| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, Michael S. Morris wrote:



Saturday, the 18th of October, 2003

I would like to make a side comment here that gives a
few links to some web resources I think are pretty
cool.

The general problem is argument by "social scientists"
from out of empirical studies resulting in weak
correlations.

For example, one of the most widely touted anti-spanking
studies is the one by Murray Straus, David Sugarman, and
Jean Giles-Sims, "Spanking by Parents and Subsequent Antisocial
Behavior of Children", 1997 (Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
Medicine). (NB: Kane has not touted this particular study, so this
is not immediately relevant to any argument with him.)
The text of their article can be found at
http://www.unh.edu/frl/cp24.htm,
although links to figures and tables seem sadly to be broken.

It's not too difficult to read. Basically what they did is
looked at a "longitudinal study" (a study over years of time)
of mothers with children where data were available for such
things as frequency of spanking at ages 6-9 and anti-social
behaviour two years later. Call the spanking CP (for "corporal
punishment") and the anti-social behaviour later, ASB. Then a
naive advocate of spanking might expect that the greater the
CP, the lower the ASB (i.e. spanking reduces bad behaviour).
The authors begin with this data set of 7725 women with 8513 children
studied between 1979 and 1988. They then pare the data set down
to study only those women with chidren between the ages of 6 and 9
in 1988 (only 1239 children), and then, of those, the ones
for whom all data they wanted to control for (such as SES "social
economic status") were available (910 children). This amounted to
807 mothers. And, what they found is a positive correlation
between CP and ASB. The authors are clearly anti-spanking and
they see this finding as evidence that spanking *causes* the
ASB.

The problem with this study is that the "zero-group" is actually group
that spanked less than once a week. This group actually show a DECREASE
in ASB - a benefit!

"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. Although that is a plausible
interpretation, data from another study enable us to investigate
this issue by classifying spanking as "never" or "not in the past 6 months,"
or the frequency of corporal punishment (CP) in the previous 6 months.[1] "

[1] -This is the Straus & Mouradian (1998) study, which we now know
that the correlation between ASB and non-cp alternatives are even
stronger than spanking.

Now you know why Dr. LaVonne won't dare to debate me on these studies. :-)

Anyway, some of the details of their analysis are contained
in the paper, and one can certainly argue extensively with
their interpretation, the meanings they attach to various
"scores" that are used for the purposes of analysis, etc., but,
what I wanted to point to is the 2nd paragraph under the
tile Results and subtitle Correlation Analysis. Notice that the
correlation coefficients being reported are numbers in the
range r=0.20-0.29.

What I want to point to is what that means. If you've had
any course in laboratory science, you'll know that even data points
which are expected to follow some known linear relationship
in physics often don't. There will be error in measurements
from various cources, and there will be random scatter of the
data about the expected relation. What these authors are doing
is linear regression, essentially plotting data points of (CP, ASB)
as (x,y) in what is called a "scatter plot", and then getting
their computer (although graphing calculators now do this easily) to
draw a best-fit line through the data (a line which technically
minimizes the sum of the squared distances to the line from the
data points). A rather encyclopaedic resource on linear regression
can be found at
http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html.
But, basically, what is important here are two things: The slope found
for
the line, and the correlation coefficient. (If the slope
is positive, then you tend to get more ASB later for more CP
now. If it were negative, then you'd get less ASB
later for more CP now.) But, also, there is the question of how
good does a line model what's going on, and that is what
the correlation coefficient is (partly) telling you. For a
data set with r=+1.0, that means the data points all line up
perfectly on a line of positive slope (we'd call that a
correlation). For a data set with r=-1.0, that means the
data points all line up on a line with negative slope (we'd
call that an anti-correlation). If r=0.0, then the data are
uncorrelated. So, what does a correlation coefficient of
r=0.29 mean?

