Teenagers faced with spankings

On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
punishment:


"One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
word. "

Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)

Really? How so?

I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that
punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and
watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having to
sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that is
very definitely a punishment.

I presume you haven't read the study report, so Doan can more easily
con you.

Hahaha! Why don't you provide with the PDF copy you claimed to have.
Or you are the one that trying to con him?

The sit and watch included the parent, usually the mother, being with
the child.

So?

The real distinguishing feature as to whether or not something is a
punishment is in whether its intent is that the unpleasant experience deter
the child from doing the same thing again.

No, that's called 'discipline.' A pure punishment is not limited to
teaching. It's done to hurt, or take something from the one punished.

That is some of the children cried! Or did you missed that from study,
Kane?

Doan

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

You accuse AF of lying because he omitted important information. By that
standard, you are also a liar because you repeatedly talk about how huge a
proportion of criminals were spanked without bothering to mention how hugely
disproportionate a percentage of those were subject to abuse, not just what
the law considers acceptable spanking. Compared with the seriousness of
your omission, AF's is no big deal.

---

I'm having a hard time pinpointing whether your reference to Dr. Embry's
"study" is to his his letter to Children Magazine, which says nothing about
a study in the scientific sense of the term, or to something else. In
regard to the letter, I see some serious problems. Embry wrote, "Actual
observation of parents and children shows that spanking, scolding,
reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries by children.
Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way to gain parents'
attention." But observational data collected by watching children would be
guaranteed to give skewed results. Children who quickly decided that going
into the street wasn't worth getting spanked would be unlikely to be
observed going out into the street at all, and thus unlikely to be observed
getting spanked for it. In contrast, the less successful spanking is in
deterring children from going out in the street, the higher the probability
of their being observed going out into the street and getting spanked. And
the children most likely to be observed going out into the street and
getting spanked would be the ones with the behavior pattern Embry
described - doing it for the attention. That could easily lead to an
impression that spanking increases the likelihood of children's going out in
the street even if its usual effect is to significantly reduce the
likelihood. (And the same applies to the other techniques he listed.)

In regard to the Safe Playing program, have you noticed that its stickers
and extra positive attention are basically a form of bribery? I don't
regard that as too high a price in a special case where it can save
children's lives. But as a matter of basic policy, I view bribery as worse
than punishment. Instead of teaching children that doing the right thing is
something that is expected of them, bribery teaches children to expect a
reward just for not doing something that's wrong. And it's not as if bribes
give children any more reason to behave than punishments do when they expect
not to get caught.

To clarify, I view it as a good thing if parents take a unilateral
initiative to let children know every now and then that their good behavior
is appreciated, or especially when a positive change in behavior is
appreciated. But if it turns into a quid pro quo arrangement where a child
feels like he or she is supposed to be rewarded just for not doing something
wrong, I view that as a problem.

I'll also point out that the Safe Playing program is a response to a type of
behavior that normally has essentially no intrinsic reward. The only
significnat reward is normally the attention the child gets - assuming the
child views negative attention as a reward in the first place - and the
program offers children a better quality of attention to replace it. That's
hardly clear evidence that nonpunitive techniques would work equally well
when children have more to gain from misbehaving - especially if parents
don't offer a bigger bribe, or if the children think they won't be caught
and lose out on the bribe.

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


The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
punishment is FALSE!

I didn't make that claim. My claim is, as you conveniently point out for
me, quoting me, is that I disagree with Embry's use of the word to
describe something the child is unlikely to experience as punishment,
attention from mommy. Mom does sit with the child and encourage him to
watch safe play.

Then why did some of the children refused to sit and some even cried?

Normal humans consider parental attention a good thing, not a
punishment, unless of course mom is whacking the child while he's doing
"sit and watch."

Then why did Dr. Embry called it pusishment?

Here is an earlier admission

"Admission?" R R R, that I disagree with Embry characterizing this as a
punishment? Admission of what, Doan? That I tell the truth and give my
opinion. Yep, you got me there.

Admission that you got caught with a lie!

on the issue of
punishment:

"One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
word. "

Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)

Yes, why are you not urging him to actually read the report on the Embry
study for himself? Send him a copy.

I don't have a PDF copy. You do. I have a paper copy and if he is
willing to send me a self-stamped envelope, I'll be glad to send it to
him. He can also try inter-library loan or order it from the AAA
Foundation.

Or are you chicken **** to do it?

I am willing to **** into your mouth. ;-)

Doan


Doan

---

In regard to the following

And if you can show any studies comparing parents who used only
nonpunitive
methods with parents who spank, what did those studies do to address the
problem of self-selection bias, especially the possibility of parents who
started off using purely nonpunitive methods giving up and starting
punishing if the nonpunitive methods didn't work?
this is NOT something I got from Doan. And it's not a trick either. You're
taking a much stronger position than the current state of the available
research can even come close to supporting in a scientifically valid way.
As I recall, you yourself recognize that positive parenting techniques
require extra up-front effort. That can reasonably be expected to have a
significant impact on the quality of parents that use them and stick with
them, which in turn makes self-selection bias an extremely important issue.

