Teenagers faced with spankings

"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.

Can you cite any study that compares outcomes for parents who used only
nonpunitive methods with outcomes for parents who spank at all? If not,
then a lack of studies that show CP to be better than the exclusive use of
nonpunitive methods is meaningless. 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 - 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.

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?

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
ps.com...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
ps.com...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
If parents have completely unrealistic expectations, the
results can be tragic, especially if the parents feel like it's their
duty
to force their children to live up to their unrealistic expecations no
matter how harsh a punishment is required.
We are in agreement. And here in this newsgroup, aps, I have seen again
and again, pro spankers discuss circumstances where they would spank,
and demonstrating they have extremely unrealistic expectations of
children. The idea that any child, for instance, under the age of 12 or
so, would "willfully disobey." It's nonsense.

They are following natural imperatives to explore the universe. All an
aware parent needs to do is learn how to question and investigate and
when the parent has figured out (even if wrong) some probable natural
imperative the child is reacting to, simply show them how to get their
appropriately. Wanted behavior replacing unwanted behavior.

This isn't rocket science, and no child with parents that can figure
this out is "spanked." It's too damned obvious to a parent that can
think, and is compassionate (even in the absence of exact evidence)
that the child does not need spanking to learn.
My personal experience from when I was a child proves beyond any possible
doubt that you are wrong about this.
It appears we are off to a bad start.

Are you sure that your personal experience is not in conflict with
facts from other sources?

And the personal experience, in fact, should be the only arbiter of
'the truth?"

I'll take just a few more minutes to clear up some possible confusion. Your
central thesis here was, "The idea that any child, for instance, under the
age of 12 or so, would 'willfully disobey.' It's nonsense." I went ahead
and quoted your expansion on that theme before I started my reply, but it
should have been clear that the focus of my reply was on the age at which
children can willfully disobey.

Okay. When do you think that is, on average?

I know I wasn't always a typical child growing up, or even all that close to
being one. But if I could make deliberate choices to do things I knew I'd
been told not to at age six, then either I was able to do it at HALF the age
of other children, or your claim is ridiculous.

The problem is one of making an informed decision. You may "decide" to
do something, but you do not have the information it takes to do so as
informed as an adult. Yet children are "punished" for this failing,
rather than taught.

And I am not willing to
believe I was THAT different from other children,

You weren't. This is common to all humans.

or that I radically
reinvented two separate memories for no good reason.

People do. Though I don't think of it as 'radically.' It's common, we
catch our children at such "reinventions" all the time. It's part of the
thinking process where we look at various alternatives trying to figure
out which closest fits our memory. We don't have "accurate" memories. We
have nearest possible approximations we tune to, by accepting and
rejecting bits and pieces.

When we say, "that's it," it can appear as an actual factual memory to
us, when other observers of those same events will often tell us (the
Aunt Tilly syndrome) that indeed we are not remembering accurately.

There's nothing wondrous, mysterious, or related to malicious intent to
deceive. Just normal human brain processing.

Any valid theoretical model has to account for the ENTIRE range of people's
personal experiences.

Which of course they do not a factual representation of...just near, or
not so near, but accepted, approximations.

If you were an honest, reasonably openminded searcher
for truth, your response to seeing persoanl experiences that clash with your
theoretical models would be to try to figure out what about your theoretical
models is - or at least might be - off target.

You have some evidence I'm not and I don't?

Could that be colored by my not agreeing with you on some points?

But instead, you seem to
reject the personal experiences of anyone whose personal experiences don't
fit your theoretical models as being impossible just because they don't fit
your models.

That does seem to be your method of dealing with my comments, my
memories, my experience, my professional work.

However, I don't claim you are dishonest, as you seem to be claiming I am.

And I don't see your "experience" as clashing with my model. I see your
interpretation doing so, however.

You presume intent of the adult, and you presume intent on the part of
the child that may or may not be accurate and you offer no proof to
support your interpretations.

I accept your "experience," as being the best approximation you can
produce...that's normal, human, and I do it too.

I do not accept that you are accurate in that part where you assign
intent. We simply disagree on capacity and intent...in two major areas.

The child's functioning at various developmental levels, and the
parent's choice to spank based on interpreting the child as "willfully
disobedient."

The child might be driven by hunger, thirst, illness, and other things,
including Mother Nature driving him or her to learn by exploring.

When you see what you want to see and ignore or reject anything that doesn't
fit your prejudices, it doesn't matter if you have fifty years of experience
or even if you had five hundred years of experience.

Sorry, that would, if I accepted it, apply just as surely to you as to me.

All the extra time
gave you was more time to have collected stories where people's personal
experiences support your biases while at the same time ignoring or rejecting
any stories of people's experiences that clash with your biases.

Gee, I have thousands of such "stories" that do no agree with what I've
learned. Yours would be among them.

And the
fact that you use your education and experience as an excuse to reject what
other people tell you from their personal experiences just makes it even
harder for you to see the entire truth.

Nope. Not in the least. I learned long ago set aside my subjective views
for a time, and focus on just the facts. Hard to do. It's called,
"thinking." Or one of the processes.

I don't reject what they tell me. I believe your experiences are
absolutely true for you, and likely in many instances close to factual.
I do reject, for cause, from my experience professionally, and
personally, and study on the subject, other's interpretations, from time
to time.

Not your entire interpretation, but some parts.

Then you go and generalize all over me, presuming some universal
rejection of your or others experience.

You aren't even accurate.

As for your education, too much trust in education can be dangerous when it
leaves a person feeling like he already has all the answers, and like
anything in the real world that doesn't fit what he learned in school must
be wrong.

I agree. Think you might be doing that?

I doubt I'll ever stop learning. So far you haven't shown me anything
new about human behavior, and perceptions, but I'm open. I'll tell you
if you produce something new.

When reality and education collide, a wise person will recognize
the collision as an indication that what he learned in school is, at the
very least, not the entire picture of the truth.

Yep. One never will have that. Nor will humankind. Just when we think we
know the truth, the Hun comes riding over the hill.

