If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Catching up with Straus
Doan wrote:
On 20 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: ......snip...... Compare them, for instance, to Dr. Embry's program he tested with considerable success and his claim yet again, with citations of other's more specific work, that his experience was that children do indeed, when spanked, move to preform the unwanted behavior MORE. He said that it is RARE - not normal! A fact that anti-spanking zealotS like you have been deliberately omitted, "lying by omission" by your standard! Did he now? R R R R R sure, Doan the Screeching Hysterical Childish Monkeyboy. From Nathan's post quoting Dr. Embry: " It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the fact that spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second coding. That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they were the ones that people often want to spank; that is, because these were the kids, post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of oppositionally defiant in today's vernacular of the DSM-IV. The prevalence of this DSM-IV diagnoses are clearly rising for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with parenting, yet parenting/teacher behavior can seriously worse the biological and socially induced predispositions. For these kids, spanking, etc. did not meet the operant definition of a punisher; rather, it met the definition of reinforcement. This is whole consistent with the long-term, precision studies of the etiology of multi-problem kids (see the book by Anthony Biglan et al. Helping Adolescents at At Risk, from Guilford Press). Dr. Biglan is my close colleague and the president of the society for prevention research. Dr. Biglan's synthesis book does a nice job of reviewing the cycle of coercion work of people like Gerry Patterson and colleagues, which has been replicated by other investigators. It is very parsimonious, and fits both behavioral and evolutionary theory. " Dr. Embry said 'rare,' Doan? Please explain where he did so. Thanks, 0;-] |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Catching up with Straus
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On 20 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: .....snip...... Compare them, for instance, to Dr. Embry's program he tested with considerable success and his claim yet again, with citations of other's more specific work, that his experience was that children do indeed, when spanked, move to preform the unwanted behavior MORE. He said that it is RARE - not normal! A fact that anti-spanking zealotS like you have been deliberately omitted, "lying by omission" by your standard! Did he now? R R R R R sure, Doan the Screeching Hysterical Childish Monkeyboy. From Nathan's post quoting Dr. Embry: " It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the fact that spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second coding. That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they were the ones that people often want to spank; that is, because these were the kids, post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of oppositionally defiant in today's vernacular of the DSM-IV. The prevalence of this DSM-IV diagnoses are clearly rising for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with parenting, yet parenting/teacher behavior can seriously worse the biological and socially induced predispositions. For these kids, spanking, etc. did not meet the operant definition of a punisher; rather, it met the definition of reinforcement. This is whole consistent with the long-term, precision studies of the etiology of multi-problem kids (see the book by Anthony Biglan et al. Helping Adolescents at At Risk, from Guilford Press). Dr. Biglan is my close colleague and the president of the society for prevention research. Dr. Biglan's synthesis book does a nice job of reviewing the cycle of coercion work of people like Gerry Patterson and colleagues, which has been replicated by other investigators. It is very parsimonious, and fits both behavioral and evolutionary theory. " Dr. Embry said 'rare,' Doan? Please explain where he did so. "That only was true for the high-rate kids, though." Tienes Ud. problemas con Ingles? ;-) AF Thanks, 0;-] |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Catching up with Straus
Doan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On 20 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: .....snip...... Compare them, for instance, to Dr. Embry's program he tested with considerable success and his claim yet again, with citations of other's more specific work, that his experience was that children do indeed, when spanked, move to preform the unwanted behavior MORE. He said that it is RARE - not normal! A fact that anti-spanking zealotS like you have been deliberately omitted, "lying by omission" by your standard! Did he now? R R R R R sure, Doan the Screeching Hysterical Childish Monkeyboy. From Nathan's post quoting Dr. Embry: " It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the fact that spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second coding. That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they were the ones that people often want to spank; that is, because these were the kids, post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of oppositionally defiant in