result was astonishing. Here are just two examples:
http://static.flickr.com/48/119925532_327d096d1b_o.jpg
http://image53.webshots.com/453/5/73...0oxYHJN_fs.jpg
When he has a tantrum and is very upset ... hitting him will only make him more upset. Why not just say, "Stop your crying or I'll give you a reason." How intelligent. Rather than that I try to calm him down which is what I really want anyway. If he pitches a fit in public, which doesn't happen often, we just leave.
When he runs in the street, which he doesn't do, I run after him and yell "STOP". We talked to our son a lot about holding hands in the parking lot. Now it's an important part of his life.
When he throws food, he gets his plate taken away. If he's still hungry he can have one bite at a time. But he doesn't really throw food.
These two year olds are a whole bunch more fucking smarter than anyone gives them credit for. I encourage future parents to be on the look out for when their child first starts to manipulate them. At that age they can be reasoned with. It happens between one and two years old.
It's funny when people say they use spanking as a "last resort". Of course it's the last resort. What would you do next? Lock them in the closet? Beat them?
Enjoy spanking your kids 'cause they sure wont enjoy it.
I am in no way a father..or even close to being one since I'm 16. I also don't really intend to have kids. Regardless, it will ALWAYS depend on the type of child you have. My brother and I never really got spanked, if we did something wrong, we were 'growled at' or given a slap on the hand. Now, I'm not a scallywag (honest
I guess what I'm trying to say is:
1. The amount of punishment needed is dependant on the child's personality (i.e. a 'naturally' good kid will likely never need to be HARSHLY punished), and the childs actions (i.e.vandalising the house and breaking windows deserves a harsher punishment than getting 40% on a maths test). I guess thats obvious to most people though.
2. Beating is not acceptable. Ever.
3. Harsh punishments can lead to resentment...no punishment leads to dropkicks.
4. Spanking on the head, etc, is not right.
5. ALL children require discipline, not necessarily punishment, but discipline. Discipline referring to rules and boundaries. This is the most important thing and like someone said before, parents should learn to say "no".