It's frustrating when a person of your intelligence and experience isn't
willing to listen and try to be genuinely objective.

What gives you the right to presume that I do not? Because I disagree
with some of what you've posted?

You know things that I
don't,

That's always a two way street.

and I have experiences that you could learn from,

Doubtless.

and putting those
together could help both of us develop a better understanding.

Could be. Do you think you could convince me to promote spanking as a
valid parenting tool?

But when you
refuse to genuinely listen,

What would not "genuinely" consist of in my post? That I disagree?

and refuse to accept any possibility that your
understanding of the world is less than complete,

Dear dear, you draw so much more from my comments than I can find in them.

It would never occur to me to claim I have a complete understanding of
the world.

I sense a little babble creeping in.

trying to discuss things
with you is mostly just a waste of time.

The sounds of the defeated debater that does not want to admit he can't
support his argument. Sad.

When you left off arguing points of the issue, and moved into
criticizing my "style" or response, as being something it is not, it
became pretty apparent you knew you were outmatched.

That's okay, but I hope you aren't going to go off in a huff feeling you
have shown me the error of my ways.

You appear to be demanding I NOT defend my views, and that I NOT argue
against yours.

As far as I know, this isn't a "spanking advocates support group."

Nor a spanking opponent's one either.

We both need to deal with the disagreements.

I'm still here.

Are you gone?

Looked like a long goodbye to me.

We'll see.

0:-


Hey, despite my education in the field and 50 years of examining this
and my experience throughout that time, much of it professional as well
as personal, I would not offer such a blanket statement as that.

There is always the possibility I've been wrong...why, back in 75 I can
recall that I was...well, that's a long story.

Want to start over?

Start with my statement you follow your claim with. Thanks.

Kane


Sometimes children simply decide that
something that they've been told not to do is enough fun that they want
to
do it anyhow. Granted, if parents take enough time, they can often find
a
way to redirect the children's choices by offering them something that's
almost as much fun, or maybe even more fun, that they wouldn't have to
feel
guilty about doing. But that doesn't mean the children's disobedience
isn't
willful.

When I read your claim, I started thinking back trying to find the first
occasions when I can be absolutely sure that I willfully disobeyed my
parents - where I knew I wasn't allowed to do something but made a
deliberate choice to do it anyhow. I can come up with two situations
when I
was no older than six, and possibly younger. (I know I couldn't have
been
older because we moved to a different house when I was six, but beyond
that,
I have no way of pinpointing my age.)

One situation involved playing with the shower curtain in a way that had
the
bottom of the curtain in the tub but had it draped over the side hanging
over the outside so my younger brother and I could put water in the part
of
the curtain where it sagged over the outside. (It's kind of hard to
explain.) My brother and I had been told repeatedly not to do it because
my
parents were afraid we'd break the shower curtain. But I couldn't figure
out how what we were doing could break it, and I knew I was being too
careful to spill water outside the tub, so I wasn't inclined to give up
my
fun and obey my parents. As it turned out, the shower curtain did break,
and my brother and I got in trouble. (The flaw in my reasoning was that
I
didn't even begin to comprehend that the place that would break was where
the curtain was held up by hooks through holes, far above my head. Now I
can recognize that the stress on the holes was vastly greater than the
stress on the part I was paying attention to as a little kid.)

The other early occasion I remember involved vitamin pills. We didn't
generally have candy around, but chewable vitamin pills tasted good, and
there were times when I snuck extra ones even though I knew I wasn't
supposed to.

I'll strongly agree that a lot of things young children do are caused by
things other than willful disobedience. Sometimes they don't even
understand that they are doing something wrong. Other times, they forget
about rules they are supposed to obey - especially if they get carried
away
with what they are doing. But the idea that children have to be around
age
12 before they are capable of making willful choices to disobey is
completely preposterous.

Kane wrote
Hey, despite my education in the field and 50 years of examining this
and my experience throughout that time, much of it professional as well
as personal, I would not offer such a blanket statement as that.

Greg wrote
Can we see your resume' since you put yourself forth as an expert?

Kane wrote
Nope.

Kane wrote
Whoops! Lie. Never said that. I simply said I was published.

Of course you omitted other salient facts.
Published on a relevant topic?
Was it a real publisher or a "vanity press"?
Hard cover, soft cover or ""web published""?

How does anybody know this is not another
of your "moral or ethical" lies, Commander McBrag?

I'm not going to respond to this point by point because it's too easy for
the length of posts to spiral out of control that way.

I agree that children are driven by impulses. But one of the most important
parts of growing up is learning to control our impulses. My definition of
willful disobedience is when a child knows that a particular behavior is
forbidden but makes a deliberate, conscious choice to do it anyhow. That
is, the behavior is the result of a choice that the child makes knowing that
the behavior is forbidden, not just of the child's following impulses
without thinking about them or without remembering that the behavior is
forbidden.

As for when children become capable of willful disobedience (under my
definition), the age is different in regard to different types of behavior -
and, of course, varies from child to child. Children are able to understand
simple, immediate instructions at a younger age than they are able to
understand rules. Therefore, children are able to willfully disobey
immediate instructions at a younger age than they are able to willfully
disobey rules.

Also, even after children are capable of willful disobedience, that doesn't
mean that every time they disobey, it is willful. Children are still quite
capable of acting on impulses without thinking about what they are doing or
without remembering that what they are doing is against a rule. For that
matter, even adults are.

So I think nuts who presume that all disobedience is willful and should be
punished accordingly are way off base. But I reject your opposite extreme
idea that relatively young children are completely incapable of willfully
disobeying at all. I'm not sure exactly when the typical child first
becomes capable of willful disobedience in regard to the simplest matters,
but I have no significant doubt that it's somewhere below age four.

------

My reason for viewing you as not listening and not trying to be objective
isn't just that you refuse to agree with me. It's how you treat me when I
say things that don't fit your preconceptions, and how you react to the
ideas themselves. For example, when I talk about my memories, you refuse to
even seriously consider the possibility that my memories could be a valid
counterexample against your preconceptions, an example showing that reality
is more complex than you give it credit for being. You already have your
mind up that anyone whose memories are like mine must be remembering
incorrectly. Or at least that's the way you come across.