Well, that's what I wanted to give what I think is a really
cool link for:
http://www.stat.uiuc.edu/~stat100/java/guess/PPApplet.html

This is a little applet that allows you to click the mouse
and put down data points, and it will calculate and show you the
best fit line (by linear regression) to your data, and calculate
the correlation coefficient. It is fun to play with. Try to
put down lines of data and see what you get. Then put down
lines of data where the data points are "off" the line. Then try to put
down data sets that are uncorrelated (circles of data, or
"shotgun"-style clusters of data points). Try making a cluster of
data points with a weak correlation and then add a few points far
outside the cluster and watch what happens to that correlation.
Then, explore using the random points button. For instance,
I stuck in 807 points with a correlation coefficient of r=0.29
(note that this would be fewer than the study above used for any
given correlation, since they are taking subsets of the 807 possible
points in order to control for other factors such as age and
SES). Anyway, notice how uncorrelated it looks?

I think by playing around with this lovely little toy you
can convince yourself a correlation coefficient of r0.30
means the data aren't very correlated at all. Also, you
should be able to see that data which, say, were mostly
uncorrelated could have a correlated component superposed
on it, which would increase the r.

Mike Morris
)

Actually, this methodology is very weak, as pointed out by Dr. Miller


[begin include]
The Pediatric Forum - March 1998

Drawing Conclusions About Temporal Order

Two recent articles published in the ARCHIVES[1,2] argue
that they have found evidence for "causal" relationships
between spanking and antisocial behavior in children,
such that increased spanking causes antisocial behavior.
Unfortunately, their methods do not allow for such
conclusions. In fact, their methods do not allow for any
conclusions at all. I believe it is particularly
important to point out these mistakes because they have
become commonplace in the social sciences[3] and it is
important that these mistakes do not become commonplace
in medical research.
One initial mistake made by both authors is the claim
that they are testing for causality with longitudinal
data.[1] Causal inferences can only be drawn from
experiments.[4] What can be tested for with longitudinal
data is temporal order.[5] Temporal order is frequently
cited as an important aspect of causality.[4]

In longitudinal research, the temporal order between
variables can be known or unknown. For example, the
temporal order between sex and risk of heart disease is
clear: sex is most often assigned at birth and heart
disease usually develops in middle or old age. In
contrast, the temporal order between spanking and
antisocial behavior is unknown.

In cases where temporal order is known, standard
statistical methods such as regression models or the
analysis of variance (ANOVA) approach chosen by Straus et
al[1] can be used. Structural equation modeling, as used
by Gunnoe and Mariner,[2] was originally thought to be a
technique that can be used for ascertaining temporal
order.[6,7] Unfortunately, Rogosa[3] demonstrated that
this was not the case and that the coefficients produced
by structural models were essentially meaningless. He
showed that the coefficients produced by structural
analysis are more related to the length of time between
testing than to the actual data and demonstrated in a
simulation study that some predictive correlations
changed from 0.5 to -0.5 depending on the length of time
between waves of testing. The problems associated with
structural analysis also apply to the ANOVA approach used
by Straus et al. Miller and colleagues[8-10] demonstrated
the same problem hypothesized by Rogosa with actual data.
They found in 3 studies that actual temporal order was
the reverse of what was concluded by regression
equations. The primary problem with regression and
structural equation models is that they do not control or
test for concurrent change. Thus, it is possible that
spanking and antisocial behavior change together over
time and that shorter time intervals are required to
assess any temporal order.[10] Any variation that could
be ascribed to concurrent change is simply not taken into
account by the statistical models used by Straus et al
and Gunnoe and Mariner.

Dywer and Feinleib[5] and Miller[10] have suggested
appropriate statistical methods that can be used for
determining temporal order with longitudinal data. For
these methods, both spanking and antisocial behavior must
be assessed at 3 or more time points. As Rogosa[3]
pointed out, it takes 3 time points to correctly assess
the trajectory of a single subject. Therefore, at least 3
time points are required to assess intraindividual
change.

