Conversation with Dr. Embry re Spanking and Street Entry

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:

I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."

At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking.

"Reasonably take in to consideration?"

What research supports a model parents could use to judge if their
child is in a state of non-risk response if they should spank them?

How can a parent know if the child is ill? Tired? Frightened? Confused?
Doing the behavior for entirely different reasons than the parents
thinks by surface appearances?

By the time a parent has explored all this the moment is past, and if
the explored just the last item a great deal of the time not only would
they have clarified the child's motives but the solution, without
spanking would have likely presented itself.

But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful.

The same can be said for smoking tobacco. Or for drinking.

The question, boys, is what is the risk factor and why bother if other
means are at hand that don't have the same level of risk?.

Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.

I missed that, and can't find it. What did he say the reason for the
continuing misbehavior was?

The only thing I caught and can find is that his and other's research
(the other being a much larger study as I recall) showed that with a
certain population of children spanking was a reinforcer of unwanted
behavior.

He identifed that population as being very difficult children.

My question would be, and I'm still searching for references to
applicable studies, are those difficult children born or made?

That still would not, however, negate my contention that there is no
need to take risks by chosing to spank.

We think it is quick. In the end it turns out only to be quick at the
moment and over time not very effective means of extinquishing a
behavior unless one is consistent. I got far better and quicker results
using methods that did not include CP and focused on
consequences..logical, or natural, and teaching. Much faster. Even
with Dx's mentally ill children. Very quick indeed with normal kids.

But then I didn't try to control them for all the same behaviors a lot
of people do.

Kane

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:
I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
entries, I would like to see it.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.

Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
spanking alone.

Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:

"... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
it."

If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?

To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
all five and under.

If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
comes into play about the 6th year.

One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.

If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.

Are you really suggesting that a 6 year old and older cannot learn by
talking and reasoning?

I'd be interested in seeing if anyone has studies on spanking 6 year
olds and older in such situations and seeing if the unwanted behavior
increased or decreased.

I've seen perfectly normal appearing (who can say really) adults that
when punished, say with traffic fines, have not reduced the unwanted
behavior but continue and even escalate.

Say young adults that drive over the speed limit and recklessly.

Maybe your first love in discipline, caning as per Singapore, would be
more effective. What do you think?

Doan

Kane

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:
I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
entries, I would like to see it.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.

Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
spanking alone.

Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:

"... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
it."

If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?

To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
all five and under.

If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
comes into play about the 6th year.

One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.

If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.

Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:
I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
entries, I would like to see it.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.

Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
spanking alone.

Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:

"... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
it."

If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?

To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
all five and under.

If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
comes into play about the 6th year.

One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.

If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.

Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)

In other words, when challenged on your comments on a subject, you are
still unwilling to have a civil and normal discussion or argument.

I see.

Can we assume then you could not deal with the challenge?

Or are you saying that the copy you claim to have from the University
library did not include anything on the subject as I described it
above?

You would not have a full copy of report #2 then.


Doan

Kane

On 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:
I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
entries, I would like to see it.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.

Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
spanking alone.

Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:

"... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
it."

If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?

To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
all five and under.

If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
comes into play about the 6th year.

One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.

If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.

Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)

In other words, when challenged on your comments on a subject, you are
still unwilling to have a civil and normal discussion or argument.

Hihihi! "civil"??? Come on, Kane! Who are you kidding?

I see.

Can we assume then you could not deal with the challenge?

Can we assume that the PDF claim is a LIE?

Or are you saying that the copy you claim to have from the University
library did not include anything on the subject as I described it
above?

You would not have a full copy of report #2 then.

I thought you said you already sent one to me. Or is that a lie too?

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:

I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."

You both seem to see what you wish to see instead of what's there. No
one is trying to conceal any studies from you. Dr. Embry mentioned the
following in his posts to Nathan:

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

He also points out that this is basic Psych 101 stuff, something I've
known for years. Working a clinical setting if one doesn't catch on to,
usually be more professional development, these very kinds of things,
they get left behid.

We knew in 1984 when I first started working with the adolescent
mentally ill children I worked with that indeed, punishment most often
resulted in more of the undesirable behavior. We used at that time a
form of Social Awareness training with the kids that left the
punishment BS out of the picture.

Normal kids have little trouble learning social interaction skills
unless of course we interupt them. The kids I worked with were not
severly disturbed. Just socially maladjusted. And in nearly all cases,
they had been taught, as Dr Embry points out, to act as they did
because of how parents and teachers tried to deal with kids socially or
genetically predisposed to these negative behaviors.

Have you bothered to read Dr. Embry's comments to Nathan, or not, Doan?

If you can't even remember, or at least reference Nathan's recent post,
how can anyone be sure you have read and understand the Report of
Embry's study?