In contrast, when you raised the possibility that my memories could be
wrong, I gave very serious and careful thought to that possibility.
Granted, that may not have shown up very well in my posts, since the fact
that they are my memories made it possible for me to do a good bit of
thinking about them without your being involved. But when I look at the
numbers of memories involved, and the nature of the alterations that would
be required, the idea that so many memories could be so far off base doesn't
even seem mathematically plausible, much less likely. (Note that you've
challenged my memories not only in regard to the two specific incidents at
age six, but also in regard to other aspects of my childhood feelings and
reactions regarding spanking.)

Further, I'll point out that the ONLY reason that EITHER of us has for
having any special doubt about the memories in question is that they happen
not to fit your theoretical models. All it takes for my memories to be
accurate is for your theoretical models to be INCOMPLETE - to accurately
represent many situations, or perhaps even most situations, but not all
situations. Following Occam's razor, I HAVE to conclude that it is far more
likely that your models are incomplete than that so many of my memories are
so badly mangled.

Finally, I'll point out that falsification of memories can work in both
directions. If people's minds can trick them into believing that their acts
of misbehavior were deliberate, than surely people can delude themselves at
least as easily into thinking something they did wasn't really their fault
because they "couldn't control" their behavior. If people's minds can cause
them to view spanking as something less traumatic than it really was, then
it is equally plausible that people's minds can trick them into viewing
spankings as something more traumatic than they were at the time.

That's especially true if someone like you is making a deliberate effort to
encourage them to view the spankings they received as children as something
highly traumatic. How many times when you "got people to realize how
traumatic being spanked really was" might really have been times when you
got them to invent false memories of its having been more traumatic than it
really was at the time? You've certainly tried hard enough to get me to
change my memories to make them fit your preconceptions. I hate to think
what similar tactics could do to the memory of an insecure teenager who
wants your approval.

As for whose mind is open and whose is closed, the reality is that my views
on the subject of spanking HAVE shifted fairly significantly since I first
ran into this newsgroup about a decade ago. I've become a lot more aware of
its dangers, and a lot more skeptical of its benefits. I haven't changed my
mind far enough to be convinced that the disadvantages always outweigh the
advantages, but that's because no one has ever offered evidence that even
comes close to meeting my standards of depth and complexity.

As for whether your mind is open or closed, look at when and how each of us
uses qualifiers to distinguish between opinions and facts. When I express
an opinion, I try to be careful to express it as an opinion. You routinely
state your opinions as if they were undeniable truths, which is a pretty
good indication of a closed mind.

"0:-" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
ps.com...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
ps.com...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
If parents have completely unrealistic expectations, the
results can be tragic, especially if the parents feel like it's their
duty
to force their children to live up to their unrealistic expecations
no
matter how harsh a punishment is required.
We are in agreement. And here in this newsgroup, aps, I have seen
again
and again, pro spankers discuss circumstances where they would spank,
and demonstrating they have extremely unrealistic expectations of
children. The idea that any child, for instance, under the age of 12
or
so, would "willfully disobey." It's nonsense.

They are following natural imperatives to explore the universe. All an
aware parent needs to do is learn how to question and investigate and
when the parent has figured out (even if wrong) some probable natural
imperative the child is reacting to, simply show them how to get their
appropriately. Wanted behavior replacing unwanted behavior.

This isn't rocket science, and no child with parents that can figure
this out is "spanked." It's too damned obvious to a parent that can
think, and is compassionate (even in the absence of exact evidence)
that the child does not need spanking to learn.
My personal experience from when I was a child proves beyond any
possible
doubt that you are wrong about this.
It appears we are off to a bad start.

Are you sure that your personal experience is not in conflict with
facts from other sources?

And the personal experience, in fact, should be the only arbiter of
'the truth?"

I'll take just a few more minutes to clear up some possible confusion.
Your central thesis here was, "The idea that any child, for instance,
under the age of 12 or so, would 'willfully disobey.' It's nonsense." I
went ahead and quoted your expansion on that theme before I started my
reply, but it should have been clear that the focus of my reply was on
the age at which children can willfully disobey.

Okay. When do you think that is, on average?

I know I wasn't always a typical child growing up, or even all that close
to being one. But if I could make deliberate choices to do things I knew
I'd been told not to at age six, then either I was able to do it at HALF
the age of other children, or your claim is ridiculous.

The problem is one of making an informed decision. You may "decide" to do
something, but you do not have the information it takes to do so as
informed as an adult. Yet children are "punished" for this failing, rather
than taught.

And I am not willing to
believe I was THAT different from other children,

You weren't. This is common to all humans.

or that I radically reinvented two separate memories for no good reason.

People do. Though I don't think of it as 'radically.' It's common, we
catch our children at such "reinventions" all the time. It's part of the
thinking process where we look at various alternatives trying to figure
out which closest fits our memory. We don't have "accurate" memories. We
have nearest possible approximations we tune to, by accepting and
rejecting bits and pieces.

When we say, "that's it," it can appear as an actual factual memory to us,
when other observers of those same events will often tell us (the Aunt
Tilly syndrome) that indeed we are not remembering accurately.

There's nothing wondrous, mysterious, or related to malicious intent to
deceive. Just normal human brain processing.

Any valid theoretical model has to account for the ENTIRE range of
people's personal experiences.

Which of course they do not a factual representation of...just near, or
not so near, but accepted, approximations.

If you were an honest, reasonably openminded searcher
for truth, your response to seeing persoanl experiences that clash with
your theoretical models would be to try to figure out what about your
theoretical models is - or at least might be - off target.

You have some evidence I'm not and I don't?

Could that be colored by my not agreeing with you on some points?

But instead, you seem to reject the personal experiences of anyone whose
personal experiences don't fit your theoretical models as being
impossible just because they don't fit your models.

That does seem to be your method of dealing with my comments, my memories,
my experience, my professional work.