today's vernacular of the DSM-IV. The prevalence of this DSM-IV diagnoses are clearly rising for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with parenting, yet parenting/teacher behavior can seriously worse the biological and socially induced predispositions. For these kids, spanking, etc. did not meet the operant definition of a punisher; rather, it met the definition of reinforcement. This is whole consistent with the long-term, precision studies of the etiology of multi-problem kids (see the book by Anthony Biglan et al. Helping Adolescents at At Risk, from Guilford Press). Dr. Biglan is my close colleague and the president of the society for prevention research. Dr. Biglan's synthesis book does a nice job of reviewing the cycle of coercion work of people like Gerry Patterson and colleagues, which has been replicated by other investigators. It is very parsimonious, and fits both behavioral and evolutionary theory. " Dr. Embry said 'rare,' Doan? Please explain where he did so. "That only was true for the high-rate kids, though." Context, Doan. You said he said "rare." He said no such thing. You are trying to move the goal posts. Again. He also did not say "RARE - not normal" as you claim. Nor did I claim any such thing, as to rarity or it's lack. In fact, he made no mention of rarity at all. He was speaking only about the group he was observing. And it was not rare there, according to him. "We saw kids get their butts hit pretty smartly in baseline, then go into the street AGAIN within a few seconds or minutes, showing the mathematical relationship of a reinforcer. That only was true for the high-rate kids, though. [[[ Notice he is not saying that it was rare, but that was simply was true for the high rate kids? He had five high rate kids out of 20. That's not what one can call 'rare.' ]]] [[[ I'll leave the fuller context to help you with your studies in English, Doan, as you seem so badly to need them. And because it shows his change of perspective about spanking...which he had recommended prior to this study...recommended publicly at that. ]]] This is what caused my jaw to drop, observing the temporal sequence of both the topography and function of reinforcer.? One sees this in micro-coding of regular, daily parenting in the studies such as Hill Walker's and Gerry Patterson's of highly deviant kids and families. Those kids tend to get nuked, but I never expected this in the context of dangerous behavior. I should scan the pages on the time relationships. We had one child and parent that showed no behavior change at all, except for the brief modeling effect (that we saw in the earlier study) S13. This child's parent was one of the "worst offenders" of negative attention, and never did any positive attention that we observed.? Children with such a serious imbalance are very high risk for developmental pathologies.? This would be the type of parent who alternates between very permissive and highly punitive.?" [[[ Notice his use of the term "very high risk," in reference to this kind of child. Would that not conclude that there was possibly some risk in other children, not just the bad performing parent child couple as that referred to? His "five worst" in the study would indicate some likelihood. AND his program turned those five around. Is this too much for you to take in and integrate in one day? I'll try to go slower next time. ]]] 0:- Tienes Ud. problemas con Ingles? ;-) Ba.n có nói tie^'ng Anh không? May I continue to be of service? AF Kane Thanks, 0;-] |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Catching up with Straus
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On 20 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: .....snip...... Compare them, for instance, to Dr. Embry's program he tested with considerable success and his claim yet again, with citations of other's more specific work, that his experience was that children do indeed, when spanked, move to preform the unwanted behavior MORE. He said that it is RARE - not normal! A fact that anti-spanking zealotS like you have been deliberately omitted, "lying by omission" by your standard! Did he now? R R R R R sure, Doan the Screeching Hysterical Childish Monkeyboy. From Nathan's post quoting Dr. Embry: " It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the fact that spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second coding. That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they were the ones that people often want to spank; that is, because these were the kids, post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of oppositionally defiant in today's vernacular of the DSM-IV. The prevalence of this DSM-IV diagnoses are clearly rising for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with parenting, yet parenting/teacher behavior can seriously worse the biological and socially induced predispositions. For these kids, spanking, etc. did not meet the operant definition of a punisher; rather, it met the definition of reinforcement. This is whole consistent with the long-term, precision studies of the etiology of multi-problem kids (see the book by Anthony Biglan et al. Helping Adolescents at At Risk, from Guilford Press). Dr. Biglan is my close colleague and the president of the society for prevention research. Dr. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Catching up with Straus
