Teenagers faced with spankings

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

You accuse AF of lying because he omitted important information. By that
standard, you are also a liar because you repeatedly talk about how huge a
proportion of criminals were spanked without bothering to mention how hugely
disproportionate a percentage of those were subject to abuse, not just what
the law considers acceptable spanking. Compared with the seriousness of
your omission, AF's is no big deal.

---

I'm having a hard time pinpointing whether your reference to Dr. Embry's
"study" is to his his letter to Children Magazine, which says nothing about
a study in the scientific sense of the term, or to something else. In
regard to the letter, I see some serious problems. Embry wrote, "Actual
observation of parents and children shows that spanking, scolding,
reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries by children.
Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way to gain parents'
attention." But observational data collected by watching children would be
guaranteed to give skewed results. Children who quickly decided that going
into the street wasn't worth getting spanked would be unlikely to be
observed going out into the street at all, and thus unlikely to be observed
getting spanked for it. In contrast, the less successful spanking is in
deterring children from going out in the street, the higher the probability
of their being observed going out into the street and getting spanked. And
the children most likely to be observed going out into the street and
getting spanked would be the ones with the behavior pattern Embry
described - doing it for the attention. That could easily lead to an
impression that spanking increases the likelihood of children's going out in
the street even if its usual effect is to significantly reduce the
likelihood. (And the same applies to the other techniques he listed.)

In regard to the Safe Playing program, have you noticed that its stickers
and extra positive attention are basically a form of bribery? I don't
regard that as too high a price in a special case where it can save
children's lives. But as a matter of basic policy, I view bribery as worse
than punishment. Instead of teaching children that doing the right thing is
something that is expected of them, bribery teaches children to expect a
reward just for not doing something that's wrong. And it's not as if bribes
give children any more reason to behave than punishments do when they expect
not to get caught.

To clarify, I view it as a good thing if parents take a unilateral
initiative to let children know every now and then that their good behavior
is appreciated, or especially when a positive change in behavior is
appreciated. But if it turns into a quid pro quo arrangement where a child
feels like he or she is supposed to be rewarded just for not doing something
wrong, I view that as a problem.

I'll also point out that the Safe Playing program is a response to a type of
behavior that normally has essentially no intrinsic reward. The only
significnat reward is normally the attention the child gets - assuming the
child views negative attention as a reward in the first place - and the
program offers children a better quality of attention to replace it. That's
hardly clear evidence that nonpunitive techniques would work equally well
when children have more to gain from misbehaving - especially if parents
don't offer a bigger bribe, or if the children think they won't be caught
and lose out on the bribe.

I could bring up a few other issues that may or may not be all that
relevant, but it's not worth the time.


The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
punishment is FALSE!

I didn't make that claim. My claim is, as you conveniently point out for
me, quoting me, is that I disagree with Embry's use of the word to
describe something the child is unlikely to experience as punishment,
attention from mommy. Mom does sit with the child and encourage him to
watch safe play.

Normal humans consider parental attention a good thing, not a
punishment, unless of course mom is whacking the child while he's doing
"sit and watch."

Here is an earlier admission

"Admission?" R R R, that I disagree with Embry characterizing this as a
punishment? Admission of what, Doan? That I tell the truth and give my
opinion. Yep, you got me there.

on the issue of
punishment:

"One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
word. "

Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)

Yes, why are you not urging him to actually read the report on the Embry
study for himself? Send him a copy.

Or are you chicken **** to do it?



Doan

---

In regard to the following

And if you can show any studies comparing parents who used only
nonpunitive
methods with parents who spank, what did those studies do to address the
problem of self-selection bias, especially the possibility of parents who
started off using purely nonpunitive methods giving up and starting
punishing if the nonpunitive methods didn't work?
this is NOT something I got from Doan. And it's not a trick either. You're
taking a much stronger position than the current state of the available
research can even come close to supporting in a scientifically valid way.
As I recall, you yourself recognize that positive parenting techniques
require extra up-front effort. That can reasonably be expected to have a
significant impact on the quality of parents that use them and stick with
them, which in turn makes self-selection bias an extremely important issue.

---

I saved a copy of your message in case I might want to track down your links
later, but trying to separate the wheat from the chaff in a Google search
isn't my favorite thing in the world even when I initiate the search myself.
Right now, I'm not in the mood for it.

