One More Nail in Spanking's Ugly Coffin

I popped back in to see what's going on these days, and at a risk of being
drawn in deeper than I want to be...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

Politically, spanking remains popular, although its approval rating
in public opinion polls (USA) has slipped slowly but inexorably downward
in recent years. But scientifically speaking, it is dead in the water.
After decades of research, no one has yet demonstrated any evidence of any
measurable form of long term benefit from spanking. And even when
ideological prospankers in academia perform studies rigorous enough to
pass peer review and receive approval for publication, they end up
replicating the same evidence of long term negative effects which the
other researchers found.

There are at least two major problems with this claim. First, from what
I've seen, studies seem to invariably have serious problems regarding how
they define "spankers" and "non-spankers" (or "spanked" and "unspanked"
children). Some studies ask whether parents spanked within a particular
amount of time, and therefore can count parents who spank but have not
spanked recently as non-spankers. I would contend that many of those
mis-counted parrents are among the most effective parents who spank: parents
who have made their expectations clear enough and reasonable enough, and
done a good enough job persuading their children to live within those
expectations, that the children only rarely behave in ways that result in
actual spankings. Indeed, the more long-term benefit spanking produces in
children's behavior, the smaller the chance that such studies will recognize
that the children were ever spanked at all. Under those conditions, the
misclassification would certainly make the spanking category look worse than
it really is, and would likely make the non-spanking category look better
than it really is as well.

In other studies, the only non-spankers who are counted are those who
achieve good enough results without spanking that they never choose to
spank. If parents start off intending never to spank but at some point face
problems serious enough that they change their minds and spank even once,
they no longer count as non-spankers. That allows the "non-spanking" group
to get rid of some percentage of its failures, making the group appear more
successful than it would in a study with truly legitimate controls.

Imagine if a drug company tested a new medication by looking only at the
results the medication produced for a self-selected sample that used the new
medication throughout the test period, and if the drug company ignored the
results for people who stopped using it because they suffered harmful side
effects or did not consider it effective. The FDA would reject the research
in a heartbeat, and the drug company could count itself lucky if that was
the only bad thing that happened as a result of such negligence and
incompetence. Yet you attempt to argue that non-spanking parenting
techniques have been "proven" effective on almost exactly the same basis.

The second huge problem is that studies tend to do very little to
differentiate among parents who spank. An average is just that: an average.
It reflects both the best and the worst within a group with a single number,
even though the difference between the best and the worst within the group
may be enormous.

Consider a table with two stacks of money on it. You are told that one
stack has a value averaging $10 and the other a value averaging $8. Which
stack contains the bills with the highest value?

There is no way of knowing that from the averages. The stack with the $10
average might have three $20 bills, six $5 bills, and a $10 bill, or it
might be all $10 bills. The stack averaging $8 might include six $10 bills
and four $5 bills or it might include a $50 bill, a $10 bill, three $5
bills, and five $1 bills, Just knowing which stack contains a higher
average value does not provide an indication of which stack contains the
bill or bills with the highest value.

Similarly, knowing that non-spankers currently have better average results
than spankers says nothing about whether the best parents are spankers or
non-spankers. It may just mean that more people use spanking in bad ways
than use it in good ways, or that the harm caused when spanking is misused
is greater than the benefit produced when it is used properly. Or there may
be other differences that correlate with the choice of whether or not to use
spanking that are what really accounts for the difference in results. For
example, what if parents who spank are a lot less likely to use positive
parenting skills, and it is the failure of many spankers to use positive
skills, not the fact that they spank, that causes the worse results?
(Considering how many of the strongest opponents of spanking put a strong
emphasis on positive techniques, and how many advocates of spanking promote
a much more confrontational view of parenting, such a correlation could
reasonably be expected. Yet have any studies ever made more than a
superficial effort to control for that possibility?)

One thing we do know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that not all spankers are
created equal. In Straus and Mouradian's 1998 study, one factor alone -
whether or not mothers ever spanked as a result of having "lost it" -
accounted for a difference in whether mothers who spanked had roughly equal
results to the results of non-spankers (in the case those who never spanked
as a result of having "lost it") or dramatically worse results (in the case
of those who sometimes, and especially those who frequently, spanked as a
result of having "lost it"). Not only does that study call into serious
question the results of every study that has not controlled for the "lost
it" factor, but it emphesizes the question of what other differences between
parents who use spanking relatively effectively and those who use it
relatively ineffectively have gone unnoticed amidst the averages.

It really should come as no surprise that hitting and hurting
children has numerous long term negative effects. After all, would anyone
be surprised to learn that adults living with 15 foot tall people who hit
them experienced negative psychological sequelae as a result? Why should
it be any different for little children in a comparable situation?

In my view, there are more than a few adults who could benefit from having a
15-foot giant who spanks them if they engage in behaviors that are dangerous
or destructive to themselves or others. Such situations would be far from
perfect, especially considering that adults are supposed to be mature and
responsible enough not to need others to look after them. But I think there
are times when that would be less imperfect than allowing adults to destroy
their own lives through bad choices.

Of course for that to work properly, the 15-foot giants would have to be
mature, responsible, and fair, and would have to have the best interest of
the people they are in charge of at heart. If, instead, the 15-foot giants
would be selfish and immature, more likely to spank because a person got in
their way or irritated them at the wrong time than because the behavior they
are trying to correct is genuinely harmful or dangerous, then the odds of
good long-term results would be much lower.

