If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant

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


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

I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry
on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you
challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?"


Really? Here is the actual quotes:

Doan:
He would also know that along with positive reinforcement, giving stickers for
safe play, Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for unsafe
play.

Kane:
"Actually he did no such thing. He prescribed sitting and watching
other children playing safely. Dr. Embry knows how the human brain
actually works and the power of learning through modeling.

This tells me clearly you DO NOT have the study at all. "

Remember that, Kane? So who is the LIAR here? ;-)

Sure I remember. That would be both of us, yet you have failed to post
all our argument on this issue. Why is that?

Why don't you post all of your argument? Which part of "Actually he
did no such thing." don't you understand?

Which part to you not understandin the context of what I said next? Is
that how to win and argument, Doan, to ignore the explanation and
clarification?

It's cleary how you dodge the issues.

You said, above: "Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out,
for unsafe play."

I said, because I disagree with calling it 'punishment,' regardless of
who uses the term, you or him, that "time out for unsafe play," is the
same as "Sit and Watch." The latter is not punishment in my terms, so I
said "Actually he did no such thing."

That does NOT say he didn't call it punishment, but that it simply was
NOT punishment in my book.

Your command of english is overcome by your capacity for and compulsive
lying.

Could it be because I pointed out I disagreed with one definition of
Embry as to "punishment," and agreed with another?

Does Embry not utilize "sitting and watching other children playing
safely" as part of the process? Why would sitting and watcing be a
"punishment?" It's not to me, and he describs it in non punitive terms,
which of course you are avoiding.

Because Embry said so! And you said "he did no such thing"!
You are a proven LIAR! ;-)

No, I did NOT say he said no such thing. I said that he 'did' no such
thing. Sit and Watch, as I explained later and you keep hiding our
conversation on it, is not to my mind 'punishment.' IN the study
methods describe by HIM he in fact goes to considerable lengths to not
only make Sit and Watch a learning experience, but he has his observers
post it differently than 'punishment.'

If you do have the study you know perfectly well 'punishment' is
defined for coding as "grab, squeeze hard, and spank."

How much longer are you going to lie about this?
0:-

No Doan, you deliberately attempt to mislead and you do so by quoting
out of context and ignoring the complete argument on an issue.

In which context is "he did no such thing."?

The context of my willingness to clarify my meaning when you challenged
it. I pointed out clearly, and you posted it above, that I do not
consider Sit and Watch punishment. What HE calls it we have established
months ago I do NOT agree with. That is why I phrased my comment as I
did.

I did not say he didn't "say" it. I said he didn't DO it. Obviously by
my standards. And he even had the parents rehearse it with the children
before using to reduce the likelihood of "punishment" reaction. It was
a time to sit and observe others playing safely.

By YOUR standards, and that of others devoted to punishment models that
might appear as punishment, but not to mine. I would not even allow the
child to presume it was punishment. Study the study monkeyboy. Try to
get out of your biases.

Even when repeatedly reminded, as you have been on this issue, of the
larger discussion.

In other words, you are a liar. And attempts to prove another, myself,
as a liar is done by....you guessed it....lying.

LOL!

Another nervous laugh over being caught at your nonsense?

Doan

Kane

On 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

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


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

I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry
on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you
challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?"


Really? Here is the actual quotes:

Doan:
He would also know that along with positive reinforcement, giving stickers for
safe play, Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for unsafe
play.

Kane:
"Actually he did no such thing. He prescribed sitting and watching
other children playing safely. Dr. Embry knows how the human brain
actually works and the power of learning through modeling.

This tells me clearly you DO NOT have the study at all. "

Remember that, Kane? So who is the LIAR here? ;-)

Sure I remember. That would be both of us, yet you have failed to post
all our argument on this issue. Why is that?

Why don't you post all of your argument? Which part of "Actually he
did no such thing." don't you understand?

Which part do you not understand in the context of what I said next? Is
that how to win an argument, Doan, to ignore the explanation and
clarification?

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

It's cleary how you dodge the issues.

You said, above: "Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out,
for unsafe play."