Straus et al had 3 waves of data, so they may have been
able to conduct an analysis that could determine temporal
order between these variables. The study by Gunnoe and
Mariner had only 2 waves of data, so their design does
not allow determinations of temporal order. Straus et al
did not report whether spanking behavior was assessed at
the last data collection point. To test for temporal
order, each variable would have to be assessed at all 3
points. Therefore, it is unclear whether Straus et al
could have conducted an analysis to determine temporal
order.

In sum, no causal or temporal inferences can be drawn
from either Straus et al or Gunnoe and Mariner because
causal inferences cannot be drawn from longitudinal data
and inappropriate statistical methods were used to
determine temporal order.

Todd Q. Miller, PhD
Preventive Medicine and Community Health, K53
University of Texas Medical Branch
Galveston, TX 77598-1153

References

1. Straus MA, Sugarman DB, Giles-Sims J. Spanking by
parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:761-767.

2. Gunnoe ML, Mariner CL. Toward a
developmental-contextual model of the effects of parental
spanking on children's aggression. Arch Pediatr Adolesc
Med. 1997;151:768-786.

3. Rogosa D. Myths about longitudinal research. In:
Schaie KW, Campbell RT, Meredith W, Rawlings SC, eds.
Methodological Issues in Aging Research. New York, NY:
Springer Publishing Co Inc; 1988.

4. Holland PW. Statistics and causal inference. J Am Stat
Assoc. 1986;81:945-960.

5. Dwyer J, Feinleib M. Introduction to statistical
models for longitudinal observation. In: Dwyer J,
Feinleib M, Lippert P, Hoffmeister H, eds. Statistical
Models for Longitudinal Studies of Health. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press; 1992.

6. Kenny DA. Cross-lagged panel correlations: a test for
spuriousness. Psychol Bull. 1975;82:887-903.

7. Newcomb MD, Bentler PM. Frequency and sequence of drug
use: a longitudinal study from early adolescence to young
adulthood. J Drug Educ. 1986;16:101-120.

8. Miller T, Flay BR. Using log-linear models for
longitudinal data to test alternative explanations for
stage-like phenomena: an example from research on
adolescent substance use. Multivar Behav Res.
1996;31:169-196.

9. Miller T, Volk R. The relationship between weekly
marijuana use and cocaine use: a discrete-time survival
analysis. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse. 1996;5:55-78.

10. Miller T. Statistical methods for describing temporal
order in longitudinal research. J Clin Epidemiol. In
press.

(Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152:305-306)

[end include]

Doan

in article , Michael S. Morris at
wrote on 10/18/03 12:18 PM:



Saturday, the 18th of October, 2003

I would like to make a side comment here that gives a
few links to some web resources I think are pretty
cool.

The general problem is argument by "social scientists"
from out of empirical studies resulting in weak
correlations.

For example, one of the most widely touted anti-spanking
studies is the one by Murray Straus, David Sugarman, and
Jean Giles-Sims, "Spanking by Parents and Subsequent Antisocial
Behavior of Children", 1997 (Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
Medicine). (NB: Kane has not touted this particular study, so this
is not immediately relevant to any argument with him.)
The text of their article can be found at
http://www.unh.edu/frl/cp24.htm,
although links to figures and tables seem sadly to be broken.

It's not too difficult to read. Basically what they did is
looked at a "longitudinal study" (a study over years of time)
of mothers with children where data were available for such
things as frequency of spanking at ages 6-9 and anti-social
behaviour two years later. Call the spanking CP (for "corporal
punishment") and the anti-social behaviour later, ASB. Then a
naive advocate of spanking might expect that the greater the
CP, the lower the ASB (i.e. spanking reduces bad behaviour).
The authors begin with this data set of 7725 women with 8513 children
studied between 1979 and 1988. They then pare the data set down
to study only those women with chidren between the ages of 6 and 9
in 1988 (only 1239 children), and then, of those, the ones
for whom all data they wanted to control for (such as SES "social
economic status") were available (910 children). This amounted to
807 mothers. And, what they found is a positive correlation
between CP and ASB. The authors are clearly anti-spanking and
they see this finding as evidence that spanking *causes* the
ASB.