The biggest single problem with spanking studies, in my view, is that they
do not make anything resembling an adequate effort to distinguish between
the different types of "giants" that might be doing the spanking. When good
"giants" who use spanking in a relatively fair and effective way are lumped
together with selfish "giants" who use it in ways that are far less fair and
effective, the overall results will inevitably be far worse than the results
for the "giants" who are making thoughtful, deliberate choices iwith their
charges' best interest at heart.

In this context, "drawing the line" is less important than
demonstrating a dose/response effect: the more frequent the hitting and
the more severe the hitting, the greater the likelihood of measurable long
term negative effects.

According to Straus and Mouradian, that dose-response pattern does not hold
for parents (specifically, they were studying mothers) who never spank as a
result of having "lost it."

What emerges from the research is a picture similar to health effects
of low level radiation. There is no "safe level" of disciplinary hitting
and pain infliction on children.

More precisely, again clarifying based on Straus and Mouradian's work, there
is no 100% completely safe level of losing one's temper and hitting children
as a result of doing so.

Suppose a police officer went around and locking people up any time he was
angry with them. Would the fact that he is a police officer make his
actions in locking them up a case of administering law and justice? Or
would the officer merely be misusing his position of authority as an excuse
to engage in behavior that would be clearly illegal in other contexts?

Following that analogy, when parents spank as a deliberately thought-out
choice of how to punish a child for breaking a rule, the parents are acting
in a position of authority administering justice. Straus and Mouradian's
study failed to find statistically significant evidence of harm among the
mothers who spanked MOST as long as those circumstances held.

If, on the other hand, parents spank out of anger without carefully
considering whether the child's behavior objectively warrants punishment or
whether spanking is an appropriate form for the punishment to use, what they
are doing has about as much in common with the legitimate use of spanking
for discipline as a police officer's locking someone up just because he is
angry at the person has to do with legitimate police functions. Which is,
very little. Even if it turns out that the person committed a crime, the
officer's behavior still has the appearance of being unfair and arbitrary.
Straus and Mouradian's study seems to imply that essentially all of the harm
attributed to spanking is associated with parents who at least sometimes use
spanking in that type of manner, and especially with those who frequently do
so.

Unfortunately, few if any other studies distingush between those two cases.
As a result, as long as parents hit the "right" part of their children's
anatomy, parents who lose their temper and hit their children are lumped
together with those who spank only as a carefully considered choice. Worse,
some studies (at least mostly older ones, from what I've seen) didn't even
confine the category of parents who spank to those who only hit the "right"
part of their chldren's anatomy. In those studies, parents who sometimes
punched their children, burned them with cigarettes, and did other things
that indisputably qualify as child abuse were also included as spankers.

Children want their relationships with the significant adults in
their lives to be harmonious. Spanking may give an adult more power, but
in the process it sacrifices influence. Adults in affectionate
nonpunitive relationships with children may have less coercive power than
spankers do, but they can have a great deal more influence on the child.

First of all, this argument is not unique to spanking. It could be applied
essentially equally to any form of punishment, including punishment applied
in the guise of "natural consequences" that the child is smart enough
recognize really come from the parents, not from nature.

And second, while there are certainly a great many situations where the use
of punishment (and, more often, the threat thereof) can weaken parents'
influence, there are also times when it can strengthen that influence.
Without the possibility of punishment, children are free to let what their
parents say go in one ear and out the other if they wish to do so. The
threat of punishment, however, can send two important messages. One message
is, "This is something I view as so important that I won't let you do what I
believe is wrong." The other is more implicit, "You might want to consider
why I think this issue is so serious that I'm willing to punish you if you
disobey." It is hard to imagine what parents who refuse to punish no matter
what the circumstances could do to send a message with equal weight if a
child is inclined not to listen.

Of course if parents threaten and punish all the time, those messages can
get old to a point where they are generally ignored. Worse, if children
view their parents' use of threats and punishment as unfair, arbitarary, or
hypocritical, the implicit messages can even come across as false. But if
parents don't threaten or punish over every little thing, the times when
they do consider something important enough to threaten or punish can be a
pretty significant attention-getter when a child would otherwise not be
inclined to pay attention.

The most effective rules are the ones which parents and children
create together in a mutually respectful way, so that everybody wins,
rather than rules handed down from above accompanied by threats of
punishment for breaking them.

And how effective are such rules if children are free to deliberately ignore
them without any serious consequence for doing so? What good is an
agreement if the agreement is not binding?

I agree that when parents and children can work together to find to a
solution that is acceptable to both, that is vastly preferable to a
"solution" imposed unilaterally by the parents. (Indeed, I think one reason
why spankers don't look better in studies is that too many of them get so
focused on spanking and on controlling their children's behavior that they
miss opportunities to find genuine win-win solutions.) And in a perfect
world, parents and children could always find solutions they can agree on,
and find them in the amount of time that is available.

But in the real world, parents don't always have time for lengthy
negotiations. In the real world, children aren't always willing to accept a
solution that is also acceptable to their parents - especially if the
children know their parents won't unilaterally impose a solution if
negotiations fail. And in the real world, the fact that children agree to
something is no guarantee that they will actually live up to their end of
the agreement.

Also, there are some things that I believe must not be considered
negotiable. I would not be willing to negotiate with a child over whether
he is allowed to steal, or whether she is allowed to vandalize other
people's property, or whether he is allowed to bully other children.
Because of my own values and principles, I would also not be willing to
negotiate whether a child is allowed to tell lies, at least if anything
important is at stake. (Of course parents who try to enforce a higher
standard of honesty on their children than they are willing to follow
themselves would rightly be perceived by their children as hypocrites.)

