Risks of harm from spanking confirmed by analysis of 5 decades of research

[Thanda]

The pythagorean theorem is mathematics, not science.

Hahaha! Lol!

 

[Quintessence]

Hahaha! Lol!

Well, it is. Specifically, geometry.

 

[Thanda]

*chuckles* If only the sciences had that much influence on legislation and government in the United States. As it stands, not only will results like this fail to put pressure on lawmakers to make spanking children a crime in the United States, but any attempt to forward anti-spanking legislature would be an act of political suicide. The cultural norm of "parents have primary if not sole authority over the raising of their children" is much too strongly ingrained for any erosion of that to be tolerated.

Naw, what will happen from this is it will be business as usual. For the most part, the study will be a burp in the wind that gets ignored like most of science is in this country. Special interest groups that have a vested commitment to following this sort of information would have already embraced the fact that spanking kids is probably not a good idea, so this meta analysis will simply be another tick in an already filled box. Those special interest groups will continue to do their usual outreach, with relatively limited impacts. There may be some attempts at educating parents, but given there is no "parenting license" required for humans to breed, again, relatively limited impacts. Yup. The obvious results of this study is that things will be business as usual, because in America, we don't make massive cultural and policy changes based on the sciences as a general rule, for better or for worse.

I didn't gain anything from this discourse. I said pressure would be put on the government (not just your government mind you - the study is international). I did not say whether the government (yours or mine) would accede to the pressure.

The question is: can we conclude from the study that ceasing spanking alone will decrease the prevalence of the detrimental outcomes?

 

[Thanda]

Well, it is. Specifically, geometry.

Okay so tell me, where did you get this theory that mathematics is not science? What does science mean to you?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Okay so tell me, where did you get this theory that mathematics is not science? What does science mean to you?

From Wiki:
Mathematics (from Greek μάθημα máthēma, “knowledge, study, learning”) is the study of topics such as quantity (numbers),[2] structure,[3] space,[2] and change.[4][5][6] There is a range of views among mathematicians and philosophers as to the exact scope and definition of mathematics.[7][8]


Mathematicians seek out patterns[9][10] and use them to formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof. When mathematical structures are good models of real phenomena, then mathematical reasoning can provide insight or predictions about nature. Through the use of abstraction and logic, mathematics developed from counting, calculation, measurement, and the systematic study of the shapes and motions of physical objects. Practical mathematics has been a human activity for as far back as written records exist. The research required to solve mathematical problems can take years or even centuries of sustained inquiry.
And:
Science[nb 1] is a systematic enterprise that using mathematics and measurement, creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable observations, explanations and predictions about the universe.[nb 2][2]:58

Contemporary science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences which study the material world, the social sciences which study people and societies, and the formal sciences like mathematics. The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations.[3] Disciplines which use science like engineering and medicine may also be considered to be applied sciences.[4]
Math is not really regarded as a science, but rather a very diverse and useful tool for scientists to use in order to organize, verify, and demonstrate their claims.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I am not changing my mind.

Then you are not "open to suggestions".

And you are wrong on another point.

It isn't pain that infuses the clearest memories in our minds. It is emotion.

Emotion can have a powerful response on humans and animals. Numerous studies have shown that the most vivid autobiographical memories tend to be of emotional events, which are likely to be recalled more often and with more clarity and detail than neutral events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_and_memory

Your "research" is sloppy.

It is you/me because I am open to suggestions, I read articles, and I know my children. You every one that engages me in this thread is not open to any form of corporal punishment period. You have not done your investigation properly. You only look at articles that support your claim. You reject any article that says there is any benefit. Even in the study if you read it there was one study that showed positive results but it didn't meet there criteria so it was not included.

Don't ask me to produce articles just google it because any article I produce your just going to say "not a valid source", "that author is slanted" or "that study is flawed", "that study is not large enough" and I'm not going to win because you and the others are not open to corporal punishment being used validly.

As I did a quick google and found about 4 lines of why spanking is bad for children; then a bunch of unrelated links; and find no study confirming that spanking is "good" for children; and as every major psychiatric organization out there condemns the practice; then I suggest the one who is looking for that which validates their belief is you and not us.

 

[BSM1]

Science does at times work that way. The pythagoras theorem for example can be confirmed to be true and that no other theory in future can ever contradict it.

In any event let me try to make my point clear - I am concerned as to whether spanking (versus some other behaviours that might commonly be associated with it) has been properly isolated in order to establish it's risk factor status. This is important because the obvious result of this study will be pressure on governments to ban spanking with the assumption that that alone will reduce the detrimental outcomes mentioned in the study. But if spanking is merely a symptom of a deeper problem (which is perhaps the actual cause) rather than the cause then we may expect there to be little change in detrimental outcomes even when it is no longer practiced. In fact should it prove only to be a symptom then we may expect parents to adopt some other less than worthy measures to subdue their kids instead of spanking (solitary confinement or timeouts for example) - and soon enough we'll be having another "meta-analysis" about the detrimental effects of solitary confinement.