Doan wrote: On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On 20 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: .....snip...... Compare them, for instance, to Dr. Embry's program he tested with considerable success and his claim yet again, with citations of other's more specific work, that his experience was that children do indeed, when spanked, move to preform the unwanted behavior MORE. He said that it is RARE - not normal! A fact that anti-spanking zealotS like you have been deliberately omitted, "lying by omission" by your standard! Did he now? R R R R R sure, Doan the Screeching Hysterical Childish Monkeyboy. From Nathan's post quoting Dr. Embry: " It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the fact that spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second coding. That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they were the ones that people often want to spank; that is, because these were the kids, post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of oppositionally defiant in today's vernacular of the DSM-IV. The prevalence of this DSM-IV diagnoses are clearly rising for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with parenting, yet parenting/teacher behavior can seriously worse the biological and socially induced predispositions. For these kids, spanking, etc. did not meet the operant definition of a punisher; rather, it met the definition of reinforcement. This is whole consistent with the long-term, precision studies of the etiology of multi-problem kids (see the book by Anthony Biglan et al. Helping Adolescents at At Risk, from Guilford Press). Dr. Biglan is my close colleague and the president of the society for prevention research. Dr. Biglan's synthesis book does a nice job of reviewing the cycle of coercion work of people like Gerry Patterson and colleagues, which has been replicated by other investigators. It is very parsimonious, and fits both behavioral and evolutionary theory. " Dr. Embry said 'rare,' Doan? Please explain where he did so. "That only was true for the high-rate kids, though." Context, Doan. You said he said "rare." He said no such thing. You are trying to move the goal posts. Again. He didn't said normal, did he? So did you and anti-spanking zealotS like yourself ever mentioned that fact? He also did not say "RARE - not normal" as you claim. Did he said that it is normal? No. That doesn't mean he said "not normal." His numbers suggest it is neither rare, nor not normal, or normal. It wasn't discussed. If out of 20, he found 5 that were high rate of street entries, that's one fourth. Hardly what I would call rare. Would you? He made no measure of normal. It's not defined. He simply measured behaviors. And showed the data collected. Show us where he discussed normalcy either in his studies, or in his conversations with Nathan. Nor did I claim any such thing, as to rarity or it's lack. In fact, he made no mention of rarity at all. He was speaking only about the group he was observing. And it was not rare there, according to him. It is not NORMAL, according to him. Provide a quote and include context. Your continual snipping to cherry pick is getting rather old, Doan. You pulled it again in this thread, in the last post. Tsk. Doan "We saw kids get their butts hit pretty smartly in baseline, then go into the street AGAIN within a few seconds or minutes, showing the mathematical relationship of a reinforcer. That only was true for the high-rate kids, though. See any discussion of rare or normal there? Nor will you find any except in Nathan's rather free interpretation of Embry's comments and their supposed meaning. You seem to be riding on that, and adding your own foolish interpretations. Thousands of such cases, such as he referred to in his concurrent study of parenting practices, are seen by CPS every years. Tens of thousands, in fact. You cannot call instances of parents using spanking on difficult children "rare," or "not normal" with these kinds of facts, Doan. And he made that point in his comments on the other parenting study in the home. You choked, and you are shufflin' and dodging yet again. In fact he found this situation in one third, as he mentions, of the families: " " It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the fact that spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second coding. That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they were the ones that people often want to spank; that is, because these were the kids, post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of oppositionally defiant in today's vernacular of the DSM-IV." Now "one third" of something is "rare," by your definition? One third is a fixed number. "Not Normal" which he didn't say, is a vague reference without numbers to back the claim up. Did you see any such numbers in his study or conversation to support HIS argument of it being "nor normal?" Speak up, Boy! The conditions he describes are not rare, and "normal" has nothing to do with it. That was an attempt by you to temper your comments with a door left open for you to escape through. Let's stick with your "rare" nonsense, shall we then? One thing at a time. Tell us were he said "rare." Or try to defend one third as "rare." Or defend the CPS data on physical abuse of children as rare in the population. You are full of baloney. Kane [[[ Notice he is not saying that it was rare, but that was simply