The Embry Study: What it actually said.

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, toto wrote:


On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:40:18 -0800, Doan wrote:


"Swedish parents now discipline their children; and in doing so, they rely
on a variety of alternatives to physical punishment. The method most
commonly used is _verbal_conflict_resolution_, which invites parents as
well as children to express their anger in words. Parents insist that
discussions involve constant eye contact, even if this means taking firm
hold of young children to engage their attention. Parents and
professionals agree that discussions may escalate into yelling, or that
yelling may be a necessary trigger for discussion. Still, many point out
that while yelling may be humiliating, it is better than ignoring the
problem or containing the anger, and it is usually less humiliating than
physical punishment."

Again, not a method I would reccommend. Verbal conflict resolution
and expressing anger in words does not have to be punitive.
Discipline is teaching. It may involve punishment, but that is the
least effective way to teach.

Note that applied behavioral analysis which is a method used in
teaching autistic children and which is the only method that has had
much success began with the use of many aversives and has evolved
into a system which relies almost exclusively on rewards (external
ones primarily with autistic children, but still rewards nonetheless,
not punishments). Even with the extreme behavioral problems which
many of these children present, rewards for good behavior have been
found to be more effective than trying to extinguish the bad behavior
with punishments.

Children whose *bad* behaviors don't get them attention are the kids
whose bad behavior generally goes away. Punishing them is giving
them attention when they misbehave and so it does not help them to
learn *not* to misbehave.


Why does it has to be either/or?

Where is that being advocated?

You spanking advocates scream long and loud if it looks like we are
saying you "only" spank...when in fact we aren't saying that.

Why would Dorothy's statement require there be no other alternatives?

You take advantage, unethically, of the impossibility to list
encyclopedic inclusing of every alternative when someone discusses an
issuse. How about growing up and actually debating?

Why not combine the two?

Why punish if you can accomplish the goal with reward? Often, with
children, the reward lies in the child gaining knowledge. In fact the
most effective "teaching" from both child and teacher/parent
perspective, often goes unnoticed, until an assessment is done of prior
"work."

It's actually easy, not hard.

And are you
endorsing "reward" now?

There is a difference between "M&Ms" and intrinsic sense of
accomplishment that feels good.

Most teachers, and most parents, for that matter, that do not feel a
need for punishment, know to and gradually decrease the "M&Ms," and
incorporate self rewarding as the goal for learning.

In fact the vast majority of early learning has NO extrinsic "rewards"
involved. The baby just learns because of the drive to. Infant Passion
for Learning. I've seen it in every child I've ever dealt with. The
parent is there to facilitate, not "teach."

Doan

Kane




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, toto wrote:


On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:26:47 -0800, "0:-"
wrote:


The Embry study was done in 1981. The link said: "since 1993, in

R R R ...dummy boy, can you put something into an electronic format that
was printed previously?

Well, you are asking him to scan a 140 page document, Kane.


Kane is just having problem with his English. ;-) This study is available
through my library and it is classified as Level 1, which it said:

No, my English is just fine. It's your presumptions of meaning, that has
been your down fall and the exposure of your lying ways for so long,
that is your problem with this statement.

I, as well as many other college students, have no problem with it. It was
clear!

"Level: 1 - Reproducible in paper and microfiche; and, since 1993, in
electronic format; materials issued from January 1993 - July 2004 are
now available at no cost through this Web site "

He misunderstood it to mean that my library has been providing this study
in electronic format SINCE 1993. What it actually mean is only materials
from 1993 on are available in electronic format. Maybe you can translate
it into SIMPLE ENGLISH for him. ;-)

Doan

No Doan, normal english would see the statement, "... Reproducible in
paper and microfiche; and, since 1993, in electronic format; materials
issued from January 1993 - July 2004 are now available at no cost
through this Web site," as either possibility. Just barely.

But mostly, that all documents were available electronically from after
1993.

It does not say clearly that those documents produced prior to 93 aren't
available in electronic format.

In fact, it really doesn't say it all.

You may know that's true, but a reader could not.

If your claim were true it would be worded: "documents produced prior to
1993."

It doesn't.

Are you sure that no Level 1 library documents created prior to 1993 are
available now in electronic format?

You can do your own research. Come on, show us your "formidable research
skill"! ;-)

It would say, "and, documents created since 1993, in electronic format;"

Please explain why you invited me to access the document in electronic
form by clicking a link (but of course supplied no link)?

Why would I "invited" you? You said you already have the study and that
it is only available from Dr. Embry? Were you lying or just "mistaken"?

Doan, having information that others are not privy to doesn't prove your
brilliance, but your crowing over it and using it to harass proves
something.

Now that we have cleared that up, did you have a point?

Yes! It, once again, just PROVED how stupid you are! ;-)

Are you going to deliver copies to those you keep offering them to?

And why can't they, like you invited me to do, simply access that link
you are withholding, and let them download it?

And why is it you have only a paper copy?

And why did you insist that poor "Alina" cover the postage? And you
never just sent it to her anyway? Free? Like I did? After you drug your
heels?

