Correlation is not cause

Nor is correlation a useless model.

If we waited around to make decisions until causation proved something
we'd be in the stone age still.

We work from clues and hints that correlation gives us.

We operate everyday on this operational principle.

Do you know every function and element of your automobile and have
information at your fingertips about what "causes" it to run and move
at your command?

Of course not.

You have a trust, a hint, a clue, that when you do certain things
events will take place predictably.

That is a correlation.

Studies on human learning are similar.

And as we have more and better tools for examining brain function, for
instance, we move closer to cause based models for research in this
subject.

Our current knowledge has shown us that while pain can motivate, it
also can interfere in learning efforts. And it can and does carry
unwanted side effects that other, non-pain based learning models do not
have.

It would be an extreme rarity for a learner to develop fear or anxiety
toward the teacher if nothing punitive was going on in the learning
process, while we know that fear and anxiety play a considerable role
in a relationship, and by the learner toward the teacher when pain,
physical or mental, is applied by that teacher to the learner.

Eventually it comes down to choosing pain to teach when the teacher is
frustrated and thwarted at the failure of the learner to learn.

Is the fault in the learner and needs to be painfully extracted from
them, or is the real fault in the teacher who lacks the knowledge and
will to learn and apply non-pain based methods of teaching?

On Correlation

A little resource material on the issues of correlation vs causation in
the real world.

How long did we used fire before we understood it as physicists?

Here, for instance is a typical conversation on the subject of
greenhouse gases, claims and counter claims as to cause, and a wealth
of correlation based information we have that if we do not act on may
cost us the planet one day.

http://reddit.com/info/ri3l/comments

And you do recall that we went on for decade after decade with the
evidence, in the from of correlation that tobacco use caused cancer and
respiratory and circulatory diseases.

No cause based research was allowed to be looked at clearly...and that
because of manufactures campaign to thwart such research.

In the end people finally got fed up with them and passed a law that
required a warning on packs of cigarettes based on ONLY the understand
we had through correlation.

Of course, once action was taken researchers were emboldened to put
forward they research that clearly showed cause.

Yet, and oddly, it's still debated.

So in the matter of human learning, if we continue to refuse to accept
the massive amounts of data collected through studies that show
correlation, we will continue to have poor and worse outcomes in human
development because of the persistent use of pain to teach children.

The arguments about correlation not being cause grow tedious because
even scientists recognize that while that is strictly true when you
have sufficient volume, and continued results over time in correlation
that point to the same outcome you have sufficient reason to believe
causation is at work.

What the naysayers attempt to peddle is the that anyone that points to
correlation as proof are actually attempting 'silly correlation.'

A typical attempt by the naysayers is the attack the reasoning in there
being a highly significant correlation between levels of intensity of
corporal punishment and bad outcomes, such as violent criminals having
a high rate of having been subjected to corporal punishment.

The argument comes up "that they all drank milk as children."

The latter, of course, is the "silly correlation."

Milk rarely causes pain and confusion and distracts from learning. It
doesn't bruise, break bones or leave a psychological impact on the
drinker.

Correlation if the kind serious researchers find can be and is an
important tool for decision making and policy as well as law.

In fact much law is bases on understanding of correlation.

A law against the use of corporal punishment against children that is
patterned after the same law against it that calls it "assault" against
adults makes sense on this basis.

Kane

Stop exposing you STUPIDITY, Kane!

Doan

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Nor is correlation a useless model.

If we waited around to make decisions until causation proved something
we'd be in the stone age still.

We work from clues and hints that correlation gives us.

We operate everyday on this operational principle.

Do you know every function and element of your automobile and have
information at your fingertips about what "causes" it to run and move
at your command?

Of course not.

You have a trust, a hint, a clue, that when you do certain things
events will take place predictably.

That is a correlation.

Studies on human learning are similar.

And as we have more and better tools for examining brain function, for
instance, we move closer to cause based models for research in this
subject.

Our current knowledge has shown us that while pain can motivate, it
also can interfere in learning efforts. And it can and does carry
unwanted side effects that other, non-pain based learning models do not
have.

It would be an extreme rarity for a learner to develop fear or anxiety
toward the teacher if nothing punitive was going on in the learning
process, while we know that fear and anxiety play a considerable role
in a relationship, and by the learner toward the teacher when pain,
physical or mental, is applied by that teacher to the learner.

