If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant

Still no answer, Kane?

Doan

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Doan wrote:


On 8 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
So, Kane, are you going to answer my question?

When I find out what it is, exactly.

"Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before
had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour."

Are you sure the Embry study said that?

Originally Posted by 0:-

Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing, according
to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the same
report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it.

If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size. But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan and I have found. It's suspicious.

Originally Posted by kane

He failed to produce even the simplest proof based on MY information in
the report I have.

Arrogant?

Originally Posted by kane

The "report" is the study result. All the paperwork, forms, etc. are not
published as far as I know. If you have access to the entire thing,
notes and all, excellent..but the report is what is usually read and
considered. Unless he's published in a journal or other professional
publication on this. Is he?

From what I have been able to gather this is not publishing in any scholarly journals. Probably because the sample size is too small to be considered anywhere near to accurate/average results.

The "report" from my understanding of research would be the basic outline of the "study" which would be the entire paper research notes and all. So you only have the "report"

Originally Posted by kane

Do you have the one he is pointing you to?


What would the name of it be?

And I thought you had turned down any involvement with our exchange,
Doan and I, on the Embry report?

I have not obtained a copy of the Paper, The name/title has been discussed several times on this forum. I find it odd that you would request that I name it, when we all already know it's title.

When I see things that don't add up I ask questions that is how one learns about another. Your statements made no sense in the context of what you had previously claimed, so I inquired further.

As to your claim in a prior post that I sound like "Alina/Aline" It's not uncommon for women near the same age and same intelligence to sound similar. You and Jeremy James sound very similar to me...does that mean you are one and the same?



Kane

[/quote]

Doan wrote:
Well, beccafromlalaland. Kane has a special copy. ;-) According to Kane:

"You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come
directly from Dr. Embry."

Since I have already pointed you to where copies of this study are
available,

You mean you aren't willing to give her yours? 0:-
Seems like no on can get it from you. Or if they have, they are very
reluctant to answer a question or two to determine if they have the
same on I do. Isn't that just terrible for you?

0;-




the above claim by Kane is a LIE or a "mistake" in Kane's
world. ;-)

Doan

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


0:- Wrote:


I am working from a particular study report. If she gets the same one
she will see what I see. And know that every detail of what I have
said
exists in the study.





Kane,

Tell me how would you explain yourself if I use interlibrary loan and
get the study, and the information doesn't match up. As you have
implied may happen with your above statement.

What do you mean that you are working from a "particular study report"
Does that mean that you yourself don't even have the study in front of
you.


--
beccafromlalaland

On 9 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
Well, beccafromlalaland. Kane has a special copy. ;-) According to Kane:

"You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come
directly from Dr. Embry."

Since I have already pointed you to where copies of this study are
available,

You mean you aren't willing to give her yours? 0:-
Seems like no on can get it from you. Or if they have, they are very
reluctant to answer a question or two to determine if they have the
same on I do. Isn't that just terrible for you?

0;-

You aren't willing to give her a copy of yours neither. I've offered
to send her a copy but she would rather get her own. I thought you
said it is ONLY available from Dr. Embry. Were you LYING or just
another "MISTAKE"?

Doan




the above claim by Kane is a LIE or a "mistake" in Kane's
world. ;-)

Doan

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


0:- Wrote:


I am working from a particular study report. If she gets the same one
she will see what I see. And know that every detail of what I have
said
exists in the study.





Kane,

Tell me how would you explain yourself if I use interlibrary loan and
get the study, and the information doesn't match up. As you have
implied may happen with your above statement.

What do you mean that you are working from a "particular study report"
Does that mean that you yourself don't even have the study in front of
you.


--
beccafromlalaland

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


0:- Wrote:


Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing,
according
to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the
same
report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it.

If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in
research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size.
But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a
difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan
and I have found. It's suspicious.

Nothing suspicious at all. The 20 EXTRA subjects were NOT observed, no
baseline data. Thus, nothing can be drawn from these children on whether
their rate of street entries declined or increased. The data that were
available are from the sample size of 13 that were observed. No one can
claim that the sample size is anything other than 13. It's just simple
logic! The question now, and the one that Kane avoiding, is which data
in the study support this claim from Kane:

"Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before
had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour."

Doan

Very well spoken Becca. If someone is determined to prove a point, it is
possible to find "research" or "studies" to support nearly any point of
view. Case in point, there is a group that calls themselves the Flat Earth
Society that still believe that the Earth is a flat object and not
spherical. They even provide "evidence" to support their theory. The below
link is actually just one of several:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm

The internet is a good place to find a lot of good information, and also a
lot of nonsense. Or as a co-worker says, the internet is 50% Encyclopedia
and 50% National Enquirer.