And you said: "he did no such thing."

I said, because I disagree with calling it 'punishment,' regardless of
who uses the term, you or him, that "time out for unsafe play," is the
same as "Sit and Watch." The latter is not punishment in my terms, so I
said "Actually he did no such thing."

So you disagree with him so you claimed "he did no such thing."???
You are speaking for Dr. Embry?

In fact there was NO Timeout for unsafe play that was not called, "Sit
and Watch" in the context of watching other children in safe play.

And Dr. Embry called that procedure PUNISHMENT!

That does NOT say he didn't call it punishment, but that it simply was
NOT punishment in my book.

So you said "he did no such thing"??? What is this "thing" that he did
not do?

Your command of english is overcome by your capacity for and compulsive
lying.
How delusional are you?

Actually that perfectly would describe you! ;-)

Could it be because I pointed out I disagreed with one definition of
Embry as to "punishment," and agreed with another?

Does Embry not utilize "sitting and watching other children playing
safely" as part of the process? Why would sitting and watcing be a
"punishment?" It's not to me, and he describs it in non punitive terms,
which of course you are avoiding.

Because Embry said so!

I did not say he didn't say so. You are lying again.

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

And you said "he did no such thing"!
You are a proven LIAR! ;-)

No, I did NOT say he said no such thing.

I said that he 'did' no such thing. "Sit and Watch," as I explained
later and you keep hiding our conversation on it, is not to my mind
'punishment.'

So what is it in Dr. Embry's mind? He did or he did not?

In the study methods described by him he in fact goes to considerable
lengths to not only make Sit and Watch a learning experience, but he
has his observers post it differently than 'punishment.'

But he called it PUNISHMENT did he not?

If you do have the study you know perfectly well 'punishment' is
defined for coding as "grab, squeeze hard, and spank." Sit and Watch is
NOT coded as "punishment."

So how many children were "grab, squeeze hard, and spanked"?

That is yet another reason I took exception to "time out" (Sit and
Watch being the only kidn used) being considered a punishment.

So "he did no such thing"??? ;-)

How much longer are you going to lie about this?

You should ask yourself that!

0:-

No Doan, you deliberately attempt to mislead and you do so by quoting
out of context and ignoring the complete argument on an issue.

In which context is "he did no such thing."?

The context of my willingness to clarify my meaning when you challenged
it.

So what is this "thing" that he did not do?

I pointed out clearly, and you posted it above, that I do not consider
Sit and Watch punishment. What HE calls it, we have established months
ago, I do NOT agree with. That is why I phrased my comment as I did.

I did not say he didn't "say" it. I said he didn't DO it. That plainly
state, and obviously so, by my standards.

He didn't do what?

If you did NOT understand that, then why did you challenge me as
thinking I was a smart as Embry to challenge him?

Because you said he didn't DO it. He did, just like I said: "prescribed
punishment, using time-out for unsafe play."

Did he not do that?

The answer, of course, is that you wish to harass, not debate. 0:-

The reason is it YOU that wish not to debate because you LIED!

And he even had the parents rehearse it with the children before
actually using it to reduce the likelihood of a negative reaction to
it. It was a time to sit and observe others playing safely.

And he called it PUNISHMENT!

Otherwise it would not say "Sit and Watch" others playing safely.

By YOUR standards, and that of others devoted to punishment models that
might appear as a 'punishment,' but not to my standards.

What did Dr. Embry call it?

I would not even allow the child to presume it was punishment. Study
the study monkeyboy. Try to get out of your biases.

You are not the one conducting the study, Dr. Embry was. The study
said PUNISHMENT did it not?

Then when you've given becca a copy, smirk try to convince here. I
don't debate the meaning with you. By the way, I paid for all copies I
gave away. Did you?

How could I, I have to get one from my sock puppet first. ;-)
How about Annafromdreamland? ;-0

Doan

Even when repeatedly reminded, as you have been on this issue, of the
larger discussion.

In other words, you are a liar. And attempts to prove another, myself,
as a liar is done by....you guessed it....lying.

LOL!

Another nervous laugh over being caught at your nonsense lies?

