View Single Post
  #9  
Old December 2nd 03, 10:03 PM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kids should work.

On 2 Dec 2003, Ignoramus29143 wrote:

In article , Doan wrote:

On 2 Dec 2003, Ignoramus15011 wrote:

In article , Doan wrote:

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:



Ignoramus15011 wrote:

How would he a better person if I was beating him (the animal society
way) instead of teaching him interaction according to modern
principles of human society.

Exactly. How would he be a better person if your were hitting him in the name of
discipline? I can't think of one reason, and research has yet to find a reason
for disciplinary hitting of children.

Straus et al (1997):

"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
parents spank, but do so only infrequently."

Straus & Paschal (1998)
"There is also an important limitation of the CP scale. We cannot be sure
that the children with a score of zero on the CP scale were never spanked.
In fact, some are likely to have been spanked in a previous year or in some
other week of this period. Consequently the claim that CP, when used only
rarely and as a back up for other disciplinary strategies, is beneficial
(Larzelere et al., 1998) might apply to children who experienced no CP in
either of the two sample weeks."

ot sounds to me that you are misquoting a thorough researcher. It
seems like his research indicated some contamination of the
non-spanking group and he was forthright in pointing that out.

And you would be wrong! First, in Straus et al (1997), they didn't know
(or pretended not to know) that their "non-spank" group were actually
spanked (56% of the sample, how do they missed it?) When this was pointed
out by Larzelere, they capitulated, became "indebted" to Larzelere and
finally blamed it on Straus' bias:

"Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research is
motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief that
good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of interpersonal
violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when motivated by love and
concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent methods of
preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held values may
account for the failure of Straus to perceive the serious limitation of
measuring CP using a 1-week reference period."
(ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998)

Second, only after it being "pointed out" to them did they put that
"limitation" in Straus & Paschal (1998) thus showing a serious hole
in their theory that any and all spanking are detrimental!

Third, as pointed in Larzelere & Smith (2000), what they don't tell you
(or conveniently left out) is that, using the same data set, the non-cp
alternatives like: grounding, removing privileges, docking allowances, or
sending the child to his or her room (time-out) showed the same
correlations!


you just confirmed exactly what I said. The researcher's sample was
contaminated and he, being a thorough researcher, pointed out that
possible effects of that contamination make it difficult to establish
any conclusions.

What??? Straus, himself, admitted his "failure to perceive the serious
limitation" only after it was "pointed out" to him! He already made
his conclusion!

Doan