Don't believe everything you read.


"beccafromlalaland"
wrote in message .com...

0:- Wrote:


Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing,
according
to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the
same
report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it.

If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in
research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size.
But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a
difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan
and I have found. It's suspicious.

kane Wrote:

He failed to produce even the simplest proof based on MY information
in
the report I have.

Arrogant?

kane Wrote:

The "report" is the study result. All the paperwork, forms, etc. are
not
published as far as I know. If you have access to the entire thing,
notes and all, excellent..but the report is what is usually read and
considered. Unless he's published in a journal or other professional
publication on this. Is he?

From what I have been able to gather this is not publishing in any
scholarly journals. Probably because the sample size is too small to
be considered anywhere near to accurate/average results.

The "report" from my understanding of research would be the basic
outline of the "study" which would be the entire paper research notes
and all. So you only have the "report"

kane Wrote:

Do you have the one he is pointing you to?


What would the name of it be?

And I thought you had turned down any involvement with our exchange,
Doan and I, on the Embry report?

I have not obtained a copy of the Paper, The name/title has been
discussed several times on this forum. I find it odd that you would
request that I name it, when we all already know it's title.

When I see things that don't add up I ask questions that is how one
learns about another. Your statements made no sense in the context of
what you had previously claimed, so I inquired further.

As to your claim in a prior post that I sound like "Alina/Aline" It's
not uncommon for women near the same age and same intelligence to sound
similar. You and Jeremy James sound very similar to me...does that mean
you are one and the same?



Kane


--
beccafromlalaland

beccafromlalaland wrote:
0:- Wrote:


Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing,
according
to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the
same
report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it.

If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in
research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size.

Embry didn't do "one" study in his professional life, becca. He's done
many. This paticular subject, twice. He even refers, in his report, to
child subjects from the "prior" study being referred to the
non-baseline-observed group precisely because they and their parents had
participated in a prior study and might influence the outcome of this
one -- now get this -- because the parents had already learned parenting
skills they might apply to this study.

In other WORDS THEY HAD ALREADY LEARNED SKILLS THAT WERE NOT INCLUSIVE
OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a
difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan
and I have found. It's suspicious.

What's suspicioius to me is that Doan, who has claimed to have "the
study" which is, with appendixes 140 pages, and is unaware of this line
from the report:
"METHOD
Subjects
Thirteen preschool-aged children and their parents participated in the
observational phase of the program, and another 20 preschool-aged
children and their parents participated in the program but where not
observed."

(The non-"observed" where NOT excluded from the study.They are as
thoroughly described as part of the sample as the 13 are. In fact the 20
and 13 are described in Table 1 under "Subjects" as: Observed and
Non-Observed Participating Children by Sex, Age, and Special
Characteristics. And their parents, described in Table 2 as
"Occupational Status of Participating Parents" numbered from S1 through
S33....that is why I have consistently used the number 33....but the
author of the abstract did NOT read the entire report and understand
that the two groups WERE in fact participants in the study. The 13 are
used for the active portion of the study, that is their street entry and
multivariate information is used.

What I find significant is that Doan never KNEW there were 33 children
in all. )


kane Wrote:

He failed to produce even the simplest proof based on MY information
in
the report I have.

Arrogant?

Yes, he is that.

You need to remember that HIS was the challenge to debate Embry, and
mine a refusal to do so until we both had the SAME report...since I
knew, but did not tell him...that there had been TWO studies on the same
subject, but conducted in the first one without a "training program
package."

The reason I would not debate him without the same one is that he's
famous for making it up as he goes..presuming results that are not
there, criticizing research for things it was not intended to show,
demanding it show what HE wishes it to show instead of what the methods
statement SAYS it was meant to examined.

He's just an arrogant bull****ter. Always has been, always will be.

kane Wrote:

The "report" is the study result. All the paperwork, forms, etc. are
not
published as far as I know. If you have access to the entire thing,
notes and all, excellent..but the report is what is usually read and
considered. Unless he's published in a journal or other professional
publication on this. Is he?

From what I have been able to gather this is not publishing in any
scholarly journals.