Eventually it comes down to choosing pain to teach when the teacher is
frustrated and thwarted at the failure of the learner to learn.

Is the fault in the learner and needs to be painfully extracted from
them, or is the real fault in the teacher who lacks the knowledge and
will to learn and apply non-pain based methods of teaching?

On Correlation

A little resource material on the issues of correlation vs causation in
the real world.

How long did we used fire before we understood it as physicists?

Here, for instance is a typical conversation on the subject of
greenhouse gases, claims and counter claims as to cause, and a wealth
of correlation based information we have that if we do not act on may
cost us the planet one day.

http://reddit.com/info/ri3l/comments

And you do recall that we went on for decade after decade with the
evidence, in the from of correlation that tobacco use caused cancer and
respiratory and circulatory diseases.

No cause based research was allowed to be looked at clearly...and that
because of manufactures campaign to thwart such research.

In the end people finally got fed up with them and passed a law that
required a warning on packs of cigarettes based on ONLY the understand
we had through correlation.

Of course, once action was taken researchers were emboldened to put
forward they research that clearly showed cause.

Yet, and oddly, it's still debated.

So in the matter of human learning, if we continue to refuse to accept
the massive amounts of data collected through studies that show
correlation, we will continue to have poor and worse outcomes in human
development because of the persistent use of pain to teach children.

The arguments about correlation not being cause grow tedious because
even scientists recognize that while that is strictly true when you
have sufficient volume, and continued results over time in correlation
that point to the same outcome you have sufficient reason to believe
causation is at work.

What the naysayers attempt to peddle is the that anyone that points to
correlation as proof are actually attempting 'silly correlation.'

A typical attempt by the naysayers is the attack the reasoning in there
being a highly significant correlation between levels of intensity of
corporal punishment and bad outcomes, such as violent criminals having
a high rate of having been subjected to corporal punishment.

The argument comes up "that they all drank milk as children."

The latter, of course, is the "silly correlation."

Milk rarely causes pain and confusion and distracts from learning. It
doesn't bruise, break bones or leave a psychological impact on the
drinker.

Correlation if the kind serious researchers find can be and is an
important tool for decision making and policy as well as law.

In fact much law is bases on understanding of correlation.

A law against the use of corporal punishment against children that is
patterned after the same law against it that calls it "assault" against
adults makes sense on this basis.

Kane

The Question.

How can a parent that choses to spank know precisely, before the line
is crossed, where the line actually is between safe non-injurious
discipline, and abusive injury?

Answer? See below.

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...qa2o5rAIyYMqgO

http://tinyurl.com/2caeoz

If correlation is not a valid model for research why would one argue
against such research on the details as they were relevant to argue
against?

Wouldn't the correct and intelligent, non-stupid response be to simply
point out the research did not "cause" model based methodology?

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...qa2o5rAIyYMqgO
http://tinyurl.com/2sb9uw

Some one apparently wishes to treat correlation as relevant. 0:-]

Is it stupid to, in defense of unpublished research, to claim out of
context that another researcher praised the work in some way?.

Well, let's think about that. Who do we know that posted simply the
Straus Praised Baumrinds methods...and then refused to acknowledge the
following information, Eh?

Here, early in the thread, was the statement of Doan. Later I posted a
reply of sorts to it in response to LaVonne's views.

Notice that, if you visit the thread, after my post NO response from
Doan the Brilliiant was forthcoming.

Speaking of a non peer reviewed unpublished report by Baumrind on her
study of spanking results vis a vis aggression in children:

" This study is the best study by far. Even opponent to spanking like
Murray Straus admit that. Can you compare and contrast the study
she did on parenting styles and this one to show the claim you made
above that this one was purely design? My bet is that you won't dare
to because what you spewed above is just a lie. Prove me wrong and
I will publicly apolize for calling you a liar in public, LaVonne.

Doan

Doan's claim founders on the fact that Straus admitted no such thing,
but he, again, brilliantly would NOT respond to this or other
challenges of mine that quoted Straus saying something very different
about the Baurinds work in this very case.

Seems Doan took his comments so badly out of context that he split of
his claim right out of a complete sentence.