However, I don't claim you are dishonest, as you seem to be claiming I am.

And I don't see your "experience" as clashing with my model. I see your
interpretation doing so, however.

You presume intent of the adult, and you presume intent on the part of the
child that may or may not be accurate and you offer no proof to support
your interpretations.

I accept your "experience," as being the best approximation you can
produce...that's normal, human, and I do it too.

I do not accept that you are accurate in that part where you assign
intent. We simply disagree on capacity and intent...in two major areas.

The child's functioning at various developmental levels, and the parent's
choice to spank based on interpreting the child as "willfully
disobedient."

The child might be driven by hunger, thirst, illness, and other things,
including Mother Nature driving him or her to learn by exploring.

When you see what you want to see and ignore or reject anything that
doesn't fit your prejudices, it doesn't matter if you have fifty years of
experience or even if you had five hundred years of experience.

Sorry, that would, if I accepted it, apply just as surely to you as to me.

All the extra time gave you was more time to have collected stories where
people's personal experiences support your biases while at the same time
ignoring or rejecting any stories of people's experiences that clash with
your biases.

Gee, I have thousands of such "stories" that do no agree with what I've
learned. Yours would be among them.

And the fact that you use your education and experience as an excuse to
reject what other people tell you from their personal experiences just
makes it even harder for you to see the entire truth.

Nope. Not in the least. I learned long ago set aside my subjective views
for a time, and focus on just the facts. Hard to do. It's called,
"thinking." Or one of the processes.

I don't reject what they tell me. I believe your experiences are
absolutely true for you, and likely in many instances close to factual. I
do reject, for cause, from my experience professionally, and personally,
and study on the subject, other's interpretations, from time to time.

Not your entire interpretation, but some parts.

Then you go and generalize all over me, presuming some universal rejection
of your or others experience.

You aren't even accurate.

As for your education, too much trust in education can be dangerous when
it leaves a person feeling like he already has all the answers, and like
anything in the real world that doesn't fit what he learned in school
must be wrong.

I agree. Think you might be doing that?

I doubt I'll ever stop learning. So far you haven't shown me anything new
about human behavior, and perceptions, but I'm open. I'll tell you if you
produce something new.

When reality and education collide, a wise person will recognize the
collision as an indication that what he learned in school is, at the very
least, not the entire picture of the truth.

Yep. One never will have that. Nor will humankind. Just when we think we
know the truth, the Hun comes riding over the hill.

It's frustrating when a person of your intelligence and experience isn't
willing to listen and try to be genuinely objective.

What gives you the right to presume that I do not? Because I disagree with
some of what you've posted?

You know things that I don't,

That's always a two way street.

and I have experiences that you could learn from,

Doubtless.

and putting those together could help both of us develop a better
understanding.

Could be. Do you think you could convince me to promote spanking as a
valid parenting tool?

But when you refuse to genuinely listen,

What would not "genuinely" consist of in my post? That I disagree?

and refuse to accept any possibility that your understanding of the world
is less than complete,

Dear dear, you draw so much more from my comments than I can find in them.

It would never occur to me to claim I have a complete understanding of the
world.

I sense a little babble creeping in.

trying to discuss things with you is mostly just a waste of time.

The sounds of the defeated debater that does not want to admit he can't
support his argument. Sad.

When you left off arguing points of the issue, and moved into criticizing
my "style" or response, as being something it is not, it became pretty
apparent you knew you were outmatched.

That's okay, but I hope you aren't going to go off in a huff feeling you
have shown me the error of my ways.

You appear to be demanding I NOT defend my views, and that I NOT argue
against yours.

As far as I know, this isn't a "spanking advocates support group."

Nor a spanking opponent's one either.

We both need to deal with the disagreements.

I'm still here.

Are you gone?

Looked like a long goodbye to me.

We'll see.

0:-


Hey, despite my education in the field and 50 years of examining this
and my experience throughout that time, much of it professional as well
as personal, I would not offer such a blanket statement as that.

There is always the possibility I've been wrong...why, back in 75 I can
recall that I was...well, that's a long story.

Want to start over?

Start with my statement you follow your claim with. Thanks.

Kane


Sometimes children simply decide that
something that they've been told not to do is enough fun that they want
to
do it anyhow. Granted, if parents take enough time, they can often
find a
way to redirect the children's choices by offering them something
that's
almost as much fun, or maybe even more fun, that they wouldn't have to
feel
guilty about doing. But that doesn't mean the children's disobedience
isn't
willful.

When I read your claim, I started thinking back trying to find the
first
occasions when I can be absolutely sure that I willfully disobeyed my
parents - where I knew I wasn't allowed to do something but made a
deliberate choice to do it anyhow. I can come up with two situations
when I
was no older than six, and possibly younger. (I know I couldn't have
been
older because we moved to a different house when I was six, but beyond
that,
I have no way of pinpointing my age.)

One situation involved playing with the shower curtain in a way that
had the
bottom of the curtain in the tub but had it draped over the side
hanging
over the outside so my younger brother and I could put water in the
part of
the curtain where it sagged over the outside. (It's kind of hard to
explain.) My brother and I had been told repeatedly not to do it
because my
parents were afraid we'd break the shower curtain. But I couldn't
figure
out how what we were doing could break it, and I knew I was being too
careful to spill water outside the tub, so I wasn't inclined to give up
my
fun and obey my parents. As it turned out, the shower curtain did
break,
and my brother and I got in trouble. (The flaw in my reasoning was
that I
didn't even begin to comprehend that the place that would break was
where
the curtain was held up by hooks through holes, far above my head. Now
I
can recognize that the stress on the holes was vastly greater than the
stress on the part I was paying attention to as a little kid.)

The other early occasion I remember involved vitamin pills. We didn't
generally have candy around, but chewable vitamin pills tasted good,
and
there were times when I snuck extra ones even though I knew I wasn't
supposed to.

I'll strongly agree that a lot of things young children do are caused
by
things other than willful disobedience. Sometimes they don't even
understand that they are doing something wrong. Other times, they
forget
about rules they are supposed to obey - especially if they get carried
away
with what they are doing. But the idea that children have to be around
age
12 before they are capable of making willful choices to disobey is
completely preposterous.