Not only did I never claim it was, I expressly pointed out to Doan a
very long time ago that it was not and that that was why one had to get
it from Embry. At that time I was unaware that AAA still would provide
it (they ended printing some years back -- which I already knew) on a
"copy on demand" for 10 cents a page.

Things change. When they do, Doan will claim you lied. Funny little
monkeyboy.

Probably because the sample size is too small to
be considered anywhere near to accurate/average results.

It was NOT a survey study to determine "average" results against a
representative larger population. It was an experimental study to
determine the outcomes of applying a packaged parenting program. Nothing
else. Stop Doananating.

A research sample is a research sample. This study was not presented as
anything but what it was. 13 observed children and families. It means
what it means, and sample size is NOT critical because it is NOT being
presented as a "representative sample" study. No larger population is
being considered.

AND, what Doan doesn't know, until now, of course, is that this study
has been replicated and is in good standing with peers.

Closed multivarate studies (which is what is meant by "experiments") are
NOT about projecting the results on a larger population, but simply
experimenting. 13 is a MORE than adequate number to TEST A THEORY.

They would like there to be more study, and application against larger
populations, and they even did some math projections, if their results
could be duplicated in the larger population, that calculated the
projected better outcome for injury and death of children in street
traffic accidents.

In fact, you can test a theory with ONE as a sample, and present it, and
let others in the field go from there. They can chose to ignore your
work, or run their own replication and see what they get.

Doan is doing everything possible to confuse and divert because he knows
damn well what Embry showed.

And similar work has been done in applied psychology for years, some of
which Embry drew upon to cite in his own work -- as research experiment
study reports are must do to for professional credibility.

I have a habit of citing rather a lot myself, or hadn't you noticed.

The "report" from my understanding of research would be the basic
outline of the "study" which would be the entire paper research notes
and all. So you only have the "report"

That is what is submitted. If you wish "the study" which would be all
notes, charts, field records of observers, etc. then you would have to
go to, if it were a thesis or dissertation, the dissertation and thesis
stores and buy a copy. Xerox owns them.

This is neither. It was a study done for AAA and is available, according
to them, for .10 cents per page, 140 pages total. Some years back I
could not get it from that source as they simply listed it as "out of
print." Things change.

Doan will continue to criticize this "study" for something it was not
intended to be. His usual bull**** "debate," and you are falling for it.

This was not a survey. It was an experiment. They are very different in
makeup and criteria.

What I found remarkable about the "workshop" format was that even though
the parents were NOT consistently participating fully, there was STILL,
over a six month period, a sharp reduction in street entry rates by
children even with only SOME of the methods taught to parents being
used. (Down to 10% of the rate of street entries baseline prior to the
workshop).

That's a lot of lives to be saved, and injuries not happening if the
results will extrapolate. In the report Embry gives some of the criteria
needed in delivery to increase the likelihood of it working in the
larger community.

One consistent thing I found was a direct correlation between reduction
in the rate of street entries to the reduction in parental reprimands.
Less repremands equated with LESS street entries.

And most remarkable, from the DISCUSSION portion of the report, the
following:

"A parent workshop and special storybooks for their children were
effective in reducing children's entries into the street to a rate
approximately 10% of that observed during baseline." ...

and:

"The package (of materials and training) also increased parents' use of
praise and reward for safe play and children's correct identification of
photographs depicting safe play. The program reduced the rate at which
parents reprimanded their chidren for unsafe play. ... In summary, the
package succeeded in altering all the various taget behaviors of
participating children and their parents."


kane Wrote:

Do you have the one he is pointing you to?


What would the name of it be?

And I thought you had turned down any involvement with our exchange,
Doan and I, on the Embry report?

I have not obtained a copy of the Paper, The name/title has been
discussed several times on this forum. I find it odd that you would
request that I name it, when we all already know it's title.

No, that would not be odd at all if you found yourself with a prior
study with a different name.

There was a prior study. It was reported by "Report #1. It was not the
same as this study. One might think of this one as the second phase. I
don't know Embry's thinking, but if he had not planned to go on after
the first study, what he found apparently influenced him to go on and
learn more.

But as I said, I don't know that. It's simpy speculation and logical.
It's how I would, and have proceeded. I tend, when I found something
that either confounds my beliefs, or suggests much more to the story
than I currently know, to explore more.

When I see things that don't add up I ask questions that is how one
learns about another.

Yep. But I have to ask, "another" what?

Your statements made no sense in the context of
what you had previously claimed, so I inquired further.

I am sorry if I was unclear. That's just part of sorting through things
by use of the written word.