was true for the high rate kids? He had five high rate kids out of 20. That's not what one can call 'rare.' ]]] [[[ I'll leave the fuller context to help you with your studies in English, Doan, as you seem so badly to need them. And because it shows his change of perspective about spanking...which he had recommended prior to this study...recommended publicly at that. ]]] This is what caused my jaw to drop, observing the temporal sequence of both the topography and function of reinforcer.? One sees this in micro-coding of regular, daily parenting in the studies such as Hill Walker's and Gerry Patterson's of highly deviant kids and families. Those kids tend to get nuked, but I never expected this in the context of dangerous behavior. I should scan the pages on the time relationships. We had one child and parent that showed no behavior change at all, except for the brief modeling effect (that we saw in the earlier study) S13. This child's parent was one of the "worst offenders" of negative attention, and never did any positive attention that we observed.? Children with such a serious imbalance are very high risk for developmental pathologies.? This would be the type of parent who alternates between very permissive and highly punitive.?" [[[ Notice his use of the term "very high risk," in reference to this kind of child. Would that not conclude that there was possibly some risk in other children, not just the bad performing parent child couple as that referred to? His "five worst" in the study would indicate some likelihood. AND his program turned those five around. Is this too much for you to take in and integrate in one day? I'll try to go slower next time. ]]] 0:- Tienes Ud. problemas con Ingles? ;-) Ba.n có nói tie^'ng Anh không? May I continue to be of service? AF Kane Thanks, 0;-] |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Catching up with Straus
On 21 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On 20 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: .....snip...... Compare them, for instance, to Dr. Embry's program he tested with considerable success and his claim yet again, with citations of other's more specific work, that his experience was that children do indeed, when spanked, move to preform the unwanted behavior MORE. He said that it is RARE - not normal! A fact that anti-spanking zealotS like you have been deliberately omitted, "lying by omission" by your standard! Did he now? R R R R R sure, Doan the Screeching Hysterical Childish Monkeyboy. From Nathan's post quoting Dr. Embry: " It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the fact that spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second coding. That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they were the ones that people often want to spank; that is, because these were the kids, post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of oppositionally defiant in today's vernacular of the DSM-IV. The prevalence of this DSM-IV diagnoses are clearly rising for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with parenting, yet parenting/teacher behavior can seriously worse the biological and socially induced predispositions. For these kids, spanking, etc. did not meet the operant definition of a punisher; rather, it met the definition of reinforcement. This is whole consistent with the long-term, precision studies of the etiology of multi-problem kids (see the book by Anthony Biglan et al. Helping Adolescents at At Risk, from Guilford Press). Dr. Biglan is my close colleague and the president of the society for prevention research. Dr. Biglan's synthesis book does a nice job of reviewing the cycle of coercion work of people like Gerry Patterson and colleagues, which has been replicated by other investigators. It is very parsimonious, and fits both behavioral and evolutionary theory. " Dr. Embry said 'rare,' Doan? Please explain where he did so. "That only was true for the high-rate kids, though." Context, Doan. You said he said "rare." He said no such thing. You are trying to move the goal posts. Again. He didn't said normal, did he? So did you and anti-spanking zealotS like yourself ever mentioned that fact? He also did not say "RARE - not normal" as you claim. Did he said that it is normal? No. That doesn't mean he said "not normal." Hihihi! It's either is or it's not! His numbers suggest it is neither rare, nor not normal, or normal. It wasn't discussed. If out of 20, he found 5 that were high rate of street entries, that's one fourth. Hardly what I would call rare. Would you? The numbers are either normal or not normal, STUPID. If it's not normal nor normal, what is it? He made no measure of normal. It's not defined. He simply measured behaviors. And showed the data collected. He made it clear when he said: "You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks = fighting over their sects. Not functional." Show us where he discussed normalcy either in his studies, or in his conversations with Nathan. Look at the "table of special characteristics" in the study. "There were a total of 33 preschool-age children in the study, all but = three enrolled in the university affiliated preschool. The school had a mix of children and parents, including normative and high-risk kids." Normative means normal, STUPID! Doan Nor did I claim any such thing, as to rarity or it's lack. In fact, he made no mention of rarity