Straus:
" I said that her study is excellent, but despite that there are clear
reasons for not
accepting her conclusions:"

Stupid?

Well if it's brilliant to post misinformation about respected
researchers, then no. If it's not, then yes, I think it's stupid to do
this and be so easily caught at it then run away.

Mmmm...you decide.


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...2b936e7155ad33
http://tinyurl.com/3cnrhu

From: 0:- - view profile
Date: Sat, Aug 5 2006 6:59 pm
Groups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.child-protective-services

Carlson LaVonne wrote:
If you notice, this paper was presented in 2001, and was still going
through the peer review process. It is now summer 2006. One can put
anything that one wants on a personal website. This was a highly
criticized piece of "research" when it was presented, and when the peer
review process began. I have no idea if she has since passed the peer
review process necessary publication in a peer-reviewed research
journal, but if all she has on her website is this study from 2001 which
hadn't yet passed peer-review, I suspect it still has not.

This is not indicative of her earlier work, and in looking at her
analyses, I doubt that it has been published. I could be wrong. Could
anyone do some checking, along with me? And by the way, a peer review
group is not selected by opinions that agree or disagree with the
research being reviewed. One of the jobs of the peer review group is to
analyze the statistical strength and research methodology of the study
in light of the conclusions.

LaVonne

Well, claims made in this ng as to Straus' comments at the conference
concerning the study don't seem to jib with the truth.

It appears he was being kindly and politic at the conference. Here is
what he had to say in total:

http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm
"I heard Diana Baumrind's paper and responded to it to several
reporters
after. See the Saturday NY Times for Saturday 25 August. I said that
her
study is excellent, but despite that there are clear reasons for not
accepting her conclusions:

1. The most crucial data (the longitudinal part) is based on only 79
cases. This would be enough for many purposes. But in this case, she
has
split those cases into many small cells, some with as few as 6, 7, and
8
cases. With n's that small, it takes a huge differences in a dependent
variable (such as internalizing or externalizing behavior problems) to
be statistically dependable ("significant"). That plays into her hand
because she wants to show that spanked children are not worse off.

Her handout table also fails to show the mean scores after adjustment
for the controls. It is quite possible that if the means were given,
they would they show that, although the differences are not significant
because of the small n's, they are there, i.e. that the more spanking,
the worse the outcome for the child. " ...

More at the link: http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm

Diane Baumrind publicly, in her Berkeley APA presentation commented
critically and negatively on Straus' work.

Yet failed, herself, apparently to provide the rigorous scientific
research protocols she demands of an claims others do not provide in
finding that long term outcomes are negative for spanked children.

In fact, much of her presentation,

http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf

Seemed to be a dredging up of many of the trite and well worn
propaganda
ploy statements common in the pro spanking world, as they she had come
to defend them.

The demographics of her sample, as she points out, was NOT inclusive,
but rather confined to the families in the vicinity of Berkeley CA, and
academic and liberal location.

In addition, a point rarely if ever addressed here, this "research' was
almost entirely "survey," with very limited observation of parent -
child interactions.

http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf
.... "The study I will discuss today was
designed expressly to meet these elementary methodological criteria by
mining the unusually comprehensive FSP archival case records and data
base, to measure and then control third variables that could threaten
the validity of causal conclusions concerning spanking effects on child
outcomes." ...

One has to ask, just how far did this material go back in time?

And did it in fact follow the same families over the time periods
suggested by the age groupings?

And to my knowledge, though I was incorrect about her submitting it for
peer review (she at the least had to have intended to give her
statements in the document above) no such peer reviewed publication has
happened.

We are still looking and if it turns up I'll be happy to point to it.

A further note relating to my recent comment here that the study did
NOT
in fact impact the real world for policy decision making (Part of her
reasons for doing the study) because legal boundaries for spanking
severity and harm FAR exceed her term, "normative" as SHE describes
that
practice of spanking.

No object is used, and no mark can be made, if I understand her
correctly:
http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf
"First, parents who use physical punishment abusively must be
distinguished from those whose use is normative in frequency and
intensity. Therefore, when examining the effects of "spanking", the
FSP
sample was limited to families in which the severity and frequency of
physical punishment was normative for that population."

If the term "normative" does not in fact alarm you as a limit on an
accepted practice that includes leaving marks and using objects, and
bring into question the reality of the study, you must be a spanking
advocate.

