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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
Greegor wrote: Under a pen name. Which is? Gregory Hanson Famous writer. Honest. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
Kane, I find it maddening when I make a complex argument and, in your reply,
you keep interrupting to snipe at each sentence or two. It's as if you have a deliberate desire to make sure my original point gets lost amidst your interruptions. The situation is especially ridiculous when you interrupt to ask a question that I already answered in the very next sentence or two. I also have to wonder what such interruptions do to your ability to listen. Are reading my explanation as a unified whole and trying to follow my logic? Or are you too busy interrupting to be able to follow my train of thought? On several occasions, it's looked to me like the latter was almost certainly the case. You say, "And [Dr. Embry's] observation was the all CP and scolding was related to higher incidences of children going into the street." But Dr. Embry's letter never said "all," or even said anything about how often. Dr. Embry was expressing a trend that he believed existed - a trend that I believe is probably an illusion based on extremely faulty methods of collecting data, although I can't be certain unless and until I find out what methodology was actually used. Please read all of the following as a unified whole and don't interrupt until you get to the question "Comments?" If an observer goes out and watches what happens when children enter the street, the observer has no idea what happened to any given child BEFORE the observation started. Suppose a child wanders out in the street without thinking, then realizes where he is and that he'll get scolded or spanked if he's caught there, and immediately gets back out of the street. Nothing happens to the child, either because a parent wasn't watching at that particular moment or because the child got back out of the street before the parent had time to respond and the parent doesn't want to scold or spank after the child has already corrected his own behavior. In that kind of situation, the chance of the observer correctly identifying what happened is about the same as the chance of a snowball surviving an entire summer in the middle of the Sahara Desert. Critical elements in the cause-and-effect relationship were already over before the observer started watching. So if such children are factored into the baseline of how children behave when they don't get scolded or spanked, that baseline will look completely different from what it would look like if it were made up only of children who had truly never been scolded or spanked for entering the street. Now consider the case of children who do run out in the street for the deliberate purpose of getting a parent's attention, even knowing it will probably result in a spanking. Unless the observer is keeping careful records on each child, those children will inevitably draw an amount of attention completely out of proportion to their numbers because they are entering the street so much and getting spanked so much, and because their going out into the street so much in spite of the spankings goes so directly against what most people would expect. Even with careful mathematical analysis, if the analysis would be conducted based on the results of each spanking rather than based on the results for each child, those cases would carry a weight totally out of proportion to the number of children because a handful of children would account for a much larger percentage of the spankings. Unless the observation is conducted using a solid, sound, carefully designed scientific methodology, the sheer visibility of a small handful of children who keep going out in the street even though they get spanked (or scolded, etc.) would be almost guaranteed to make it look like there are more of them than there really are. The end result is that a casual observer, or even a moderately careful one, would almost certainly fail to recognize a lot of (and quite possibly most) cases where spanking has worked well, and would be likely to exaggerate the percentage of cases where it fails miserably. Nothing in Dr. Embry's letter indicates that the observations he was basing his conclusions on had anything resembling the scientific rigor necessary to avoid these problems. Comments? --- The reason I view your omission as more serious than AF's is that I've seen clear evidence that your omission creates a very serious distortion, but I haven't seen any similar scientific evidence that AF's does. It's been enough years since I looked at the evidence regarding criminality that I don't remember what results I looked at or exactly how big the difference was. But as I recall, the difference between studying correlations between spanking and criminal behavior without weeding out cases of abuse, and studying in a way that does weed out cases of abuse, was enormous. Attacking spanking based on the percentage of criminals who were spanked, without pointing out how hugely disproportionate a number of them were subject to physical abuse rather than just legal spankings, paints a very seriously distorted picture. Show me equally strong evidence that AF's omission is equally important and I'll view it as equally