Teenagers faced with spankings

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
Kane, I looked over your post at
http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/gr...es/142745.html ,
and unless I missed something (possible since I just skimmed over some
places that seemed repetitive), you seemed to be admitting that Embry's
study did not reach any real conclusions regarding spanking. It included
"hitting" (presumably at least mostly spanking) as one of the things it
gathered data on, but your post sounds as if Embry wasn't able to actually
do much with that data.

The study was not designed to track the effects of spanking...CP...but
to track the effects in a population of methods that did not use CP.

I've never made any claim otherwise.

It was not a comparison study as per that specific item, CP.

Such studies may exist.

We are discussing Embry at this point.

He tracked "hitting" under "Punishment." If you can't handle the concept
of 'hitting' as being spanking, or CP, then we are at considerable
straights here to have any kind of debate at all.

In addition, attempts to characterize the results of Embry's program as
results of changing from CP to non-CP are grossly misleading.

No such claim was made. The families were known to have used CP. They
did so a couple of times in the field observations in fact.

My
understanding is that the program included significant training for both
parents and children, most of which would presumably be about as useful if
parents continued to use CP as if they didn't.

Did reprimands increase or decrease? Why would CP not decrease as well?

Are you saying that families would continue to spank if they had means
that allowed them not to, and get good results?

Why would Embry state to a nationally distributed family magazine that
spanking and reprimands produced higher rates of street entries than his
training program that offered alternatives to those things?

He certainly wasn't lying, even if he didn't do a comparison study.

He'd have had to, according to the logic I'm seeing, as I believe,
deliberately collected a set of spanking families and trained then in
non CP and then simply watched to see what they did.

Kind of a stupid study, and kind of stupid to suggest it. It would be
like finding never spanking families and training them to spank and then
seeing if they used it and what results if they did or didn't.

That makes it impossible to
conclude that improvements resulting from the program are a result
specifically of parents' giving up the use of CP to punish children for
entering the street.

The claim of "giving up CP" is in your imagination. While you and I
discussed, for a bit, some parents changing over from CP to non-CP
that's not what the Embry study was offered for.

It was offered to show how non-CP methods have a high rate of success.

Can you show a study on the use of CP for street entries that lowered
the rate?

And I didn't notice any indication in your post that Embry's study found
anything that would justify his claim in his letter that spanking increases
the rate of street entry.

Then your beef is with him. He said it. I can't think that he'd
deliberately lie. He had no "non-spanking" agenda. His agenda was to
reduce street entries, and he succeeded. It was almost incidental that
he discovered that spanking and reprimands increase the rate.

He obviously wasn't going to create a spanking training program.

If you know of one please provide us with access to it.

Without solid, scientifically valid evidence, I
view that claim as highly suspect (to put it mildly) because it would be so
easy for a handful of children who want the attention so much that they
invite spankings to have visibility totally out of proportion to their
numbers, and because the only spankings observers would know about are
spankings that occurred while they were watching, among other possible
issues.

You seem reluctant to even ask for the study, or find it yourself from
the sources I've pointed out. Ask Doan for it. Get it from AAA. Or, if
you wish, and have access to a university library, ask for it there.

The title is, Reducing the Risk of Pedestrian Accidents to Preschoolers
by Parent Training and Symbolic Modeling for Children: An Experimental
Analysis in the Natural Environment. Dennis D. Embry, and James L.
Malfetta. Research report Number 2 of the Safe-Play Project: James L.
Malfettti, principal investigator, Dennis D. Embry, project coordinator.

(My copy has the different spelling of "Malfetta" and "Malfetti," for
some reason. I leave as is for search purposes at your convenience.)

If there is anything meaningful about spanking in the study, I'd appreciate
it if you would summarize what it found.

No such study exists to my knowledge. If you know of a study that either
compares spanking to non-CP, or spanking alone for a similar issue of
reducing the rate of unwanted behaviors I'd be most appreciative if you
would post references to it here.

This was meant to be just what the title says.

And Embry gave his incidental observations in his letter, unless of
course, his earlier study (I believe with his wife, also a researcher)
was more specific in comparison of cp to non-cp.

I do not have that study, though I'd like to get it.

My current impression is that
there isn't enough information about spanking in the study to make it worth
trying to get a hold of a copy, since neither you nor Doan seems to be in a
position to email me one.

The point is proving the use of NON-CP methods in the absence of CP
methods, Nathan. What Doan has been claiming we haven't supplied.

He claims to have the study, and he is simply weaseling by insisting the
goal posts be moved to a comparative study.

He knows of course there is no such study of this kind that Embry did
that makes a comparison deliberately.

It would not be ethical (and possibly illegal) these days to
deliberately hit children in a research model.

That's why Doan can get away with his smirking demands for something he
knows isn't possible to produce.

I'll ask for things that I have not seen with the admission that they
may not exist. I don't need to play smirking little weasel games.

