Opinions on Spanking

[DallasApple]

When you can get that analysis published in a child psychology journal, I'll give it the same consideration as the research. Until then, it only looks like you feel your personal reasoning skills are superior to the scientific method, at least in this case. That's a point of view I disagree with. The scientific method is the best way we have to ferret out things about the world that might be objectively true. I'd never dismiss its findings just so I don't have to change my personal opinion.
[/font]

One of the studies done was on inner city poverty ridden chldren.And YES one of the factors or disparages they found is that children who were born into poverty had parents who used spanking as a main form of discipline as opposed to "middle class" children.They concluded that yes it was a "factor" in child rearing that was significant enough to try and give these kids a better chance of not REPEATNG the cycle of poverty as adults by TRAINING the parents how to use other forms of discipline instead.

Its called "baby college".They got the parents while the children were still young(o-3 years old) and convinced them as PART of how to give their children the best platform to go on and succeed to their most potential was to NOT hit them.

As well as teaching the parents to praise and use positive words in general to the children .

I do not think its merely coincidnece that children who are "more likely" to reach their full potential and get in "less" trouble hear thousands and thousands of more positive words and words of praise and are spanked less frequentally as opposed to the children who get the reverse ratio of positives versus negatives and are spanked regularly.

Just because its only "a" factor does not mean its not important or significant.IOW just because its only a factor doesnt make it O.K to do.

Love

Dallas

 

[Aquitaine]

When you can get that analysis published in a child psychology journal, I'll give it the same consideration as the research. Until then, it only looks like you feel your personal reasoning skills are superior to the scientific method, at least in this case. That's a point of view I disagree with. The scientific method is the best way we have to ferret out things about the world that might be objectively true. I'd never dismiss its findings just so I don't have to change my personal opinion.

[/FONT]


Well my personal experience leads me to believe it's more complicated than that. Otherwise the youth in my country wouldn't be so messed up (and from what I've heard, worse off than the much older generations) since spanking is almost unheard of now (atleast where I live). So there must be other factors which are contributing to "problems" with children/growing up.

If only it was that simple to have it so that *spank = worse person* *non-spank = better person*, not only that but you'd have to monitor the subjects throughout their lives up until the point they die, then you're gonna need to somehow objectivefy(sp?) an outlook onto how to judge whether or not someone's entire existence was "better" than someone elses.

 

[Aquitaine]

"Just because its only "a" factor does not mean its not important or significant.IOW just because its only a factor doesnt make it O.K to do."

But what if that aspect (spanking) was open to other factors that could change it's outcome as to whether or not it is "good" or "bad"?

Such factors could include how often they're hit, if they're hit as a first resort, if they're hit out of aggression, if they're hit and not lectured/taught why they were hit, if there is no trust/love between parent and child, if the parent rewards/encourages good behaviour too, if the parent outright abuses the child etc.

I don't think it's as black and white as *spank* and*no-spank*, I think spanking is very circumstancial as I've said all along, and that I support the use of spanking depending on the circumstances. Like as if it's a diet, y' know, it only includes a tiny portion and is still complimented by the use of other parenting techniques, it's not just 100% hardcore spankage all the way.

Even if a child is only spanked once in it's upbringing. Or even if it is never spanked, but has a verbal warning of being spanked if it misbehaves.

 

[Alceste]

What about personal experience?

You shouldn`t accept science as sacred either, it destroys the purpose of science.

I think Paul has a point, child rearing is far too complex to cite one single parental concept as being too influencial.

Honestly, most people my age were brought up with some type of corporeal punishment and don`t fit into the studies conclusion.

Is corporeal punishment a factor?
Most definitely.

Is it one of many factors?
Most probably.

I did say in an earlier post that the studies show correlation, not causation. The higher the frequency and severity of spanking, the higher the probablility of emotional problems and aggression. I also said in an earlier posts that all this really means is that whatever the overall parenting strategy of parents who happen to be spank their kids is, the studies are not a ringing endorsement of it.

So I don't feel this addresses my points.