at all. He was speaking only about the group he was observing. And it was not rare there, according to him. It is not NORMAL, according to him. Provide a quote and include context. Your continual snipping to cherry pick is getting rather old, Doan. You pulled it again in this thread, in the last post. Tsk. Doan "We saw kids get their butts hit pretty smartly in baseline, then go into the street AGAIN within a few seconds or minutes, showing the mathematical relationship of a reinforcer. That only was true for the high-rate kids, though. See any discussion of rare or normal there? Nor will you find any except in Nathan's rather free interpretation of Embry's comments and their supposed meaning. You seem to be riding on that, and adding your own foolish interpretations. Thousands of such cases, such as he referred to in his concurrent study of parenting practices, are seen by CPS every years. Tens of thousands, in fact. You cannot call instances of parents using spanking on difficult children "rare," or "not normal" with these kinds of facts, Doan. And he made that point in his comments on the other parenting study in the home. You choked, and you are shufflin' and dodging yet again. In fact he found this situation in one third, as he mentions, of the families: " " It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the fact that spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second coding. That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they were the ones that people often want to spank; that is, because these were the kids, post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of oppositionally defiant in today's vernacular of the DSM-IV." Now "one third" of something is "rare," by your definition? One third is a fixed number. "Not Normal" which he didn't say, is a vague reference without numbers to back the claim up. Did you see any such numbers in his study or conversation to support HIS argument of it being "nor normal?" Speak up, Boy! The conditions he describes are not rare, and "normal" has nothing to do with it. That was an attempt by you to temper your comments with a door left open for you to escape through. Let's stick with your "rare" nonsense, shall we then? One thing at a time. Tell us were he said "rare." Or try to defend one third as "rare." Or defend the CPS data on physical abuse of children as rare in the population. You are full of baloney. Kane [[[ Notice he is not saying that it was rare, but that was simply was true for the high rate kids? He had five high rate kids out of 20. That's not what one can call 'rare.' ]]] [[[ I'll leave the fuller context to help you with your studies in English, Doan, as you seem so badly to need them. And because it shows his change of perspective about spanking...which he had recommended prior to this study...recommended publicly at that. ]]] This is what caused my jaw to drop, observing the temporal sequence of both the topography and function of reinforcer.? One sees this in micro-coding of regular, daily parenting in the studies such as Hill Walker's and Gerry Patterson's of highly deviant kids and families. Those kids tend to get nuked, but I never expected this in the context of dangerous behavior. I should scan the pages on the time relationships. We had one child and parent that showed no behavior change at all, except for the brief modeling effect (that we saw in the earlier study) S13. This child's parent was one of the "worst offenders" of negative attention, and never did any positive attention that we observed.? Children with such a serious imbalance are very high risk for developmental pathologies.? This would be the type of parent who alternates between very permissive and highly punitive.?" [[[ Notice his use of the term "very high risk," in reference to this kind of child. Would that not conclude that there was possibly some risk in other children, not just the bad performing parent child couple as that referred to? His "five worst" in the study would indicate some likelihood. AND his program turned those five around. Is this too much for you to take in and integrate in one day? I'll try to go slower next time. ]]] 0:- Tienes Ud. problemas con Ingles? ;-) Ba.n có nói tie^'ng Anh không? May I continue to be of service? AF Kane Thanks, 0;-] |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Catching up with Straus
Doan wrote: On 21 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On 20 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: .....snip...... Compare them, for instance, to Dr. Embry's program he tested with considerable success and his claim yet again, with citations of other's more specific work, that his experience was that children do indeed, when spanked, move to preform the unwanted behavior MORE. He said that it is RARE - not normal! A fact that anti-spanking zealotS like you have been deliberately omitted, "lying by omission" by your standard! Did he now? R R R R R sure, Doan the Screeching Hysterical Childish Monkeyboy. From Nathan's post quoting Dr. Embry: " It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the fact that spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second coding. That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they were the ones that people often want to spank; that is, because these were the kids, post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of oppositionally defiant