Your comments so far have been to quote by cherry picking something
then asking one of your assinine questions that entirely miss the point
because you have an agenda of some kind.

The answer to your question is usally, just like this one you asked
about, right there for you to read if you'll look.

What Dr. Embry said about the spanking equating with more entries for
some children was the answer to your question.

Now you have reference, and I presume still library privileges at USC
so if you really do wish to see the research, just hop over to the
library and have a gander. Tell us what you find.

If it's not consisten with Dr. Ebry's comments I'm sure you'll be good
enough to inform us.

At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan.

The hell you aren't, Doan. That's what you have done for years here.
You lie, just as you are going to do below, by that very artifice.

It goes the heart of the
accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
entries, I would like to see it.

You were lying not because of your claim about the study, but by your
claiming that I said the study was about spanking.

I never claimed this study was about spanking. I claimed it was about
alternatives to spanking.

This is typical "quibbling over details," just as you have always done.


You are lying again, Doan.

Any time I discussed Dr. Embry and the issue of spanking increasing
street entries I always referenced his comments in his letter to the
parenting magazine.

Why do you continue to lie?

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)

I believe there was in fact a "reprimand" versus street entry chart
made, Doan. Why don't you look it up.

Why would we mention this false statement by Nathan? I've never said
the study as about spanking, but that Dr. Embry has said that he
observed this. He obviously has read the literature, and mentioned it,
that did research this issue.

The absense of spanking in this study is the point being made. And as
you recall in the definition of 'physical punishment," it was coded
for, and I believe there was an incident recorded.

So few that they were not significant enough to chart.

We had this same discussion a few days ago. Why continue to lie, Doan.

My best guess is that Dr. Embry is watching our posting right now,
trying to figure out just what we are up to. Keep up the good work.

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.

Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
spanking alone.

Nathan made four or five points.

And my point has always been, as long as I've posted here, NOT a
blanket claim that all spanking is harmful, but that we have no way of
knowing when it does become harmful until that point is past.

Thus I continue to ask, if we have other methods that work as well or
better than spanking for long term outcomes, why use spanking with it's
inherent risk?

Convenience? The claim that we believe it does no harm won't fly in
any logical discussion.

We believe it, we don't know it. But what we do know, just like other
issues under study, is that the fact it harms some, enough to be
significant and cost a lot to society, we then need to base public
policy on that finding.

Smoking, seat belts, drinking, and street entries of small children
with injury and death, cost. So we make policy.

As shocking to our tender sensibilities, and our belief in our
infallible independence to muddle us through, we have indeed changed
public policy in the past to the better.

I believe it is time to have an American Swedish style law about the
use of CP with the same supports the Swedish government offered to
parents. No penality, just education and training.

We do it with bad drivers. We are doing it with special drug courts. So
far no harm has come of that. And some progress.

What harm would come to our society if parents that used CP were
required to attend a parenting course based on systems and programs
like Dr. Embry's and others that are similar?

Doan

Kane

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:

I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."

You seemed to have missed this, Doan:
In Dr. Embry's third response to Nathan's questions.

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

This is what caused my jaw to drop, observing the temporal sequence of
both
the topography and function of reinforcer.? One sees this in
micro-coding of
regular, daily parenting in the studies such as Hill Walker's and Gerry

Patterson's of highly deviant kids and families.? Those kids tend to
get
nuked, but I never expected this in the context of dangerous behavior.?
I
should scan the pages on the time relationships. ...

I hope Dr. Embry is motivated to provide more of his papers regarding
the changes in behavior management that coincide with new work in child
development issues.

I'm somewhat behind in my own reading on this subject.

And you?

After all, if we are going to discuss the pros and cons of spanking and
punishment it would help to be up to date on what we know about the
mileposts in child development, and the facts that have been learned
about the process of development. Hell, it's been over 20 years since I
took a Child Development course.

So, what is it you wish to know that you could not find at the
University library, Doan?

I don't have privileges, and you do, so what's holding you up if you
wish to discuss this issue from a position of facts, as your questions
would indicate?

Doan

Kane

Doan wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:
I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
entries, I would like to see it.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.

Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
spanking alone.

Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:

"... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
it."

If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?
To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
all five and under.

If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
comes into play about the 6th year.

One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.

If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.

Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)
In other words, when challenged on your comments on a subject, you are
still unwilling to have a civil and normal discussion or argument.

Hihihi! "civil"??? Come on, Kane! Who are you kidding?

Then you are willing to have a civil normal discussion?

That's would be new.

I see.

Can we assume then you could not deal with the challenge?

Can we assume that the PDF claim is a LIE?

I suppose you can assume anything you wish. Why would I lie about having
tried to make a PDF file and having it come out corrupted?

Or are you saying that the copy you claim to have from the University
library did not include anything on the subject as I described it
above?