serious. --- In regard to bribery, you are missing an important distinction. I expect to get paid if I work for an employer. I do not expect to get paid for staying within (or tolerably close to) the speed limit. Why? Because working for any particular employer is not part of the minimum requirements for being a good citizen, and working at all is part of the requirement only to the extent that I need money if I want to buy things. But keeping my driving within a speed that is considered safe is part of the minimum requirement for being a good citizen (as defined by the society I live in), so I don't expect a reward for it, and I do expect to be punished if I'm caught violating that requirement. Similarly, when children go beyond the minimum standards of behavior that can reasonably be expected from all children, I don't view rewarding them for it as bribery. For example, I see nothing wrong with offering children a reward for getting good grades; it's analogous to offering an employee a bonus for doing good work. But children need to learn that there are some things you do because they are right without expecting to be given anything special in return. I'm not necessarily saying that bribery should never be used. But it I don't think it should be used so often that children feel like they are entitled to be rewarded just for obeying reasonable rules. In regard to what happens when parents aren't watching, both punishment and bribery have the potential to help establish behavior patterns that the child can continue to follow when a parent isn't watching because he wants to do the right thing. But neither offers an incentive beyond wanting to do the right thing when a parent isn't watching. --- You turned one piece of what I wrote around backwards. I was saying that going out into the street is not a behavior that generally has all that much intrinsic reward. That is, there isn't normally all that much reason for a child to prefer to be in the street rather than somewhere else. That makes it a lot easier for gold stars and a bit of extra attention to motivate children to behave acceptably than it would be if the rewards of misbehaving were greater. --- You're right that I haven't read Embry's study. In fact, it took me a while to establish the fact that there even was an actual study, not just the letter I was able to find relatively quickly. Doan, if you have a copy of the study you could e-mail me, I'd greatly appreciate it. Kane, you referred to the possibility of getting a copy of the study from AAA. I'm not familiar offhand with the acronym. "0:-" wrote in message oups.com... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: You accuse AF of lying because he omitted important information. By that standard, you are also a liar because you repeatedly talk about how huge a proportion of criminals were spanked without bothering to mention how hugely disproportionate a percentage of those were subject to abuse, not just what the law considers acceptable spanking. Compared with the seriousness of your omission, AF's is no big deal. Double standard then? What makes mine more serious than his, in argument? As for criminals, I also included other categories that did not report "abuse" as such. One study I referred to deliberately screened OUT such victims, and stuck with CP only. They experienced more depression, drug use, and suicide attempts. --- I'm having a hard time pinpointing whether your reference to Dr. Embry's "study" is to his his letter to Children Magazine, which says nothing about a study in the scientific sense of the term, or to something else. In regard to the letter, I see some serious problems. Embry wrote, "Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking, scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries by children. Yes. That is correct. He said it, and I have witnessed such oppositional behavior from chidlren parented as he mentions. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way to gain parents' attention." But observational data collected by watching children would be guaranteed to give skewed results. Why? Children who quickly decided that going into the street wasn't worth getting spanked would be unlikely to be observed going out into the street at all, and thus unlikely to be observed getting spanked for it. That's not what he observed or what he said. In contrast, the less successful spanking is in deterring children from going out in the street, the higher the probability of their being observed going out into the street and getting spanked. And his observation was the all CP and scolding was related to higher incidences of children going into the street. And the children most likely to be observed going out into the street and getting spanked would be the ones with the behavior pattern Embry described - doing it for the attention. Yes? And you have trouble understanding the significance? That could easily lead to an impression that spanking increases the likelihood of children's going out in the street even if its usual effect is to significantly reduce the likelihood. (And the same applies to the other techniques he listed.) When would this "usual effect is to significiantly reduce the likelihood" take place that he wouldn't have observed it? In regard to the Safe Playing program, have you noticed that its stickers