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 : -

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
..... questions....

http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_05/article03.htm

.... Following are some of the findings from brain research (Stevens
and Goldberg, 2001)

§ Brains are specialized and are not equally good at
everything.

§ Brains are designed for fluctuations rather than
constant attention

§ Emotions are critical to successful learning.

§ Brains are poorly designed for rote learning.

§ Multi-sensory input is desired by our brains.

§ Learning involves the whole body.

§ Each brain is unique.

§ Threat, high anxiety, and a sense of helplessness
impairs learning.

§ Brains process both parts and wholes simultaneously

§ Brains are considered "plastic" and continue to
develop throughout our lives.

Figure 1. Findings from Brain Research.

Following are some of the core principles of brain-based learning.

1. The brain can perform several activities at once (e.g.
tasting and smelling).

2. Learning engages the whole body.

3. The search for meaning is innate and comes through
patterning.

4. Emotions are critical to patterning.

5. The brain processes wholes and parts simultaneously.

6. Learning involves focused attention and peripheral
perception.

7. Learning involves both conscious and unconscious
processes.

8. We have two types of memory - spatial and rote.

9. Learning and understanding are enhanced if facts are
embedded in natural, spatial memory.

10. Challenge and threat inhibits learning.

Excerpts from "Brain-Based Learning" written by On Purpose
Associates, 2004. ...

What you see above, Nathan, are just reports of what the research has
shown. Brain scan research, mostly.

How the brain lights up, where it does, where it doesn't, based on task
and conditionals applied, like STRESS.

Would you argue that spanking does not create stress, and the presence
of the spanker, even if not currently spanking, would not create stress
in the learner?

Children turn OFF in the presence of such people. Or people they
classify that way, such as "adults."

One of the most difficult challenges of the teacher is to help the new
child (the entire class of them) at the beginning of the school year to
feel safe, so they can begin learning.

It takes roughly September to the winter vacation to do that. There is
a reason. Most children are raised in threatening environments, whether
you folks wish to believe it or not.

They will fake it for you, as YOU are the giant that can and does hurt
them.

Study. Think. Stop pretending that I am the enemy that doesn't think,
when in fact I do, and YOU don't...well, not much at this point, or you
wouldn't for a moment start defending a liar like Doan.

Let's see if you can stop arguing with me and start learning. Read the
at least some of the material presented and come back and then argue
with me.

Thanks, Kane

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

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.

So they are non-cp methods are they not? And they are no better than
spanking, are they not? So who is lying? ;-)

Can't debate the actually issue so you just keep repeating yourself.

How quaint.

So no, we don't know that the one that wasn't punitive was no better
than spanking, because it was not separated out from the punitive
methods.

Are you saying that non-spanking parents are all non-punitive?

Too bad you have to keep lying about this, Doan. But then you never did
have a single argument that flew.

Hihihi! the proven liar here is you!

Where's the study that shows that non-punitive methods are no better
than CP, by the way?

Where is the one that show non-punitive methods are better than spanking?

So you aren't going to answer my question. Though so.

Come on, Kane. Can you look through your file cabinets and produce one?
Come on, just one! ;-)

All we need, Doan, to argue for an end to spanking, are studies that
show it's harm.

It's the John Henry Steel Drivin' Man Syndrome. We don't really have to
prove the steam drills worked better than a man with a hammer. All we
have to show is that hammer work tends to destroy the man.

The steam driven drill killed no one.

Nor does non-spanking.

But I do so love an excuse, that you so often provide, to list some
sources and research.

http://stoptherod.net/research.htm

Psychiatric and addiction: Dr. Harriet McMillan of McMaster University
in Hamilton, ON Canada led a six-person team which studied the possible
association between childhood spanking and subsequent behavior problems
in adulthood. 3 They based their study on data collected as part of a
1990 population health survey by the Ontario Ministry of Health of
10,000 adults in the province. Five thousand of the subjects had been
asked questions about spanking during childhood. Unlike many previous
studies, the researchers deleted from the sample group anyone who
recalled being physically or sexually abused. This left adults who had
only been spanked and/or slapped during childhood. Incidences of adult
disorders we
Adult disorder Never spanked Rarely spanked Sometimes/often spanked
Anxiety 16.3% 18.8% 21.3%
Major depression 4.6% 4.8% 6.9%
Alcohol abuse
or addiction 5.8% 10.2% 13.2%
More than
one disorder * 7.5% 12.6% 16.7%
* More than one disorder included illicit drug abuse, addictions &
antisocial behavior.

Their results were published in the Canadian Medical Journal for
1995-OCT. 4 They reported that "there appears to be a linear association
between the frequency of slapping and spanking during childhood and a
lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence and
externalizing problems." http://www.nospank.net/adctn.htm
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/161/7/805

[[[ Then there's this: ]]]


Degree of physical punishment

Never Rare Moderate Severe Extreme
Violent
inmates
at San
Quentin 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Juvenile
Delin-
quents 0% 2% 3% 31% 64%
High
School
drop-
-outs 0% 7% 23% 69% 0%
College
fresh-
men 2% 23% 40% 33% 0%
Profes-
sionals 5% 40% 36% 17% 0%

Taking part in this survey we 200 psychologists who filled out
anonymous questionnaires, 372 college students at the University of
California, Davis and California State University at Fresno, 52 slow
track underachievers at Richmond High School. Delinquents were
interviewed by Dr. Ralph Welsh in Bridgeport, Connecticut and by Dr.
Alan Button in Fresno, California. Prisoner information was by courtesy
of Hobart Banks, M.S.W., counselor of difficult prisoners at San Quentin
Penitentiary, San Quentin, California.
http://www.naturalchild.org/research...unishment.html

J. Durrant, University of Manitoba, Canada. "Trends in Youth Crime and
Well-Being Since the Abolition of Corporal Punishment in Sweden." Youth
& Society, 2000 Vol. 31, No. 4, 437-455 Found that Swedish youth have
been less involved in crime, alcohol and drug use, rape, and have lower
suicide rates since the 1979 ban on spanking in Sweden.
http://yas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/4/437