I've not claimed you shouldn't or questioned you for doing so, only
remarked that you said you were no longer interested, but apparently
still are. I admire that.

As to your claim in a prior post that I sound like "Alina/Aline" It's
not uncommon for women near the same age and same intelligence to sound
similar.

I don't think that's quite accurate. I think I said that something you
said sounded like "Alina/Aline."

I was not pointing out that you sound the same, but that a comment very
specifically did. That has little to do with age and intelligence. How
do you know you and "Alina/Aline" are the same intelligence?

You and Jeremy James sound very similar to me...does that mean
you are one and the same?

What is it you find similar? He's a fetishist trying to get you to
engage for the sake of his sexual arrousal. I prefer engaging you for my
intellectual stimulation. 0:-

I was not suggesting you and Aline/Alina are the same person, but rather
that you have the same influences. One a primary influence, the other
secondary. 0:-


Kane

--
beccafromlalaland

As for why I asked about the title, and why I've known that Doan did not
have this particular study, I quote from the same section of this one:

"The present study reveals the possibility of making durable, positive
changes in children's pedestrian-accident related behavior near their
home---better effects than obtained previously in a modeling-only
condition (Embry & Malfetti, 1980)."

So you see, THIS study followed closely on the heels of a prior study,
referred to above, and in fact elsewhere in this study report. This
study report was first published by AAA in 1981.

And as for the two populations, "observed" and "unobserved," and their
participation: "Why was their a differential rate of correct responses
to generalization probes among observed and nonobserved children,
favoring nonobserved children?" (this goes to clarify BASELINE observed
and nonobserved, not unobsered in the active portion of the experiment)

The answer in the study had to do with age. The baseline "unobserved"
children were older.
Cognition was different.

In other words, the "unobserved" were not ignored. Just not observed in
some portions.

Do get a copy of the study if you can.

I can tell you that UC Sacramento lists a copy in their library, but
unless you have privs you cannot get it. Doan could, but he is no more
interested in getting this study and honestly dealing with it than
having a broken leg.

It shoots huge holes in one of the darling arguments of the pro spanking
nonsense minded folks posted here for years.

None of them would ever try to find this study.

AAA has had the report for a very long time....1981. It's been
superceded by more research since, but NONE of that negated Embry and
Malfetti's findings. Nothing.

In fact, one day the truth will come out. That parents that reprimand,
and those that in fact use Corporal Punishment show up in the family
profile of child victims of vehicle accidents more.

In other words, they are teaching their child to run into the street.

It's just not popular to say so as yet. Embry in discussing this issue
says in regard to the one family that had a child that did NOT improve,
"Since the family profile resembled that of children who had been
involved in accidents (Backett & Johnsont, 1959), lack of success with
the family is a matter of some concern."

My own take, exactly, having worked with families since the mid-70's.
Spankers and punishers have a higher incidence of "problem" children. Of
course they say it's a "chicken or the egg" question of having to be
harsher with the more 'difficult child.'

Having turned such families around many times I've disproven that to my
own satisfaction repeatedly.

Once again. This was not a survey of the incidence of some phenomena in
a sample population. This was an experiment conducted along the standard
guidelines for such human experiments, apparently conducted with
considerable attention to ethics (as Embry's remarks show) and with an
outcome that it is said was prompted by a turnaround in Embry's own
beliefs prior to his FIRST experimental study....that spanking worked.

Embry apparently thought it did. He learned, as serious scientists so
often do, that the conventional wisdom was anything but wise.

In this study, by the way, observers were trained to track "Punishment"
which right from the page, is define as "grabbing, squeezing hard, and
spanking."

Doan has built a wondeful castle of lies, out of bits and pieces of
information, a bit of deduction, and his own imagination. He misses the
details, which I can read at my leisure from the actual report -- of
the most RECENT of the Embry studies on street entries.

And the abstract that comes with this study report #2?

Mine, the one accompanying the report opens with the line: "Children
enjoy playing outdoors, but playing around traffic leads to pedestrian
accidents." ...

The Doan abstract opens with: "A traffic safety program consisting of a
workshop for parents and the use of special storybooks with their
children was effective in reducing 13 preschool children's entries into
the street to a rate approximately 10% of that previously observed. " ...

Now of the two, I actually prefer the one Doan copied and pasted. It is
much more descriptive overall, and makes very clear he has come into
that dead end he's tried so carefully to avoid....evidence that spanking
and CP does NOT work.