in today's vernacular of the DSM-IV. The prevalence of this DSM-IV diagnoses are clearly rising for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with parenting, yet parenting/teacher behavior can seriously worse the biological and socially induced predispositions. For these kids, spanking, etc. did not meet the operant definition of a punisher; rather, it met the definition of reinforcement. This is whole consistent with the long-term, precision studies of the etiology of multi-problem kids (see the book by Anthony Biglan et al. Helping Adolescents at At Risk, from Guilford Press). Dr. Biglan is my close colleague and the president of the society for prevention research. Dr. Biglan's synthesis book does a nice job of reviewing the cycle of coercion work of people like Gerry Patterson and colleagues, which has been replicated by other investigators. It is very parsimonious, and fits both behavioral and evolutionary theory. " Dr. Embry said 'rare,' Doan? Please explain where he did so. "That only was true for the high-rate kids, though." Context, Doan. You said he said "rare." He said no such thing. You are trying to move the goal posts. Again. He didn't said normal, did he? So did you and anti-spanking zealotS like yourself ever mentioned that fact? He also did not say "RARE - not normal" as you claim. Did he said that it is normal? No. That doesn't mean he said "not normal." Hihihi! It's either is or it's not! Your original claim and the one I responded to did not exclude the word "RARE" which you emphasised with caps, Doan. Now you wish to remove "RARE" from your claim? Is that honest? A "not normal" condition does not have to be rare, Doan. It's not "normal" to be overweight, but there is certainly no shortage of overweight people. You are simply trying to move the goal posts away from your claim of "RARE," your usual dodging bull****. And the "high risk" children in his study or not rare in it or in the general population. You simply do not wish to discuss anything honestly that would impact your bogus claims about spanking. His numbers suggest it is neither rare, nor not normal, or normal. It wasn't discussed. If out of 20, he found 5 that were high rate of street entries, that's one fourth. Hardly what I would call rare. Would you? The numbers are either normal or not normal, STUPID. If it's not normal nor normal, what is it? It's not "RARE" stupid. Your statement was, "He said that it is RARE - not normal!" and written far enough back that you have regressed to the what I think of as the Doan's Chronological Stall to Excape His Error ploy, once again. So, does his one third of the target group being 'not normal' constitute rarity in his demographic? Does the number of children subject to abuse by parents and CPS cases being opened constitute a condition of 'rare' in the general population? How many, proportionately, would 'RARE' constitution, Doan? Respond to the questions asked of you, rather than try to cherry pick even from among your own words and change the argument. He made no measure of normal. It's not defined. He simply measured behaviors. And showed the data collected. He made it clear when he said: "You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks = fighting over their sects. Not functional." What has that to do with you comment, " He said that it is RARE - not normal! ?" Show us where he discussed normalcy either in his studies, or in his conversations with Nathan. Look at the "table of special characteristics" in the study. "There were a total of 33 preschool-age children in the study, all but = three enrolled in the university affiliated preschool. The school had a mix of children and parents, including normative and high-risk kids." Normative means normal, STUPID! And where, dodger, does that constitute him saying "RARE," as you claim? In fact, he makes mention, without discussing rarity, of the growing number of children Dx'd as ODD victims. Does that look to you as though he actually thinks it's rare? You are attempting to put meaning into his statements, as Nathan did, that are not necessarily there. Now he may well agree that children that are spanked because they are more difficult are rare, but we can't tell that either from his words in response to Nathan, nor from his study you claim to have a copy of, or his reference to a concurrent study he did in the home of parents, or from his comment by letter years ago to the magazine. If you can find some inference of "rare," YOUR CLAIM, Doan, please point to it for us. 'Normal' was not your claim, Doan, it was: " He said that it is RARE - not normal!" If you wish to discuss "normal" peachy. I'm up for that. Within a study there is very likely to be a discrimination of at least two elements as being unalike, one more common than the other....one thus being the "normative" element in the study. Or it can be a reference to the general population the demographic is drawn from. As we would presume Embry is stating when he used "normative," and "high risk." That does not make the high risk category "RARE," Doan. You can see me discussing such things in the attributed comments remaining in this post. So, Doan, you are simply dodging again to bog down the discussion, splitting hairs by picking and isolating words and terms out of normative context 0:- The same old bull**** you've shoveled her for years. What do you think the Embry study, report #2, means