Why do you think I call you "monkeyboy?" You jibber and screech, but
you don't actually say much.

Doan

Kane

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

You seemed to be doing a rather careful cherry pick of which posts
you'll respond to.

Or did you miss this one from me:
............................................

Doan wrote:

On 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


What "LIES?"


Where shall I begin? ;-)

LIE #1:
"You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come
directly from Dr. Embry."


At the time I made that statement the AAA copies were not
available...just listed as out of print. They changed to an on demand
copy service at 10 cents a page. It was then neither a mistake or a lie.
YOU are lying.

LOL! What it wasn't even available through inter-library loan?
I CAUGHT YOU LYING AGAIN! ;-)

Doan

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

You seemed to be doing a rather careful cherry pick of which posts
you'll respond to.

Or did you miss this one from me:
............................................

Doan wrote:

On 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


What "LIES?"


Where shall I begin? ;-)

LIE #1:
"You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come
directly from Dr. Embry."


At the time I made that statement the AAA copies were not
available...just listed as out of print. They changed to an on demand
copy service at 10 cents a page. It was then neither a mistake or a lie.
YOU are lying.

LOL! What it wasn't even available through inter-library loan?
I CAUGHT YOU LYING AGAIN! ;-)

You never have before, and you haven't now.

What inter library loan?

One avaiable to the general public?

Please clarify.

By the way, have you any research available on the efficacy of
CP/Spanking as an effective long term teaching strategy for parents?

We've been waiting years, and nothing?

And yes, there is plenty of material, one of which you have now,
finally (liar), about none CP methods being more effective.

And no, we won't provide it in some format you insist it much be in.

When YOU provide real research on spanking's effectiveness your demands
will be easily met. Because, Doan, there is no such thing, nor will
there ever be. All use of pain and humiliation has been proven to be
ineffective with other variables being MORE important overall to the
responses of the subjects studied. Even Singapore is a case in point.
What "works" there does not in other places.

Spanking has been thoroughly discredited scientificially. You know it,
I know it, and the majority of those that have posted in this ng in the
past, knows it as well.

That's why, you sad, silly, anachronistic holdout, they are gone and
you have nothing left but harrassment.

Rather childish harassment at that.

All YOU can do now is harass people that come here wishing to
rationally discuss current research. You've tried it again twice with
current posts attempting to do just that.

Do you know where the saying, "the bitter end" comes from?

You, child, are at the end of your rope. The bitter end.

Sorry 'bout that. 0;-

Doan

Kane

On 11 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


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

You seemed to be doing a rather careful cherry pick of which posts
you'll respond to.

Or did you miss this one from me:
............................................

Doan wrote:

On 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


What "LIES?"


Where shall I begin? ;-)

LIE #1:
"You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come
directly from Dr. Embry."


At the time I made that statement the AAA copies were not
available...just listed as out of print. They changed to an on demand
copy service at 10 cents a page. It was then neither a mistake or a lie.
YOU are lying.

LOL! What it wasn't even available through inter-library loan?
I CAUGHT YOU LYING AGAIN! ;-)

You never have before, and you haven't now.

What inter library loan?

One avaiable to the general public?

Yes. Just go to any public library and ask. Are you saying that you were
so stupid as to not know that? ;-)

BTW, when was the AAA Foundation list these copies as "out of print"? I
just checked with them and they said it has always been available. Can
it be that you were "mistaken"? ;-)

Doan

..

Heh! Kane spoke the truth for a change. ;-)

Doan

On 11 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

.

Kane,

Would you mind NOT comparing me to Doan, and continually saying that in essence I am having the wool pulled over my eyes by him. In case you haven't noticed I am an intelligient Woman who is capable of making her own decisions. I take about half of what Doan says and let it fly, just like I take about half of what you say and let it fly. I am building my own opinions from what I am learning from both of you, and what I am reading on my own.

I have one question for you...well maybe two.

You said that for an experiment 13 is enough participants or something to that effect.

In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subjects still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that is putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, I feel he "got lucky" with the outcome.

Originally Posted by 0:-

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).