He thinks he's a happy boy because he sees all kinds of ways to continue
to obfuscate, but he's wrong. He's simply taken himself out of the picture.

An EXPERIMENTAL sample of 13 is NOT an insignificant number, nor does it
call into question his reported outcomes. And there were 20 others that
were assessed...and showed also that there was an increased
understanding and response from children concerning safe play around
street traffic.

Altogether, a nightmare for the liars, and or fools that have populated
this ng in favor of and support of (Doan) spanking as a reasonable
choice for parents.

Just as other ways humans have done things for "thousands of years" and
"it worked" this barbaric and outmoded method of child control will come
to an end.

And often America is in the forefront of such changes. The law is coming.

Thanks for your input.

Kane

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


0:- Wrote:


Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing,
according
to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the
same
report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it.

If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in
research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size.
But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a
difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan
and I have found. It's suspicious.


Nothing suspicious at all. The 20 EXTRA subjects were NOT observed, no
baseline data. Thus, nothing can be drawn from these children on whether
their rate of street entries declined or increased. The data that were
available are from the sample size of 13 that were observed. No one can
claim that the sample size is anything other than 13. It's just simple
logic! The question now, and the one that Kane avoiding, is which data
in the study support this claim from Kane:

"Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before
had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour."

You forfeited any right to a response from me some time ago on the Embry
study, Doan.

So I see no reason to answer any questions regarding it.

You are now reduced again to simply what you have always been: a dancing
screeching hysterical monkeyboy flapping your arms and dancing around
the sidelines.

Sidelining is all you have ever done.

Enjoy.

0:-

Doan


--
Isn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be,
the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very
alien he doth appear? Kane 2006

Jeremy James wrote:
Very well spoken Becca.

Jeremy, you are here solely to excite yourself sexually. You are a
spanking fetishist.

That presumes that good parenting takes a much removed position compared
to getting and wanking a woodie.

Go away.

If someone is determined to prove a point, it is
possible to find "research" or "studies" to support nearly any point of
view.

Circular reasoning. There are lots of ways to use the Web.

Case in point, there is a group that calls themselves the Flat Earth
Society that still believe that the Earth is a flat object and not
spherical. They even provide "evidence" to support their theory. The below
link is actually just one of several:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm

It's a put-on, dummyboy. And you are trying to use it to engage someone
in your pet fetish. Conning them into talking about spanking with no
idea you are wanking to their posts. Give it up.

From the page above:

"The Flat Earth Society is not in any way responsible for the failure of
the French to repel the Germans at the Maginot Line during WWII. Nor is
the Flat Earth Society responsible for the recent yeti sightings outside
the Vatican, or for the unfortunate enslavement of the Nabisco Inc.
factory employees by a rogue hamster insurrectionist group. Furthermore,
we are not responsible for the loss of one or more of the following,
which may possibly occur as the result of exposing one's self to the
dogmatic and dangerously subversive statements made within: life, limb,
vision, Francois Mitterand, hearing, taste, smell, touch, thumb, Aunt
Mildred, citizenship, spleen, bedrock, cloves, I Love Lucy reruns,
toaster, pine derby racer, toy duck, antelope, horseradish, prosthetic
ankle, double-cheeseburger, tin foil, limestone, watermelon-scented air
freshner, sanity, paprika, German to Pig Latin dictionary, dish towel,
pet Chihuahua, pogo stick, Golf Digest subscription, floor tile, upper
torso or halibut."

The internet is a good place to find a lot of good information, and also a
lot of nonsense.

Or satire, irony, and just plain silly fun.

Or as a co-worker says, the internet is 50% Encyclopedia
and 50% National Enquirer.

Oh, I'd give the National Enquirer a lot high percentage. I suspect
there are a lot more of you than us.

Don't believe everything you read.

That, of course, is patronizing becca like she's an ignorant child. She
is not.

You are just trolling for those that will discuss "spanking" with you.
Give it up, "spanking personals boy."

Kane




"beccafromlalaland"
wrote in message .com...

0:- Wrote:


Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing,
according
to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the
same
report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it.

If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in
research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size.
But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a
difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan
and I have found. It's suspicious.

kane Wrote:

He failed to produce even the simplest proof based on MY information
in
the report I have.

Arrogant?

kane Wrote:

The "report" is the study result. All the paperwork, forms, etc. are
not
published as far as I know. If you have access to the entire thing,
notes and all, excellent..but the report is what is usually read and
considered. Unless he's published in a journal or other professional
publication on this. Is he?