and extra positive attention are basically a form of bribery? Have you ever notice your boss, and customers, if you are a businessman bribe you? I don't regard that as too high a price in a special case where it can save children's lives. It's the way of the world. We have many reasons for doing or not doing certain things, but removing a payoff isn't one that makes people do what you want. Just the opposite. But as a matter of basic policy, I view bribery as worse than punishment. Then you will start working for no pay. I see. Instead of teaching children that doing the right thing is something that is expected of them, bribery teaches children to expect a reward just for not doing something that's wrong. It's only bribery if you chose to continue it indefinately. Do you think the parent has to do that, say until the child is 15? And it's not as if bribes give children any more reason to behave than punishments do when they expect not to get caught. Wrong. Dead wrong. Fear of getting caught is obviously not working in the instance where spanking IS used and the children still run into the street. One reinforces wanted behavior until it's integrated in the other's behavior set. If the child is getting positive attention for playing out of the street, in time you don't even have to make a big deal of it. They feel good about it because it feels good to do the right thing. To clarify, I view it as a good thing if parents take a unilateral initiative to let children know every now and then that their good behavior is appreciated, or especially when a positive change in behavior is appreciated. That is the foundation for the program Embry tests in his study. But if it turns into a quid pro quo arrangement where a child feels like he or she is supposed to be rewarded just for not doing something wrong, I view that as a problem. Ah, I see where the problem lies. They are NOT being rewarded for not doing something wrong. They are being rewarded for doing something right. Playing in a certain area. I'll also point out that the Safe Playing program is a response to a type of behavior that normally has essentially no intrinsic reward. Have you read the study? What you said makes no sense. Children get very good feelings from doing what is right. The only significnat reward is normally the attention the child gets - assuming the child views negative attention as a reward in the first place - and the program offers children a better quality of attention to replace it. Yep. Except for the "only" part. What more do they need but to feel like they are doing the right thing? Isn't that why you don't speed in your car? Aren't you proud of your safe driving record? Do you need stickers and attention for it? How did you learn to do that? Wasn't their more active participation from others during the earlier part of your learning...say if you took a highschool driving course? That's hardly clear evidence that nonpunitive techniques would work equally well when children have more to gain from misbehaving - especially if parents don't offer a bigger bribe, or if the children think they won't be caught and lose out on the bribe. You have to read his report. You have everything turned around as those who view children with a negative mindset. No bigger bribe is needed. In fact, the "bribe" is faded out normally. It's replaced with the feeling of satisfaction the child has from doing what he or she knows is right. Just like you and I. I could bring up a few other issues that may or may not be all that relevant, but it's not worth the time. Sure it is. --- In regard to the following And if you can show any studies comparing parents who used only nonpunitive methods with parents who spank, what did those studies do to address the problem of self-selection bias, especially the possibility of parents who started off using purely nonpunitive methods giving up and starting punishing if the nonpunitive methods didn't work? this is NOT something I got from Doan. Okay. I hope I didn't say it was. And it's not a trick either. "Trick?" I don't understand. You're taking a much stronger position than the current state of the available research can even come close to supporting in a scientifically valid way. No, actually I'm taking a very weakly defended and low energy stand. The data speaks for itself. You can claim it's not scientifically valid, but I haven't seen you show that it isn't. Have you read the Embry study? You can get it from Doan, or from AAA. As I recall, you yourself recognize that positive parenting techniques require extra up-front effort. I forgot to mention the obvious, because it is. It doesn't take more effort in total. It builds quickly on itself and is applicable across many parenting encounters with the child. They simply work together raising the child. That can reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on the quality of parents that use them and stick with them, which in turn makes self-selection bias an extremely important issue. So you are saying that people that chose to use non-punitive methods are self selecting and that if people were forced to use the methods they wouldn't do as well? Few kids like to brush their teeth when they are first learning. Seems some of them get good at it. --- I saved a copy of your message in case I might want to track down your links