When children fully understand why behaviors are wrong and why the wrongness
of those behaviors is not negotiable, yet engage in those behaviors anyhow,
parents' only real options are to tolerate the behaviors or to use some kind
of punishment. What is your magic solution to solve those types of
situations without resorting to punishment?

Nathan


Straus, M.A. and Mouradian, V.E. 1998. "Impulsive Corporal Punishment by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of Children." _Behavioral
Sciences & The Law_ 16(3):353-

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:20:19 -0700, Doan wrote:


More smoke and mirror! The problem with anti-spanking zealotS is
that they forgot that 90%+ of people have experienced spanking.
They won't buy into the rhetoric if it don't jive with reality!

Gee, if 90% of the people had been hit over the head and robbed would
that be how we discipline chldren.

That WOULD jibe ("jive" is something YOU do here all the time) "with
reality!"

The question remained,

No it doesn't. You've been answered time and again on this with valid
research, one of which you seem to be hiding from the group. Many of
us have it, if you have the same one I have. We are laughing at your
many years of nonsense...and avoidance this same old question shows.

are the non-cp alternatives any better
under the same statistical analogy. Straus & Mouradian (1998)
showed us that:

I'm sorry. You seem to have claimed S & M no longer are valid to
prove, by statistics, that non-CP produces less anti social behavior.
If you refuse this, then we have no obligation to use the same model,
though perfectly sound models have been used.

And the, of course is "Yep" to the "any better" part of your question.

Non-cp alternatives, especially as parents move further and further
away from punishement of any kind (not the the S & M study actually
USED punishment...which to me negated the study long ago...you don't
see me quoting it as support, do you?)

Much better first because non-cp can be no worse. Next because there
is no risk. And last because millions of parents have put non-cp to
the test and found it produces more cooperative, self motivated, less
angry children with higher self esteem and better able to concentrate,
learn, and best of all, the relationship with the parent is richer and
more satisfying for both.

And there is just one more little side effect that some of us value.
We do NOT have to be bullies to our children.

1) Talking to the child calmly

Only ONE non-punishment tactic out of four. I do wish I could have
been a partner on developing the model.

The problem with any punishment model is that there are many degress
of punishment for each tactic. One can non-cp punishmildly, or
harshly.

A Non-punishment is very easy for a parent using it to recognize if it
escalates into anything but non-punishing. Often the parent learns
very quickly to control the way in which they make a request, ask
questions, explain and can spot when their child is feeling punished.

A spanking parent can hardly modulate in such a manner....the striking
hand has already hit. And we know what escalating so often turns into
over time.

2) Sent the child to the room
3) Time-out
4) Removal of privileges

All very likely to create harm to the child, and to the relationship.
In every case, if a child seems to need punishment, it's likely the
parents doesn't know what is going on, and a stop to check is called
for.

All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation
than any of
the other variables."

We, it was a punishment model. You've been told time and again, even
by those that support very mild punishments that even they fall behind
the totally NON-punishment tactics.

Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal
Punishment by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children."
Behavioral
Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

You yourself do not accept the study, so why would you keep posting it
to make a claim?

A study that uses for it's behavioral interventions three punishments
to only ONE non-punishing intervention proves that punishment doesn't
work.

I've proven to myself, as have others.

When a parent makes up their own mind about how to discipline it is
all to easy, if they've been battered around, and that "jives" with
their experience, they are likely to batter around the child.

What you suggest is that what ever was done to the parent can now be
done to the child.

That is about as immoral as one can get in this world. Especially if
you 90% claim is true.

Frankly It's self survey, so it's trash. A public opinion poll depend
far more, for outcome, on the questions and pollster's delivery.

I've never seen a single study that supports by science any such
number. A sweet little old lady, nodding and smilling will get one
answer, a biker size and visaged man will get another.

Your are a fraud and sham, Droany, and it looks like your spanking
took.

Doan

Now tell me again I was never spanked. R R R R R

Watch him spin in circles folks.

Kane




On 6 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:

Ivan Gowch wrote:
: Health India: Spanking kids has adverse effect on their
: academic performance

: WELLINGTON, June 2(ANI) - The Otago University's Children's
: Issues Centre has revealed that physical punishment of
: children is associated with anti-social behaviour and poorer
: performance at school.

: According to the New Zealand Herald, the center was
: commissioned by the Office of the Children's Commissioner to
: survey over 300 international research articles.

: "The literature is quite consistent in supporting the conclusion
: that there is an association between the use of parental corporal
: punishment and the development of anti-social behaviour in
: children," lead researcher Professor Anne Smith was quoted as
: saying.

Politically, spanking remains popular, although its approval
rating
in public opinion polls (USA) has slipped slowly but inexorably
downward
in recent years. But scientifically speaking, it is dead in the
water.
After decades of research, no one has yet demonstrated any evidence
of any
measurable form of long term benefit from spanking. And even when
ideological prospankers in academia perform studies rigorous enough
to
pass peer review and receive approval for publication, they end up
replicating the same evidence of long term negative effects which
the
other researchers found.

: Effects of smacking included:

: - aggression, disruptive, delinquent and anti-social behaviour,
: violent offending, and low peer status;

: - poorer academic achievement including lower IQ, poorer
: performance on achievement tests, poorer adjustment to school,
: more attention deficit-like symptoms, and poorer self-esteem;

: - diminished quality of parent-child relationships, with children
: likely to be less securely attached to parents, and to feel
: fearful or hostile towards them;

: - increased depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and
: psychiatric disorders.