---

I saved a copy of your message in case I might want to track down your links
later, but trying to separate the wheat from the chaff in a Google search
isn't my favorite thing in the world even when I initiate the search myself.
Right now, I'm not in the mood for it.

"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

Straus and Mouradian's 1998 study divided mothers who spanked into
three
categories depending on whether they "never," "sometimes," or "often"
spanked as a result of having "lost it." The outcomes for mothers
who
sometimes spanked as a result of having "lost it" were significantly
worse
than those for mothers who never spanked, and the outcomes for those
who
often spanked as a result of having "lost it" were even worse still.
But
the outcomes for mothers who never spanked as a result of having
"lost
it"
were very close to those for mothers who never spanked at all -
slightly
worse, but either within the margin of error or too close to attach
much
meaning in a study where self-selection bias is present. Note that
that
study controlled for only one of several factors that I believe makes
a
significant (if not huge) difference in how effective or dangerous
spanking
is, yet it ended up with a group of spanking mothers with results
extremely
close to the results of mothers who never spanked.
Also, it is important to note that Straus and Mouradian (1998) also
found that, among these mothers, the more non-cp used, the worse the
outcomes. In other words,
the non-cp methods were no better than spanking.

AF
Hihihi.


You are lying again. I've repeatedly pointed out that out of the four
alternatives examined by the study. three were punitive.
Where is the lie? The statement was that non-CP methods were no better
than
spanking, not that non-punitive methods were no better than spanking.
The
fact that a person leaves out a point you consider important does not
make
the person a liar.
Sure it does, because he and I have had this same exchange many times.
He knows the truth and conceals it. It's a harassment tactic, and he
admits he's here for harassment.

A good definition of lying is any attempt to decieve either by
commission or omission.

Can you cite any study that compares outcomes for parents who used only
nonpunitive methods with outcomes for parents who spank at all?
Yep. The Embry study. We've discussed it here before, and Dennis
Embry's comments to a family magazine where he points out that punitive
methods, including slaps, spanking, etc. result in worse results, and
"catch them being good" and instructing is far more successful.

The issue was 'street entries.' Embry isn't a spanking opponent or
advocate. He's a traffic analyst witha considerable practice consulting
with principalities. He's also interested in education generally, but
more specifically about dangerous behavior, and more specifically
safety.

If not,
then a lack of studies that show CP to be better than the exclusive use
of
nonpunitive methods is meaningless.
There are not to show that it's the same, actually. What is meaningful
is that there are none to show that non-cp, and non-punitive methods
are HARMFULL, and more than enough, thousands actually, that show CP IS
harmful.

If there aren't any studies that look
at the use of exclusively nonpunitive methods, that leaves wide open the
possibility that such methods average working worse than spanking does
It would be if we were seeing it crop up in other studies. Like those
of mentally ill, and criminals.

We see that yes indeedy, spanking is linked to both those. In fact I
put one up in this thread today, and I've discussed here at length in
the past.

- or
would average working worse if parents who try them weren't generally
wiilling to change their minds and make at least some use of punishment
if
purely nonpunitive approaches aren't working.
Yes, it is the extention of the "non-CP" concept. And comes rather
often to the minds of parents that either never used, or have rejected
later, CP methods. They simply think to themselves, if non-cp works,
then why not non-punishment.

Those that try that find that they are often quite correct in their
assumption. It does work even better than non-CP, but punishing
discipline.

The parent becomes the partner in learning, and coach, and safety
engineer, in the child's development. Nothing magic about it at all,
except it's a concept foreign to so many.

It doesn't look like it will work to the observer, and then when they
see it, some still have trouble understanding what took place.

Yet if I described an apprenticeship relationship you and most folks
would have little trouble with the cooperative aspects being showcased.


It's that old belief that children are born with the propensity toward
evil and non-cooperation.

They are born with nothing but a desire to survive and thrive. How that
manifests can be easily directed to be, or appear to be, uncooperative,
or their cooperative nature can be focused on with a minimum of
struggles for power.

And if you can show any studies comparing parents who used only
nonpunitive
methods with parents who spank, what did those studies do to address the
problem of self-selection bias, especially the possibility of parents who
started off using purely nonpunitive methods giving up and starting
punishing if the nonpunitive methods didn't work?
As Doan knows, and I've said, no such studies exist. That's why he asks
for them. That's not debate. That's manipulation, harassment, and
clever lying.

Those who study subjects such as learning theory, and work those out in
child care centers often attached to universities and colleges get to
see it with their own eyes.

Children who are being "uncooperative," have problems. Not a threat to
adults.

They may have been taught they have to fight to access the environment
and events that nature tells them they must.

They may be compromised physiologically in some way, genetically,
environmentally, or by bad teaching as above.

