Teenagers faced with spankings

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.

---

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 : -

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! 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

---

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 : -

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. 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. ;-)

Doan

Explain why there hasn't been a massive increase in children's learning over
the last few decades as the use of corporal punishment - especially in
schools - has declined. Your claims about the relationship between corporal
punishment and children's learning look to me like they are at best an
extremely wild exaggeration. All you're doing is taking a few bits of
abstract theory, mixing them together with your prejudices, and pretending
it's evidence.

This is yet another example of your blowing children's fear of being spanked
up completely out of proportion. I'm sure there are cases where children
have a phobia of being spanked, or are so traumatized by severe or unfair
spankings, that it interferes significantly with their ability to learn.
But you'll need a lot more than abstract theory driven by your biases to
convince me that your description is anything even close to what normally
happens.


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

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
..... questions....

http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_05/article03.htm

.... Following are some of the findings from brain research (Stevens
and Goldberg, 2001)

§ Brains are specialized and are not equally good at
everything.

§ Brains are designed for fluctuations rather than
constant attention

§ Emotions are critical to successful learning.

§ Brains are poorly designed for rote learning.

§ Multi-sensory input is desired by our brains.

§ Learning involves the whole body.

§ Each brain is unique.

§ Threat, high anxiety, and a sense of helplessness
impairs learning.

§ Brains process both parts and wholes simultaneously

§ Brains are considered "plastic" and continue to
develop throughout our lives.

Figure 1. Findings from Brain Research.

Following are some of the core principles of brain-based learning.

1. The brain can perform several activities at once (e.g.
tasting and smelling).

2. Learning engages the whole body.

3. The search for meaning is innate and comes through
patterning.

4. Emotions are critical to patterning.

5. The brain processes wholes and parts simultaneously.

6. Learning involves focused attention and peripheral
perception.

7. Learning involves both conscious and unconscious
processes.

8. We have two types of memory - spatial and rote.

9. Learning and understanding are enhanced if facts are
embedded in natural, spatial memory.

10. Challenge and threat inhibits learning.

Excerpts from "Brain-Based Learning" written by On Purpose
Associates, 2004. ...

What you see above, Nathan, are just reports of what the research has
shown. Brain scan research, mostly.

How the brain lights up, where it does, where it doesn't, based on task
and conditionals applied, like STRESS.

Would you argue that spanking does not create stress, and the presence
of the spanker, even if not currently spanking, would not create stress
in the learner?

Children turn OFF in the presence of such people. Or people they
classify that way, such as "adults."

One of the most difficult challenges of the teacher is to help the new
child (the entire class of them) at the beginning of the school year to
feel safe, so they can begin learning.

It takes roughly September to the winter vacation to do that. There is
a reason. Most children are raised in threatening environments, whether
you folks wish to believe it or not.

They will fake it for you, as YOU are the giant that can and does hurt
them.

Study. Think. Stop pretending that I am the enemy that doesn't think,
when in fact I do, and YOU don't...well, not much at this point, or you
wouldn't for a moment start defending a liar like Doan.

Let's see if you can stop arguing with me and start learning. Read the
at least some of the material presented and come back and then argue
with me.

Thanks, Kane

"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.

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.

I presume that Greegor meant ideologue but misspelled it in a way that
happened to end up being a different word.

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

Greegor wrote:
Nathan:
Your thoughtful posts are basically wasted on Kane.
He is an idealogue.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source

Idealogue

\I*de"a*logue\, n. [Idea + -logue, as in theologue: cf. F.
id['e]ologue.] One given to fanciful ideas or theories; a theorist; a
spectator. [R.] --Mrs. Browning.


Would you say those that campaigned for moving from waterwheels,
windmills, and back breaking labor to electricity were Idealogues,
Greg?

Or those that decided that holding someone to a life of slavery?

Or that believed that women were not, after all, inferior to men with
less rights?

What is fanciful about my research references?

You can't disprove or argue against them, so this is what you come up
with?

Let's take a look at 'fanciful' shall we?

Up until very recently it was believed that a wife needed to be beaten
from time to time just to let her know you cared.

I was accepted that children should be beaten..not just spanked, but
soundly beaten occasionally, just to let them know you cared.

Was there one piece of scientific evidence to prove any if those
constructs of idealogues?

YOU are an idealogue, Greg. You think children should be spanked. And
made to take cold showers for wetting themselves to train them
aversively.

Isn't that correct, Greg?

Whose and idealogue?

R R R RR RR

You are.

And you are a liar.

0 ;- ]

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.

Double standard then? What makes mine more serious than his, in
argument?

As for criminals, I also included other categories that did not report
"abuse" as such. One study I referred to deliberately screened OUT such
victims, and stuck with CP only.

They experienced more depression, drug use, and suicide attempts.

---

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.

Yes. That is correct. He said it, and I have witnessed such
oppositional behavior from chidlren parented as he mentions.

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.

Why?

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.

That's not what he observed or what he said.

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 his observation was the all CP and scolding was related to higher
incidences of children going into the street.