R.C. Herrenkohl, M.J. Russo, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. "Abusive
Early Child Rearing and Early Childhood Aggression." Child
Maltreatment, 2001 6, 3-16. This research study found hitting children
is associated with increased aggression in those children.
http://www.lehigh.edu/~insan/soc_ma/gradfac.htm
http://nospank.net/lehigh.htm

H. MacMillan, McMaster, The Canadian Centre for Studies of Children at
Risk, University in Hamilton, Ontario. "Slapping and spanking in
childhood and its association with lifetime prevalence of psychiatric
disorders in a general population sample." Canadian Medical Association
Journal, October 5, 1999; 161:805-809 This study found increased rates
of drug and alcohol problems, anxiety disorders, externalizing problems,
and depression among adults who had been spanked as children. Even
those who were rarely spanked showed higher levels of these problems
than never spanked subjects.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstr...e2=tf_ipsecsha


E. Bachar, L. Canetti, Omer Bonne, Atara Kaplan DeNour, Arieh T. Shalev,
Department of Psychiatry, Hadassah University Medical Center, Jerusalem,
Israel. "Physical punishment and signs of mental distress in normal
adolescents." Adolescence, 1997, Winter; 32(128):945-58. Greater
physical punishment was found to be associated with increased
psychiatric symptoms and lower self-esteem.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=9426816

Allen, D. M., & Tarnowski, K. J., Department of Psychology, Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio. "Depressive characteristics of physically
abused children." Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17(1), 1-11.
1989 Found that children who are hit suffer more from depression, lower
self-esteem, and greater hopelessness about the future.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

M.A. Straus, Richard Gelles, Family Research Laboratory, University of
New Hampshire. "1985 National Family Violence Survey." American Family
Data Archive, Volume I, 32. 1985 Found that physical violence between
family members is more frequent than believed.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin5.htm

J.D. Bremner, S.M. Southwick, D.R. Johnson, R. Yehuda and D.S. Charney,
National Center for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, West Haven VA
Medical Center, CT. "Childhood physical abuse and combat-related
posttraumatic stress disorder in Vietnam veterans." American Journal of
Psychiatry, 150:235-239 1993 Found that Vietnam vets who were hit as
children were more likely to experience posttraumatic stress disorder.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/...ract/150/2/235

M.D. Haskett, J.A. Kistner, Department of Psychology, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC. "Social interactions and peer
perceptions of young physically abused children." Child Development,
Oct;62(5):979-90 1991 Found that children who are hit tend to be
avoided by other children, and were viewed by teachers as more
behaviorally disturbed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

E.P. Slade, L.S. Wissow, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, Baltimore, MD.
"Spanking in early childhood and later behavior problems: a prospective
study of infants and young toddlers." Pediatrics, May; 133(5):1321-30
2004 Found that children who are spanked frequently were substantially
more likely to have behavior problems in school.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15121948

D.B. Bugental, G.A. Martorell, V. Barraza, Department of Psychology,
University of California, Santa Barbara, CA. "The hormonal costs of
subtle forms of infant maltreatment." Hormonal Behavior,
Jan;43(1):237-44 2003 Found that infants who are spanked showed high
hormonal reactivity to stress, which may alter the functioning of the
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in ways that, if continued,
may foster risk for immune disorders, sensitization to later stress,
cognitive deficits, and social-emotional problems.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12614655

E.A. Stormshak, K.L. Bierman, R.J. McMahon, L.J. Lengua, Department of
Applied Behavior and Communication Sciences, University of Oregon,
Eugene, OR. "Parenting practices and child disruptive behavior problems
in early elementary school." Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
Mar;29(1):17-29. 2000 Found that spanking and physical aggression by
parents were associated with elevated rates of all child disruptive
behavior problems, especially aggression. Parenting practices
contribute to the prediction of oppositional and aggressive behavior
problems.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=10693029

M.A. Straus, J.H. Stewart, Family Research Laboratory, University of New
Hampshire, Durham, NH. "Corporal punishment by American parents:
national data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in
relation to child and family characteristics." Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review, June;2(2):55-70 1999 Found children are hit
more often, and more severely, than is commonly perceived, or even
recommended, by pro-spankers. 35% of infants, and 94% of 3-4 year olds,
and over half of 12 year olds experience corporal punishment (slapping,
spanking on the buttocks with or without an object, pinching, and shaking).
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP36.pdf

M.A. Straus, V.E. Mouradian, Family Research Laboratory, University of
New Hampshire, Durham, NH. "Impulsive corporal punishment by mothers
and antisocial behavior and impulsiveness of children." Behavioral
Science Law, 1998 Summer;16(3):353-74 Found that parental spanking and
slapping is associated with increased antisocial behavior and
impulsiveness in children. The more corporal punishment experienced by
a child, the more likely the child will engage in antisocial behavior
and to act impulsively, despite high maternal nurturance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=9768466

M.A. Straus, D.B. Sugarman, J. Giles-Sims, Family Research Laboratory,
University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, and Texas Christian University,
Fort Worth, TX. "Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial
behavior of children." Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 1997
Aug;151(8):761-7. Found that children who are spanked are more
aggressive 2 years later.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=9265876
or http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP64E.htm

M.A. Straus, M. Paschall, Family Research Laboratory, University of New
Hampshire, Durham, NH. "Corporal punishment by mothers and child's
cognitive development: A longitudinal study." Research on a nationally
representative sample of 960 children presented at the 14th World
Congress of Sociology, Montreal, Canada, Aug.1, 1998. Spanking found to
be associated with lowered cognitive development, and lower IQs.
http://64.233.161.104/u/unhsites?q=c...&cd=1&ie=UTF-8


E.E. Whipple, C.A. Richey, School of Social Work, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI. "Crossing the line from physical
discipline to child abuse: how much is too much?" Child Abuse and
Neglect, 1997 May;21(5):431-44 Found that "relative exposure" to
spanking is positively related to greater risk for child abuse.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=9158904