It really should come as no surprise that hitting and hurting
children has numerous long term negative effects. After all, would
anyone
be surprised to learn that adults living with 15 foot tall people
who hit
them experienced negative psychological sequelae as a result? Why
should
it be any different for little children in a comparable situation?

: Prof Smith said one of the problems highlighted by the review was
: the lack of agreement over when physical punishment stepped over
: the line and became abuse.

In this context, "drawing the line" is less important than
demonstrating a dose/response effect: the more frequent the hitting
and
the more severe the hitting, the greater the likelihood of
measurable long
term negative effects.

What emerges from the research is a picture similar to health
effects
of low level radiation. There is no "safe level" of disciplinary
hitting
and pain infliction on children.

: The research also suggested principles of effective discipline
: including:

: - parental warmth, involvement and affectionate relationships;

Children want their relationships with the significant adults
in
their lives to be harmonious. Spanking may give an adult more
power, but
in the process it sacrifices influence. Adults in affectionate
nonpunitive relationships with children may have less coercive
power than
spankers do, but they can have a great deal more influence on the
child.

: - clear communication and messages to children, which are
: age-appropriate, about why their behaviour is acceptable or
: not;

: - providing fair, reasonable and clearly defined rules,
: boundaries and expectations for behaviour;

The most effective rules are the ones which parents and
children
create together in a mutually respectful way, so that everybody
wins,
rather than rules handed down from above accompanied by threats of
punishment for breaking them.

Chris

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:27:34 -0700, Doan wrote:


LOL! Singapore have a youth crime problem? Give us the rate and
compare that to Sweden, shall we?

Already did, weeks ago.

So you are prepared to prove that not spanking creates youth crime,
and spanking does't?

That is the real question.

I pointed out also that the population in Sweden that is now "youth"
and young adult are from before the spanking ban and the early years,
when the non-criminally...no penalty law went into effect.

Singapore has been spanking for many decades now, with canning of
youth a major "deterent."

If you can defend it, be assured we'll read your posts.

Basily you come here to play and pretend.

You haven't presented a new argument, out of all those you have been
defeated at for years now.

Any newbie, not clever enough to google your archives, might assume
this is all new.

The only new things you've gotten involved in is when you weren't
remembering to cover your ass and picked up a challenge.

The Question would be one, as is Embry...and you, stupid little boy,
threw that out as a red herring to escape the inevitability of the The
Question...that you cannot answer it and defend your "let them make up
your own mind" statement.

It's amazing how spanking disrupts the moral development of children,
and the many ways it surfaces in the youth. Your games are typical.


Doan

Yes, you are.

Kane




On 6 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:26:02 -0700, Doan wrote:


So what do Swedish parents do instead of spanking, Ivan?

What do Singaporians use do with their population of youth once
their
spanking hasn't worked? They seem to have a youth crime problem
that
spanking and the threat having helped. Any thoughts?

BTW, Chris beat you to it. You are a few days late! ;-)

Irrelevant.

Sweden isn't mentioned in the article. If you wish to discuss
sweden
why not refer to the many posts on this subject that explain all
your
garbage away quite nicely?

You bring up argument you've been defeated in before. That's not
debate...that's harrassment.

Let's take a look at the article and discuss it's points, or don't
you
have the guts to actually discuss the subject brought up?

Kind'a bring up old childhood memories?

Doan


On 4 Jun 2004, Ivan Gowch wrote:

Health India: Spanking kids has adverse effect on their
academic performance

WELLINGTON, June 2(ANI) - The Otago University's Children's
Issues Centre has revealed that physical punishment of
children is associated with anti-social behaviour and poorer
performance at school.

According to the New Zealand Herald, the center was
commissioned by the Office of the Children's Commissioner to
survey over 300 international research articles.

"The literature is quite consistent in supporting the conclusion
that there is an association between the use of parental
corporal
punishment and the development of anti-social behaviour in
children," lead researcher Professor Anne Smith was quoted as
saying.

Effects of smacking included:

- aggression, disruptive, delinquent and anti-social behaviour,
violent offending, and low peer status;

So what do you thin, Droaner. Are they lying? If these things don't
have a direct link to CP of children, what do you think is more
likely
to be the cause?

In other words, instead of your usual garbage empty headed
harrassing
posts why not actually get into the issues presented? Chicken****
maybe?

- poorer academic achievement including lower IQ, poorer
performance on achievement tests, poorer adjustment to school,
more attention deficit-like symptoms, and poorer self-esteem;

If you think these are not a result of the use of CP then defend CP
as
NOT being connected. What does the use of CP actually produce,
Droany,
intelligent, self determined, responsible non-violent, socially
effective people? If you think so defend how CP accomplishes this.

Stop being one of the violence promoting spanked.


- diminished quality of parent-child relationships, with
children
likely to be less securely attached to parents, and to feel
fearful or hostile towards them;

- increased depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and
psychiatric disorders.

Prof Smith said one of the problems highlighted by the review
was
the lack of agreement over when physical punishment stepped over
the line and became abuse.

The research also suggested principles of effective discipline
including:

- parental warmth, involvement and affectionate relationships;

- clear communication and messages to children, which are
age-appropriate, about why their behaviour is acceptable or
not;

- providing fair, reasonable and clearly defined rules,
boundaries and expectations for behaviour;

- consistently following behaviours with appropriate
consequences, rewards or mild non-physical punishments such
as time-out.

Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro said the research had found
that an authoritative and firm parenting style, accompanied by
warmth and reasoning was associated with children's healthy
social adjustment.

"This is important research because it gives parents
evidence- based information about the effects of physical
punishment, as well as practical alternatives," she said.
===

Once again -- exactly what we child-friendly folks
have been saying here for years.

It's amazing, the consistency of results in these
studies, which point to the same ill effects,
virtually every time, with unerring predictability.

It should be noted that this study's conclusions
includes what I've been telling people for years:

Parents who hit their children never have as
close or loving a relationship with their kids as
parents who don't.

Besides the fact that that being hit is universally
perceived by children as evidence that the hitting
parent does not love them, each time a child is hit,
s/he loves the hitting parent(s) a little less, until
any love the child once had for the parent is replaced
by fear, defiance and, ultimately, hate.

Wise parents know in their hearts that this is true,
and so do not inflict on their kids what they would not
want inflicted on themselves. It's called the Golden
Rule, and is a very good thing to teach your children.

But you cannot teach it if you hit them.

The only sane conclusion is that hitting one's kids is
a really bad idea.


For someone that claims to be neutral and simply wishes parents to
make their own choices, you seem extraordinarily unmindful of the
actual recommended parenting techniques suggested and defensive of
the
use of CP.

Why is that I wonder?

Seems these folks get it that CP can't be safely used since we
really
can't determine where the exact line is between it's non-injurious
application and injury to body, mind, and development.

Say, have you been working on defining that line for us, as you
claimed to know? I'm waiting.

The world is waiting.

We need this, since it seems compulsives that spank appear not to
be
stopping. It would be a boon to humankind if we knew how to make
spanking actually safe.

Thanks for your coming contributions to safe spanking parameters.

Sincerely, Kane

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:33:08 -0700, Doan wrote:


On 6 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

Prof Smith said one of the problems highlighted by the review
was
the lack of agreement over when physical punishment stepped over
the line and became abuse.

Apparently we have a human behavior expert of greater knowledge and
understanding, than these many researchers, right here on this ng.

Experts??? You mean like Dr. Dobson? ;-)

I don't believe he's visited here. Are you his sock?

Doan has stated he knows where the line is between the two.

You are being stupid again! The article said "lack of agreement"
not that there is no line.

I haven't claimed there is no line? Nor did they. Simply that they
don't agree when they have stepped over it....exactly the argument I
gave YOU when you tried your silly little schoolboy nonsense with
"reasonable standards."

What you just saw was that yet another group of people, just as those
in the judicial in Canada, cannot determine were the line is by
agreement.

So this is a moveable line, eh?

Using your logic, you don't know
where the line is between talking to your kids and verbal abuse
neither. So you don't talk to your kids??? :-)

It's very easy to determine the line has been passed in verbal abuse,
and stop, and little harm is done if stopped.

Can you say the same for CP?

How many bones or blood vessels does verbal abuse break?

We are waiting a long time for his monumental disclosure of this
vital
information, as in his inimitable fashion, when he has studies and
great disclosures to make he seems to become painfully shy.

Have you checked Canada lately?

Yep. And they too said the same thing. That is why they didn't "say,
stop before you cross this line" but set age limits, where the child
could be hit, and with what they could be hit.

Very obviously having to put in to law so many limits that one
following them would have to work much harder to cause damage.

A sure sign, when a law limits to much great restraint than needed,
that the risk is very high if one exceeds the limit.

I note the I can drive, even in rainy weather, with good tires on my
SUV, easily and safely10 to 15 mph over the posted speed limit, and 20
over the caution sign mph on curves.

But I don't know, and neither do the highway engineers, precisely
where my tires with the current wear, with the current load, on a wet
road that may have not been rained on for three months, with leaves,
might break traction and send me into the ditch, which here is about
150 ft deep.

So I simply don't speed no matter what..

Same problem with spanking. With a perfectly healthy child one might
hit with x frequency, using h force, and do so little harm as to be
untraceable...however, all life, yours and theirs, has curves in it.

Wet weather, leaves on the road, nutso drives out there, and high
winds.

So why "speed" at all?

It's rumoured this is the result of his own repressive childhood
where
he was spanked. No wonder he posts here so compulsively.

And you are a "never spanked" boy!

An I? We'll never know, will we....R R R R

No wonder you spewed "smelly-****"
and "public masturbation" so compulsively! Your mom must be proud!
;-)

Yah can tell when Droany is cornered. He know he has the choice to
both ad hom me back, AND present his argument, but which does he leave
out?

R R R R R

Doan

And you are welcome. Always willing to provide a bolt hole to a
frightened little weasel.

You'll note that when I ad hom back, I always adress your challenges
as well. Funny thing about honor. It's not really based on ad hom or
obscenities.

And you have used "smelly ****" many more times than I have...notice?
I think you like the way it rolls off your tongue...R R R R

Kane

Nathan correctly discerned and disseminated:

Imagine if a drug company tested a new medication by looking only at the
results the medication produced for a self-selected sample that used the new
medication throughout the test period

Just what AG Spitzer in NY alleges is going on with clinical trials at Glaxo
selected subsets of trials ONLY data being considered for efficacy of
SSRI's marketed by G.

Thanks for dropping by.