You, or others, may run across vital research that is not in the common
venues.

The body of knowledge these days is so huge and in so many languages
that no one researcher can find it all. Your contributions are welcome.

You might try not asking for the moving of goal posts yourself, I'd add.

I made no claim that Embry's study was a comparison study. Only that it
was of alternatives to spanking.

A good metaphor might be those studies on safe driving that are not
about "how to drive badly," They may mention bad driving incidentally,
but the focus, data, and analysis are on the safe driving part, just as
Embry's study is on the results of "Safe Play" teaching.

What methods do you think the parents were using prior to their intro to
the Safe Play program of Embry's?

Kane


"0:-" wrote in message
...
Nathan, an aside, since Doan has gone to lying to you, by lying about me.

His claim is that the Embry study is not about spanking.

This has gone on for years between us.

Try reading the truth:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...230d568?hl=en&

This post clarifies exactly what is in the Embry report on this issue of
spanking.

Embry did indeed refer to it and code for it in the instructions to his
observers.

Doan is a stone liar of some considerable skill.

This is an extract straight out of the post I've given the link to above:

Doan wrote:

Yup! And get this, the Embry study has nothing to do with
spanking at all. He has been lying about it all along.
He is caught in a lie and now trying very hard to extricate
himself.

Doan

[[[ My response ]]]

From page 23, instructions to the six (with the author making the
seventh) observers.

Item 11.

Parental Use of Punishment. If the parent used force (pulling, pushing,
squeezing hard, or HITTING)[emphasis mine] as a consequence for a
child's play in the street during an interval (of observation), the
observers coded this force as "PUNISHMENT." [emphasis mine again].

I'd say "hitting" falls under "spanking" descriptively. YMMV

So Doan, the study "has nothing to do with spanking at all?"
.....

Get it yet, Doan?

You lied, you compounded your lies many times, and are doing so again now.

Anyone interested in the history of this resurrected nonsense of Doan's
is invited to read the central post that showed clearly that he was
lying then, thus lying now.

http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/gr...panking/messag...

He does this periodically as a way to harass rather than debate.
Harassment is what he is about, not information, not logical argument,
nothing but monkeyboy tricks.

0:- ... end of extract from post ...

Unless of course, if Doan wants to play the spanking is not hitting game
again.

The observers and the researcher would have to, likely as mandatory
reporters, report any "hitting" that did not qualify as "spanking" or our
more common term here, CP.

He lies at every turn.

One makes a mistake and admits it, even providing proof of his own error,
(ask him about the Hutterites) and Doan continues to claim the original
error was a lie.

That itself is a lie.

Best wishes, Kane

If you'd like your own copy, Nathan, you can obtain it either from
Doan, with hopefully no more than postage, like he...pardon, Aline
claimed he was asking for to ship it to her.

That was back when he didn't have it but was bluffing his way to his
usual infamy.


Go he

http://www.aaafoundation.org/resourc...h/rsrchcat.cfm

Request he (just click on his name to open your mailer).

"For hardcopies, please email Fairley Washington,
, with your mailing address and the
name(s) of the reports you'd like to receive."

This document.

(If you ask for the "Final Report," from Malfetti and Embry you'll not
get the full field notes found in the following report...number 2)

Reducing the Risk of Pedestrian Accidents to Preschoolers by Parenting
Training & Symbolic Modeling for Children; An Experimental Analysis in
the Natural Environment. Dennis Embry, University of Kansas, James L.
Malfetti, Columbia University. Copies Available @ .10/page. (140 pgs.)

It's 10 cents per page plus $7.50 for shipping.

When I first requested this document some years back they didn't have
any such service. They simply listed it as out of print. I'd like to
think my request triggered their willingness to copy and mail.

Why they haven't bothered to put all their out of prints in PDF is a
puzzle, and I suggested they do. It's not like it's an expense since
they obviously already have the software.

Of course downloading a 140 pager might be a little taxing to their
server.

But then, Doan has a copy he can send you. Or so he's offered.

Best, Kane

G Ever run into Ken Pangborn?

K I don't run into people.
K Did you know I'm actually your Uncle?
K Artie Funkle's the name.

G More like Fester.

Kane wrote Who is More, your gay best friend?

Greegor wrote:
G Ever run into Ken Pangborn?

K I don't run into people.
K Did you know I'm actually your Uncle?
K Artie Funkle's the name.

G More like Fester.

Kane wrote Who is More, your gay best friend?

Bongin' again?

G Ever run into Ken Pangborn?

K I don't run into people.
K Did you know I'm actually your Uncle?
K Artie Funkle's the name.

G More like Fester.

Kane wrote Who is More, your gay best friend?

Kane wrote Bongin' again?