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.

Yes? And you have trouble understanding the significance?

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.)

When would this "usual effect is to significiantly reduce the
likelihood" take place that he wouldn't have observed it?

In regard to the Safe Playing program, have you noticed that its stickers
and extra positive attention are basically a form of bribery?

Have you ever notice your boss, and customers, if you are a businessman
bribe you?

I don't
regard that as too high a price in a special case where it can save
children's lives.

It's the way of the world. We have many reasons for doing or not doing
certain things, but removing a payoff isn't one that makes people do
what you want. Just the opposite.

But as a matter of basic policy, I view bribery as worse
than punishment.

Then you will start working for no pay. I see.

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.

It's only bribery if you chose to continue it indefinately. Do you
think the parent has to do that, say until the child is 15?

And it's not as if bribes
give children any more reason to behave than punishments do when they expect
not to get caught.

Wrong. Dead wrong. Fear of getting caught is obviously not working in
the instance where spanking IS used and the children still run into the
street.

One reinforces wanted behavior until it's integrated in the other's
behavior set.

If the child is getting positive attention for playing out of the
street, in time you don't even have to make a big deal of it. They feel
good about it because it feels good to do the right thing.

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.

That is the foundation for the program Embry tests in his study.

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.

Ah, I see where the problem lies. They are NOT being rewarded for not
doing something wrong. They are being rewarded for doing something
right.

Playing in a certain area.

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.

Have you read the study?

What you said makes no sense.

Children get very good feelings from doing what is right.

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.

Yep. Except for the "only" part. What more do they need but to feel
like they are doing the right thing? Isn't that why you don't speed in
your car?

Aren't you proud of your safe driving record? Do you need stickers and
attention for it? How did you learn to do that? Wasn't their more
active participation from others during the earlier part of your
learning...say if you took a highschool driving course?

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.

You have to read his report.

You have everything turned around as those who view children with a
negative mindset.

No bigger bribe is needed. In fact, the "bribe" is faded out normally.

It's replaced with the feeling of satisfaction the child has from doing
what he or she knows is right. Just like you and I.

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

Sure it is.


---

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.

Okay. I hope I didn't say it was.

And it's not a trick either.

"Trick?" I don't understand.

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.

No, actually I'm taking a very weakly defended and low energy stand.
The data speaks for itself. You can claim it's not scientifically
valid, but I haven't seen you show that it isn't.

Have you read the Embry study? You can get it from Doan, or from AAA.

As I recall, you yourself recognize that positive parenting techniques
require extra up-front effort.

I forgot to mention the obvious, because it is. It doesn't take more
effort in total.

It builds quickly on itself and is applicable across many parenting
encounters with the child. They simply work together raising the child.


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.

So you are saying that people that chose to use non-punitive methods
are self selecting and that if people were forced to use the methods
they wouldn't do as well?

Few kids like to brush their teeth when they are first learning. Seems
some of them get good at it.


---

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.

S'okay.

I recommend reading the report from the Embry study.

Doan likes to pretend that his comment to the magazine has no meaning,
as though Embry was lying or mistaken.

Embry simply pointed out what he and his research staff observed.

He's not mistaken, nor was he lying.

And it's something I've observed for many years. Children that are
parented with pain and humiliation whether physical or mental or both,
simply do not learn very well. And often develop resistance. That
resistance often takes the form of doing exactly what they are being
punished to try and force them to stop doing.

And I'll mention it again:

Embry had nothing to sell, and I think actually believed that spanking
was a viable parenting tool. He still may for all I know, but what he
observed in his street entry testing was what he saw...that children
that are punished tended to do the unwanted behavior more.

He was surprised at what he saw. That positive attention was far more
effective in TEACHING children to play in an area other than the
street.

If you say to a toddler, "don't jump on the furniture," what do they
usually do?

"Don't pinch pinch your sister," or "stop that right now young man?"

Kane


"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 : -

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

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
Explain why there hasn't been a massive increase in children's learning over
the last few decades as the use of corporal punishment - especially in
schools - has declined.

Well, besides the fact you are wrong, No-Child-Left "untested" has
nearly destroyed classroom learning and the child's desire to learn.

You are aware, are you not, that in areas when school corporal
punishment is used, academic scores are lower than where it is not?

Your claims about the relationship between corporal
punishment and children's learning look to me like they are at best an
extremely wild exaggeration.

They aren't just mine. Nor are they wildly exaggerated. Have you
actually read any of the studies I suggested?

All you're doing is taking a few bits of
abstract theory, mixing them together with your prejudices, and pretending
it's evidence.

Abstract theory? Nope.

Hard data and my biases show you are wrong, and I am right.

My biases come from a lot of years of close up learning, both with
mentally ill children and normal children.

This is yet another example of your blowing children's fear of being spanked
up completely out of proportion.

You have another example? Where?

You think children aren't afraid of being spanked?

That's one of the spankers arguments for what makes it work, isn't it?