From what I have been able to gather this is not publishing in any
scholarly journals. Probably because the sample size is too small to
be considered anywhere near to accurate/average results.

The "report" from my understanding of research would be the basic
outline of the "study" which would be the entire paper research notes
and all. So you only have the "report"

kane Wrote:

Do you have the one he is pointing you to?


What would the name of it be?

And I thought you had turned down any involvement with our exchange,
Doan and I, on the Embry report?

I have not obtained a copy of the Paper, The name/title has been
discussed several times on this forum. I find it odd that you would
request that I name it, when we all already know it's title.

When I see things that don't add up I ask questions that is how one
learns about another. Your statements made no sense in the context of
what you had previously claimed, so I inquired further.

As to your claim in a prior post that I sound like "Alina/Aline" It's
not uncommon for women near the same age and same intelligence to sound
similar. You and Jeremy James sound very similar to me...does that mean
you are one and the same?



Kane


--
beccafromlalaland





--
Isn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be,
the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very
alien he doth appear? Kane 2006

So are you going to answer my question, Kane? Where in this study did
it say anything about spanking?

Doan

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


beccafromlalaland wrote:
0:- Wrote:


Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing,
according
to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the
same
report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it.

If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in
research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size.

Embry didn't do "one" study in his professional life, becca. He's done
many. This paticular subject, twice. He even refers, in his report, to
child subjects from the "prior" study being referred to the
non-baseline-observed group precisely because they and their parents had
participated in a prior study and might influence the outcome of this
one -- now get this -- because the parents had already learned parenting
skills they might apply to this study.

In other WORDS THEY HAD ALREADY LEARNED SKILLS THAT WERE NOT INCLUSIVE
OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a
difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan
and I have found. It's suspicious.

What's suspicioius to me is that Doan, who has claimed to have "the
study" which is, with appendixes 140 pages, and is unaware of this line
from the report:
"METHOD
Subjects
Thirteen preschool-aged children and their parents participated in the
observational phase of the program, and another 20 preschool-aged
children and their parents participated in the program but where not
observed."

(The non-"observed" where NOT excluded from the study.They are as
thoroughly described as part of the sample as the 13 are. In fact the 20
and 13 are described in Table 1 under "Subjects" as: Observed and
Non-Observed Participating Children by Sex, Age, and Special
Characteristics. And their parents, described in Table 2 as
"Occupational Status of Participating Parents" numbered from S1 through
S33....that is why I have consistently used the number 33....but the
author of the abstract did NOT read the entire report and understand
that the two groups WERE in fact participants in the study. The 13 are
used for the active portion of the study, that is their street entry and
multivariate information is used.

What I find significant is that Doan never KNEW there were 33 children
in all. )


kane Wrote:

He failed to produce even the simplest proof based on MY information
in
the report I have.

Arrogant?

Yes, he is that.

You need to remember that HIS was the challenge to debate Embry, and
mine a refusal to do so until we both had the SAME report...since I
knew, but did not tell him...that there had been TWO studies on the same
subject, but conducted in the first one without a "training program
package."

The reason I would not debate him without the same one is that he's
famous for making it up as he goes..presuming results that are not
there, criticizing research for things it was not intended to show,
demanding it show what HE wishes it to show instead of what the methods
statement SAYS it was meant to examined.

He's just an arrogant bull****ter. Always has been, always will be.

kane Wrote:

The "report" is the study result. All the paperwork, forms, etc. are
not
published as far as I know. If you have access to the entire thing,
notes and all, excellent..but the report is what is usually read and
considered. Unless he's published in a journal or other professional
publication on this. Is he?

From what I have been able to gather this is not publishing in any
scholarly journals.

Not only did I never claim it was, I expressly pointed out to Doan a
very long time ago that it was not and that that was why one had to get
it from Embry. At that time I was unaware that AAA still would provide
it (they ended printing some years back -- which I already knew) on a
"copy on demand" for 10 cents a page.

Things change. When they do, Doan will claim you lied. Funny little
monkeyboy.

Probably because the sample size is too small to
be considered anywhere near to accurate/average results.

It was NOT a survey study to determine "average" results against a
representative larger population. It was an experimental study to
determine the outcomes of applying a packaged parenting program. Nothing
else. Stop Doananating.

A research sample is a research sample. This study was not presented as
anything but what it was. 13 observed children and families. It means
what it means, and sample size is NOT critical because it is NOT being
presented as a "representative sample" study. No larger population is
being considered.