"0:-" wrote in message
news:6_SdnURJv4xNQOPYnZ2dnUVZ_qmpnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
Kane, I looked over your post at
http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/gr...es/142745.html ,
and unless I missed something (possible since I just skimmed over some
places that seemed repetitive), you seemed to be admitting that Embry's
study did not reach any real conclusions regarding spanking. It included
"hitting" (presumably at least mostly spanking) as one of the things it
gathered data on, but your post sounds as if Embry wasn't able to
actually do much with that data.

The study was not designed to track the effects of spanking...CP...but to
track the effects in a population of methods that did not use CP.

This sounds like spin to me. My understanding is that the purpose of the
study was to track the effects of a particular program, a program that
introduced several changes at once. When a number of different things
change at the same time, it is impossible to draw a scientific conclusion
that any particular change was responsible for the difference in results.

snip

My understanding is that the program included significant training for
both parents and children, most of which would presumably be about as
useful if parents continued to use CP as if they didn't.

Did reprimands increase or decrease? Why would CP not decrease as well?

OF COIRSE reprimands decreased. As I understand it, the children went
through a carefully, professionally designed program to help them understand
why staying out of the street is important. The parents went through a
carefully, professionally designed program to help them help their children
understand what was safe and how to respond to safe and unsafe behavior. I
know the program involved praising and rewarding children for safe behavior.
Those are all things that can logically be expected to reduce the number of
cases where reprimands are needed. And if fewer reprimands are needed, it
is logical to expect that fewer will be given - at least as long as parents'
standards of what kind of behavior warrants a reprimand don't get
significantly stricter..

That doesn't mean that reprimands are useless. It just means there are ways
of reducing how often they are needed.

More generally, there are a lot of times when the use of effective
nonpunitive strategies can reduce, or even eliminate, the need for any kind
of punishment for particular behaviors. To that extent, I agree that
replacing CP with nonpunitive alternatives is a wonderful thing.

But that still leaves the question of what to do as a backup if other
methods fail to produce acceptable results within a reasonable amount of
time, or if parents need their children to obey now and have run out of
reasonably quick nonpunitive ideas for the moment. I believe that the
combination of using nonpunitive methods to encourage children to want to
behave, coupled with the use of punishment (or, in many cases, warnings or
threats of punishment if the behavior continues) when children don't behave,
is more powerful than the same nonpunitive methods would be by themselves.

Further, note that Embry's approach is within the boundaries of what I would
expect to work best: a combination of education efforts and other positive
techniques coupled with punishment if the children do not behave in spite of
the positive techniques. Granted, the punishment took a form other than
spanking. But I've see no hint of the study's providing evidence that "sit
and watch" worked significantly better than spankings coupled with reminding
the child of where safe players play would have. All else being equal, I
would expect "sit and watch" as a better form of punishment in that kind of
situation because it's likely to make the child think more. But if all else
is not equal - for example, if the child runs out in the street while the
parent and child are walking somewhere - spanking offers a much more readily
available substitute.

Are you saying that families would continue to spank if they had means
that allowed them not to, and get good results?

If the other means were punishments that the parents didn't consider any
less cruel overall than spanking would be, or if the other means required
more extra time and effort than the parents thought they were worth, yes.

Why would Embry state to a nationally distributed family magazine that
spanking and reprimands produced higher rates of street entries than his
training program that offered alternatives to those things?

He certainly wasn't lying, even if he didn't do a comparison study.

My best guess is that either Dr. Embry misworded his statement, making it
sound as if situations where spanking and reprimands resulted in increased
street entry were more common than he really believes they are, or the
observations he based his conclusion on were distorted by how vastly more
visible children who repeatedly misbehave in spite of being repeatedly
reprimanded or punished are than children who react to reprimands or
punishments by trying to behave.

snip

That makes it impossible to conclude that improvements resulting from the
program are a result specifically of parents' giving up the use of CP to
punish children for entering the street.

The claim of "giving up CP" is in your imagination. While you and I
discussed, for a bit, some parents changing over from CP to non-CP that's
not what the Embry study was offered for.

It was offered to show how non-CP methods have a high rate of success.

You're spinning again. The study was offered to show the benefits of a
program that included several different components: education, praise when
the child does the right thing, and punishment (albeit in a form other than
CP) when the child does the wrong thing. Your focus on the CP issue is a
gross misrepresentation of the study's purpose.

Can you show a study on the use of CP for street entries that lowered the
rate?

I've never heard of a study that attempted to compare the rate of street
entry before and after parents started spanking for it at all. Have you?
You once accused Doan of dishonesty in demanding that you offer results from
a type of study that he knew didn't exist. Aren't you using the same tactic
on me here?

snip

Without solid, scientifically valid evidence, I view that claim as highly
suspect (to put it mildly) because it would be so easy for a handful of
children who want the attention so much that they invite spankings to
have visibility totally out of proportion to their numbers, and because
the only spankings observers would know about are spankings that occurred
while they were watching, among other possible issues.

You seem reluctant to even ask for the study, or find it yourself from the
sources I've pointed out. Ask Doan for it. Get it from AAA. Or, if you
wish, and have access to a university library, ask for it there.