in terms of resources for parents where they might chose alternatives to spanking? Not, "it's not about spanking," Doan, but because it IS about possible non CP alternatives that worked, even to the surprize of Dr. Embry as he uncovered the facts over time. Doan More monkeyboy tricks, or a real engagement with the issues, Doan. Up to you. But I'm growing weary of your diversions and may simply go back to ignoring you. It's what you deserve for failure to argue on fact. Best, and have a happy holiday. Kane Nor did I claim any such thing, as to rarity or it's lack. In fact, he made no mention of rarity at all. He was speaking only about the group he was observing. And it was not rare there, according to him. It is not NORMAL, according to him. Provide a quote and include context. Your continual snipping to cherry pick is getting rather old, Doan. You pulled it again in this thread, in the last post. Tsk. Doan "We saw kids get their butts hit pretty smartly in baseline, then go into the street AGAIN within a few seconds or minutes, showing the mathematical relationship of a reinforcer. That only was true for the high-rate kids, though. See any discussion of rare or normal there? Nor will you find any except in Nathan's rather free interpretation of Embry's comments and their supposed meaning. You seem to be riding on that, and adding your own foolish interpretations. Thousands of such cases, such as he referred to in his concurrent study of parenting practices, are seen by CPS every years. Tens of thousands, in fact. You cannot call instances of parents using spanking on difficult children "rare," or "not normal" with these kinds of facts, Doan. And he made that point in his comments on the other parenting study in the home. You choked, and you are shufflin' and dodging yet again. In fact he found this situation in one third, as he mentions, of the families: " " It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the fact that spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second coding. That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they were the ones that people often want to spank; that is, because these were the kids, post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of oppositionally defiant in today's vernacular of the DSM-IV." Now "one third" of something is "rare," by your definition? One third is a fixed number. "Not Normal" which he didn't say, is a vague reference without numbers to back the claim up. Did you see any such numbers in his study or conversation to support HIS argument of it being "nor normal?" Speak up, Boy! The conditions he describes are not rare, and "normal" has nothing to do with it. That was an attempt by you to temper your comments with a door left open for you to escape through. Let's stick with your "rare" nonsense, shall we then? One thing at a time. Tell us were he said "rare." Or try to defend one third as "rare." Or defend the CPS data on physical abuse of children as rare in the population. You are full of baloney. Kane [[[ Notice he is not saying that it was rare, but that was simply was true for the high rate kids? He had five high rate kids out of 20. That's not what one can call 'rare.' ]]] [[[ I'll leave the fuller context to help you with your studies in English, Doan, as you seem so badly to need them. And because it shows his change of perspective about spanking...which he had recommended prior to this study...recommended publicly at that. ]]] This is what caused my jaw to drop, observing the temporal sequence of both the topography and function of reinforcer.? One sees this in micro-coding of regular, daily parenting in the studies such as Hill Walker's and Gerry Patterson's of highly deviant kids and families. Those kids tend to get nuked, but I never expected this in the context of dangerous behavior. I should scan the pages on the time relationships. We had one child and parent that showed no behavior change at all, except for the brief modeling effect (that we saw in the earlier study) S13. This child's parent was one of the "worst offenders" of negative attention, and never did any positive attention that we observed.? Children with such a serious imbalance are very high risk for developmental pathologies.? This would be the type of parent who alternates between very permissive and highly punitive.?" [[[ Notice his use of the term "very high risk," in reference to this kind of child. Would that not conclude that there was possibly some risk in other children, not just the bad performing parent child couple as that referred to? His "five worst" in the study would indicate some likelihood. AND his program turned those five around. Is this too much for you to take in and integrate in one day? I'll try to go slower next time. ]]] 0:- Tienes Ud. problemas con Ingles? ;-) Ba.n có nói tie^'ng Anh không? May I continue to be of service? AF Kane Thanks, 0;-] |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reference ... | 0:-> | Spanking | 1 | October 15th 06 11:35 PM |
Murray Straus, founder of the University of New Hampshire FamilyResearch Lab | 0:-> | Spanking | 69 | September 20th 06 02:11 AM |
Kids should work... | Doan | Spanking | 33 | December 10th 03 08:05 PM |
Kids should work... | Doan | Foster Parents | 31 | December 7th 03 03:01 AM |
Psych aggression to kids almost 100% Am families Straus sez | Fern5827 | Spanking | 10 | November 29th 03 10:03 AM |