Nathan posted:

From: "Nathan A. Barclay"
Date: 6/7/2004 12:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


I popped back in to see what's going on these days, and at a risk of being
drawn in deeper than I want to be...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

Politically, spanking remains popular, although its approval rating
in public opinion polls (USA) has slipped slowly but inexorably downward
in recent years. But scientifically speaking, it is dead in the water.
After decades of research, no one has yet demonstrated any evidence of any
measurable form of long term benefit from spanking. And even when
ideological prospankers in academia perform studies rigorous enough to
pass peer review and receive approval for publication, they end up
replicating the same evidence of long term negative effects which the
other researchers found.

There are at least two major problems with this claim. First, from what
I've seen, studies seem to invariably have serious problems regarding how
they define "spankers" and "non-spankers" (or "spanked" and "unspanked"
children). Some studies ask whether parents spanked within a particular
amount of time, and therefore can count parents who spank but have not
spanked recently as non-spankers. I would contend that many of those
mis-counted parrents are among the most effective parents who spank: parents
who have made their expectations clear enough and reasonable enough, and
done a good enough job persuading their children to live within those
expectations, that the children only rarely behave in ways that result in
actual spankings. Indeed, the more long-term benefit spanking produces in
children's behavior, the smaller the chance that such studies will recognize
that the children were ever spanked at all. Under those conditions, the
misclassification would certainly make the spanking category look worse than
it really is, and would likely make the non-spanking category look better
than it really is as well.

In other studies, the only non-spankers who are counted are those who
achieve good enough results without spanking that they never choose to
spank. If parents start off intending never to spank but at some point face
problems serious enough that they change their minds and spank even once,
they no longer count as non-spankers. That allows the "non-spanking" group
to get rid of some percentage of its failures, making the group appear more
successful than it would in a study with truly legitimate controls.

Imagine if a drug company tested a new medication by looking only at the
results the medication produced for a self-selected sample that used the new
medication throughout the test period, and if the drug company ignored the
results for people who stopped using it because they suffered harmful side
effects or did not consider it effective. The FDA would reject the research
in a heartbeat, and the drug company could count itself lucky if that was
the only bad thing that happened as a result of such negligence and
incompetence. Yet you attempt to argue that non-spanking parenting
techniques have been "proven" effective on almost exactly the same basis.

The second huge problem is that studies tend to do very little to
differentiate among parents who spank. An average is just that: an average.
It reflects both the best and the worst within a group with a single number,
even though the difference between the best and the worst within the group
may be enormous.

Consider a table with two stacks of money on it. You are told that one
stack has a value averaging $10 and the other a value averaging $8. Which
stack contains the bills with the highest value?

There is no way of knowing that from the averages. The stack with the $10
average might have three $20 bills, six $5 bills, and a $10 bill, or it
might be all $10 bills. The stack averaging $8 might include six $10 bills
and four $5 bills or it might include a $50 bill, a $10 bill, three $5
bills, and five $1 bills, Just knowing which stack contains a higher
average value does not provide an indication of which stack contains the
bill or bills with the highest value.

Similarly, knowing that non-spankers currently have better average results
than spankers says nothing about whether the best parents are spankers or
non-spankers. It may just mean that more people use spanking in bad ways
than use it in good ways, or that the harm caused when spanking is misused
is greater than the benefit produced when it is used properly. Or there may
be other differences that correlate with the choice of whether or not to use
spanking that are what really accounts for the difference in results. For
example, what if parents who spank are a lot less likely to use positive
parenting skills, and it is the failure of many spankers to use positive
skills, not the fact that they spank, that causes the worse results?
(Considering how many of the strongest opponents of spanking put a strong
emphasis on positive techniques, and how many advocates of spanking promote
a much more confrontational view of parenting, such a correlation could
reasonably be expected. Yet have any studies ever made more than a
superficial effort to control for that possibility?)

One thing we do know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that not all spankers are
created equal. In Straus and Mouradian's 1998 study, one factor alone -
whether or not mothers ever spanked as a result of having "lost it" -
accounted for a difference in whether mothers who spanked had roughly equal
results to the results of non-spankers (in the case those who never spanked
as a result of having "lost it") or dramatically worse results (in the case
of those who sometimes, and especially those who frequently, spanked as a
result of having "lost it"). Not only does that study call into serious
question the results of every study that has not controlled for the "lost
it" factor, but it emphesizes the question of what other differences between
parents who use spanking relatively effectively and those who use it
relatively ineffectively have gone unnoticed amidst the averages.

It really should come as no surprise that hitting and hurting
children has numerous long term negative effects. After all, would anyone
be surprised to learn that adults living with 15 foot tall people who hit
them experienced negative psychological sequelae as a result? Why should
it be any different for little children in a comparable situation?

In my view, there are more than a few adults who could benefit from having a
15-foot giant who spanks them if they engage in behaviors that are dangerous
or destructive to themselves or others. Such situations would be far from
perfect, especially considering that adults are supposed to be mature and
responsible enough not to need others to look after them. But I think there
are times when that would be less imperfect than allowing adults to destroy
their own lives through bad choices.

Of course for that to work properly, the 15-foot giants would have to be
mature, responsible, and fair, and would have to have the best interest of
the people they are in charge of at heart. If, instead, the 15-foot giants
would be selfish and immature, more likely to spank because a person got in
their way or irritated them at the wrong time than because the behavior they
are trying to correct is genuinely harmful or dangerous, then the odds of
good long-term results would be much lower.