I HAVE asked Doan for it, but he doesn't seem to have it in an electronic
form either. Trying to get it some other way would involve enough
additional effort, and probably expense, that I'm highly skeptical of the
value of pursuing another option.

snip

My current impression is that there isn't enough information about
spanking in the study to make it worth trying to get a hold of a copy,
since neither you nor Doan seems to be in a position to email me one.

The point is proving the use of NON-CP methods in the absence of CP
methods, Nathan. What Doan has been claiming we haven't supplied.

snip

A good metaphor might be those studies on safe driving that are not about
"how to drive badly," They may mention bad driving incidentally, but the
focus, data, and analysis are on the safe driving part, just as Embry's
study is on the results of "Safe Play" teaching.

The problem is that from what I can tell, Embry's program is analogous to a
program that puts people through a safe driving course, offers them reduced
insurance rates if they drive safely, and replaces fines for traffic
violations with not being allowed to drive for a couple days. I would
EXPECT a safe driving course to, on average, make people better drivers. I
would EXPECT offering people a break on their insurance rates if they are
good drivers to, on average, lead people to drive more carefully. But those
are things that can be done regardless of whether people who violate traffic
laws are fined, or whether the fine is replaced with something else. Such a
study could not be used as a basis for conclusions about whether or not
fining people for traffic violations is a good idea because too many other
issues would be tangled together.

Doan wrote
Why don't you provide the data from study?

Kane wrote
Because you want to argue from ignorance.
And I have, from time to time. You have not.

Kane complains others argue from ignorance,
but he REFUSES to send anybody the PDF he
has to dispel that ignorance?

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:6_SdnURJv4xNQOPYnZ2dnUVZ_qmpnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
Kane, I looked over your post at
http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/gr...es/142745.html ,
and unless I missed something (possible since I just skimmed over some
places that seemed repetitive), you seemed to be admitting that Embry's
study did not reach any real conclusions regarding spanking. It included
"hitting" (presumably at least mostly spanking) as one of the things it
gathered data on, but your post sounds as if Embry wasn't able to
actually do much with that data.
The study was not designed to track the effects of spanking...CP...but to
track the effects in a population of methods that did not use CP.

This sounds like spin to me.

How can you tell without the study report?

My understanding is that the purpose of the
study was to track the effects of a particular program, a program that
introduced several changes at once.

Mmmm..yes, it could be described that way. After all, we can presume the
families were fairly typical. If you read the demographics of them from
the study you'd see they were. Something of a cross section, with many
kinds of folks with many kinds of children, though all children were
five years and younger..3 years two months, to a bit over five as I recall.

When a number of different things
change at the same time, it is impossible to draw a scientific conclusion
that any particular change was responsible for the difference in results.

No it isn't. Not if you understand how to conduct research and don't kid
yourself or others... 0:- ... that one can remove all variables but one
in human behavior subjects experiments.


snip

My understanding is that the program included significant training for
both parents and children, most of which would presumably be about as
useful if parents continued to use CP as if they didn't.
Did reprimands increase or decrease? Why would CP not decrease as well?

OF COIRSE reprimands decreased.

Yep. Replaced. No instructions were given to reduce them. They were one
of the uncontrolled variables, just like physical punishment that was
tracked but NOT instructed about.

The report should include, according to where you get it from, the voice
transcript of the video taken of the classroom instruction. You'll see
NO instructions concerning physical punishment or reprimands were given.

As I understand it, the children went
through a carefully, professionally designed program to help them understand
why staying out of the street is important.


Yes, they looked at pictures, made choices, and those were tracked both
baseline and later during the field interventions.

For a five year old and under it's not very sophisticated, but it does
replicate much of what I refer to when asked how to non-cp teach
(discipline) children. No reason a parent can't apply the simple
instructions. Or attend a training at a nearby child development center
at a university or college. Heck, even community colleges have them, often.

This is not rocket science, but it is a well thought out application of
prior research findings. Such things as a "say do" model, to put events
in the proper sequence to more likely obtain the desired results.

That would be, "tell me what you are going to about playing in the front
yard," then you observe the child...presuming he said, and you
concurred, that he would play in the designated safe area, and did so,
and provide positive reinforcement for having played where he said he
played.

Many parents fail in this by turning it around, asking AFTER the child
has played, and with no observation, "did you play in the safe area,"
then rewarding the false "yes mommy" response.

Like I said, it's not rocket science, but beats the hell out of spanking.

The parents went through a
carefully, professionally designed program to help them help their children
understand what was safe and how to respond to safe and unsafe behavior.

Yep. Read it. You'll see it's quite simple. Nothing complicated as you
seem to be saying by way of your loaded words "carefully, professionally
designed," comment.

But it is different than a lot of negative parenting and use of CP.

I
know the program involved praising and rewarding children for safe behavior.

Yep.