Well, she was supposed to "con" a copy from you and send it to me,
remember? ;-)

And why, if you've had it have you been sending people to other sources,
some expensive rather than offering it yourself, before this?

And why did you tell everybody that it is only available from Dr. Embry?

I see you finally got around to it. But obviously your compulsion to
harass extends even to those you say you wish to help.

Or you didn't have it. And were running a bluff. Could that be it? 0:-

Or it could be you! ;-)

Why withhold, Doan. A little anal retentive, maybe?

Hypocrit! ;-)

Could it be your parents are still beating your butt?

Could it be that your mom is still proud of you calling other woman
"smelly-****"? ;-)

Doan

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:

On 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


toto wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:26:47 -0800, "0:-"
wrote:


The Embry study was done in 1981. The link said: "since 1993, in

R R R ...dummy boy, can you put something into an electronic format that
was printed previously?

Well, you are asking him to scan a 140 page document, Kane.

No, what he said is that it's been available electronically since 1993.


Are you sure that you understand ENGLISH?

Sure.


"Level: 1 - Reproducible in paper and microfiche; and, since 1993, in
electronic format; materials issued from January 1993 - July 2004 are
now available at no cost through this Web site "

What it meant is that material since 1993 are available in electronic
format. Learn to use your brain and STOP BEING SUCH A STUPID ASSHOLE!

So, why did you invite me to find the link and download a copy?

Now when did I do that? You are having problem with your English again.
;-)

Stupid asshole.

Yes, that's you! ;-)

Doan

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:58:43 -0800, Doan wrote:

Why does it has to be either/or? Why not combine the two? And are you
endorsing "reward" now?

I don't endorse rewards. They are, however, much more effective than
punishment.

They are not as effective as positive parenting.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:44:02 -0800, "0:-"
wrote:

In fact the vast majority of early learning has NO extrinsic "rewards"
involved. The baby just learns because of the drive to. Infant Passion
for Learning. I've seen it in every child I've ever dealt with. The
parent is there to facilitate, not "teach."

And, we can keep that passion for learning in older children. We
just need to stop believing that we must *control* them and realize
that they want to learn and can learn if we *allow* it.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, toto wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:58:43 -0800, Doan wrote:

Why does it has to be either/or? Why not combine the two? And are you
endorsing "reward" now?

I don't endorse rewards. They are, however, much more effective than
punishment.

So you endorse things that are "effective"? BTW, reward and punishment
are two sides of the same coin. It is in the way they are applied.

They are not as effective as positive parenting.

But they are effective, nevertheless.

Doan

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, toto wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:44:02 -0800, "0:-"
wrote:

In fact the vast majority of early learning has NO extrinsic "rewards"
involved. The baby just learns because of the drive to. Infant Passion
for Learning. I've seen it in every child I've ever dealt with. The
parent is there to facilitate, not "teach."

And, we can keep that passion for learning in older children. We
just need to stop believing that we must *control* them and realize
that they want to learn and can learn if we *allow* it.

Theory is nice, Dorothy. It's when the rubber hits the road, so to speak,
is when the whole thing breaks apart. Just look at the history of public
education; lots of theory but, in the end, we are failing our kids
miserably!

Doan

On 20 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006, toto wrote:


On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:52:21 -0600, Carlson LaVonne
wrote:


Dorothy,

And the other thing I'd like to add is the age and developmental level
of the child. I've had parents write about toddlers and young
preschoolers entering the street. Parent should do everything possible
to prevent street entry, but with these tiny children, keeping them safe
is their parents' or caregivers' responsibility. The best way to keep a
toddler and a young preschooler from entering the street alone is to not
allow the action to occur. And this doesn't mean spanking, nagging,
reprimanding, or reasoning. This means practicing prevention.

LaVonne

Of course it does, LaVonne. As far as I know no one who advocates
not spanking has advocated scolding, nagging or reprimanding as a
method of discipline for anything at all though these things do occur
when parents are stressed or when they don't know what other options
to use instead of spanking.


Then you haven't paying attention to the anti-spanking zealotS, Dorothy?
Do you wonder what Swedish parents do as alternatives to spanking?

You wouldn't be presuming that all or most Swedish parents do the same
thing would you?

Not ALL, but MOST! ;-)

Then why did you not say so, rather than "wonder what Swedish parents
do as alternatives to spanking?"

"Swedish parents now discipline their children; and in doing so, they rely
on a variety of alternatives to physical punishment.

Obviously then your former arguments insinuating that Swedish parents
yell at their children instead of spanking sort of falls on it's ass.
Just like you.

Or are you arguing that Swedish parents use many alternatives to
spanking?

If so, then you are agreeing with the anti spanking argument. Isn't
that nice?

The method most
commonly used is _verbal_conflict_resolution_, which invites parents as
well as children to express their anger in words.

Yep. So? That doesn't say that all conflicts or teaching is anger
based.

Parents insist that
discussions involve constant eye contact, even if this means taking firm
hold of young children to engage their attention. Parents and
professionals agree that discussions may escalate into yelling,

"May."

or that
yelling may be a necessary trigger for discussion.

"May be."

Still, many point out
that while yelling may be humiliating, it is better than ignoring the
problem or containing the anger, and it is usually less humiliating than
physical punishment."