Gershoff, E. T., National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia
University, New York, NY. "Corporal Punishment by Parents and
Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and
Theoretical Review." Psychological Bulletin, 2002 Jul;128(4), 539-579
Found that corporal punishment of children was related to decreased
internalization of moral rules, increased aggression, more antisocial
behavior, increased criminality, weakened parent-child relationships,
decreased mental health outcomes, increased adult abusive behaviors, and
increased risk of being victimized in abusive relationships in
adulthood. This study is an analysis of 88 research studies on corporal
punishment of children.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/?id=PUNISH.PSY

J. L. Sheline, B.J. Skipper, W.E. Broadhead, Department of Community and
Family Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. "Risk
factors for violent behavior in elementary school boys: have you hugged
your child today?" American Journal of Public Health, 1994
April;84(4):661-3 Found that parents of violent boys were more likely
than those of matched control students to use spanking for discipline.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=8154575

C.E. Joubert, University of Alabama, Florence, AL. "Antecedents of
narcissism and psychological reactance as indicated by college students'
retrospective reports of their parents' behaviors." Psychological
Report, 1992 Jun;70(3 Pt 2):1111-5 Higher psychological reactance
(feeling threatened) scores on the Narcissism Personality Inventory and
the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale correlated with more spanking by
fathers.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=1496079

C.E. Joubert, University of North Alabama, Florence, AL. "Self-esteem
and social desirability in relation to college students' retrospective
perceptions of parental fairness and disciplinary practices."
Psychological Report, 1991 August;69(1):115-20 College women were found
to view their parents as being less fair if they had been spanked by
them as children.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=1961778

D. Levinson, Yale University, New Haven, CT. "Physical punishment of
children and wife beating in cross-cultural perspective." Child Abuse
and Neglect, 1981 5: 193-195 Found that societies in which physical
punishment of children is rare or infrequent, the existence of wife
beating is also rare.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP33y-ID33.pdf


D. Yankelovich, DYG, Inc., sponsored by Civitas, Zero to Three, and Brio
Corporation. "What Grown-Ups Understand About Child Development: A
National Benchmark Survey" written about in the New York Times, October
24, 2000. This national survey of 3,000 adults found that about 60% of
parents spank, even though they concede the punishment is ineffective.
http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/devnews.htm

M.T. Teicher, Developmental Biopsychiatry Research Program, McLean
Hospital, Belmont, MA. "Wounds that time won't heal: The neurobiology
of child abuse." Cerebrum, vol.2, no.4:Fall 2000. Found a higher
incidence of abnormal EEG tests (measure of brain waves) in adults who
had been hit as children, and impaired brain development.
http://www.dana.org/books/press/cere...ll00/index.cfm (scroll down
to "Wounds...")
http://www.mclean.harvard.edu/Public...hild_abuse.htm

J.F. Geddes, G.H. Vowles, A.K. Hackshaw, C.D. Nickols, I.S. Scott, H.L.
Whitwell, Department of Histopathology and Morbid Anatomy, Royal London
Hospital, Whitechapel, London, UK. "Neuropathology of inflicted head
injury in children: II. Microscopic brain injury in infants." Brain,
200l 124:1299-1306 Found that babies can be injured and killed from
even mild shaking or hitting, primarily from damage to the part of the
brain that controls breathing.
http://brain.oupjournals.org/cgi/con...rnalcode=brain

M.A. Straus, Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire,
Durham, NH. "Spanking teaches short-term lesson, but long-term
violence." Project NoSpank, July 24, 1999. Research of statistics
revealed that the US states that permit the most legal corporal
punishment of children are the states with the most homicides committed
by children. http://nospank.net/straus7.htm

M.A. Straus, Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire,
Durham, NH. "Family Training in Crime and Violence." Crime and the
Family, 1985. A study of 1,000 families found that parents inflicted
nearly twice as many severe, and nearly four times as many total,
violent acts on their teenage children than the other way around.
http://nospank.net/males.htm

L.R. Huesmann, L.D. Eron, M.M. Lefkowitz, L.O. Walder, Institute for
Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. "The stability
of aggression over time and generations." Developmental Psychology,
1984, 20, 1120-1134. Aggressive children often become aggressive adults,
who often produce more aggressive children, in a cycle that endures
generation after generation. http://nospank.net/greven.htm

D. Button, M. Katz, B. King, A. Simpson, D. Figuaroa, California State
University, Fresno, CA. "Some Antecedents of Felonious and Delinquent
Behavior." Research presented at the Western Psychological Association,
Portland, OR, April 1972. Juvenile delinquents were found to have
parents that used a lot of physical punishment.
http://nospank.net/dewitt2.htm

A.A. Haeuser, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. "Swedish parents don't
spank." Mothering, Spring 1992. Harsh beatings of children are much
less common since the passage of the 1979 law against corporal
punishment of children. The law has also facilitated earlier reporting
and intervention. Violent crimes have decreased, and adults are
considerably more optimistic about Sweden's children than a decade ago.
Few minor infractions have been reported by spiteful neighbors or
children, putting to rest the speculation that such a law would create
chaos by turning minor parental infractions into government cases.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...63/ai_12024682

M. Main, C. George, University of California, Berkeley. "Responses of
Abused and Disadvantaged Toddlers to Distress in Agemates."
Developmental Psychology, May 1985, p.407. Toddlers raised with violent
treatment showed no empathy to others and exhibited violent behaviors to
other toddlers. http://nospank.net/tots.htm

T.G. Power, M.L. Chapieski, University of Houston, TX. "Childrearing
and impulse control in toddlers: A naturalistic investigation."
Developmental Psychology, 1986 22:271-275. Toddlers who were observed
to be subject to mild physical punishment were more likely to ignore
maternal prohibitions, to manipulate breakable objects, and to show low
levels of nonverbal competence 7 months later, than toddlers who were
not hit.
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Hom...00000b80058a26