 

[DallasApple]

I did say in an earlier post that the studies show correlation, not causation. The higher the frequency and severity of spanking, the higher the probablility of emotional problems and aggression. I also said in an earlier posts that all this really means is that whatever the overall parenting strategy of parents who happen to be spank their kids is, the studies are not a ringing endorsement of it.

So I don't feel this addresses my points.

Yes it appears to be a strike against you (no pun intended) if you are subjected to being spanked .

It doesnt mean you are doomed to grow up and be completely dysfuntional.It seems to me is its more about if you want to do the very best for your children in ALL aspects of parenting when it comes to discipline spanking is least advantageous at best..and at worst can be an extra hurdle for your child in the long run.

Love

Dallas

 

[Alceste]

Yes it appears to be a strike against you (no pun intended) if you are subjected to being spanked .

It doesnt mean you are doomed to grow up and be completely dysfuntional.It seems to me is its more about if you want to do the very best for your children in ALL aspects of parenting when it comes to discipline spanking is least advantageous at best..and at worst can be an extra hurdle for your child in the long run.

Love

Dallas

Yeah, exactly. I was talking to Wampus about this the other day, actually. He's the son of a psychoanalyst - I told him about some behavior (of an adult) that was getting on my nerves. I won't get into the details, but Wampus said right off the bat "sounds like a bad anal phase". He had to explain what that meant for me, but according to Freud, when kids are being toilet trained it's their first experience of "producing" something - if their parents react badly, they will spend the rest of their lives feeling that everything the produce is worthless. That does sould a lot like the person I was complaining about. However, IMO, what Freud seemed to be doing was describing a bundle of experiences and characteristics that tend to go together, then choosing one and calling it the cause of all the others.

As it turns out, that's one of the main criticisms of Freud, and the field of psychoanalysis has drifted steadily away from that way of thinking.

The bottom line is, parents who are crappy at toilet training (no pun intended) are probably crappy at a whole lot of other things right from day one. Also, it's important for kids to learn that nobody's perfect - even mum and dad. It helps them learn to think for themselves, so a few false steps here and there might do more good than harm in the long run.

However, I'm not going to smack kids around just so they can learn that nobody's perfect. I'm sure they'll learn that anyway, since I make no effort to be perfect - just as decent as I can.

 

[Autodidact]

Actually, it is very complicated. This is our upbringing, it's one of the most complicated times in our existence, if not the most complicated time. It's not as simple as just *income* + *spank, no spank* = accurate result.

There's far more aspects of one's childhood than just those two factors. What about local crime rates of the area, what about local economic prosperity, education standards of the local schools, public trust with the Police, public happyness etc.

Plus there's plenty of other things which I think cannot be measured, like the relationship of the parent-child, the trust, the patience, how/what kind of role-model, family integrity etc.

If criminal activity is going to be one of the major aspects for "judging" the subjects, then you're going to have to look at the many many aspects which contribute to crime rates in an area - and although I cannot back it up, I sincerely think spanking is not gonna be a major cause of crime.

Off the top of my head, factors which can determine crime generally are things like:

Police coverage/effectiveness.
Economic stability/job availability.
Education/discipline standards in schools.
Racial/Religious tensions within the local populace.
Justice.
Responsibilities of the local populace.
Integration of different "sects" within the populace.
Containment of illegal items/drugs, although this is more towards the hardcore drugs/weapons.
Family stability.

etc etc.

Family stability being one of the most important, as it can have a severe impact on the children. There's far too many other aspects to have to consider, like whether or not there's been a divorce, or if any of the parents has an unhealthy addiction, or gambles, or is irresponsible, or is a bad role model, or doesn't discipline (spanking doesn't instantly = discipline), or neglects the children, or is very aggressive, or if the parent(s) have a criminal record of their own etc.

What if the family is a good role-model, but the neighbors/friends are bad ones? Since we're shaped by our society as a whole, you've gotta take even unrelated people into consideration.