Do go and read how limited "normative spanking" is used in her study by
finding her description of what is and isn't normative.

One will find that many descriptions in this newsgroup of what the
poster considered "normal" fall well outside Baumrind's boundaries and
well inside the legal limitations.

On 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Is it stupid to, in defense of unpublished research, to claim out of
context that another researcher praised the work in some way?.

Well, let's think about that. Who do we know that posted simply the
Straus Praised Baumrinds methods...and then refused to acknowledge the
following information, Eh?

Here, early in the thread, was the statement of Doan. Later I posted a
reply of sorts to it in response to LaVonne's views.

Notice that, if you visit the thread, after my post NO response from
Doan the Brilliiant was forthcoming.

Speaking of a non peer reviewed unpublished report by Baumrind on her
study of spanking results vis a vis aggression in children:

" This study is the best study by far. Even opponent to spanking like
Murray Straus admit that. Can you compare and contrast the study
she did on parenting styles and this one to show the claim you made
above that this one was purely design? My bet is that you won't dare
to because what you spewed above is just a lie. Prove me wrong and
I will publicly apolize for calling you a liar in public, LaVonne.

Doan

Doan's claim founders on the fact that Straus admitted no such thing,
but he, again, brilliantly would NOT respond to this or other
challenges of mine that quoted Straus saying something very different
about the Baurinds work in this very case.

Which part of "excellent" don't you understand, Kane? Notice that my
challenge to Lavonne went unanswered?

Seems Doan took his comments so badly out of context that he split of
his claim right out of a complete sentence.

Straus:
" I said that her study is excellent, but despite that there are clear
reasons for not
accepting her conclusions:"

Stupid?

"her study is excellent" Do you understand English, Kane? You just
exposed your STUPIDITY again! ;-)


Well if it's brilliant to post misinformation about respected
researchers, then no. If it's not, then yes, I think it's stupid to do
this and be so easily caught at it then run away.

Mmmm...you decide.


Come on, people. Who here agree with Kane? ;-)

Doan

Is it stupid to, in defense of unpublished research, to claim out of
context that another researcher praised the work in some way?.

Well, let's think about that. Who do we know that posted simply the
Straus Praised Baumrinds methods...and then refused to acknowledge the
following information, Eh?

Here, early in the thread, was the statement of Doan. Later I posted a
reply of sorts to it in response to LaVonne's views.

Notice that, if you visit the thread, after my post NO response from
Doan the Brilliant was forthcoming.

Speaking of a non peer reviewed unpublished report by Baumrind on her
study of spanking results vis a vis aggression in children:

" This study is the best study by far. Even opponent to spanking like
Murray Straus admit that. Can you compare and contrast the study
she did on parenting styles and this one to show the claim you made
above that this one was purely design? My bet is that you won't dare
to because what you spewed above is just a lie. Prove me wrong and
I will publicly apolize for calling you a liar in public, LaVonne.

Doan

Doan's claim founders on the fact that Straus admitted no such thing,
but he, again, brilliantly would NOT respond to this or other
challenges of mine that quoted Straus saying something very different
about the Baurinds work in this very case.

Seems Doan took his comments so badly out of context that he split of
his claim right out of a complete sentence.

Straus:
" I said that her study is excellent, but despite that there are clear
reasons for not
accepting her conclusions:"

Stupid?

Well if it's brilliant to post misinformation about respected
researchers, then no. If it's not, then yes, I think it's stupid to do
this and be so easily caught at it then run away.

Mmmm...you decide.


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...2b936e7155ad33
http://tinyurl.com/3cnrhu

From: 0:- - view profile
Date: Sat, Aug 5 2006 6:59 pm
Groups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.child-protective-services

Carlson LaVonne wrote:
If you notice, this paper was presented in 2001, and was still going
through the peer review process. It is now summer 2006. One can put
anything that one wants on a personal website. This was a highly
criticized piece of "research" when it was presented, and when the peer
review process began. I have no idea if she has since passed the peer
review process necessary publication in a peer-reviewed research
journal, but if all she has on her website is this study from 2001 which
hadn't yet passed peer-review, I suspect it still has not.

