Doan wrote:
On 21 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 20 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:
.....snip......


Compare them, for instance, to Dr. Embry's program he tested with
considerable success and his claim yet again, with citations of other's
more specific work, that his experience was that children do indeed,
when spanked, move to preform the unwanted behavior MORE.

He said that it is RARE - not normal! A fact that anti-spanking zealotS
like you have been deliberately omitted, "lying by omission" by your
standard!
Did he now?

R R R R R sure, Doan the Screeching Hysterical Childish Monkeyboy.

From Nathan's post quoting Dr. Embry:

" It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the fact that
spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to
dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second
coding. That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they
were the ones that people often want to spank; that is, because these
were the kids, post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of
oppositionally defiant in today's vernacular of the DSM-IV. The
prevalence of this DSM-IV diagnoses are clearly rising for a whole lot
of reasons that have nothing to do with parenting, yet
parenting/teacher behavior can seriously worse the biological
and socially induced predispositions.

For these kids, spanking, etc. did not meet the operant definition of a
punisher; rather, it met the definition of reinforcement. This is whole
consistent with the long-term, precision studies of the etiology of
multi-problem kids (see the book by Anthony Biglan et al. Helping
Adolescents at At Risk, from Guilford Press). Dr. Biglan is my close
colleague and the president of the society for prevention research. Dr.
Biglan's synthesis book does a nice job of reviewing the cycle of
coercion work of people like Gerry Patterson and colleagues, which has
been replicated by other investigators. It is very parsimonious, and
fits both behavioral and evolutionary theory.
"

Dr. Embry said 'rare,' Doan?

Please explain where he did so.


"That only was true for the high-rate kids, though."

Context, Doan. You said he said "rare." He said no such thing. You are
trying to move the goal posts. Again.

He didn't said normal, did he? So did you and anti-spanking zealotS like
yourself ever mentioned that fact?

He also did not say "RARE - not normal" as you claim.

Did he said that it is normal?

No. That doesn't mean he said "not normal."

Hihihi! It's either is or it's not!

Your original claim and the one I responded to did not exclude the word
"RARE" which you emphasised with caps, Doan.

Now you wish to remove "RARE" from your claim?

Is that honest?

A "not normal" condition does not have to be rare, Doan.

It's not "normal" to be overweight, but there is certainly no shortage
of overweight people.

You are simply trying to move the goal posts away from your claim of
"RARE," your usual dodging bull****.

And the "high risk" children in his study or not rare in it or in the
general population.

You simply do not wish to discuss anything honestly that would impact
your bogus claims about spanking.

His numbers suggest it is neither rare, nor not normal, or normal. It
wasn't discussed. If out of 20, he found 5 that were high rate of
street entries, that's one fourth. Hardly what I would call rare. Would
you?

The numbers are either normal or not normal, STUPID. If it's not normal
nor normal, what is it?

It's not "RARE" stupid.

Your statement was, "He said that it is RARE - not normal!" and written
far enough back that you have regressed to the what I think of as the
Doan's Chronological Stall to Excape His Error ploy, once again.

So, does his one third of the target group being 'not normal'
constitute rarity in his demographic?

Does the number of children subject to abuse by parents and CPS cases
being opened constitute a condition of 'rare' in the general
population?

How many, proportionately, would 'RARE' constitution, Doan?

Respond to the questions asked of you, rather than try to cherry pick
even from among your own words and change the argument.


He made no measure of normal. It's not defined. He simply measured
behaviors. And showed the data collected.

He made it clear when he said:

"You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks =
fighting over their sects. Not functional."

What has that to do with you comment, " He said that it is
RARE - not normal! ?"

Show us where he discussed normalcy either in his studies, or in his
conversations with Nathan.

Look at the "table of special characteristics" in the study.

"There were a total of 33 preschool-age children in the study, all but =
three enrolled in the university affiliated preschool. The school had a mix
of children and parents, including normative and high-risk kids."

Normative means normal, STUPID!

And where, dodger, does that constitute him saying "RARE," as you
claim?

In fact, he makes mention, without discussing rarity, of the growing
number of children Dx'd as ODD victims.

Does that look to you as though he actually thinks it's rare?

You are attempting to put meaning into his statements, as Nathan did,
that are not necessarily there.

Now he may well agree that children that are spanked because they are
more difficult are rare, but we can't tell that either from his words
in response to Nathan, nor from his study you claim to have a copy of,
or his reference to a concurrent study he did in the home of parents,
or from his comment by letter years ago to the magazine.

If you can find some inference of "rare," YOUR CLAIM, Doan, please
point to it for us.


'Normal' was not your claim, Doan, it was: " He said that it
is RARE - not normal!"