Those are all things that can logically be expected to reduce the number of
cases where reprimands are needed.

Problem is those reduced. And NOT by instruction prior. It was NOT
mentioned to the parents as a goal to reduce the rate, never the less it
most certainly did reduce.

And if fewer reprimands are needed, it
is logical to expect that fewer will be given - at least as long as parents'
standards of what kind of behavior warrants a reprimand don't get
significantly stricter..

Circular logic. Fewer reprimands were needed because the parent was
doing something else that worked.

That doesn't mean that reprimands are useless.

Well, the incident of street entries were higher when reprimands were
used, and less when they were not, and something else used. Circular
logic is not going to win you many points.

It just means there are ways
of reducing how often they are needed.

Mmmm...you don't get what you just said, I take it?

Reprimands are a negative. You find the reduction of need for negatives
somehow not a good thing?

More generally, there are a lot of times when the use of effective
nonpunitive strategies can reduce, or even eliminate, the need for any kind
of punishment for particular behaviors. To that extent, I agree that
replacing CP with nonpunitive alternatives is a wonderful thing.

I agree with your agreeing.

I'd also say that it's a bit more than a throwaway, "to that extent."
The belief has been been, most commonly, that something as dangerous as
street entries should be met with punishment, both reprimands and
physical punishment.

Haven't you ever noticed the argument from parents when defending spanking?

But that still leaves the question of what to do as a backup if other
methods fail to produce acceptable results within a reasonable amount of
time,

That's the easiest of all. I just pick the kid up and bring them in the
house. In fact one of the instruction in the Time Out training portion
was to do just that if the child resisted the Time Out. Just have them
to it indoors.

or if parents need their children to obey now and have run out of
reasonably quick nonpunitive ideas for the moment.

The **** deepens. Nathan, we can "yes-butt" until the sun goes Nova. It
proves nothing. I could do that to you if I wished. Instead I ask you
for research on spanking that shows it's effective.

Got any?

I believe that the
combination of using nonpunitive methods to encourage children to want to
behave, coupled with the use of punishment (or, in many cases, warnings or
threats of punishment if the behavior continues) when children don't behave,
is more powerful than the same nonpunitive methods would be by themselves.

You may believe what you want. One of the citations of Embry that I
recall from the report is to another study by both him and then another
study that shows that indeed, reprimands (punishment) results in
training the child to go into the street.

Having worked with teens and very young children I can assure you that
you get the same results if you think reprimanding is your most powerful
tool should other methods fail you. And if you combine you simply negate
the positive method you were coupling the punishment with.

Further, note that Embry's approach is within the boundaries of what I would
expect to work best: a combination of education efforts and other positive
techniques coupled with punishment if the children do not behave in spite of
the positive techniques.

The "punishment" not only is weak, it's nearly invisible. You have to
look at the charts. Physical punishment, tracked by the observers, only
amounted to 2 visits with two instances, that is one per visit.

Time Out, if you insist it was a "punishment," shows even in the five
children tracked as having the most street entries at baseline,
(pre-workshop/storybook training) as two of them dropping to flat level,
with only one of those two having a single time out, the other none at
all, that is no entries during the intervention observations, one more,
the third child, going flat except for a single episode about two thirds
of the way through the successive observations, with that met with only
one time out. And praise or pos. reinforcement charted as happening at
the same observation.

The remaining two of the child, both of which actually went of the chart
during baseline for street entries, dropped to close to flat, no
entries, during the intervention observations period, and each of those
with only one Time Out. And in fact not even a whole lot of praise for
one EXCEPT along with the Time Out.

It's a very revealing chart, given these were the kids with the highest
entry rate prior to the workshop/storybook training.


Granted, the punishment took a form other than
spanking.

Actually there were two instances of "Physical Punishment" tracked,
apparently, but not charted...since two would hardly warrant inclusion.
Or a special chart to track the over time.

But I've see no hint of the study's providing evidence that "sit
and watch" worked significantly better than spankings coupled with reminding
the child of where safe players play would have.

If you have a study that shows spanking works please post it.

To claim this study is negated because it wasn't about spanking is
hypocritical. It wasn't a spanking study. It was a substitute for
spanking study.

All else being equal, I
would expect "sit and watch" as a better form of punishment in that kind of
situation because it's likely to make the child think more.

A five year old? R R R R yah gots to be kidding. I KNOW what it takes
to make a child focus at that age. And it would have to be a positive.
Mommy sitting by him pointing out the safe play activities of the other
kids and anticipation of returning to the play area.

Embry knew what he was up to. This wasn't his first study.

But

There it is again. A big fat "yes but." Punishment is a distractor. My
bet is Embry, because he caught on to that during the first of his
studies, and talked about it to the media in his quoted letter, designed
the next experiment, the one we are looking at, to reduce the CP
component, and the negative component.