Anyway, some of the details of their analysis are contained
in the paper, and one can certainly argue extensively with
their interpretation, the meanings they attach to various
"scores" that are used for the purposes of analysis, etc., but,
what I wanted to point to is the 2nd paragraph under the
tile Results and subtitle Correlation Analysis. Notice that the
correlation coefficients being reported are numbers in the
range r=0.20-0.29.

What I want to point to is what that means. If you've had
any course in laboratory science, you'll know that even data points
which are expected to follow some known linear relationship
in physics often don't. There will be error in measurements
from various cources, and there will be random scatter of the
data about the expected relation. What these authors are doing
is linear regression, essentially plotting data points of (CP, ASB)
as (x,y) in what is called a "scatter plot", and then getting
their computer (although graphing calculators now do this easily) to
draw a best-fit line through the data (a line which technically
minimizes the sum of the squared distances to the line from the
data points). A rather encyclopaedic resource on linear regression
can be found at
http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html.
But, basically, what is important here are two things: The slope found
for
the line, and the correlation coefficient. (If the slope
is positive, then you tend to get more ASB later for more CP
now. If it were negative, then you'd get less ASB
later for more CP now.) But, also, there is the question of how
good does a line model what's going on, and that is what
the correlation coefficient is (partly) telling you. For a
data set with r=+1.0, that means the data points all line up
perfectly on a line of positive slope (we'd call that a
correlation). For a data set with r=-1.0, that means the
data points all line up on a line with negative slope (we'd
call that an anti-correlation). If r=0.0, then the data are
uncorrelated. So, what does a correlation coefficient of
r=0.29 mean?

What is often unnoticed in these studies is a little figure called the
variance. The correlation coefficient is the square root of the variance.
The variance is the fraction of the variation of the dependent variable
which is attributable to a linear relationship between the independent and
dependent variables.

Yes, this is technical, but here is how it works.

An r of 0.29 means the variance r^2 = 0.0841. In other words, slightly more
than 8% of the difference in measured antisocial behavior in this study can
be attributed to a linear relationship with corporal punishment.

In other words, an r of 0.29 doesn't prove anything.

At Clemson University, we in the math department regularly had good laughs
at the Psych department's expense over their use (or abuse) of stats.


Well, that's what I wanted to give what I think is a really
cool link for:
http://www.stat.uiuc.edu/~stat100/java/guess/PPApplet.html

This is a little applet that allows you to click the mouse
and put down data points, and it will calculate and show you the
best fit line (by linear regression) to your data, and calculate
the correlation coefficient. It is fun to play with. Try to
put down lines of data and see what you get. Then put down
lines of data where the data points are "off" the line. Then try to put
down data sets that are uncorrelated (circles of data, or
"shotgun"-style clusters of data points). Try making a cluster of
data points with a weak correlation and then add a few points far
outside the cluster and watch what happens to that correlation.
Then, explore using the random points button. For instance,
I stuck in 807 points with a correlation coefficient of r=0.29
(note that this would be fewer than the study above used for any
given correlation, since they are taking subsets of the 807 possible
points in order to control for other factors such as age and
SES). Anyway, notice how uncorrelated it looks?

I think by playing around with this lovely little toy you
can convince yourself a correlation coefficient of r0.30
means the data aren't very correlated at all. Also, you
should be able to see that data which, say, were mostly
uncorrelated could have a correlated component superposed
on it, which would increase the r.

Mike Morris
)

"Doan" wrote in message
...
On 18 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
(...)
From 19 on I hardly had a week go by when it wasn't a consideration.
My 4 year military experience was especially telling. The weirdest
troops I knew, some very dangerous or at least perverse in the
telling, were spanked folks.

LOL! Personal opinion again!
(...)

For some amazing reason, I never had a single data point
on spanked/non-spanked provided to me by the people
I served with in the military. Somehow, it *never* came
up. Young men responding to a question "where you spanked
as a child" I would expect to be answer with bravado and
exaggerated bragging...because that's what young men in the
military *do*.

