| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:18:11 -0500, "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.

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
)

Excellent Mike, and all I have is observing mentally ill spanked
children for 6 years, and extremely well adjusted children, hundreds
if not thousands of them (lost count...sorry) from 1976 to the
present...meaning I got to see extremely long term subjects, and I'm
here to state that I'll take unspanked, in fact the least punished,
over punished and spanked children for best outcomes anytime.

I have never been able to find, nor have formal researchers, in prison
and mentally ill populations, any significant number of those
unspanked as children...and the few I have found were punished in
other highly creative ways.

I have rarely found a criminal in unspanked populations and usually
they were status offenders or trusting dupes of THE SPANKED who were
criminals.

I have found over the years that scientific studies have the
weaknesses you point out in data calculations and further in analysis
by those with biases....you should see the prospank studies if you
want some garbage. The last best known one had a sample population
stripped of the "extreme spankers" and was so small a remaining sample
the researcher couldn't and wouldn't present it for peer review but
didn't mind presenting it publically at a large professional forum at
UC Berkeley.

So, I tend to fall back on my long life...I'm in my late 60's...and an
avid interest in observing children and adults with a mind to
punishment types and intensities since I was 19. I was interested even
before but only occasionally.

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.

The only puzzle left for me, after having satisifed my search for
outcomes of punishment, is why some continue it. Now there's the great
mystery.

40 or 50 years ago we simply didn't have the tools to avoid
punishment. Now we do, clearly. So the mystery.

Enjoy yourself Mike. But know that I consider those that spank and
apologize for punishment of children as morally bereft. Ignorance is
no longer a plausible rationale.

Kane

Saturday, the 18th of October, 2003

I wrote:
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).

Of course that should be "larger".



Mike Morris
)

On 18 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:18:11 -0500, "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.

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
)

Excellent Mike, and all I have is observing mentally ill spanked
children for 6 years, and extremely well adjusted children, hundreds
if not thousands of them (lost count...sorry) from 1976 to the
present...meaning I got to see extremely long term subjects, and I'm
here to state that I'll take unspanked, in fact the least punished,
over punished and spanked children for best outcomes anytime.

And that is your personal opinion. You called this science???

I have never been able to find, nor have formal researchers, in prison
and mentally ill populations, any significant number of those
unspanked as children...and the few I have found were punished in
other highly creative ways.

Again, personal opinion. Not very scientific neither. It is like saying
I have not seen a president who is a woman or black in the USA. Unless
you look at the confounding factors, such observation is pretty much
meaningless.

I have rarely found a criminal in unspanked populations and usually
they were status offenders or trusting dupes of THE SPANKED who were
criminals.

Personal opinion again!

I have found over the years that scientific studies have the
weaknesses you point out in data calculations and further in analysis
by those with biases....you should see the prospank studies if you
want some garbage. The last best known one had a sample population
stripped of the "extreme spankers" and was so small a remaining sample
the researcher couldn't and wouldn't present it for peer review but
didn't mind presenting it publically at a large professional forum at
UC Berkeley.

LOL! This is the study by Baumrind & Owens (2000) which even stout
anti-spanking zealotS like Dr. Straus had to admit that it is one
of the best one out there. This study not only looked at spanking
but also at non-cp alternative. They found, just like in Straus &
Mouradian (1998), the non-cp alternatives are no better!

So, I tend to fall back on my long life...I'm in my late 60's...and an
avid interest in observing children and adults with a mind to
punishment types and intensities since I was 19. I was interested even
before but only occasionally.

And all I have to look at is this newsgroup. Guess who is the most
obnoxious, using terms like "****", "smelly-****", "whore"? They are
the two self-proclaimed "never-spanked" persons: Steve and Kane!

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!

The only puzzle left for me, after having satisifed my search for
outcomes of punishment, is why some continue it. Now there's the great
mystery.

Hey, Kane. Is it time to get rid of juvenile hall? Let's start in your
neck of the wood! ;-)

40 or 50 years ago we simply didn't have the tools to avoid
punishment. Now we do, clearly. So the mystery.

40 or 50 years ago, we have lower rate of crime! ;-)

Enjoy yourself Mike. But know that I consider those that spank and
apologize for punishment of children as morally bereft. Ignorance is
no longer a plausible rationale.

I believed! I believed! ;-) Who need science when we have Kane, the
"never-spanked" boy! ;-)

Doan

"Kane" wrote in message
It isn't dishonest of me to consider the link between abuse and
spanking nor is it dishonest of me to consider the state of the world
and its societies as possibly being linked to the use of pain and
humiliation in parenting.

One can find a 'link' to just about everything, yet there is a vast
difference between 'abuse' and 'spanking'. To try to qualify the link by
using the state of the world and it's societies, you are ignoring the ever
growing psychobabble that we have been spoon fed for the past twenty years
about the evils of spanking.

Perhaps the absence of spanking is the greatest link to the state of the
world today? Since more and more begin to follow that advice almost daily.
Or is that beyond your comprehension.

I suppose you use 'reason' to a small child of one or two to keep him from
running into the street. Well it doesn't work.

Even before one can learn to reason, they learn what behavior is harmful. A
child will not touch a hot stove again once burned because of his curiosity,
and a swat on the behind which may wind up saving it's life is well
worthwhile in the long run.

I pity those who feel they can use 'reason' and 'logic' on a one or two year
old, and just hope they don't realize how flawed and deadly their handling
of a situation can truly be.