Personally I think he and others still hold with some of the punishment
model. It's hard to escape if you have been raised in a society that
buys into it with all kinds of social sanctions for. Like bedtime
stories, through video games, through our educational system (though
they seem to be catching on in the learning theory instructions in
college) to our religions.

if all else
is not equal - for example, if the child runs out in the street while the
parent and child are walking somewhere - spanking offers a much more readily
available substitute.

Well, since Embry said he observed that it didn't work, and that it
resulted in increasing the rate of street entries, I guess you will just
have to ask him where he saw that.

He most certainly has other researchers that agree with him, and cites
them in his study.

My own observations with both young and older children is that you can
disrupt a child's unwanted behavior, but you haven't really taught him
much, except with the younger child to develop all kinds of compensatory
behavior, some of which is unwanted, like just doing the behavior anyway.

With teens their repertoire of resistance can be much more serious.

Especially the sneaky way of responding. "Sure dad, I'll drive
carefully, now may I have the keys?"

If you whipped him for driving badly the last time out do you really
think it's going to impress him, or is he going to just be more careful
not to get caught?

The teen with a deep attachment of trust to her parent will, when
tempted to drive fast, or carelessly, much more likely will recall the
parent's request for safe driving. And comply.

Are you saying that families would continue to spank if they had means
that allowed them not to, and get good results?

If the other means were punishments that the parents didn't consider any
less cruel overall than spanking would be, or if the other means required
more extra time and effort than the parents thought they were worth, yes.

Isn't that sad?

I know that it doesn't take more time, not even in the short run, after
it becomes a parenting style and the child is accustomed to it. Even at
an 'episode,' and over all, total time in conflict is greatly reduced.

I proved that even with mentally ill children with very poor social
skills. Sorry I didn't keep more notes, but they I wasn't being paid to
do a study.

Why would Embry state to a nationally distributed family magazine that
spanking and reprimands produced higher rates of street entries than his
training program that offered alternatives to those things?

He certainly wasn't lying, even if he didn't do a comparison study.

My best guess is that either Dr. Embry misworded his statement, making it
sound as if situations where spanking and reprimands resulted in increased
street entry were more common than he really believes they are, or the
observations he based his conclusion on were distorted by how vastly more
visible children who repeatedly misbehave in spite of being repeatedly
reprimanded or punished are than children who react to reprimands or
punishments by trying to behave.

I doubt he mis-worded anything. And the man is a researcher, citing his
work and others, that showed that indeed the children that were punished
had a higher rate of street entries, or unwanted behaviors in other
circumstances.

This has been studied for a very long time. In fact, it's part of the
folk lore of parenting. "Boy that kid is stubborn. I've punished him for
that I don't know how many times."

Often if it's a female child, the parent is upset, but if it's a boy
there is some rueful pride in the 'confession,' of 'failure.'

snip

That makes it impossible to conclude that improvements resulting from the
program are a result specifically of parents' giving up the use of CP to
punish children for entering the street.
The claim of "giving up CP" is in your imagination. While you and I
discussed, for a bit, some parents changing over from CP to non-CP that's
not what the Embry study was offered for.

It was offered to show how non-CP methods have a high rate of success.

You're spinning again.

Second time you've said that, and I'm getting close to calling you a
liar. You have not read the study, so you have no basis to make such a
claim when I describe what I believe to be some aspect of the study.

I am not spinning. I'm telling you what I believe I read in the study.
Stop being rude unless you want, as Doan does, to use it as an escape
hatch for something you are unable to debate successfully.

If you have an opinion, say so, honestly. Not try to insinuate I'm lying
or mistaken.

The study was offered to show the benefits of a
program that included several different components: education, praise when
the child does the right thing, and punishment (albeit in a form other than
CP) when the child does the wrong thing. Your focus on the CP issue is a
gross misrepresentation of the study's purpose.

Nope. And you know that by the charted Time Outs and effects I just
posted. That chart had way way more praise in it than time outs. In the
five highest street entry kids prior to the interventions, only four of
them had a time out..and the only ONE, while praise was very high in the
ones that had the least street entries of all...very nearly flat .. no
entries. One of those children had NO time out, and a great deal of praise.

So, NO punishment or pseudo punishment (TO) at all.

Can you show a study on the use of CP for street entries that lowered the
rate?

I've never heard of a study that attempted to compare the rate of street
entry before and after parents started spanking for it at all. Have you?

Why would I ask if I had? I'm not the filthy liar Doan.

I'm not interested in playing tricks with your head. I am very serious
about exploring this and am not going to harass you as Doan admits he's
here to do to non-spank advocates.

You once accused Doan of dishonesty in demanding that you offer results from
a type of study that he knew didn't exist. Aren't you using the same tactic
on me here?

Nope. I am asking in the hope you do know of one. Or you will watch for
one and report it if you find it. I guess I'm presuming more interest on
your part than you have then.

Sorry.