Now for my second question :-)

If the parents were not consistent, and the trial was over the course of 6months. HOW can Dr. Embry or you or anyone else say that this experiment proved anything? Young Children mature and learn a LOT in 6months, their reduction in street entries could be from maturing and gaining an understanding that if you run out into the street you'll probably end up road kill. The fact that they parents were not consistent also says to me that the results are probably not as accurate as they could be (esp with the small sample size)

For a "good" scientific experiement you should have a control group, Was there one? Or was this just...hey parents do this and we're gonna see in 6months how many of your kids run into traffic.

beccafromlalaland wrote:
Kane,

Would you mind NOT comparing me to Doan, and continually saying that
in essence I am having the wool pulled over my eyes by him.

Some of your responses have influenced my opinion.

In case
you haven't noticed I am an intelligient Woman who is capable of making
her own decisions.

Yes.

I take about half of what Doan says and let it fly,
just like I take about half of what you say and let it fly.

Is that based on a critical analysis, or simply a pie division?

I am
building my own opinions from what I am learning from both of you, and
what I am reading on my own.

Okay. It did not appear as though you were before.

I have one question for you...well maybe two.

You said that for an experiment 13 is enough participants or something
to that effect.

That depends on the nature of the experiment. Very valid experiments
have worked with about that number. Remember the infamous, but
significant experiment in applied psychology that showed that those in
a position of power, such as prison guards will in fact abuse that
power, and will follow orders to do immoral and unethical things?

No such experiment is possible now because it was so abusive and
ethical boundaries disappeared so fast, but it stands as a powerful
example and a valid experiment.

http://www.prisonexp.org/slide-1.htm

The experiment lasted only 6 days....the participants went 'bad'
(guards) so rapidly...and it had to be cancelled. Only 24 subjects were
involved. And only half, randomly chosen, were guards. That's a pretty
small sample, even by Embry's standards.

Yet it stands as a benchmark for how corruptable we humans can be in
situations were we weild such extraordinary power.

I in fact, used to use it in parenting classes to point out how very
easy it is abuse children and presume it's perfectly right to do so. We
simply have so very much power.

So, 13 mights seem small to you, but it's not in reality.

In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for
an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an
accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subjects
still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that is
putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, I
feel he "got lucky" with the outcome.

Really? Yet I have seen the same results on a practical basis for many
years.
I've never heard, by the way, of requirement for 50 or more trials for
validation. Nor have I heard scientific experimentation referred to
with terms such as "true."

Have you any references for a standard of 50 subjects with 50 or more
trials? That's extraordinary in social science research. No quoted
studies in this ng have ever come from such methodology, from either
side.



0:- Wrote:


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).




Now for my second question :-)

If the parents were not consistent, and the trial was over the course
of 6months. HOW can Dr. Embry or you or anyone else say that this
experiment proved anything?

By looking at the results. Human subjects are not consistent in
anything much. In fact even in materials testing the samples are not
totally consistent with each other. You are setting impossible
criteria. No group can be gathered that can be controlled or guaranteed
to be consistent in their actions.

The best that can be done is to gather a generalized group wish similar
characteristics that matter. Age of child subjects in this case.


Young Children mature and learn a LOT in
6months, their reduction in street entries could be from maturing and
gaining an understanding that if you run out into the street you'll
probably end up road kill.

Yes, that is true.

And, the sample would all age at the same rate.

And measuring the children who recieved one level of the product
against other children how did not and the outcomes would be
significant. Possibly we should wait until you have a copy?

What I saw was that those children whose parents were somewhat
consistent in delivery of the instruction had similar outcomes....a
reduction to 10% of the street entries prior to the program. A few did
not, and those were where the mother did not use, or did not correctly
apply the program.

The fact that they parents were not
consistent also says to me that the results are probably not as
accurate as they could be (esp with the small sample size)

Please explain how one would create an experiment where the observers
did not have an untoward influence on the subjects yet could maintain
consistency of reactions and actions by the subjects.

That's not possible. This, becca, is the typical response I see from
Doan all the time. Can you see why I said you seem to be like him?