later, but trying to separate the wheat from the chaff in a Google search isn't my favorite thing in the world even when I initiate the search myself. Right now, I'm not in the mood for it. S'okay. I recommend reading the report from the Embry study. Doan likes to pretend that his comment to the magazine has no meaning, as though Embry was lying or mistaken. Embry simply pointed out what he and his research staff observed. He's not mistaken, nor was he lying. And it's something I've observed for many years. Children that are parented with pain and humiliation whether physical or mental or both, simply do not learn very well. And often develop resistance. That resistance often takes the form of doing exactly what they are being punished to try and force them to stop doing. And I'll mention it again: Embry had nothing to sell, and I think actually believed that spanking was a viable parenting tool. He still may for all I know, but what he observed in his street entry testing was what he saw...that children that are punished tended to do the unwanted behavior more. He was surprised at what he saw. That positive attention was far more effective in TEACHING children to play in an area other than the street. If you say to a toddler, "don't jump on the furniture," what do they usually do? "Don't pinch pinch your sister," or "stop that right now young man?" Kane "0:-" wrote in message oups.com... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: "0:-" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: Nathan A. Barclay wrote: Straus and Mouradian's 1998 study divided mothers who spanked into three categories depending on whether they "never," "sometimes," or "often" spanked as a result of having "lost it." The outcomes for mothers who sometimes spanked as a result of having "lost it" were significantly worse than those for mothers who never spanked, and the outcomes for those who often spanked as a result of having "lost it" were even worse still. But the outcomes for mothers who never spanked as a result of having "lost it" were very close to those for mothers who never spanked at all - slightly worse, but either within the margin of error or too close to attach much meaning in a study where self-selection bias is present. Note that that study controlled for only one of several factors that I believe makes a significant (if not huge) difference in how effective or dangerous spanking is, yet it ended up with a group of spanking mothers with results extremely close to the results of mothers who never spanked. Also, it is important to note that Straus and Mouradian (1998) also found that, among these mothers, the more non-cp used, the worse the outcomes. In other words, the non-cp methods were no better than spanking. AF Hihihi. You are lying again. I've repeatedly pointed out that out of the four alternatives examined by the study. three were punitive. Where is the lie? The statement was that non-CP methods were no better than spanking, not that non-punitive methods were no better than spanking. The fact that a person leaves out a point you consider important does not make the person a liar. Sure it does, because he and I have had this same exchange many times. He knows the truth and conceals it. It's a harassment tactic, and he admits he's here for harassment. A good definition of lying is any attempt to decieve either by commission or omission. Can you cite any study that compares outcomes for parents who used only nonpunitive methods with outcomes for parents who spank at all? Yep. The Embry study. We've discussed it here before, and Dennis Embry's comments to a family magazine where he points out that punitive methods, including slaps, spanking, etc. result in worse results, and "catch them being good" and instructing is far more successful. The issue was 'street entries.' Embry isn't a spanking opponent or advocate. He's a traffic analyst witha considerable practice consulting with principalities. He's also interested in education generally, but more specifically about dangerous behavior, and more specifically safety. If not, then a lack of studies that show CP to be better than the exclusive use of nonpunitive methods is meaningless. There are not to show that it's the same, actually. What is meaningful is that there are none to show that non-cp, and non-punitive methods are HARMFULL, and more than enough, thousands actually, that show CP IS harmful. If there aren't any studies that look at the use of exclusively nonpunitive methods, that leaves wide open the possibility that such methods average working worse than spanking does It would be if we were seeing it crop up in other studies. Like those of mentally ill, and criminals. We see that yes indeedy, spanking is linked to both those. In fact I put one up in this thread today, and I've discussed here at length in the past. - or would average working worse if parents who try them weren't generally wiilling to change their minds and make at least some use of punishment if purely nonpunitive approaches aren't working. Yes, it is the extention of the "non-CP" concept. And comes rather often to the minds of parents that either never used, or have rejected later, CP methods. They simply think to themselves, if non-cp works, then why not non-punishment. Those that try that find that they are often quite correct in their assumption. It