You keep insisting that the study do something it was not designed to
do, and faulting it for not doing it, claiming that that supports your
claim....so of course I want more than a "yes-but" response.

snip

Without solid, scientifically valid evidence, I view that claim as highly
suspect (to put it mildly) because it would be so easy for a handful of
children who want the attention so much that they invite spankings to
have visibility totally out of proportion to their numbers, and because
the only spankings observers would know about are spankings that occurred
while they were watching, among other possible issues.
You seem reluctant to even ask for the study, or find it yourself from the
sources I've pointed out. Ask Doan for it. Get it from AAA. Or, if you
wish, and have access to a university library, ask for it there.

I HAVE asked Doan for it, but he doesn't seem to have it in an electronic
form either.

Funny, as he has access to all the electronic gadgets he needs (and it's
not hard at all) to scan it the put it into PDF format.

His copy, being a library one, is probably a whole lot better than mine,
which was hastily run off and is entirely in the old courier typeface,
sloppy serifs and all.

My PDF copy is nearly unusable. I haven't even bothered to look at it in
ages and simply use my well worn hard copy.

Trying to get it some other way would involve enough
additional effort, and probably expense, that I'm highly skeptical of the
value of pursuing another option.

But you wish to make claims about the study, it's intent, even its
content, without it?

My usual response to that, if I'm asked to, is to refuse. I can't debate
what I can't see, and I certainly am not going to rely solely on the
correspondent to give me accurate information.

In the case of Doan, I never presume he's telling the truth, because
either he isn't, or he's obfuscating so badly there is no rational way,
other than refusal, to respond to his nonsense.

He posted just recently, with NO surrounding contextual information, not
even a page number or title, that x number of children cried.

The only reference was "3)"

How stupid is that, unless of course you simply want to harass your
opponent, instead of debate your correspondent?

snip

My current impression is that there isn't enough information about
spanking in the study to make it worth trying to get a hold of a copy,
since neither you nor Doan seems to be in a position to email me one.
The point is proving the use of NON-CP methods in the absence of CP
methods, Nathan. What Doan has been claiming we haven't supplied.

snip

A good metaphor might be those studies on safe driving that are not about
"how to drive badly," They may mention bad driving incidentally, but the
focus, data, and analysis are on the safe driving part, just as Embry's
study is on the results of "Safe Play" teaching.

The problem is that from what I can tell, Embry's program is analogous to a
program that puts people through a safe driving course, offers them reduced
insurance rates if they drive safely, and replaces fines for traffic
violations with not being allowed to drive for a couple days.

And if the study shows that works?

What would you need the fines for?

Especially if it was shown that people that were fined had a higher rate
of bad driving incidences?

I would
EXPECT a safe driving course to, on average, make people better drivers.

The very point of the experiment was to show that a course (and it was a
one shot, about an hour or two as I recall...like that's an
inconvenience?) of training could work. It did.

I
would EXPECT offering people a break on their insurance rates if they are
good drivers to, on average, lead people to drive more carefully.

The parents got no reward in this experiment. Didn't I tell you that?

Nothing. Not a sticker, not a praise...in fact feedback of any kind was
forbidden.. not praise, no punishment at all.

But those
are things that can be done regardless of whether people who violate traffic
laws are fined, or whether the fine is replaced with something else.

I would not venture to claim that myself, given the traffic accident and
death rates in our country. Or the world, for that matter.

Such a
study could not be used as a basis for conclusions about whether or not
fining people for traffic violations is a good idea because too many other
issues would be tangled together.

Sure it could.

While it would be unethical (I shuddered at the borderline risks going
on with the street entry observers...but presumed if he or she had seen
a child running into traffic would have intervened...or I hope so) such
a study could very well show that training beat punishments.

Best wishes, Kane

Greegor wrote:
Doan wrote
Why don't you provide the data from study?

Kane wrote
Because you want to argue from ignorance.
And I have, from time to time. You have not.

Kane complains others argue from ignorance,

Nope. Only you, little boy. I complain if someone asks ME to debate them
from their ignorance. Or insists I do so from mine...we all can't know
everything after all, and withholds pertinent information from me.

You don't recall those instances? Your buddy Doug did it for years.

I make it a point NOT to argue from information that others can't get.

Doan said he'd provide a copy, but oddly he isn't forthcoming with
Nathan. Someone that's arguing from his side of this particular issue.

I'm simply waiting for Nathan to avail himself of a copy. He has two
easy to tap resources, AAA, and Doan. Why isn't he using them?

He only wants to debate either from ignorance, or if it's "easy" to get
the information. Well, I'll pay the postage for one from Doan if he
likes. I'll send it through Dan. No problem.

You don't find Nathan's long discourse on the Embry study strange in
light of his not being motivated to get it, but motivated to yak about it?

but he REFUSES to send anybody the PDF he
has to dispel that ignorance?

Nope. I've sent four hard copies to people....you couldn't use my PDF
copy, it failed badly, because of the old courier typeface of my hard
copy, and it's copy machine limitations printout.