I just think this research is trying to find a pattern in something that is so complicated that it's almost impossible. Also, if the only factors involved are finances, spanking/no-spanking, and the future criminal record of the child, then I tihnk it's too simplistic and not accurate enough.

Not to mention the amount of messed up youth we have nowadays who weren't spanked, so spanking can't be that bad, and whose to say that children don't suffer these things purely as a result of going through their teens?

All of those factors are taken into account by using a sufficiently large pool and good matching samples. Either the factor is controlled for by having people in both pools with that factor, for example, being from the same neighborhood, or the factors are randomly distributed over the sample by using a large enough sample size.

Certainly it's complicated, but what the scientific method enable you to do is to isolate the effect of a single factor and look at that. The question is, when you control for all those factors, which group does better, the spanked or the non-spanked? That way you're taking all of those factors into account, and just focusing on what you're trying to learn.

It's complicated, but no more complicated than the effect of smoking on heart disease, or the effect of increased salt consumption on maternal diabetes.

And guess what we find out when we do that? You know the answer.

 

[Autodidact]

btw, I've studied causes of criminal behavior A LOT, and my opinion is that the important contributing variables are:

family stability
demographic stability
age and sex
genetics.

I don't believe that use or lack of use of corporal punishment is a major factor. But that's not the question. The question is, whether major or minor, is it a positive, or negative factor? And it turns out to be negative.

 

[Autodidact]

Well my personal experience leads me to believe it's more complicated than that. Otherwise the youth in my country wouldn't be so messed up (and from what I've heard, worse off than the much older generations) since spanking is almost unheard of now (atleast where I live). So there must be other factors which are contributing to "problems" with children/growing up.

If only it was that simple to have it so that *spank = worse person* *non-spank = better person*, not only that but you'd have to monitor the subjects throughout their lives up until the point they die, then you're gonna need to somehow objectivefy(sp?) an outlook onto how to judge whether or not someone's entire existence was "better" than someone elses.

There are many factors. No one disputes that. Spanking is just one. That's not the issue. The issue is, is it a positive factor or a negative factor?

 

[Autodidact]

But what if that aspect (spanking) was open to other factors that could change it's outcome as to whether or not it is "good" or "bad"?

Such factors could include how often they're hit, if they're hit as a first resort, if they're hit out of aggression, if they're hit and not lectured/taught why they were hit, if there is no trust/love between parent and child, if the parent rewards/encourages good behaviour too, if the parent outright abuses the child etc.

I don't think it's as black and white as *spank* and*no-spank*, I think spanking is very circumstancial as I've said all along, and that I support the use of spanking depending on the circumstances. Like as if it's a diet, y' know, it only includes a tiny portion and is still complimented by the use of other parenting techniques, it's not just 100% hardcore spankage all the way.

Even if a child is only spanked once in it's upbringing. Or even if it is never spanked, but has a verbal warning of being spanked if it misbehaves.

1. Then the research gets much harder.
2. Using a sufficiently large sample size ensures that these factors even out across the two sample groups.

 

[DallasApple]

There are many factors. No one disputes that. Spanking is just one. That's not the issue. The issue is, is it a positive factor or a negative factor?

It appears its a negative factor.It appears the "benefit" to the child cant be proven.All data seems to point that its a stumbling block.

If you stick out your foot and you trip someone..and they get up and go on anyway instead of laying there crying can you really say you "helped them get up"?

And arent ya'll people even listening to the decent credible people around here who WERE spanked and count it as a negative in their lives?

I have negative and resentful feelings that I have "overcome" over being"spanked"(fancy word for HITTING a child)..and witnessing my sibllings and cousins being "spanked.."I think of those adults as being ignorant .And many of them as being victims of spankings themselves so they repeated a dysfunction..(and or a bad practice)..and all of them grown adults who resorted to violence to solve conflicts with CHILDREN!

The only thing I can do and have done is to not condone this barbaric practice.

Dont "bend your child" over your knee..Look them straight in the eye as you are striking them and I think you will have your answer.