Unless, like @MysticSang'ha , they start enjoying the spankings...just kidding. Seriously, I raised my kids exactly like this. First offense came with an explanation of the wrong. However, I also was very detailed in describing what would happen if the offense was repeated. Only had to one (1) spanking each their entire childhood.

 

[Demonslayer]

Love is the key that stops the behaviors - real, understood, and, in fact able to be taken for granted by the child. I guarantee it.

I guess my main point is that you simply base your idea on this matter on your gut feelings and anecdotal evidence. I could do the same and tell you that my parents spanked me and I was kind a rebellious kid, always pushing limits and trying to get away with stuff. I love my parents very much today, but back then I was one of those "parents suck" kids.

So now we have two stories, your experience and my experience. What does that tell us? Nothing until we look at the bigger picture, which is what large studies try to do and that is the value of a study over anecdotal evidence.

Heck, you could have a kid that got whipped every day within an inch of his life by his parents grow up to be a perfectly well adjusted, kind, normal loving person and a kid who never got spanked grow up to be a serial killer. But that small picture.

Denying the results of a study like this based on simply your own experience I feel is a little arrogant...and I don't mean that in a nasty way, just that assuming your experience is what every other child experiences is pretty bold and I feel short sighted. My grandmother smoked a pack a day for 75 years, died at 90 of natural causes and never had any kind of cancer her entire life. Imagine I tried to deny the studies that say smoking is a major factor in causing cancer? I just wouldn't really have the basis to do that.

It's fine to have the opinion that spanking doesn't tend to cause more behavioral problems than non-spanking, but it is just that...your opinion. When statistical analysis is done that shows the opposite, I find it hard to take one person's personal experience over 50 years of statistics.

 

[Quintessence]

The question is: can we conclude from the study that ceasing spanking alone will decrease the prevalence of the detrimental outcomes?

Yes, because that's how risk factors work. If you decrease any individual risk factor for a given outcome, that decreases the probability of that particular outcome. The key question in a full-on risk analysis becomes whether or not the decreases in probability are considered to be practically significant in addition to being statistically significant. Data from meta analyses like this would be used in a complete risk analysis process for assessing those thing, and determination of things like practical significance becomes a matter of personal value judgements.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I guess my main point is that you simply base your idea on this matter on your gut feelings and anecdotal evidence. I could do the same and tell you that my parents spanked me and I was kind a rebellious kid, always pushing limits and trying to get away with stuff. I love my parents very much today, but back then I was one of those "parents suck" kids.

So now we have two stories, your experience and my experience. What does that tell us? Nothing until we look at the bigger picture, which is what large studies try to do and that is the value of a study over anecdotal evidence.

Heck, you could have a kid that got whipped every day within an inch of his life by his parents grow up to be a perfectly well adjusted, kind, normal loving person and a kid who never got spanked grow up to be a serial killer. But that small picture.

Denying the results of a study like this based on simply your own experience I feel is a little arrogant...and I don't mean that in a nasty way, just that assuming your experience is what every other child experiences is pretty bold and I feel short sighted. My grandmother smoked a pack a day for 75 years, died at 90 of natural causes and never had any kind of cancer her entire life. Imagine I tried to deny the studies that say smoking is a major factor in causing cancer? I just wouldn't really have the basis to do that.

It's fine to have the opinion that spanking doesn't tend to cause more behavioral problems than non-spanking, but it is just that...your opinion. When statistical analysis is done that shows the opposite, I find it hard to take one person's personal experience over 50 years of statistics.

My anecdotal evidence was only brought to bear because you keep probing, so I felt I needed to procure some form of evidence.

But believe me, the problems with social deviancy that we have in this world are not to be fixed by people not spanking their children - or even all of us taking to heart ALL of the advice of ALL of the studies ever conducted. It's not about numbers, it's not about following a checklist, it's not about science.

Working in market research for nearly 20 years I have seen thousands of models for research pass in front of my eyes. I have come to a stark understanding that there are things that can be quantified and certain other things that cannot. All I did was throw my hat into the ring with a question that pointed to why I felt that this was one of those "cannot" type of areas. I am but one man. Why does my opinion bother you so?

 

[Thanda]

Yes, because that's how risk factors work. If you decrease any individual risk factor for a given outcome, that decreases the probability of that particular outcome. The key question in a full-on risk analysis becomes whether or not the decreases in probability are considered to be practically significant in addition to being statistically significant. Data from meta analyses like this would be used in a complete risk analysis process for assessing those thing, and determination of things like practical significance becomes a matter of personal value judgements.

Okay. If a man gets his liquid intake from juice will stopping him from drinking juice increase his dehydration? The answer at face value might appear to be yes. However consider that after stopping him from drinking juice he might decide to drink water. His hydration levels have therefore increased since he found a substitute to fill his need.

Likewise there is clearly a role spanking fills in many people parenting techniques. Will stopping them from spanking decrease the harm that parents inflict on children? Not necessarily. They might just adopt some other equally (or worse) harmful technique. And then what? When the data is reviewed it is found that practically (i.e. in the real world) nothing has actually changed - the detrimental outcomes are still there.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Unless, like @MysticSang'ha , they start enjoying the spankings...just kidding. Seriously, I raised my kids exactly like this. First offense came with an explanation of the wrong. However, I also was very detailed in describing what would happen if the offense was repeated. Only had to one (1) spanking each their entire childhood.