"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

Straus and Mouradian's 1998 study divided mothers who spanked into
three
categories depending on whether they "never," "sometimes," or "often"
spanked as a result of having "lost it." The outcomes for mothers
who
sometimes spanked as a result of having "lost it" were significantly
worse
than those for mothers who never spanked, and the outcomes for those
who
often spanked as a result of having "lost it" were even worse still.
But
the outcomes for mothers who never spanked as a result of having
"lost
it"
were very close to those for mothers who never spanked at all -
slightly
worse, but either within the margin of error or too close to attach
much
meaning in a study where self-selection bias is present. Note that
that
study controlled for only one of several factors that I believe makes
a
significant (if not huge) difference in how effective or dangerous
spanking
is, yet it ended up with a group of spanking mothers with results
extremely
close to the results of mothers who never spanked.
Also, it is important to note that Straus and Mouradian (1998) also
found that, among these mothers, the more non-cp used, the worse the
outcomes. In other words,
the non-cp methods were no better than spanking.

AF
Hihihi.


You are lying again. I've repeatedly pointed out that out of the four
alternatives examined by the study. three were punitive.
Where is the lie? The statement was that non-CP methods were no better
than
spanking, not that non-punitive methods were no better than spanking.
The
fact that a person leaves out a point you consider important does not
make
the person a liar.
Sure it does, because he and I have had this same exchange many times.
He knows the truth and conceals it. It's a harassment tactic, and he
admits he's here for harassment.

A good definition of lying is any attempt to decieve either by
commission or omission.

Can you cite any study that compares outcomes for parents who used only
nonpunitive methods with outcomes for parents who spank at all?
Yep. The Embry study. We've discussed it here before, and Dennis
Embry's comments to a family magazine where he points out that punitive
methods, including slaps, spanking, etc. result in worse results, and
"catch them being good" and instructing is far more successful.

The issue was 'street entries.' Embry isn't a spanking opponent or
advocate. He's a traffic analyst witha considerable practice consulting
with principalities. He's also interested in education generally, but
more specifically about dangerous behavior, and more specifically
safety.

If not,
then a lack of studies that show CP to be better than the exclusive use
of
nonpunitive methods is meaningless.
There are not to show that it's the same, actually. What is meaningful
is that there are none to show that non-cp, and non-punitive methods
are HARMFULL, and more than enough, thousands actually, that show CP IS
harmful.

If there aren't any studies that look
at the use of exclusively nonpunitive methods, that leaves wide open the
possibility that such methods average working worse than spanking does
It would be if we were seeing it crop up in other studies. Like those
of mentally ill, and criminals.

We see that yes indeedy, spanking is linked to both those. In fact I
put one up in this thread today, and I've discussed here at length in
the past.

- or
would average working worse if parents who try them weren't generally
wiilling to change their minds and make at least some use of punishment
if
purely nonpunitive approaches aren't working.
Yes, it is the extention of the "non-CP" concept. And comes rather
often to the minds of parents that either never used, or have rejected
later, CP methods. They simply think to themselves, if non-cp works,
then why not non-punishment.

Those that try that find that they are often quite correct in their
assumption. It does work even better than non-CP, but punishing
discipline.

The parent becomes the partner in learning, and coach, and safety
engineer, in the child's development. Nothing magic about it at all,
except it's a concept foreign to so many.

It doesn't look like it will work to the observer, and then when they
see it, some still have trouble understanding what took place.

Yet if I described an apprenticeship relationship you and most folks
would have little trouble with the cooperative aspects being showcased.


It's that old belief that children are born with the propensity toward
evil and non-cooperation.

They are born with nothing but a desire to survive and thrive. How that
manifests can be easily directed to be, or appear to be, uncooperative,
or their cooperative nature can be focused on with a minimum of
struggles for power.

And if you can show any studies comparing parents who used only
nonpunitive
methods with parents who spank, what did those studies do to address the
problem of self-selection bias, especially the possibility of parents who
started off using purely nonpunitive methods giving up and starting
punishing if the nonpunitive methods didn't work?
As Doan knows, and I've said, no such studies exist. That's why he asks
for them. That's not debate. That's manipulation, harassment, and
clever lying.

Those who study subjects such as learning theory, and work those out in
child care centers often attached to universities and colleges get to
see it with their own eyes.

Children who are being "uncooperative," have problems. Not a threat to
adults.

They may have been taught they have to fight to access the environment
and events that nature tells them they must.

They may be compromised physiologically in some way, genetically,
environmentally, or by bad teaching as above.

The kids (young students) get it, sometimes, and others they are so
steeped in the power struggle tradition they are not suited to teach.
Probably not to parent, but then they have the right.

How far into this subject do you wish to go?

Read Glasser?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...nt&btnG=Search


Druikers?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...nt&btnG=Search

These aren't anti spanking Zealots. Just child development and
education basic researchers.