Imagine this picture... 18 to 20 year old young men sitting
in the barracks BSing. One of them says..."let's discuss
comparative parenting styles, eh?"

Now who is weird?

Imagine 18 to 20 year old young men sitting in the barracks BSing
and someone talks about the fights he'd get in with his dad and the
first time he came out on top. Oh, yeah? sez the next guy. You
should 'a seen *my* old man... the next next guy...not to be outdone...
explains that his old lady could take any of the other guy's dads,
why one time she took after me and my sister and...

Perverse in the telling?

This is the military we're talking about, right?

Perverse in the telling is a military ART.

--Julie

Oh, yeah? sez the next guy. You should 'a seen *my* old man...

Julie: Good point.
For GI's it's a braggadocio thing.
A tough guys version of keeping up with the Joneses.
It seems like CPS caseworkers probably brag up the horror cases.

There is another effect where cops and caseworkers
report on a case and later objects and situations
are twice as big or ten times worse than it was
on their reports. It's called progressive elaboration.
Each time the story is told even by the same person
more and more exaggeration takes place.

This effect takes place even worse as these people
pass the story between each other, as in the old
game of "telephone". Also known as gossip.

Kane and pro-CPS people like to use what is known
as demogoguery, where they pretend that every one of
thousands of child removals is because of horrible
blood, broken bones and sexual abuse.
The reality is just not so ""exciting"" for people
living out a rescue fantasy.

The GI's want to best each other at being tough.

The cops need validation as ""heros"" getting the bad guys.

The caseworkers need to conceal the fact that
95+ percent of their cases are boring as hell and
don't involve ""saving"" any child.

Isn't it all "keeping up with the Joneses" sorta?

"Julie Pascal" wrote in message
...
"Doan" wrote in message
...
On 18 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
(...)
From 19 on I hardly had a week go by when it wasn't a consideration.
My 4 year military experience was especially telling. The weirdest
troops I knew, some very dangerous or at least perverse in the
telling, were spanked folks.

LOL! Personal opinion again!
(...)

For some amazing reason, I never had a single data point
on spanked/non-spanked provided to me by the people
I served with in the military.

Then you didn't serve in the same profession I did.

Somehow, it *never* came
up.

Don't tell me. You were a cook.

Young men responding to a question "where you spanked
as a child" I would expect to be answer with bravado and
exaggerated bragging...because that's what young men in the
military *do*.

Not in the setting I asked such questions.

Imagine this picture... 18 to 20 year old young men sitting
in the barracks BSing. One of them says..."let's discuss
comparative parenting styles, eh?"

Now who is weird?

You for thinking I was just sitting around the barracks chatting up
the
troops.

Imagine 18 to 20 year old young men sitting in the barracks BSing
and someone talks about the fights he'd get in with his dad and the
first time he came out on top. Oh, yeah? sez the next guy. You
should 'a seen *my* old man... the next next guy...not to be outdone...
explains that his old lady could take any of the other guy's dads,
why one time she took after me and my sister and...

Sounds like you did a lot of sitting around the barracks goldbrickin'

Perverse in the telling?

You'd be even more amazed at some of the responses I got to my list of
questions.

This is the military we're talking about, right?

Yep.

Perverse in the telling is a military ART.

Well, if you say so, dearie.

Where I asked the questions misleading me could result in a courts
martial or
at least an Article 15. kapeesh?

The USAF didn't just let anyone do the job I was interviewing them to
send them off to school to learn.

Ever been in a strategic missile silo?

Ever wondered about the stability of those that send those merry
giants on their way?

Want some spanked kiddies to grow up and get into that line of work?

We asked the question and others to determine the fitness just for the
training...let alone for the work. Much more psych evals were being
done during and after training...and periodically on duty.

And spanked boys and girls were rejected. Routinely. They do NOT hold
up well under the kind of stress involved in a missile silo.

Guess why.

--Julie

yawn

"Kane" wrote in message
om...

You for thinking I was just sitting around the barracks chatting up
the
troops.