Love

Dallas

 

[Aquitaine]

All of those factors are taken into account by using a sufficiently large pool and good matching samples. Either the factor is controlled for by having people in both pools with that factor, for example, being from the same neighborhood, or the factors are randomly distributed over the sample by using a large enough sample size.

But matching people on which neighborhood is easy, but how did they match up for the frequency of how often, or how hard the kids were spanked? Did they make the parents keep a tally for every spank given and a measure for how hard, and where abouts they hit them?

Also how did they "match up" groups who had the same "family integrity" or "family trust" or "happyness of love"?

How were they able to "match up" groups of parents who were "good" Role-models and match up those who were "bad" ones?

How were they able to match up kids who had traumatic experiences when they were younger, or who are bullied at school? Also, were they able to match up parents who spanked out of aggression and those who spanked assertively/calmly? Or the frequency that each parent flipped out and hit out of aggression?

"It's complicated, but no more complicated than the effect of smoking on heart disease, or the effect of increased salt consumption on maternal diabetes."

But that stuff is with the body, organs, tissues bones etc, but this stuff is about the mind, and it's the most comlicated thing in our known existence. Trust me, I don't reject science, and I recgonise the results they're showing, but I'm unable to know whether or not it would turn out the same results for very reserved, very circumstancial and even rare spankings (which is more where I stand, since I'm not keen on mainstream constant spanking).

The only way the could get such accurate results would be if they literally birthed the subjects into an artificial society, a Truman Show, where everything was controlled, scripted and monitored. I won't reject the correlation shown in the research, but I doubt it can accurately extend to conclude that the same can be said for circumstancial spankings. Not only that, but the side-affects shown can still be seen in kids today who were never spanked, so spanking (atleast if used "properly") can't be that bad.

Finally, mainstream (by that, I mean common, used almost always a first resort etc) spanking, and God knows how many other parenting techniques may be negative, but to what degree - is there a line where spanking so frequent or so hard becomes negative, or is it inherently negative from the start, even if one is only spanked once?

There's still a possibility that certain parenting strategies that do use circumstancial spankings can be positive, or atleast not negative. But we'll have to wait until it is possible to get such accurate research.

 

[Aquitaine]

I don't believe that use or lack of use of corporal punishment is a major factor. But that's not the question. The question is, whether major or minor, is it a positive, or negative factor? And it turns out to be negative.

The research is leaning more towards negative. But it is the result of other parent's strategies that just happen to involve spanking, and since we don't know all the spanker's strategies, and ho much they abided by them, it leaves the possibility that there might be some circumstances where spanking isn't bad, and maybe even positive.

btw, I've studied causes of criminal behavior A LOT, and my opinion is that the important contributing variables are:

family stability
demographic stability
age and sex
genetics.

​

I'll agree with all of them, except Genetics. Although I have to ask you to elaborate on what you mean by "genetics", because I see it as also including Racial heritage, and if that's what you're saying then I totally disagree with you (despite whatever Alceste might think ).

The way I see it is, it's all about the soil, not the seed.​

 

[Autodidact]

As I explained, Paul, differences like this are assumed to average out across the sample. That's the purpose of using a large sample size.

 

[Autodidact]

The research is leaning more towards negative. But it is the result of other parent's strategies that just happen to involve spanking, and since we don't know all the spanker's strategies, and ho much they abided by them, it leaves the possibility that there might be some circumstances where spanking isn't bad, and maybe even positive.



​

I'll agree with all of them, except Genetics. Although I have to ask you to elaborate on what you mean by "genetics", because I see it as also including Racial heritage, and if that's what you're saying then I totally disagree with you (despite whatever Alceste might think ).

The way I see it is, it's all about the soil, not the seed.​

Actually, and oddly, there turns out to be a sizable relationship between genetics and criminality. Sorry I don't have the cite, but studies have found that an adopted boy's tendency to criminality bears a stronger relationship to his biological father than his adopted father. Isn't that bizarre?

One hypothesis is that criminality, besides being related to gender and age, is related to factors such as IQ and impulse control that are themselves highly heritable.