By basic, I mean they used children, not theory.

Do you wish to argue with me like Doan does, dodging and focusing on
what ever will get you away from responsible exploration?

You accuse me, wrongly I might add, of not welcoming your or other's
"experience" and information. That's a door that swings both ways.

If you are going to argue with me then you have to argue with what I
use as my support.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...nt&btnG=Search

Read up. Tell me what's wrong with their research.

I'll listen.

0 : -

I'm not going to carry on much more conversation with you if you insist
on doing so from ignorance. Read the Embry study. Get back to me.

Kane

Since you claimed to have this study in PDF format, why don't you sent
him a copy so that he can read it? Come one, Kane! I DARE YOU! I
DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
punishment:

"One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
word. "

Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)

Doan

BTW, Kane also claimed to have this study in PDF format.

That's not what I said, Doan. You are lying again.

You asked me if it was, and I didn't answer.

See if you can
can get him to send you a copy. Knowing him and his M.O, he will give
you all kind of excuse on why he can't send you one. ;-)

Odd, you have claimed you have it. Why aren't you offering it to him?

Or telling him, as I did, where he can get it for himself.

I don't want YOU to have a copy of what I have, Doan. Not until I know
the two are the same.

You lied about having it before, and you'll lie again if you can get
your hands on the same narrative report I have.

If you do have it, fine. I'll know when you send it to someone that will
discuss it with me, and answer simple questions to establish we are
looking at the same document.

Doan

Why didn't you tell him you have it, and why didn't you tell him how he
could get it?

0:-

Doan wrote:
I'm not going to carry on much more conversation with you if you insist
on doing so from ignorance. Read the Embry study. Get back to me.

Kane

Since you claimed to have this study in PDF format,

You are lying. The only format I said I had it in was hard copy. YOU
asked me if I had it in PDF. I made no reply to that.

why don't you sent
him a copy so that he can read it? Come one, Kane! I DARE YOU! I
DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)

"Now that I have this study, I am willing to provide it to any one who
asked. Just send me an email. Or you could try asking Kane! ;-)

Doan "

"LOL! You are not fooling anyone, Kane. I am willing to provide this
study to anyone that asked, can you do the same? You can't even provide
the sample size of this study. What a pity!

Doan "

No Doan, I have a hunch you still don't have the study I have, and I'm
not willing for you to have it unless YOU get it on your own, not from
me through someone else.

You are too much of a liar.

By the way, you and I both know I had and cited the study sample size
and that for a test of program it was quite adequate. Many valid studies
are doing, when testing a theory, without huge groups.

In fact you do not want a huge sample size.

You would if it was a survey. This shows how ignorant you actually are.

So, are you going to send him the study, or does he have to purchase it
through AAA?

Which I note, you didn't even bother to tell him about.

You are such a lying weasel, Doan.

Doan


0:-

Under a pen name.

Which is?

Greegor wrote:
Under a pen name.

Which is?

Oliver Sutton?

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
punishment:

"One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
word. "

Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)

Doan

BTW, Kane also claimed to have this study in PDF format.

That's not what I said, Doan. You are lying again.

The liar here is always you! That is your problem. You are a PATHOLICAL
LIAR!

You asked me if it was, and I didn't answer.

Shall I looked it up in google and show it to you?

See if you can
can get him to send you a copy. Knowing him and his M.O, he will give
you all kind of excuse on why he can't send you one. ;-)

Odd, you have claimed you have it. Why aren't you offering it to him?

Or telling him, as I did, where he can get it for himself.

I don't want YOU to have a copy of what I have, Doan. Not until I know
the two are the same.

You lied about having it before, and you'll lie again if you can get
your hands on the same narrative report I have.

If you do have it, fine. I'll know when you send it to someone that will
discuss it with me, and answer simple questions to establish we are
looking at the same document.

Doan

Why didn't you tell him you have it, and why didn't you tell him how he
could get it?

Because I want to show him what a liar you are. Did you tell that the
study has nothing to do with spanking but the actual analysis on stree
entries was with "reprimands"? ;-)

Doan

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
punishment:

"One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
word. "

Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)

I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that
punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and
watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having to
sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that is
very definitely a punishment.

Of course it is; that iss was the author of the study called it. See how
Kane dance on this issue:

"I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry
on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you
challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?" "

One thing is for sure - HE IS NO EMBRY! ;-)

The real distinguishing feature as to whether or not something is a
punishment is in whether its intent is that the unpleasant experience deter
the child from doing the same thing again. If that motive plays a
significant role in a parent's choice, the parent is punishing the child.
Trying to deny that fact is fundamentally dishonest, and that dishonesty is
probably a large part of why Kane views "punishment" as such a terrible
thing. He's figured out a way to accept the need for punishment on a
practical level while still denying it on an intellectual level.