I'm sure there are cases where children
have a phobia of being spanked,

If a child isn't afraid of being spanked where is the aversive incentive
to obey the spanker?

or are so traumatized by severe or unfair
spankings,

That does happen.

that it interferes significantly with their ability to learn.

Big time.

If I put you in a flight trainer and tell you that you must not touch
that red lever over there, and every time you move toward it I give you
a shock, how's your learning how to fly doing?

But you'll need a lot more than abstract theory driven by your biases to
convince me that your description is anything even close to what normally
happens.

I offered a lot more than abstract theory, and by your own admission you
are not going to read it. Can't be bothered right now, I think you said.

But you still wish to argue from ignorance, and make wild claims about
what I'm claiming and what my meaning is and how biased I am.


See end note:



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

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
..... questions....

http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_05/article03.htm

.... Following are some of the findings from brain research (Stevens
and Goldberg, 2001)

§ Brains are specialized and are not equally good at
everything.

§ Brains are designed for fluctuations rather than
constant attention

§ Emotions are critical to successful learning.

§ Brains are poorly designed for rote learning.

§ Multi-sensory input is desired by our brains.

§ Learning involves the whole body.

§ Each brain is unique.

§ Threat, high anxiety, and a sense of helplessness
impairs learning.

§ Brains process both parts and wholes simultaneously

§ Brains are considered "plastic" and continue to
develop throughout our lives.

Figure 1. Findings from Brain Research.

Following are some of the core principles of brain-based learning.

1. The brain can perform several activities at once (e.g.
tasting and smelling).

2. Learning engages the whole body.

3. The search for meaning is innate and comes through
patterning.

4. Emotions are critical to patterning.

5. The brain processes wholes and parts simultaneously.

6. Learning involves focused attention and peripheral
perception.

7. Learning involves both conscious and unconscious
processes.

8. We have two types of memory - spatial and rote.

9. Learning and understanding are enhanced if facts are
embedded in natural, spatial memory.

10. Challenge and threat inhibits learning.

Excerpts from "Brain-Based Learning" written by On Purpose
Associates, 2004. ...

What you see above, Nathan, are just reports of what the research has
shown. Brain scan research, mostly.

How the brain lights up, where it does, where it doesn't, based on task
and conditionals applied, like STRESS.

Would you argue that spanking does not create stress, and the presence
of the spanker, even if not currently spanking, would not create stress
in the learner?

Children turn OFF in the presence of such people. Or people they
classify that way, such as "adults."

One of the most difficult challenges of the teacher is to help the new
child (the entire class of them) at the beginning of the school year to
feel safe, so they can begin learning.

It takes roughly September to the winter vacation to do that. There is
a reason. Most children are raised in threatening environments, whether
you folks wish to believe it or not.

They will fake it for you, as YOU are the giant that can and does hurt
them.

Study. Think. Stop pretending that I am the enemy that doesn't think,
when in fact I do, and YOU don't...well, not much at this point, or you
wouldn't for a moment start defending a liar like Doan.

Let's see if you can stop arguing with me and start learning. Read the
at least some of the material presented and come back and then argue
with me.

Thanks, Kane

I'm kind of surprised you didn't even deal with what I put on the page.
The information isn't theoretical. It's empirical mostly.

A great many years of research went into it. I'd say probably coming up
on a hundred or more by now.

If you have studies that say differently, or reports of studies that do,
post them.

Kane

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
I presume that Greegor meant ideologue but misspelled it in a way that
happened to end up being a different word.

Either word would fit him quite nicely.

The attempt to minimize is obvious.

That I have strong feelings on an issue and advocate for it doesn't
negate it automatically, much as he wishes it would.

He's quite the ideologue himself. Haven't you noticed?

In fact you could carry that label given your argument so far.

That makes it a pointless attempt by him to minimize the issue. Or we
are all ideologues. 0:-

Kane


"0:-" wrote in message
ups.com...
Greegor wrote:
Nathan:
Your thoughtful posts are basically wasted on Kane.
He is an idealogue.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source

Idealogue

\I*de"a*logue\, n. [Idea + -logue, as in theologue: cf. F.
id['e]ologue.] One given to fanciful ideas or theories; a theorist; a
spectator. [R.] --Mrs. Browning.


Would you say those that campaigned for moving from waterwheels,
windmills, and back breaking labor to electricity were Idealogues,
Greg?

Or those that decided that holding someone to a life of slavery?

Or that believed that women were not, after all, inferior to men with
less rights?

What is fanciful about my research references?

You can't disprove or argue against them, so this is what you come up
with?

Let's take a look at 'fanciful' shall we?

Up until very recently it was believed that a wife needed to be beaten
from time to time just to let her know you cared.

I was accepted that children should be beaten..not just spanked, but
soundly beaten occasionally, just to let them know you cared.

Was there one piece of scientific evidence to prove any if those
constructs of idealogues?

YOU are an idealogue, Greg. You think children should be spanked. And
made to take cold showers for wetting themselves to train them
aversively.

Isn't that correct, Greg?

Whose and idealogue?

R R R RR RR

You are.

And you are a liar.

0 ;- ]