If you wish to discuss "normal" peachy. I'm up for that.

Within a study there is very likely to be a discrimination of at least
two elements as being unalike, one more common than the other....one
thus being the "normative" element in the study.

Or it can be a reference to the general population the demographic is
drawn from. As we would presume Embry is stating when he used
"normative," and "high risk."

That does not make the high risk category "RARE," Doan.

You can see me discussing such things in the attributed comments
remaining in this post.

So, Doan, you are simply dodging again to bog down the discussion,
splitting hairs by picking and isolating words and terms out of
normative context 0:-

The same old bull**** you've shoveled her for years.

What do you think the Embry study, report #2, means in terms of
resources for parents where they might chose alternatives to spanking?

Not, "it's not about spanking," Doan, but because it IS about possible
non CP alternatives that worked, even to the surprize of Dr. Embry as
he uncovered the facts over time.

Doan

More monkeyboy tricks, or a real engagement with the issues, Doan. Up
to you.

But I'm growing weary of your diversions and may simply go back to
ignoring you. It's what you deserve for failure to argue on fact.

Best, and have a happy holiday.

Kane


Nor did I claim any such thing, as to rarity or it's lack.

In fact, he made no mention of rarity at all. He was speaking only about
the group he was observing.

And it was not rare there, according to him.

It is not NORMAL, according to him.

Provide a quote and include context. Your continual snipping to cherry
pick is getting rather old, Doan. You pulled it again in this thread,
in the last post. Tsk.


Doan

"We saw kids get their butts hit pretty smartly in baseline, then go
into the street AGAIN within a few seconds or minutes, showing the
mathematical relationship of a reinforcer. That only was true for the
high-rate kids, though.

See any discussion of rare or normal there? Nor will you find any
except in Nathan's rather free interpretation of Embry's comments and
their supposed meaning.

You seem to be riding on that, and adding your own foolish
interpretations.

Thousands of such cases, such as he referred to in his concurrent study
of parenting practices, are seen by CPS every years. Tens of thousands,
in fact. You cannot call instances of parents using spanking on
difficult children "rare," or "not normal" with these kinds of facts,
Doan.

And he made that point in his comments on the other parenting study in
the home.

You choked, and you are shufflin' and dodging yet again.

In fact he found this situation in one third, as he mentions, of the
families:

" " It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the
fact that
spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to
dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second
coding. That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they
were the ones that people often want to spank; that is, because these
were the kids, post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of
oppositionally defiant in today's vernacular of the DSM-IV."

Now "one third" of something is "rare," by your definition?

One third is a fixed number. "Not Normal" which he didn't say, is a
vague reference without numbers to back the claim up. Did you see any
such numbers in his study or conversation to support HIS argument of it
being "nor normal?"

Speak up, Boy!

The conditions he describes are not rare, and "normal" has nothing to
do with it. That was an attempt by you to temper your comments with a
door left open for you to escape through.

Let's stick with your "rare" nonsense, shall we then? One thing at a
time.

Tell us were he said "rare." Or try to defend one third as "rare." Or
defend the CPS data on physical abuse of children as rare in the
population.

You are full of baloney.

Kane



[[[ Notice he is not saying that it was rare, but that was simply was
true for the high rate kids? He had five high rate kids out of 20.
That's not what one can call 'rare.' ]]]

[[[ I'll leave the fuller context to help you with your studies in
English, Doan, as you seem so badly to need them. And because it shows
his change of perspective about spanking...which he had recommended
prior to this study...recommended publicly at that. ]]]

This is what caused my jaw to drop, observing the temporal sequence of
both the topography and function of reinforcer.? One sees this in
micro-coding of regular, daily parenting in the studies such as Hill
Walker's and Gerry Patterson's of highly deviant kids and families.
Those kids tend to get nuked, but I never expected this in the context
of dangerous behavior. I should scan the pages on the time relationships.

We had one child and parent that showed no behavior change at all,
except for the brief modeling effect (that we saw in the earlier study)
S13. This child's parent was one of the "worst offenders" of negative
attention, and never did any positive attention that we observed.?
Children with such a serious imbalance are very high risk for
developmental pathologies.? This would be the type of parent who
alternates between very permissive and
highly punitive.?"

[[[ Notice his use of the term "very high risk," in reference to this
kind of child. Would that not conclude that there was possibly some risk
in other children, not just the bad performing parent child couple as
that referred to? His "five worst" in the study would indicate some
likelihood. AND his program turned those five around. Is this too much
for you to take in and integrate in one day? I'll try to go slower next
time. ]]]

0:-

Tienes Ud. problemas
con Ingles? ;-)

Ba.n có nói tie^'ng Anh không?

May I continue to be of service?

AF

Kane

Thanks, 0;-]