You would not have a full copy of report #2 then.

I thought you said you already sent one to me. Or is that a lie too?

I sent one to Alina. Are you Alina? I never said I sent one to you.

Doan

Let's go back to civil and normal, shall we?

One of the hallmarks of such discussions would be to actually respond to
the relevant content. You just dodges, as usual, let me see now..one,
two, three times.

Let's just take one and see if you can actually discuss it and argue
with facts, shall we:

"If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
comes into play about the 6th year.

One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.

If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length."

So, did I understand him correctly? Do you agree or disagree?

Have I not made that point in this newsgroup, that children aren't ready
for more complex, that is abstract thinking and reasoning, before 6 or 7?

Or would you like to dodge again?

And given that I have done so, and Dr. Embry did so, have you anything
to say that would support your general and nonspecific claim as per your
question?

Here is where you first dodged...to me, after all these years, an
indicator you do not have an argument and you aren't about to admit it.

You asked this question: "If what you said is true about spanking, can
the same be said about other non-cp alternatives like talking and
reasoning with your children?"

I replied: "To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that
children are all five and under."

Can you show how I am mistaken, or failed to understand your question?

Thanks,
Kane

Can I have a copy of the bad PDF Kane?
I punish bad PDF files.



0:- wrote:
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:

I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."

At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking.

"Reasonably take in to consideration?"

What research supports a model parents could use to judge if their
child is in a state of non-risk response if they should spank them?

How can a parent know if the child is ill? Tired? Frightened? Confused?
Doing the behavior for entirely different reasons than the parents
thinks by surface appearances?

By the time a parent has explored all this the moment is past, and if
the explored just the last item a great deal of the time not only would
they have clarified the child's motives but the solution, without
spanking would have likely presented itself.

But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful.

The same can be said for smoking tobacco. Or for drinking.

The question, boys, is what is the risk factor and why bother if other
means are at hand that don't have the same level of risk?.

Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.

I missed that, and can't find it. What did he say the reason for the
continuing misbehavior was?

The only thing I caught and can find is that his and other's research
(the other being a much larger study as I recall) showed that with a
certain population of children spanking was a reinforcer of unwanted
behavior.

He identifed that population as being very difficult children.

My question would be, and I'm still searching for references to
applicable studies, are those difficult children born or made?

That still would not, however, negate my contention that there is no
need to take risks by chosing to spank.

We think it is quick. In the end it turns out only to be quick at the
moment and over time not very effective means of extinquishing a
behavior unless one is consistent. I got far better and quicker results
using methods that did not include CP and focused on
consequences..logical, or natural, and teaching. Much faster. Even
with Dx's mentally ill children. Very quick indeed with normal kids.

But then I didn't try to control them for all the same behaviors a lot
of people do.

Kane

Greegor wrote:
Can I have a copy of the bad PDF Kane?
I punish bad PDF files.

You probably need to be punished for being off topic again to avoid
dealing with the topic.

You and Doan seem joined at the hip. You always dodge the real issues to
bring up side issues that are of no consequence when you cannot cogently
engage the issues.

Got anything to say about the Embry study and Dr. Embry's comments to
Nathan's questions?

Probably not. Wouldn't want to tax your corrupt brain.

Kane





0:- wrote:
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:
I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking.
"Reasonably take in to consideration?"

What research supports a model parents could use to judge if their
child is in a state of non-risk response if they should spank them?

How can a parent know if the child is ill? Tired? Frightened? Confused?
Doing the behavior for entirely different reasons than the parents
thinks by surface appearances?

By the time a parent has explored all this the moment is past, and if
the explored just the last item a great deal of the time not only would
they have clarified the child's motives but the solution, without
spanking would have likely presented itself.

But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful.
The same can be said for smoking tobacco. Or for drinking.

The question, boys, is what is the risk factor and why bother if other
means are at hand that don't have the same level of risk?.

Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.
I missed that, and can't find it. What did he say the reason for the
continuing misbehavior was?

The only thing I caught and can find is that his and other's research
(the other being a much larger study as I recall) showed that with a
certain population of children spanking was a reinforcer of unwanted
behavior.

He identifed that population as being very difficult children.

My question would be, and I'm still searching for references to
applicable studies, are those difficult children born or made?

That still would not, however, negate my contention that there is no
need to take risks by chosing to spank.

We think it is quick. In the end it turns out only to be quick at the
moment and over time not very effective means of extinquishing a
behavior unless one is consistent. I got far better and quicker results
using methods that did not include CP and focused on
consequences..logical, or natural, and teaching. Much faster. Even
with Dx's mentally ill children. Very quick indeed with normal kids.

But then I didn't try to control them for all the same behaviors a lot
of people do.

Kane