P.M. Bays, C.D. Frith, S.S. Shergill, D. Wolpert, University College
London, England; and Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, London,
England. "Two Eyes for an Eye: The Neuroscience of Force Escalation."
Science, Vol.301, Issue 5630, 187, 11 July 2003. Test subjects were
found to increase levels of physical pushing force by an average of 38%
each turn, when asked to return, in equal force, the pushing they
received from their partners. People are not good judges of how much
physical force they are using, typically using significantly more force
than they believe they are using. http://nospank.net/n-k95r.htm

G. Margolin, E.B. Gordis, Department of Psychology, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. "The effects of family and
community violence on children." Annual Review of Psychology, 2000
Vol.51:445-479. Children's exposure to violence can disrupt typical
developmental trajectories through psychobiological effects,
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), cognitive consequences, and peer
problems.
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/...psych.51.1.445

A.M. Graziano, J.L. Hamblen, W.A. Plante, Department of Psychology,
State University of New York at Buffalo, NY. "Subabusive violence in
child rearing in middle-class American families." Pediatrics, Oct.
1996; 98:845-848 Found that 85% of parents surveyed expressed moderate
to high anger, remorse, and agitation while administering corporal
punishment to their children, and say they would rather not spank if
they had an alternative in which they believed. This refutes the common
admonishment to parents to refrain from spanking in anger.
http://www.nospank.net/aap.htm
http://www.childhood.org.au/download...%20paper .pdf
http://www.beachpsych.com/pages/cc62.html 1-800-422-4633 or
1-888-463-6874 to order an issue.

"Spanking... increases the rate of street entries by children", wrote
Dr. Dennis Embry in a letter to Children Magazine.

Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project designed to
counteract pedestrian accidents to preschool-aged children.
(Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is about the third leading cause
of death to young children in the United States.)

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.

Now there is a promising new educational intervention program, called
Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are simple:

1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. 'Safe players play on
the grass or sidewalk.'
2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than playing
dangerously.
3. Praise your child for safe play.

These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing safe
play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a day
for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment the
family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children
stopped going into the street.

Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D.
University of Kansas
Lawrence Kansas

http://www.neverhitachild.org/

[[[ So Doan, you going to call him up like I did and find out if he
actually did track the spanking, or was he lying?

You are chicken**** to try, aren't you, little Monkeyboy.
]]]


In fact, we've waited years for the study that shows that CP works
better than any method.

The logic of the spanking advocates. Brilliant.

Hahaha! The logic of an anti-spanking zealotS...

Yeah, and spanking rarely escalates into abuse, right Doan?

""85% of all cases of physical abuse results from some form of
over-discipline through the use of corporal punishment". According to
testimony submitted to the House of Representatives
(E1032--Congressional Record) March 21, 1991 by Major R. Owens of NY:"
[[[ Major Owens was a congressman interested in family issues. ]]]

Doan

Thanks again.

And yes, I have a lot of hard copy research results from the days when
that was the only form it came in. Plus some since that I prefer in hard
copy.

They are reports, not the entire document, because you and I both know
those belong to Xerox Corporation.

Stop demonstrating how stupid and dishonest you are, Doan.

Kane

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Hey, despite my education in the field and 50 years of examining this
and my experience throughout that time, much of it professional as well
as personal, I would not offer such a blanket statement as that.

Greg wrote
Can we see your resume' since you put yourself forth as an expert?

Kane wrote
Nope.

Kane wrote
Whoops! Lie. Never said that. I simply said I was published.

Of course you omitted other salient facts.

I wasn't asked. The poster simply claim, with a lie, of course, that I
said I was a published researcher.

Published on a relevant topic?

I'll bet.

Was it a real publisher or a "vanity press"?

Yep, nope.

Hard cover, soft cover or ""web published""?

Xerox.

Hard cover.

Soft Cover.

Electronic.

Under a pen name.

How does anybody know this is not another
of your "moral or ethical" lies, Commander McBrag?

Oh, that one is way to easy since you are once again, by that kind of
statement trying to perpetuate a lie about my lying and refusing
yourself to answer the moral or ethical question I put to you when I
explained when and only when I would 'lie.'

It has to do with protecting human life and physical safety, remember?

And I asked YOU if YOU would tell the absolute truth if you knew it
would put the person or persons being asked about at risk of their
physical safety or their lives.

Going to answer that question, eventually?

There now, wasn't that fun?

I know it was for me, you moral creep, and unethical twit. ROTFLMAO

Or you could "put me in my place" and answer the question, showing you
do have morals, and you could additionally promise not to lie to
mislead people again about the only circumstances under which I would
lie. Now that would be ethical.

Can you? R R R R RRR R

I seriously doubt you'll do either, since you have both refused to in
the past many times, and you have lied by omission and innuendo about
what I would or would not lie about.

You have a nice day with yourself, Greg.

Kane

Nathan:
Your thoughtful posts are basically wasted on Kane.
He is an idealogue.

Greegor wrote:
Nathan:
Your thoughtful posts are basically wasted on Kane.
He is an idealogue.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source

Idealogue

\I*de"a*logue\, n. [Idea + -logue, as in theologue: cf. F.
id['e]ologue.] One given to fanciful ideas or theories; a theorist; a
spectator. [R.] --Mrs. Browning.


Would you say those that campaigned for moving from waterwheels,
windmills, and back breaking labor to electricity were Idealogues,
Greg?

Or those that decided that holding someone to a life of slavery?

Or that believed that women were not, after all, inferior to men with
less rights?

What is fanciful about my research references?

You can't disprove or argue against them, so this is what you come up
with?

Let's take a look at 'fanciful' shall we?

Up until very recently it was believed that a wife needed to be beaten
from time to time just to let her know you cared.

I was accepted that children should be beaten..not just spanked, but
soundly beaten occasionally, just to let them know you cared.

Was there one piece of scientific evidence to prove any if those
constructs of idealogues?

YOU are an idealogue, Greg. You think children should be spanked. And
made to take cold showers for wetting themselves to train them
aversively.

Isn't that correct, Greg?

Whose and idealogue?

R R R RR RR

You are.

And you are a liar.

0 ;- ]