IQ: Criminals tend to be in the 85-95 range. Dumber than that and they can't get away with it. Smarter tend to figure out that being a criminal isn't that smart. (Note these are generalizations and statistics. It doesn't mean there aren't any smart criminals.)

Overall the trend in research over the last 25 years is to find more and more of a genetic component for behavior than ever suspected.

OTOH, nothing turns out to be purely genetic, not even height!

 

[Autodidact]

So basically, most criminals tend to be male, age 18-35 with an IQ of 85-95.

That does not by any means mean that males age 18-35 with a below average IQ are mostly criminals.

 

[DallasApple]

So basically, most criminals tend to be male, age 18-35 with an IQ of 85-95.

That does not by any means mean that males age 18-35 with a below average IQ are mostly criminals.

DUH!!

Some of them are the sweetest people I know! They cant even tell a lie!!

Love

Dallas

 

[Aquitaine]

As I explained, Paul, differences like this are assumed to average out across the sample. That's the purpose of using a large sample size.

But with something so complicated as the Human brain, and an occurance so fragile as one's childhood, would doing such a thing potentially compromise the accuracy of their findings? By all means, I accept the correlation of the spanking, but surely it can't entirely be applied to pareting strategies that uses very circumstancial, very rare, assertvie (as opposed to aggressive) spanks, that're used as a total last resort only for very severe things?

Also what about having a mix of both, as in PR and spanks, depending on how both techniques are applied of course? Is your stance on spanking, one that believes no matter what, 100%, and regardless of other strategies used with it (inlcuding PR, recognition of rewards)and even if they're administered in a loving way, with a strong caring family integrity and a good social enviroment etc, it is a negative technique?

 

[Aquitaine]

Actually, and oddly, there turns out to be a sizable relationship between genetics and criminality. Sorry I don't have the cite, but studies have found that an adopted boy's tendency to criminality bears a stronger relationship to his biological father than his adopted father. Isn't that bizarre?

One hypothesis is that criminality, besides being related to gender and age, is related to factors such as IQ and impulse control that are themselves highly heritable.

IQ: Criminals tend to be in the 85-95 range. Dumber than that and they can't get away with it. Smarter tend to figure out that being a criminal isn't that smart. (Note these are generalizations and statistics. It doesn't mean there aren't any smart criminals.)

Overall the trend in research over the last 25 years is to find more and more of a genetic component for behavior than ever suspected.

OTOH, nothing turns out to be purely genetic, not even height!

But what race was the adopted boy, and what race was the adopting father? You're not presuming the adopting Father was White were you?

That would only show it as being an issue of being adopted, not Race.

Again, no way, totally disagree (if you're making a link between Race and crime, that is).

Also genetics can also include eye/hair colour, and I'm sure those genetic traits (as with Race) don't contribute to crime.

 

[Autodidact]

But with something so complicated as the Human brain, and an occurance so fragile as one's childhood, would doing such a thing potentially compromise the accuracy of their findings?

No. It doesn't matter what the variable is, the principle is the same.

By all means, I accept the correlation of the spanking, but surely it can't entirely be applied to pareting strategies that uses very circumstancial, very rare, assertvie (as opposed to aggressive) spanks, that're used as a total last resort only for very severe things?

Well you're facts are getting more and more rare and unlikely. I guess "parents who spank" would be a continuum, and would include these parents as well as those who whack daily, and the data reflects the total/average of the effect.

There may be some studies that ask how often, etc. but I don't really know the details of these individual studies.

Also what about having a mix of both, as in PR and spanks, depending on how both techniques are applied of course? Is your stance on spanking, one that believes no matter what, 100%, and regardless of other strategies used with it (inlcuding PR, recognition of rewards)and even if they're administered in a loving way, with a strong caring family integrity and a good social enviroment etc, it is a negative technique?

My opinion as a parent is that it's counter-productive. It actually undermines your effectiveness and child-discipline, because it negatively impacts your bond and your ability to role-model. These are #1 and #2, in that order, in terms of their importance to your ability to parent. You children do what you want because they love and admire you. Anything that undercuts those things is counter-productive.