Chuckle. If you follow him long enough, you will discover that he is no
intellectual. He is just a stupi anti-spanking zealotS who try give
other people in this newsgroup the impression that he is some kind of
bigshot. ;-) Do you know that he is stupid enough to claim that he
is published? That he has a collection of studies in file cabinets
and bookshelves??? It is just childish and STUPID!!!

Doan

On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
punishment:


"One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
word. "

Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)

Really? How so?

Really? Here is the actual quotes:

Doan:
He would also know that along with positive reinforcement, giving stickers for
safe play, Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for unsafe
play.

Kane:
"Actually he did no such thing. He prescribed sitting and watching
other children playing safely. Dr. Embry knows how the human brain
actually works and the power of learning through modeling.


This tells me clearly you DO NOT have the study at all. "


Remember that, Kane? So who is the LIAR here? ;-)


Doan



I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that
punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and
watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having to
sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that is
very definitely a punishment.

I presume you haven't read the study report, so Doan can more easily
con you.

The sit and watch included the parent, usually the mother, being with
the child.

The real distinguishing feature as to whether or not something is a
punishment is in whether its intent is that the unpleasant experience deter
the child from doing the same thing again.

No, that's called 'discipline.' A pure punishment is not limited to
teaching. It's done to hurt, or take something from the one punished.

If that motive plays a
significant role in a parent's choice, the parent is punishing the child.

What if the parent is simply instructing? That's really at that sit and
watch is about.

Trying to deny that fact is fundamentally dishonest, and that dishonesty is
probably a large part of why Kane views "punishment" as such a terrible
thing. He's figured out a way to accept the need for punishment on a
practical level while still denying it on an intellectual level.

Nope. I know perfectly well what punishment is, and what teaching is,
and what logical consequences are.

Punishment is meant to hurt.

Teaching, even if it's not what the child wants at the time is not
meant by the parent to hurt the child.

It's you that seems now to be figuring out a way to claim something not
true.

Having a child sit and watch and be attended by the parent is not
intended as punishment. It's intended as teaching. Or certainly should
be.

What I have seen is a great many parents fail for a time to get this
fact, and negate a non-cp, non-punishing method by delivering it as
though it were punishment. A few never get past it, and they claim the
method doesn't work, while they can see all around them parents that
are making it work.

They jump then to, "my child is different."

Doan is playing with you.

Enjoy.

I'm not going to carry on much more conversation with you if you insist
on doing so from ignorance. Read the Embry study. Get back to me.

Kane

Is "sit and watch" triggered by the child's going out in the street?

"0:-" wrote in message
ps.com...

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking.
It's
about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
punishment:


"One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
word. "

Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)

Really? How so?

I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that
punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and
watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having
to
sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that
is
very definitely a punishment.

I presume you haven't read the study report, so Doan can more easily
con you.

The sit and watch included the parent, usually the mother, being with
the child.

The real distinguishing feature as to whether or not something is a
punishment is in whether its intent is that the unpleasant experience
deter
the child from doing the same thing again.

No, that's called 'discipline.' A pure punishment is not limited to
teaching. It's done to hurt, or take something from the one punished.

If that motive plays a
significant role in a parent's choice, the parent is punishing the child.

What if the parent is simply instructing? That's really at that sit and
watch is about.

Trying to deny that fact is fundamentally dishonest, and that dishonesty
is
probably a large part of why Kane views "punishment" as such a terrible
thing. He's figured out a way to accept the need for punishment on a
practical level while still denying it on an intellectual level.

Nope. I know perfectly well what punishment is, and what teaching is,
and what logical consequences are.

Punishment is meant to hurt.

Teaching, even if it's not what the child wants at the time is not
meant by the parent to hurt the child.

It's you that seems now to be figuring out a way to claim something not
true.

Having a child sit and watch and be attended by the parent is not
intended as punishment. It's intended as teaching. Or certainly should
be.

What I have seen is a great many parents fail for a time to get this
fact, and negate a non-cp, non-punishing method by delivering it as
though it were punishment. A few never get past it, and they claim the
method doesn't work, while they can see all around them parents that
are making it work.

They jump then to, "my child is different."

Doan is playing with you.

Enjoy.

I'm not going to carry on much more conversation with you if you insist
on doing so from ignorance. Read the Embry study. Get back to me.

Kane