AND, what Doan doesn't know, until now, of course, is that this study
has been replicated and is in good standing with peers.

Closed multivarate studies (which is what is meant by "experiments") are
NOT about projecting the results on a larger population, but simply
experimenting. 13 is a MORE than adequate number to TEST A THEORY.

They would like there to be more study, and application against larger
populations, and they even did some math projections, if their results
could be duplicated in the larger population, that calculated the
projected better outcome for injury and death of children in street
traffic accidents.

In fact, you can test a theory with ONE as a sample, and present it, and
let others in the field go from there. They can chose to ignore your
work, or run their own replication and see what they get.

Doan is doing everything possible to confuse and divert because he knows
damn well what Embry showed.

And similar work has been done in applied psychology for years, some of
which Embry drew upon to cite in his own work -- as research experiment
study reports are must do to for professional credibility.

I have a habit of citing rather a lot myself, or hadn't you noticed.

The "report" from my understanding of research would be the basic
outline of the "study" which would be the entire paper research notes
and all. So you only have the "report"

That is what is submitted. If you wish "the study" which would be all
notes, charts, field records of observers, etc. then you would have to
go to, if it were a thesis or dissertation, the dissertation and thesis
stores and buy a copy. Xerox owns them.

This is neither. It was a study done for AAA and is available, according
to them, for .10 cents per page, 140 pages total. Some years back I
could not get it from that source as they simply listed it as "out of
print." Things change.

Doan will continue to criticize this "study" for something it was not
intended to be. His usual bull**** "debate," and you are falling for it.

This was not a survey. It was an experiment. They are very different in
makeup and criteria.

What I found remarkable about the "workshop" format was that even though
the parents were NOT consistently participating fully, there was STILL,
over a six month period, a sharp reduction in street entry rates by
children even with only SOME of the methods taught to parents being
used. (Down to 10% of the rate of street entries baseline prior to the
workshop).

That's a lot of lives to be saved, and injuries not happening if the
results will extrapolate. In the report Embry gives some of the criteria
needed in delivery to increase the likelihood of it working in the
larger community.

One consistent thing I found was a direct correlation between reduction
in the rate of street entries to the reduction in parental reprimands.
Less repremands equated with LESS street entries.

And most remarkable, from the DISCUSSION portion of the report, the
following:

"A parent workshop and special storybooks for their children were
effective in reducing children's entries into the street to a rate
approximately 10% of that observed during baseline." ...

and:

"The package (of materials and training) also increased parents' use of
praise and reward for safe play and children's correct identification of
photographs depicting safe play. The program reduced the rate at which
parents reprimanded their chidren for unsafe play. ... In summary, the
package succeeded in altering all the various taget behaviors of
participating children and their parents."


kane Wrote:

Do you have the one he is pointing you to?


What would the name of it be?

And I thought you had turned down any involvement with our exchange,
Doan and I, on the Embry report?

I have not obtained a copy of the Paper, The name/title has been
discussed several times on this forum. I find it odd that you would
request that I name it, when we all already know it's title.

No, that would not be odd at all if you found yourself with a prior
study with a different name.

There was a prior study. It was reported by "Report #1. It was not the
same as this study. One might think of this one as the second phase. I
don't know Embry's thinking, but if he had not planned to go on after
the first study, what he found apparently influenced him to go on and
learn more.

But as I said, I don't know that. It's simpy speculation and logical.
It's how I would, and have proceeded. I tend, when I found something
that either confounds my beliefs, or suggests much more to the story
than I currently know, to explore more.

When I see things that don't add up I ask questions that is how one
learns about another.

Yep. But I have to ask, "another" what?

Your statements made no sense in the context of
what you had previously claimed, so I inquired further.

I am sorry if I was unclear. That's just part of sorting through things
by use of the written word.

I've not claimed you shouldn't or questioned you for doing so, only
remarked that you said you were no longer interested, but apparently
still are. I admire that.

As to your claim in a prior post that I sound like "Alina/Aline" It's
not uncommon for women near the same age and same intelligence to sound
similar.

I don't think that's quite accurate. I think I said that something you
said sounded like "Alina/Aline."

I was not pointing out that you sound the same, but that a comment very
specifically did. That has little to do with age and intelligence. How
do you know you and "Alina/Aline" are the same intelligence?

You and Jeremy James sound very similar to me...does that mean
you are one and the same?