I believe it was he who once submitted the commentary of a medical
doctor about Straus' et al study on CP, insisting it was not valid
because it did not follow the rigorous discipline of health experiments
(and Straus' study was NOT even an experiment, simply an observational
survey).

The problem of course, besides the unethical demand for one kind of
research to be conducted by the rules of another that did not and
cannot apply to both kinds, was that the good doctor insisted that it
be a 'destructive' experiment.

In other words, saying we cannot learn if children turn out badly from
spanking must require that children be taken at birth, raised in exact
replicated invironments, and spanked or not on certain determined
schedules and methods. I presume at the end point they'd have to be
autopsied to measure brain weight, and characteristics.

Totally bogus demands on social science survey and experimental
studies.

In fact, that's what blew out the Standford Prisoner experiment. It was
destructive of the subjects.

Embry did a remarkable job. And he didn't have 13 subject. He had 13
FAMILIES, about twice the number of actual participants.

Both child and parents outcomes were considered. Not just the number of
street entries, but how parents handled children in parenting matters.

For a "good" scientific experiement you should have a control group,
Was there one? Or was this just...hey parents do this and we're gonna
see in 6months how many of your kids run into traffic.

Oh brother.

You mean a group that in fact were allowed to go into traffic?

Yes, there WAS such a control group. It's called the number of
fatalities of toddler's in street entry accidents.

They did in fact come back in 6 months, after "we're gonna do this" and
they did count the number of attempted or actual street entries.

Were do you think the currently 10% of the prior to the program number
of street entries
came from?

I think you need the study. Are you having trouble finding it? It's
fairly cheep from AAA if you want it, or you can use the inter-library
system at your local library. We'll assume they have access to college
and university library materials.

If you have trouble getting it let me know. Or better, Doan. He seems
to think it's now easy to get. 0:-

Or do you wish to discuss it with only information coming from me?

I might make a mistake, after all, or according to Doan, lie.

You wouldn't want that, now would you?

--
beccafromlalaland

Kane

The question you have been avoiding, Kane, is where in the study can you
find data to back up your claim:

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

IS THIS ANOTHER "MISTAKE"? In fact the actual study said NOTHING about
spanking but reprimand. Here is the quotes:

"While some may find it strange that reprimands might increase the chances
of a child going into the street, the literature on the experimental
analysis of behavior is replete with examples of how "attention to
inappropriate behavior" increases the chances of more inappropriate
behavior. Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
their children about dashing into the street will likely to have the
opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
it."

Here is another chance for you to rectify your "mistake", Kane. Do the
honorable thing and apologize! ;-)

Doan

On 13 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


beccafromlalaland wrote:
Kane,

Would you mind NOT comparing me to Doan, and continually saying that
in essence I am having the wool pulled over my eyes by him.

Some of your responses have influenced my opinion.

In case
you haven't noticed I am an intelligient Woman who is capable of making
her own decisions.

Yes.

I take about half of what Doan says and let it fly,
just like I take about half of what you say and let it fly.

Is that based on a critical analysis, or simply a pie division?

I am
building my own opinions from what I am learning from both of you, and
what I am reading on my own.

Okay. It did not appear as though you were before.

I have one question for you...well maybe two.

You said that for an experiment 13 is enough participants or something
to that effect.

That depends on the nature of the experiment. Very valid experiments
have worked with about that number. Remember the infamous, but
significant experiment in applied psychology that showed that those in
a position of power, such as prison guards will in fact abuse that
power, and will follow orders to do immoral and unethical things?

No such experiment is possible now because it was so abusive and
ethical boundaries disappeared so fast, but it stands as a powerful
example and a valid experiment.

http://www.prisonexp.org/slide-1.htm

The experiment lasted only 6 days....the participants went 'bad'
(guards) so rapidly...and it had to be cancelled. Only 24 subjects were
involved. And only half, randomly chosen, were guards. That's a pretty
small sample, even by Embry's standards.

Yet it stands as a benchmark for how corruptable we humans can be in
situations were we weild such extraordinary power.