This is not indicative of her earlier work, and in looking at her
analyses, I doubt that it has been published. I could be wrong. Could
anyone do some checking, along with me? And by the way, a peer review
group is not selected by opinions that agree or disagree with the
research being reviewed. One of the jobs of the peer review group is to
analyze the statistical strength and research methodology of the study
in light of the conclusions.

LaVonne

Well, claims made in this ng as to Straus' comments at the conference
concerning the study don't seem to jib with the truth.

It appears he was being kindly and politic at the conference. Here is
what he had to say in total:

http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm
"I heard Diana Baumrind's paper and responded to it to several
reporters
after. See the Saturday NY Times for Saturday 25 August. I said that
her
study is excellent, but despite that there are clear reasons for not
accepting her conclusions:

1. The most crucial data (the longitudinal part) is based on only 79
cases. This would be enough for many purposes. But in this case, she
has
split those cases into many small cells, some with as few as 6, 7, and
8
cases. With n's that small, it takes a huge differences in a dependent
variable (such as internalizing or externalizing behavior problems) to
be statistically dependable ("significant"). That plays into her hand
because she wants to show that spanked children are not worse off.

Her handout table also fails to show the mean scores after adjustment
for the controls. It is quite possible that if the means were given,
they would they show that, although the differences are not significant
because of the small n's, they are there, i.e. that the more spanking,
the worse the outcome for the child. " ...

More at the link: http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm

Diane Baumrind publicly, in her Berkeley APA presentation commented
critically and negatively on Straus' work.

Yet failed, herself, apparently to provide the rigorous scientific
research protocols she demands of an claims others do not provide in
finding that long term outcomes are negative for spanked children.

In fact, much of her presentation,

http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf

Seemed to be a dredging up of many of the trite and well worn
propaganda
ploy statements common in the pro spanking world, as they she had come
to defend them.

The demographics of her sample, as she points out, was NOT inclusive,
but rather confined to the families in the vicinity of Berkeley CA, and
academic and liberal location.

In addition, a point rarely if ever addressed here, this "research' was
almost entirely "survey," with very limited observation of parent -
child interactions.

http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf
..... "The study I will discuss today was
designed expressly to meet these elementary methodological criteria by
mining the unusually comprehensive FSP archival case records and data
base, to measure and then control third variables that could threaten
the validity of causal conclusions concerning spanking effects on child
outcomes." ...

One has to ask, just how far did this material go back in time?

And did it in fact follow the same families over the time periods
suggested by the age groupings?

And to my knowledge, though I was incorrect about her submitting it for
peer review (she at the least had to have intended to give her
statements in the document above) no such peer reviewed publication has
happened.

We are still looking and if it turns up I'll be happy to point to it.

A further note relating to my recent comment here that the study did
NOT
in fact impact the real world for policy decision making (Part of her
reasons for doing the study) because legal boundaries for spanking
severity and harm FAR exceed her term, "normative" as SHE describes
that
practice of spanking.

No object is used, and no mark can be made, if I understand her
correctly:
http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf
"First, parents who use physical punishment abusively must be
distinguished from those whose use is normative in frequency and
intensity. Therefore, when examining the effects of "spanking", the
FSP
sample was limited to families in which the severity and frequency of
physical punishment was normative for that population."

If the term "normative" does not in fact alarm you as a limit on an
accepted practice that includes leaving marks and using objects, and
bring into question the reality of the study, you must be a spanking
advocate.

Do go and read how limited "normative spanking" is used in her study by
finding her description of what is and isn't normative.

One will find that many descriptions in this newsgroup of what the
poster considered "normal" fall well outside Baumrind's boundaries and
well inside the legal limitations.

If correlation is not a valid model for research why would one argue
against such research on the details as if it was a relevant study to
argue against?

Wouldn't the correct, and intelligent, non-stupid response be to simply
point out the research did not employ a "cause" model based methodology?

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...qa2o5rAIyYMqgO
http://tinyurl.com/2sb9uw

Some one apparently wishes to treat correlation as relevant. 0:-]

The Question.

How can a parent that choses to spank know precisely, before the line
is crossed, where the line actually is between safe non-injurious
discipline, and abusive injury?

Answer? See below.

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...qa2o5rAIyYMqgO

http://tinyurl.com/2caeoz

How can one so stupid think it could
recognize stupidity in the first place?