The biggest single problem with spanking studies, in my view, is that they
do not make anything resembling an adequate effort to distinguish between
the different types of "giants" that might be doing the spanking. When good
"giants" who use spanking in a relatively fair and effective way are lumped
together with selfish "giants" who use it in ways that are far less fair and
effective, the overall results will inevitably be far worse than the results
for the "giants" who are making thoughtful, deliberate choices iwith their
charges' best interest at heart.

In this context, "drawing the line" is less important than
demonstrating a dose/response effect: the more frequent the hitting and
the more severe the hitting, the greater the likelihood of measurable long
term negative effects.

According to Straus and Mouradian, that dose-response pattern does not hold
for parents (specifically, they were studying mothers) who never spank as a
result of having "lost it."

What emerges from the research is a picture similar to health effects
of low level radiation. There is no "safe level" of disciplinary hitting
and pain infliction on children.

More precisely, again clarifying based on Straus and Mouradian's work, there
is no 100% completely safe level of losing one's temper and hitting children
as a result of doing so.

Suppose a police officer went around and locking people up any time he was
angry with them. Would the fact that he is a police officer make his
actions in locking them up a case of administering law and justice? Or
would the officer merely be misusing his position of authority as an excuse
to engage in behavior that would be clearly illegal in other contexts?

Following that analogy, when parents spank as a deliberately thought-out
choice of how to punish a child for breaking a rule, the parents are acting
in a position of authority administering justice. Straus and Mouradian's
study failed to find statistically significant evidence of harm among the
mothers who spanked MOST as long as those circumstances held.

If, on the other hand, parents spank out of anger without carefully
considering whether the child's behavior objectively warrants punishment or
whether spanking is an appropriate form for the punishment to use, what they
are doing has about as much in common with the legitimate use of spanking
for discipline as a police officer's locking someone up just because he is
angry at the person has to do with legitimate police functions. Which is,
very little. Even if it turns out that the person committed a crime, the
officer's behavior still has the appearance of being unfair and arbitrary.
Straus and Mouradian's study seems to imply that essentially all of the harm
attributed to spanking is associated with parents who at least sometimes use
spanking in that type of manner, and especially with those who frequently do
so.

Unfortunately, few if any other studies distingush between those two cases.
As a result, as long as parents hit the "right" part of their children's
anatomy, parents who lose their temper and hit their children are lumped
together with those who spank only as a carefully considered choice. Worse,
some studies (at least mostly older ones, from what I've seen) didn't even
confine the category of parents who spank to those who only hit the "right"
part of their chldren's anatomy. In those studies, parents who sometimes
punched their children, burned them with cigarettes, and did other things
that indisputably qualify as child abuse were also included as spankers.

Children want their relationships with the significant adults in
their lives to be harmonious. Spanking may give an adult more power, but
in the process it sacrifices influence. Adults in affectionate
nonpunitive relationships with children may have less coercive power than
spankers do, but they can have a great deal more influence on the child.

First of all, this argument is not unique to spanking. It could be applied
essentially equally to any form of punishment, including punishment applied
in the guise of "natural consequences" that the child is smart enough
recognize really come from the parents, not from nature.

And second, while there are certainly a great many situations where the use
of punishment (and, more often, the threat thereof) can weaken parents'
influence, there are also times when it can strengthen that influence.
Without the possibility of punishment, children are free to let what their
parents say go in one ear and out the other if they wish to do so. The
threat of punishment, however, can send two important messages. One message
is, "This is something I view as so important that I won't let you do what I
believe is wrong." The other is more implicit, "You might want to consider
why I think this issue is so serious that I'm willing to punish you if you
disobey." It is hard to imagine what parents who refuse to punish no matter
what the circumstances could do to send a message with equal weight if a
child is inclined not to listen.

Of course if parents threaten and punish all the time, those messages can
get old to a point where they are generally ignored. Worse, if children
view their parents' use of threats and punishment as unfair, arbitarary, or
hypocritical, the implicit messages can even come across as false. But if
parents don't threaten or punish over every little thing, the times when
they do consider something important enough to threaten or punish can be a
pretty significant attention-getter when a child would otherwise not be
inclined to pay attention.

The most effective rules are the ones which parents and children
create together in a mutually respectful way, so that everybody wins,
rather than rules handed down from above accompanied by threats of
punishment for breaking them.

And how effective are such rules if children are free to deliberately ignore
them without any serious consequence for doing so? What good is an
agreement if the agreement is not binding?

I agree that when parents and children can work together to find to a
solution that is acceptable to both, that is vastly preferable to a
"solution" imposed unilaterally by the parents. (Indeed, I think one reason
why spankers don't look better in studies is that too many of them get so
focused on spanking and on controlling their children's behavior that they
miss opportunities to find genuine win-win solutions.) And in a perfect
world, parents and children could always find solutions they can agree on,
and find them in the amount of time that is available.

But in the real world, parents don't always have time for lengthy
negotiations. In the real world, children aren't always willing to accept a
solution that is also acceptable to their parents - especially if the
children know their parents won't unilaterally impose a solution if
negotiations fail. And in the real world, the fact that children agree to
something is no guarantee that they will actually live up to their end of
the agreement.

Also, there are some things that I believe must not be considered
negotiable. I would not be willing to negotiate with a child over whether
he is allowed to steal, or whether she is allowed to vandalize other
people's property, or whether he is allowed to bully other children.
Because of my own values and principles, I would also not be willing to
negotiate whether a child is allowed to tell lies, at least if anything
important is at stake. (Of course parents who try to enforce a higher
standard of honesty on their children than they are willing to follow
themselves would rightly be perceived by their children as hypocrites.)