I in fact, used to use it in parenting classes to point out how very
easy it is abuse children and presume it's perfectly right to do so. We
simply have so very much power.

So, 13 mights seem small to you, but it's not in reality.

In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for
an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an
accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subjects
still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that is
putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, I
feel he "got lucky" with the outcome.

Really? Yet I have seen the same results on a practical basis for many
years.
I've never heard, by the way, of requirement for 50 or more trials for
validation. Nor have I heard scientific experimentation referred to
with terms such as "true."

Have you any references for a standard of 50 subjects with 50 or more
trials? That's extraordinary in social science research. No quoted
studies in this ng have ever come from such methodology, from either
side.



0:- Wrote:


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).




Now for my second question :-)

If the parents were not consistent, and the trial was over the course
of 6months. HOW can Dr. Embry or you or anyone else say that this
experiment proved anything?

By looking at the results. Human subjects are not consistent in
anything much. In fact even in materials testing the samples are not
totally consistent with each other. You are setting impossible
criteria. No group can be gathered that can be controlled or guaranteed
to be consistent in their actions.

The best that can be done is to gather a generalized group wish similar
characteristics that matter. Age of child subjects in this case.


Young Children mature and learn a LOT in
6months, their reduction in street entries could be from maturing and
gaining an understanding that if you run out into the street you'll
probably end up road kill.

Yes, that is true.

And, the sample would all age at the same rate.

And measuring the children who recieved one level of the product
against other children how did not and the outcomes would be
significant. Possibly we should wait until you have a copy?

What I saw was that those children whose parents were somewhat
consistent in delivery of the instruction had similar outcomes....a
reduction to 10% of the street entries prior to the program. A few did
not, and those were where the mother did not use, or did not correctly
apply the program.

The fact that they parents were not
consistent also says to me that the results are probably not as
accurate as they could be (esp with the small sample size)

Please explain how one would create an experiment where the observers
did not have an untoward influence on the subjects yet could maintain
consistency of reactions and actions by the subjects.

That's not possible. This, becca, is the typical response I see from
Doan all the time. Can you see why I said you seem to be like him?

I believe it was he who once submitted the commentary of a medical
doctor about Straus' et al study on CP, insisting it was not valid
because it did not follow the rigorous discipline of health experiments
(and Straus' study was NOT even an experiment, simply an observational
survey).

The problem of course, besides the unethical demand for one kind of
research to be conducted by the rules of another that did not and
cannot apply to both kinds, was that the good doctor insisted that it
be a 'destructive' experiment.

In other words, saying we cannot learn if children turn out badly from
spanking must require that children be taken at birth, raised in exact
replicated invironments, and spanked or not on certain determined
schedules and methods. I presume at the end point they'd have to be
autopsied to measure brain weight, and characteristics.

Totally bogus demands on social science survey and experimental
studies.

In fact, that's what blew out the Standford Prisoner experiment. It was
destructive of the subjects.

Embry did a remarkable job. And he didn't have 13 subject. He had 13
FAMILIES, about twice the number of actual participants.

Both child and parents outcomes were considered. Not just the number of
street entries, but how parents handled children in parenting matters.

For a "good" scientific experiement you should have a control group,
Was there one? Or was this just...hey parents do this and we're gonna
see in 6months how many of your kids run into traffic.

Oh brother.

You mean a group that in fact were allowed to go into traffic?

Yes, there WAS such a control group. It's called the number of
fatalities of toddler's in street entry accidents.

They did in fact come back in 6 months, after "we're gonna do this" and
they did count the number of attempted or actual street entries.

Were do you think the currently 10% of the prior to the program number
of street entries
came from?

I think you need the study. Are you having trouble finding it? It's
fairly cheep from AAA if you want it, or you can use the inter-library
system at your local library. We'll assume they have access to college
and university library materials.

If you have trouble getting it let me know. Or better, Doan. He seems
to think it's now easy to get. 0:-

Or do you wish to discuss it with only information coming from me?

I might make a mistake, after all, or according to Doan, lie.

You wouldn't want that, now would you?

--
beccafromlalaland

Kane