Actually, considering your history of spouting unsupported 'facts', I
haven't ruled out the possibility that you are exaggerating,
fabricating, or downright lying.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:20:54 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
. com...

You for thinking I was just sitting around the barracks chatting up
the
troops.

Actually, considering your history of spouting unsupported 'facts', I
haven't ruled out the possibility that you are exaggerating,
fabricating, or downright lying.

Funny, I had the same thought about you. I find that those that can't
figure out that being hit and being spanked are mutually inclusive are
having some major thinking errors and lying to perpetuate that is rife
among the bull**** crowd.

USAF, honorable discharge, January 1960. At least that is what my
DD214 says.

My service was in military intelligence. I taught pilots, in TAC,
(Tactical Air Command) enemy aircraft identification and created the
first handheld flashcards for pilot inflight use. I hear they were
still around twenty years later, no longer in my primative 3 by 5
color coded cards with a stationary screw post through the corner for
ease of browsing one handed format though.

I hear they went slick with a nice non-reflective waterproof coating
and they fastened to a holder that let one just push a button to fan
through them. Course that was about five years ago I heard that, and
my best guess is now it's all on a LCD readout and much more
sophisticated than my simple tool. I suspect it's now voice activated
and includes sound with a heads up projection on the canopy forward.

Instant comparison of the virtual to the live craft right outside the
cockpit.

My other later jobs were much more interesting. E&E pilot trainer for
SAC and later preliminary testing I performed on candidates for
missile control.

I was assigned to Strategic Air Command when General
Curtis E. LeMay commanded. He had a habit of lighting up his
ubiquitious cigar on the flight line and would occasionally bust any
enlisted man down one rank that would ask him to put it out if they
pushed it too hard. Officers knew better. Pity the poor Airman Basic.

Aviation fuel do burn bright, it do, but so far as I know he never lit
up a SAC bomber.

I didn't last long in the air command portion as my considerable
talents sent me into training settings.

Modesty has never been a problem for me. Any more you want to know
about my long and interesting life.

Ask me about working with horses. Or try classical guitar. I cook in
three languages, Guandong (Cantonese) being my favorite.

I'm one of those annoying renaissance men. I actually have built a
house (more than one), delivered a baby (more than one), commanded and
been commanded, planned and executed a military excursion (E&E, it's
sorta like Lazertag and a Dungeons and Dragons combined...only you get
to really die of you don't do it well.)

I've rebuilt car engines, grown and harvested crops, raised and
butchered livestock, hunted and fished from northern border to
southern, and have a sloppy command of three languages besides my
native one. Enough to survive as my words here attest to.

You callin' me a liar?

You spanking apologists are congenital liars, so practiced and so
immersed that you can't even tell it yourselves. Sad cases really.

Bullies. Plain and simple. Moral bankrupts. And sanctimonious about it
too.

In fact that was the thing that made me at 19 determine I'd never hit
a child for any reason. I was brought up not to be a bully. It also
turned me into an athiest, among other fine pieces of intellectualy
empty rhetoric from fundies.

Kane

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
"Julie Pascal" wrote in message
On 18 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
(...)
From 19 on I hardly had a week go by when it wasn't a consideration.
My 4 year military experience was especially telling. The weirdest
troops I knew, some very dangerous or at least perverse in the
telling, were spanked folks.
(...)

Somehow, it *never* came
up.

Don't tell me. You were a cook.

No. But I have far more respect for support troops than
you obviously do. As a former military person, verteran,
etc. I find your attitude offensive. But then, I was stationed
in a place where people were being shot and killed. I suppose
that makes a difference in attitude concerning respect for people
who wear the uniform.

Even the cook.

Young men responding to a question "where you spanked
as a child" I would expect to be answer with bravado and
exaggerated bragging...because that's what young men in the
military *do*.

Not in the setting I asked such questions.
(...)
Where I asked the questions misleading me could result in a courts
martial or
at least an Article 15. kapeesh?

The USAF didn't just let anyone do the job I was interviewing them to
send them off to school to learn.