The kids (young students) get it, sometimes, and others they are so
steeped in the power struggle tradition they are not suited to teach.
Probably not to parent, but then they have the right.

How far into this subject do you wish to go?

Read Glasser?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...nt&btnG=Search


Druikers?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...nt&btnG=Search

These aren't anti spanking Zealots. Just child development and
education basic researchers.

By basic, I mean they used children, not theory.

Do you wish to argue with me like Doan does, dodging and focusing on
what ever will get you away from responsible exploration?

You accuse me, wrongly I might add, of not welcoming your or other's
"experience" and information. That's a door that swings both ways.

If you are going to argue with me then you have to argue with what I
use as my support.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...nt&btnG=Search

Read up. Tell me what's wrong with their research.

I'll listen.

0 : -

Greegor wrote:
Where'd you go to college Kane?

Kane wrote Out of state. And you?

Do you know a guy named Jeff Pangborn?

He went to school "out of state" also.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
I'm not going to carry on much more conversation with you if you insist
on doing so from ignorance. Read the Embry study. Get back to me.

Kane

Since you claimed to have this study in PDF format,

You are lying. The only format I said I had it in was hard copy. YOU
asked me if I had it in PDF. I made no reply to that.

A google confirmed that you indeed claimed to have a PDF copy. Were you
lying then?

Doan

Greegor wrote:
Where'd you go to college Kane?

Kane wrote Out of state. And you?

You go to the trial consultants association right?

Ever run into Ken Pangborn?

Greegor wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Where'd you go to college Kane?

Kane wrote Out of state. And you?

Oh, you aren't going to answer. I see.

You go to the trial consultants association right?

So why should I?

Ever run into Ken Pangborn?

I don't run into people.

Did you know I'm actually your Uncle?

Artie Funkle's the name.

0 : - ]

More like Fester.

0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Where'd you go to college Kane?

Kane wrote Out of state. And you?

Oh, you aren't going to answer. I see.

You go to the trial consultants association right?

So why should I?

Ever run into Ken Pangborn?

I don't run into people.

Did you know I'm actually your Uncle?

Artie Funkle's the name.

0 : - ]

Greegor wrote:
More like Fester.

Who is More, your gay best friend?




0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Where'd you go to college Kane?
Kane wrote Out of state. And you?
Oh, you aren't going to answer. I see.

You go to the trial consultants association right?
So why should I?

Ever run into Ken Pangborn?
I don't run into people.

Did you know I'm actually your Uncle?

Artie Funkle's the name.

0 : - ]

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
Kane, I find it maddening when I make a complex argument and, in your reply,
you keep interrupting to snipe at each sentence or two. It's as if you have
a deliberate desire to make sure my original point gets lost amidst your
interruptions. The situation is especially ridiculous when you interrupt to
ask a question that I already answered in the very next sentence or two.

I also have to wonder what such interruptions do to your ability to listen.
Are reading my explanation as a unified whole and trying to follow my logic?
Or are you too busy interrupting to be able to follow my train of thought?
On several occasions, it's looked to me like the latter was almost certainly
the case.

Years ago I asked if he had ADHD and only recently did he admit that he
does.

Doan wrote:
On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
You accuse AF of lying because he omitted important information. By that
standard, you are also a liar because you repeatedly talk about how huge a
proportion of criminals were spanked without bothering to mention how hugely
disproportionate a percentage of those were subject to abuse, not just what
the law considers acceptable spanking. Compared with the seriousness of
your omission, AF's is no big deal.
Double standard then? What makes mine more serious than his, in
argument?

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

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

---

I'm having a hard time pinpointing whether your reference to Dr. Embry's
"study" is to his his letter to Children Magazine, which says nothing about
a study in the scientific sense of the term, or to something else. In
regard to the letter, I see some serious problems. Embry wrote, "Actual
observation of parents and children shows that spanking, scolding,
reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries by children.
Yes. That is correct. He said it, and I have witnessed such
oppositional behavior from chidlren parented as he mentions.

Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way to gain parents'
attention." But observational data collected by watching children would be
guaranteed to give skewed results.
Why?

Children who quickly decided that going
into the street wasn't worth getting spanked would be unlikely to be
observed going out into the street at all, and thus unlikely to be observed
getting spanked for it.
That's not what he observed or what he said.

In contrast, the less successful spanking is in
deterring children from going out in the street, the higher the probability
of their being observed going out into the street and getting spanked.
And his observation was the all CP and scolding was related to higher
incidences of children going into the street.

Why don't you provide the actual data from the study to see if that
statement is true? Come on, Kane. I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)

What's you hurry little liar?

Doan

Nathan, if he decides he wants the study, and I believe he's said he
does, and that you were going to provide it, can wait and have context
and the full report to work from to develop any argument, challenges, or
questions about what I've said.

Your shouting you childish dares proves clearly just how little you
bring to this debate.

And how much you lie.

0:-