What is it you find similar? He's a fetishist trying to get you to
engage for the sake of his sexual arrousal. I prefer engaging you for my
intellectual stimulation. 0:-

I was not suggesting you and Aline/Alina are the same person, but rather
that you have the same influences. One a primary influence, the other
secondary. 0:-


Kane

--
beccafromlalaland

As for why I asked about the title, and why I've known that Doan did not
have this particular study, I quote from the same section of this one:

"The present study reveals the possibility of making durable, positive
changes in children's pedestrian-accident related behavior near their
home---better effects than obtained previously in a modeling-only
condition (Embry & Malfetti, 1980)."

So you see, THIS study followed closely on the heels of a prior study,
referred to above, and in fact elsewhere in this study report. This
study report was first published by AAA in 1981.

And as for the two populations, "observed" and "unobserved," and their
participation: "Why was their a differential rate of correct responses
to generalization probes among observed and nonobserved children,
favoring nonobserved children?" (this goes to clarify BASELINE observed
and nonobserved, not unobsered in the active portion of the experiment)

The answer in the study had to do with age. The baseline "unobserved"
children were older.
Cognition was different.

In other words, the "unobserved" were not ignored. Just not observed in
some portions.

Do get a copy of the study if you can.

I can tell you that UC Sacramento lists a copy in their library, but
unless you have privs you cannot get it. Doan could, but he is no more
interested in getting this study and honestly dealing with it than
having a broken leg.

It shoots huge holes in one of the darling arguments of the pro spanking
nonsense minded folks posted here for years.

None of them would ever try to find this study.

AAA has had the report for a very long time....1981. It's been
superceded by more research since, but NONE of that negated Embry and
Malfetti's findings. Nothing.

In fact, one day the truth will come out. That parents that reprimand,
and those that in fact use Corporal Punishment show up in the family
profile of child victims of vehicle accidents more.

In other words, they are teaching their child to run into the street.

It's just not popular to say so as yet. Embry in discussing this issue
says in regard to the one family that had a child that did NOT improve,
"Since the family profile resembled that of children who had been
involved in accidents (Backett & Johnsont, 1959), lack of success with
the family is a matter of some concern."

My own take, exactly, having worked with families since the mid-70's.
Spankers and punishers have a higher incidence of "problem" children. Of
course they say it's a "chicken or the egg" question of having to be
harsher with the more 'difficult child.'

Having turned such families around many times I've disproven that to my
own satisfaction repeatedly.

Once again. This was not a survey of the incidence of some phenomena in
a sample population. This was an experiment conducted along the standard
guidelines for such human experiments, apparently conducted with
considerable attention to ethics (as Embry's remarks show) and with an
outcome that it is said was prompted by a turnaround in Embry's own
beliefs prior to his FIRST experimental study....that spanking worked.

Embry apparently thought it did. He learned, as serious scientists so
often do, that the conventional wisdom was anything but wise.

In this study, by the way, observers were trained to track "Punishment"
which right from the page, is define as "grabbing, squeezing hard, and
spanking."

Doan has built a wondeful castle of lies, out of bits and pieces of
information, a bit of deduction, and his own imagination. He misses the
details, which I can read at my leisure from the actual report -- of
the most RECENT of the Embry studies on street entries.

And the abstract that comes with this study report #2?

Mine, the one accompanying the report opens with the line: "Children
enjoy playing outdoors, but playing around traffic leads to pedestrian
accidents." ...

The Doan abstract opens with: "A traffic safety program consisting of a
workshop for parents and the use of special storybooks with their
children was effective in reducing 13 preschool children's entries into
the street to a rate approximately 10% of that previously observed. " ...

Now of the two, I actually prefer the one Doan copied and pasted. It is
much more descriptive overall, and makes very clear he has come into
that dead end he's tried so carefully to avoid....evidence that spanking
and CP does NOT work.

He thinks he's a happy boy because he sees all kinds of ways to continue
to obfuscate, but he's wrong. He's simply taken himself out of the picture.

An EXPERIMENTAL sample of 13 is NOT an insignificant number, nor does it
call into question his reported outcomes. And there were 20 others that
were assessed...and showed also that there was an increased
understanding and response from children concerning safe play around
street traffic.

Altogether, a nightmare for the liars, and or fools that have populated
this ng in favor of and support of (Doan) spanking as a reasonable
choice for parents.

Just as other ways humans have done things for "thousands of years" and
"it worked" this barbaric and outmoded method of child control will come
to an end.

And often America is in the forefront of such changes. The law is coming.

Thanks for your input.

Kane