Really. The only truely *selective* enlisted jobs I know of in
the Air Force are special ops. Other jobs do take psych evaluations.
Many other jobs take security clearances and back ground investigations.

Wow... you know. I never got *asked* if I was spanked
either. Not in psych evaluations or in security background
investigations. And I did have to have both.

Amazing! And they gave me an SBI clearance. I am *stunned*.

Ever been in a strategic missile silo?

I've been in a demo only. My FIL worked in silos for years and years.
Are you trying to impress someone?

Ever wondered about the stability of those that send those merry
giants on their way?

Okay... so you were doing psych evaluations for ROTC and
Academy Cadets. Wow!! You never cease to amaze
me, Kane. Or was it the bootstrap program or OTS that
you interviewed for?

Want some spanked kiddies to grow up and get into that line of work?

I'm sure they do. And they work in Cheyenne Mountain. And they
fly aircraft with nuclear payloads. And they work OED. And they
fly medical evac. Some of them parachute in behind enemy lines and
use laser targeting to direct air strikes.

Shall we talk about Nuclear Submarines? I don't know anything about
Nuclear Submarines.

We asked the question and others to determine the fitness just for the
training...let alone for the work. Much more psych evals were being
done during and after training...and periodically on duty.

And spanked boys and girls were rejected. Routinely. They do NOT hold
up well under the kind of stress involved in a missile silo.

Guess why.

You have *so* blown your credibility. Ooops... I guess that
assumes you had some. Girls? In missile silos? Surely only in
empty silos that need a new coat of paint or wiring and then you get
to go home and the *stress* isn't any more than any other maintenance
job. Locked in a silo for a week at a time is *not* girls. You are
such a liar.

Silos have either 2 or 4 person crews. Officers. Males. Which
is just no fair at all, but that's the way it is. The guys with the keys.

I'm told it's a very good opportunity to get advanced degrees
through correspondence.

--Julie

Dennis Hancock wrote:

Byron, how is the burdon of proof upon him? Spanking has been used for
centuries without the adverse effects psychologists claim it has upon
children. I would think that those who advocate 'reasoning' with a very
young child to be able to show some evidence or scientific proof that one
CAN reason without endangering that child's life.

Actually, Dennis, the proof is not upon you. What is your evidence that
spanking has been used for centuries with the adverse effects psychologists
claim it has upon children? Empirical evidence please, Dennis -- not your
opinion. You state this as fact, base your claim with data supporting your
factual statement.

There are a multitude of parenting strategies for very young children that do
not rely on reasoning or spanking. The first is to understand where this
little child is developmentally and have appropriate expectations. Then try
avoiding the issue if the expectation is developmentally inappropriate. Use
redirection, substitution, extinction, meeting child's immediate needs, and a
multitude of other parenting strategies. If you want more information, please
ask. I've posted this many times on alt.parenting.spanking. Parenting is
about teaching. Parenting is about helping children develop internal control
and moral reasoning -- it's not about hitting for compliance.

And a multitude of studies spanning several decades exist showing that spanking
is linked to long and short term risk factors and no studies that show spanking
to be preferrable to alternative forms of discipline that do not involve
hitting, hurting, shaming, or demeaning a child. Of course, if you have
studies that support your position, I'd love to read them. Please post your
sources.

LaVonne

Dennis Hancock wrote:

Byron, and the increase in crime has skyrocketed in recent years, especially
since we've been bombarded with psychobabble about how bad it is to spank a
child. Many are growing up as spoiled brats, without any form of discipline
in their lives and grow to adulthood and add to the problem.

Do you have evidence that links lack of spanking to an increase in crime. If
you do, please post your sources.

I've read multiple studies that have identified correlations between corporal
punishement and juvenile crime. Perhaps you have different sources that I
have. I'm anxious to see your references and read the studies that led you to
the conclusion that lack of spanking is correlated with an increase in crime.

Thanks, Dennis. I'll look forward to seeing your references.

LaVonne