Three people have copies, four if you count Alina.... R R R R R

I will not send a copy to those that would be likely to share it with
Doan, as I've good reason to believe he doesn't have the one I have.

That's based on a couple of quotes from his 'copy' in the past.

Now maybe someone I sent it to sent him one, but I doubt it, sorta....R
R R R

How is it you aren't asking Doan to send a copy to Nathan? He claimed he
would send one to anyone that asked.

Double standard, Greg?

And don't bother asking who I sent it to. That's our little secret, as
they quietly watch Doan lie lie lie and lie some more about the study.

I expect they are having their giggles. Some are folks that don't even
care for my politics or causes, but they do know Doan's a liar. So
don't assume they are my "buddies."

0:-]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

Kane, I looked over your post at
http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/gr...es/142745.html ,
and unless I missed something (possible since I just skimmed over some
places that seemed repetitive), you seemed to be admitting that Embry's
study did not reach any real conclusions regarding spanking. It included
"hitting" (presumably at least mostly spanking) as one of the things it
gathered data on, but your post sounds as if Embry wasn't able to actually
do much with that data.

In addition, attempts to characterize the results of Embry's program as
results of changing from CP to non-CP are grossly misleading. My
understanding is that the program included significant training for both
parents and children, most of which would presumably be about as useful if
parents continued to use CP as if they didn't. That makes it impossible to
conclude that improvements resulting from the program are a result
specifically of parents' giving up the use of CP to punish children for
entering the street.


Here is what the Safe-Playing program, according to the study:

1) ASK
- Ask if your child is going to play safely.
- Ask what playing safely means.
- Define areas of safe play as needed.
2) TIMER
- Set a timer to help you be consistent.
- A timeer helps you remember and lets your child know that you are
serious.
3) PRAISE
- Praise your child for playing safely. Your child values you
attention.
4) REWARD
- Reward your child's safe play. Playing safely is hard work for your
child. Choose something your child likes to earn.
5) SIT & WATCH (a punishment procedure also known as Time Out)
- Going into the street is dangerous. If your child goes into the
street without you, make your child sit and watch for 3-5 minutes.
6) TEACH
- Teach your child about safe crossing. Hold the child's hand and ask
"when it's safe to cross." Give feedback.

Doan


And I didn't notice any indication in your post that Embry's study found
anything that would justify his claim in his letter that spanking increases
the rate of street entry. Without solid, scientifically valid evidence, I
view that claim as highly suspect (to put it mildly) because it would be so
easy for a handful of children who want the attention so much that they
invite spankings to have visibility totally out of proportion to their
numbers, and because the only spankings observers would know about are
spankings that occurred while they were watching, among other possible
issues.

If there is anything meaningful about spanking in the study, I'd appreciate
it if you would summarize what it found. My current impression is that
there isn't enough information about spanking in the study to make it worth
trying to get a hold of a copy, since neither you nor Doan seems to be in a
position to email me one.

"0:-" wrote in message
...
Nathan, an aside, since Doan has gone to lying to you, by lying about me.

His claim is that the Embry study is not about spanking.

This has gone on for years between us.

Try reading the truth:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...230d568?hl=en&

This post clarifies exactly what is in the Embry report on this issue of
spanking.

Embry did indeed refer to it and code for it in the instructions to his
observers.

Doan is a stone liar of some considerable skill.

This is an extract straight out of the post I've given the link to above:

Doan wrote:

Yup! And get this, the Embry study has nothing to do with
spanking at all. He has been lying about it all along.
He is caught in a lie and now trying very hard to extricate
himself.

Doan

[[[ My response ]]]

From page 23, instructions to the six (with the author making the
seventh) observers.

Item 11.

Parental Use of Punishment. If the parent used force (pulling, pushing,
squeezing hard, or HITTING)[emphasis mine] as a consequence for a
child's play in the street during an interval (of observation), the
observers coded this force as "PUNISHMENT." [emphasis mine again].

I'd say "hitting" falls under "spanking" descriptively. YMMV

So Doan, the study "has nothing to do with spanking at all?"
.....

Get it yet, Doan?

You lied, you compounded your lies many times, and are doing so again now.

Anyone interested in the history of this resurrected nonsense of Doan's
is invited to read the central post that showed clearly that he was
lying then, thus lying now.

http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/gr...panking/messag...

He does this periodically as a way to harass rather than debate.
Harassment is what he is about, not information, not logical argument,
nothing but monkeyboy tricks.

0:- ... end of extract from post ...

Unless of course, if Doan wants to play the spanking is not hitting game
again.

The observers and the researcher would have to, likely as mandatory
reporters, report any "hitting" that did not qualify as "spanking" or our
more common term here, CP.

He lies at every turn.

One makes a mistake and admits it, even providing proof of his own error,
(ask him about the Hutterites) and Doan continues to claim the original
error was a lie.

That itself is a lie.

Best wishes, Kane