Now, it doesn't said ALL, does it? Having problem with your English
again? ;-)

Yep. But you work very hard to leave the impression that Swedish
parents have no alternatives to spanking but yelling at their children.
Or did you not mean that?

Are you now arguing for alternatives to spanking?

Do
you wonder what anti-spanking zealotS like Dr. Robert Fathman did to
his kids as alternative to spanking?

Why would she "wonder" since it was posted her in plain English just a
few posts ago?

And Dorothy just posted (on this post, in fact), that "I know of no one"!
Why are you so STUPID? ;-)

Here is what she said, and it says nothing about punishing by car
washing: "As far as I know no one who advocates not spanking has
advocated scolding, nagging or reprimanding as a method of discipline
for anything at all though these things do occur
when parents are stressed or when they don't know what other options
to use instead of spanking. "

Car washing equates to "scolding, nagging or reprimanding" in what way?

You might want to go back and read the WHOLE part about Robert Fathman and
the way he dealt with his kids. Do you even read what you posted???



Doan

"Why are you so STUPID? ;-)"?

I'm not. Why did you miss what you did and reference Dr. Robert
Fathman? Don't you pay attention to what you are saying? Or did he
say, anywhere, "scold, nag or reprimand your child?"

LOL! Did you, STUPID?

Doan

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:21:38 -0800, Doan wrote:

I don't endorse rewards. They are, however, much more effective than
punishment.

So you endorse things that are "effective"? BTW, reward and punishment
are two sides of the same coin. It is in the way they are applied.

They are not as effective as positive parenting.

But they are effective, nevertheless.

Rewards and punishments are effective *only* in the short term. Since
most parents want to bring up ethical children who self-regulate and
since external rewards and punishment demotivate children in learning
this, they are not effective in the long term to achieve parenting
goals.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:

On 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


toto wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:26:47 -0800, "0:-"
wrote:


The Embry study was done in 1981. The link said: "since 1993, in

R R R ...dummy boy, can you put something into an electronic format that
was printed previously?

Well, you are asking him to scan a 140 page document, Kane.

No, what he said is that it's been available electronically since 1993.


Are you sure that you understand ENGLISH?

Sure.


"Level: 1 - Reproducible in paper and microfiche; and, since 1993, in
electronic format; materials issued from January 1993 - July 2004 are
now available at no cost through this Web site "

What it meant is that material since 1993 are available in electronic
format. Learn to use your brain and STOP BEING SUCH A STUPID ASSHOLE!

So, why did you invite me to find the link and download a copy?

Now when did I do that? You are having problem with your English again.
;-)

2/15/2006 4:21 PM

Kane:
"Or were you mistaken about the electronic availability you copied and
pasted?"

Doan:
"LOL! Why don't you try to get an electronic copy for everyone? Try
it!"

Is that not an invitation to get an electronic copy?


Stupid asshole.

Yes, that's you! ;-)

No, Doan, it's you. You run a string of lies, avoid answering questions
while demanding others do so.

Doan

You claimed, for instance, that I lied about the issue of spanking
increasing street entries. Yet I never said where the information came
from.

Since I refused to tell you where that information comes from, you
insisted I was claiming it was from the study we were discussing. I
made NO such claim.

Yet you claim I'm lying.

That makes you a liar.

And this is the pattern you've followed with myself and other posters
for years.

You decide for people what they have said and mean, and refuse to
accept when they clarify if they did not give full information first
time around.

You call them liars, or mistaken, or failures if they do no provide
encyclopedic information in each sentence they post.

You take single sentences out of context, when the answer to your lying
accusation is right there a line or two later, sometimes even in the
very next sentence.

You continue, for instance, to use my ad hom about a fithly evil poster
that advocated in favor of beating children with belts, suspended naked
for the church to whale on. You do this after I've pointed out my
reason for using it.........AND YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER MY QUESTION
whether or not you support her in her advocacy of this kind of
treatment of children.

That makes you a liar, Doan, or a supporter of her advocacy of child
beating.

Take you pick from the above.

YOu challenge people to debate, claiming they are afraid to, when in
fact your "debate" consists of cherry picking commentary by authors
that do not go to the objective of their experiment or study; making
claims that are not factual.

Your claim of 13 being a small sample, for instance, and ignoring that
it was from an experiment, not a survey study. Experiments can use
small or large samples.

YOU could not prove in this one that the sample size did in fact negate
the findings.

You are dishonest.

And you are a child with a problem. I think it's related to spanking.

And you lie when you claim again, as you did recently, that you do not
"tell parents to spank."

Arguments in support of spanking and against nonspanking is exactly.

Honest people freely admit their biases. I for instance intend to
influence people not to spank. And I've done it successfully many times
since 1976.

I have no idea if you've convinced anyone to spank, but you sure work
hard at it.

You are a liar. And not over hairsplitting the meaning of some word, or
what you might have meant, but specifically for your long campaign here
to support people like Dobson and his views, and your attacks on any
and every argument for not spanking.

Stop pretending to be something you are not. It makes you look as
dishonest as you are.

Kane