I was wondering when somebody was going to mention the resident RF Madame Sadist for hire...

 

[Quintessence]

Likewise there is clearly a role spanking fills in many people parenting techniques. Will stopping them from spanking decrease the harm that parents inflict on children? Not necessarily. They might just adopt some other equally (or worse) harmful technique. And then what? When the data is reviewed it is found that practically (i.e. in the real world) nothing has actually changed - the detrimental outcomes are still there.

Yes, and not smoking doesn't necessarily mean you won't get lung cancer. For the fourth or fifth (and bloody last) time:

What [the studies] are saying is that [spanking] is a risk factor that increases the probability of various negative outcomes.

It is NOT saying any of this:

• That if you don't spank your children, they will be perfect little angels

• That if you do spank your children, they will be abominable devils

• That spanking is the only thing that causes maladjustment in people, children or otherwise

• That spanking is the primary thing that causes maladjustment in people, children or otherwise

• That you are a bad person or parent if you spank your children

• That you are a good person or parent if you don't spank your children

• That you should stop spanking your children

• That governments should make laws banning the spanking of children

I don't think I've got anything more I can say. It's been thoroughly demonstrated that hitting children as a form of discipline is a causal factor (aka, risk factor) in various undesired behavioral outcomes, such as low internal moralization, antisocial behavior, externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems, low self-esteem, and mental health problems. It was also demonstrated by the study that hitting children as a form of discipline is not a significant causal factor for behaviors like immediate defiance or substance abuse, or poor self-regulation. These patterns were seen in both children and adults, across various demographic groups.

In short, yes, you're right: not spanking doesn't mean kids won't develop problems as kids or adults. The study also doesn't claim that, and the fact that this happens also doesn't invalidate the study.

 

[BSM1]

I was wondering when somebody was going to mention the resident RF Madame Sadist for hire...

You're welcome...

 

[Demonslayer]

My anecdotal evidence was only brought to bear because you keep probing, so I felt I needed to procure some form of evidence.

Sure, and not to discount it...it is after all true for you. In your case spanking occurred and you didn't grow up to exhibit (as far as I know) any of the negative behaviors that the study discusses. I'm sure there are thousands upon thousands of other similar stories, none of which I am denying are true.

I would point to Quintessence's excellent post #189 on risk factors to address this idea. No one is saying spanking a child will cause X, Y or Z. Just that spanking appears to increase the risk of X, Y or Z occurring.

 

[Demonslayer]

But believe me, the problems with social deviancy that we have in this world are not to be fixed by people not spanking their children - or even all of us taking to heart ALL of the advice of ALL of the studies ever conducted. It's not about numbers, it's not about following a checklist, it's not about science.

Right, no one is saying this either. I would point to Quintessence's other excellent post #193 to find a good list of things no one is saying. No one is saying social deviance can be cured by the elimination of spanking. The study didn't attempt to say that.

Just like cancer wouldn't be eliminated if we could make sure no one smoked. Yet smoking is a risk factor in getting cancer, and the study merely says corporal punishment is risk factor for certain types of anti-social behavior.

 

[Demonslayer]

Yes, because that's how risk factors work. If you decrease any individual risk factor for a given outcome, that decreases the probability of that particular outcome. The key question in a full-on risk analysis becomes whether or not the decreases in probability are considered to be practically significant in addition to being statistically significant. Data from meta analyses like this would be used in a complete risk analysis process for assessing those thing, and determination of things like practical significance becomes a matter of personal value judgements.

I have to read your posts just to keep from going bananas that no one else here seems to understand basic statistical principles. Good grief!

 

[Quintessence]

I have to read your posts just to keep from going bananas that no one else here seems to understand basic statistical principles. Good grief!

It's understandable. As far as I'm aware, statistics isn't require mathematics in high schools. Even if it was, it probably wouldn't go into how these things are applied in research methodologies of the sciences, much less the process and nuances of risk analysis. Only reason I know this stuff is because I needed to know it for my graduate program.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would point to Quintessence's excellent post #189 on risk factors to address this idea. No one is saying spanking a child will cause X, Y or Z. Just that spanking appears to increase the risk of X, Y or Z occurring.

Not too mention it also points out that spanking fails to correct behavior. The conclusion was that politicians and advocates should reconsider their positions because spanking does cause these 13 detrimental outcomes, but because it increases the risk of them and because it doesn't do any good for behavioral modification anyways. This thread has gotten so stuck on the increased risks of detrimental outcomes that even the evidence that spanking doesn't work anyways seems to be ignored.

 

[Demonslayer]

This thread has gotten so stuck on the increased risks of detrimental outcomes that even the evidence that spanking doesn't work anyways seems to be ignored.

True, in fact I believe one of the negative behaviors discussed was increased disobedience to parents, wasn't it?