When children fully understand why behaviors are wrong and why the wrongness
of those behaviors is not negotiable, yet engage in those behaviors anyhow,
parents' only real options are to tolerate the behaviors or to use some kind
of punishment. What is your magic solution to solve those types of
situations without resorting to punishment?

Nathan


Straus, M.A. and Mouradian, V.E. 1998. "Impulsive Corporal Punishment by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of Children." _Behavioral
Sciences & The Law_ 16(3):353-

Kane wrote:
: On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:27:34 -0700, Doan wrote:

:
:LOL! Singapore have a youth crime problem? Give us the rate and
:compare that to Sweden, shall we?

: Already did, weeks ago.

This is par for the course with Doan. He will keep making the same
"errors" over and over again, with a waiting period in between, so that
yet another new crop of transient lurkers will get the impression that he
has actual substantive arguments to make.

If antispankers respond to him, this creates the illusion of a
substantive debate about issues which are actually settled. And if
antispankers get fed up with refuting the same thing over and over and
ignore him, he grandstands about how he has "silenced" them with his
logic. He knows that most of the lurkers weren't present the last 17
times antispankers conclusively debunked that same argument with facts and
won't know the difference.

: So you are prepared to prove that not spanking creates youth crime,
: and spanking does't?

: That is the real question.

The answer, as always, is "no." Doan can't demonstrate this. No one
can. The evidence simply isn't there.

[snip]
: Any newbie, not clever enough to google your archives, might assume
: this is all new.

That's it exactly.

Chris

On 7 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:

Kane wrote:
: On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:27:34 -0700, Doan wrote:

:
:LOL! Singapore have a youth crime problem? Give us the rate and
:compare that to Sweden, shall we?

: Already did, weeks ago.

This is par for the course with Doan. He will keep making the same
"errors" over and over again, with a waiting period in between, so that
yet another new crop of transient lurkers will get the impression that he
has actual substantive arguments to make.

This would be easy to prove. A simple google search would turn up
what Kane0 claimed. Come on, Chris! Here your chance to prove how
"honest" Kane0 is. I'll give you ten days. If you can't, then I
have to conclude that Kane is a liar and you are in cahoot! :-)

If antispankers respond to him, this creates the illusion of a
substantive debate about issues which are actually settled. And if
antispankers get fed up with refuting the same thing over and over and
ignore him, he grandstands about how he has "silenced" them with his
logic. He knows that most of the lurkers weren't present the last 17
times antispankers conclusively debunked that same argument with facts and
won't know the difference.

LOL! The issues are settled??? Why the hell did Gershoff and now
researchers in New Zealand wasted their time then?

: So you are prepared to prove that not spanking creates youth crime,
: and spanking does't?

: That is the real question.

The answer, as always, is "no." Doan can't demonstrate this. No one
can. The evidence simply isn't there.

Straw man! I have never claimed that spanking/no-spanking have anything
to do with crime. You and Kane0, however, have. How about you
substantiate your claim that spanking is the cause of crime?

[snip]
: Any newbie, not clever enough to google your archives, might assume
: this is all new.

That's it exactly.

So go ahead, Chris. Why don't you do a google search for me? You're
not clever neither? :-)

Doan

Chris

beat there ass as much as you can when they do wrong

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Doan wrote:

On 7 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:

Kane wrote:
: On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:27:34 -0700, Doan wrote:

:
:LOL! Singapore have a youth crime problem? Give us the rate and
:compare that to Sweden, shall we?

: Already did, weeks ago.

This is par for the course with Doan. He will keep making the same
"errors" over and over again, with a waiting period in between, so that
yet another new crop of transient lurkers will get the impression that he
has actual substantive arguments to make.

This would be easy to prove. A simple google search would turn up
what Kane0 claimed. Come on, Chris! Here your chance to prove how
"honest" Kane0 is. I'll give you ten days. If you can't, then I
have to conclude that Kane is a liar and you are in cahoot! :-)

Time is ticking away. Can Chris really be wrong about the
"never-spanked" Kane0 again? :-)

Doan

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Doan wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Doan wrote:

On 7 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:

Kane wrote:
: On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:27:34 -0700, Doan wrote:

:
:LOL! Singapore have a youth crime problem? Give us the rate and
:compare that to Sweden, shall we?

: Already did, weeks ago.

This is par for the course with Doan. He will keep making the same
"errors" over and over again, with a waiting period in between, so that
yet another new crop of transient lurkers will get the impression that he
has actual substantive arguments to make.

This would be easy to prove. A simple google search would turn up
what Kane0 claimed. Come on, Chris! Here your chance to prove how
"honest" Kane0 is. I'll give you ten days. If you can't, then I
have to conclude that Kane is a liar and you are in cahoot! :-)

Time is ticking away. Can Chris really be wrong about the
"never-spanked" Kane0 again? :-)

Doan


Not long ago, Chris Dugan made this charge against me:

"Doan is a con man. I know that is a harsh thing to say about
someone, and it is not something I would say about the vast majority of
people who post as prospankers on these threads. The vast majority of
prospankers are honest individuals. Doan is an exception to that rule."

No ad-hom there, right? :-) Here is your chance, Chris! Prove to
everyone on this newsgroup that I am a "con man". You are good
at making accusation but can you back it up? Coward!

Doan