You may not LIKE it, my examining and questioning, but there is
nothing dishonest about it.

If you think so I'm sure you can point out what is dishonest on my
part by showing us the truth you think I am not showing.

No?

Kane

It's doubtful the use of brain scans can provide much insight as to lessons
learned by experience, even painful experience. All they can do is measure
the response of the brain to a situation, not the logical analytical thought
involved pertaining to one's perceptions of the event.

Even the lowest of creatures react to pain, learn to avoid certain
situations once they've experienced a bad consequence of their actions. Are
you saying that humans are less than animals in their ability to deal with
pain?

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:28:02 -0500, Jon Houts
wrote:


On 11 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote:

Interesting. All of the prisoners that
he interviewed were spanked as children.

Again, were they 'spanked' or were they beaten? One could do a study of
most of the greats of our society throughtout the past century or so and
find a large number of them had also been spanked as very young children.
What does that study show?

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...
"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...
Is anybody else seeing 2, 3 or even 5 repetitious
copies of Kane's messages in their newsreader?
Kane, Why are you duplicating messages so much?

You can tell them apart? g

Jayne

Thank you for helping us sort the sheep from the goats. One-liners
seem to be the rebuttal of choice for those who lack one.

Lack what - a sheep or a goat? g

Jayne

"Byron Canfield" wrote in message
news:acOib.768006$uu5.134118@sccrnsc04...
"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:



Ray Drouillard wrote:

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...


What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old
Testament
to
justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do not
like
or
agree with.

Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You are trying
to
justify your practice of not disciplining your children,

I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting them.

Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your
non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do is
avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How about
it, Dr. LaVonne?

Doan

The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing acts of
physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible goal when it
is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is so
obviously
harmful..


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

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.

I find it amusing you didn't jump in and challenge any of Michael Morris's
responses to the psychobabble Kaine was spouting, as he offered many logical
and reasonable explanations as to how spanking can be an effective
discipline tool and learning experience for the very young child.

"Byron Canfield" wrote in message
news:bu4jb.780770$uu5.136098@sccrnsc04...
"Ray Drouillard" wrote in message
...

"Byron Canfield" wrote in message
news:acOib.768006$uu5.134118@sccrnsc04...
"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:



Ray Drouillard wrote:

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...


What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old
Testament
to
justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do
not
like
or
agree with.

Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You are
trying to
justify your practice of not disciplining your children,

I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting them.

Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your
non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do is
avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How about
it, Dr. LaVonne?

Doan

The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing acts of
physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible goal
when it
is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is so
obviously
harmful..

Since you are proposing an alternative to system that is time-honored
and proven successful, the burden of proof is upon you.

"Time-honored" and "proven successful"? How do you figure? So, let's see,
the fact that we have a massively disproportionate increase in the number
of
people in prison for violent offenses to the increase in population makes
committing acts of violence upon impressionable youth "time-honored" and
"proven successful" -- is that the proof you mean?


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.

There has always been a situation of 'abuse' and 'spanking', two completely
different terms which most of those 'enlightened' among us try to combine.
Anyone who does not spank a very young child to teach them discipline and
not do somethin dangerous is putting their child's life at risk.

No, the burdon of proof is on those who come up with the new theories. For
all of those who were simply 'spanked' as young children and went bad, there
are millions of others who went on to become great leaders and members of
the community, a great deal of them do NOT abuse their children, but are
intelligent enough to understand the difference between disciplining them
for their own safety and abusing them.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Byron Canfield wrote:

"Ray Drouillard" wrote in message
...

"Byron Canfield" wrote in message
news:acOib.768006$uu5.134118@sccrnsc04...
"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:



Ray Drouillard wrote:

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...


What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old
Testament
to
justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do
not
like
or
agree with.

Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You are
trying to
justify your practice of not disciplining your children,

I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting them.

Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your
non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do is
avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How about
it, Dr. LaVonne?

Doan

The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing acts of
physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible goal
when it
is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is so
obviously
harmful..

Since you are proposing an alternative to system that is time-honored
and proven successful, the burden of proof is upon you.

"Time-honored" and "proven successful"? How do you figure? So, let's see,
the fact that we have a massively disproportionate increase in the number of
people in prison for violent offenses to the increase in population makes
committing acts of violence upon impressionable youth "time-honored" and
"proven successful" -- is that the proof you mean?

No, Byron. It's the experience of billions of parents world-wide, accross
religions, nations, races and cultures! In fact, the cultures that
survived and prospered are all spanking cultures!

Doan

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Byron Canfield wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Byron Canfield wrote:

Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your
non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do is
avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How about
it, Dr. LaVonne?

Doan

The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing acts of
physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible goal when
it
is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is so
obviously
harmful..

Let me see if I got this straight: 1) Spanking is legal; 2) I am not here
to jam my agenda down other people's throat. I have always said that is
up to the parents to decide what is appropriate for their children as long
as they are not breaking any laws . And you said that the burden of proof
is on me??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually
exclusive? ;-)

Doan

You said: "But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your
non-cp alternatives are any better."

I was addressing that issue -- not the law. It is also legal in some states
for a man to walk up behind his wife, in public, and rip all the clothes off
of her. Personally, I don't condone that kind of activity either.

Then address the issue! How is it better? Can you tell me a state where
it is legal to rip off the clothes of your wife in public? Logic and the
anti-spanking zealotS!

Doan