does work even better than non-CP, but punishing discipline. The parent becomes the partner in learning, and coach, and safety engineer, in the child's development. Nothing magic about it at all, except it's a concept foreign to so many. It doesn't look like it will work to the observer, and then when they see it, some still have trouble understanding what took place. Yet if I described an apprenticeship relationship you and most folks would have little trouble with the cooperative aspects being showcased. It's that old belief that children are born with the propensity toward evil and non-cooperation. They are born with nothing but a desire to survive and thrive. How that manifests can be easily directed to be, or appear to be, uncooperative, or their cooperative nature can be focused on with a minimum of struggles for power. And if you can show any studies comparing parents who used only nonpunitive methods with parents who spank, what did those studies do to address the problem of self-selection bias, especially the possibility of parents who started off using purely nonpunitive methods giving up and starting punishing if the nonpunitive methods didn't work? As Doan knows, and I've said, no such studies exist. That's why he asks for them. That's not debate. That's manipulation, harassment, and clever lying. Those who study subjects such as learning theory, and work those out in child care centers often attached to universities and colleges get to see it with their own eyes. Children who are being "uncooperative," have problems. Not a threat to adults. They may have been taught they have to fight to access the environment and events that nature tells them they must. They may be compromised physiologically in some way, genetically, environmentally, or by bad teaching as above. The kids (young students) get it, sometimes, and others they are so steeped in the power struggle tradition they are not suited to teach. Probably not to parent, but then they have the right. How far into this subject do you wish to go? Read Glasser? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...nt&btnG=Search Druikers? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...nt&btnG=Search These aren't anti spanking Zealots. Just child development and education basic researchers. By basic, I mean they used children, not theory. Do you wish to argue with me like Doan does, dodging and focusing on what ever will get you away from responsible exploration? You accuse me, wrongly I might add, of not welcoming your or other's "experience" and information. That's a door that swings both ways. If you are going to argue with me then you have to argue with what I use as my support. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...nt&btnG=Search Read up. Tell me what's wrong with their research. I'll listen. 0 : - |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
"0:-" wrote in message newst6dnaKGOMnBJObYnZ2dnUVZ_uW3nZ2d@scnresearch. com... I didn't make that claim. My claim is, as you conveniently point out for me, quoting me, is that I disagree with Embry's use of the word to describe something the child is unlikely to experience as punishment, attention from mommy. Mom does sit with the child and encourage him to watch safe play. Normal humans consider parental attention a good thing, not a punishment, unless of course mom is whacking the child while he's doing "sit and watch." Children only view parental attention as a good thing at times when it is something they want. Being forced to accept parental attention when children want to do something else can be decidedly unpleasant. If "sit and watch" is voluntary, with the parent inviting the child to sit and watch while the parent points out how the other children are playing safely, I agree with you that "sit and watch" is not a punishment in that situation. But forcing a child to sit and watch when the child wants to be playing very definitely is a punishment. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
Nathan A. Barclay wrote: "0:-" wrote in message newst6dnaKGOMnBJObYnZ2dnUVZ_uW3nZ2d@scnresearch. com... I didn't make that claim. My claim is, as you conveniently point out for me, quoting me, is that I disagree with Embry's use of the word to describe something the child is unlikely to experience as punishment, attention from mommy. Mom does sit with the child and encourage him to watch safe play. Normal humans consider parental attention a good thing, not a punishment, unless of course mom is whacking the child while he's doing "sit and watch." Children only view parental attention as a good thing at times when it is something they want. Being forced to accept parental attention when children want to do something else can be decidedly unpleasant. And you, the parent, can't cope with that? Hell a dog trainer knows how to make an interaction pleasant for the dog for training purposes. Surely a human parent can figure that out. By the way, what makes those parental attentions unwelcome, I wonder? If "sit and watch" is voluntary, Would you wait for the child to come to you in other situations if you saw they needed information and teaching and support? Boy, will your kids be deprived. with the parent inviting the child to sit and watch while the parent points out how the other children are playing safely, I agree with you that "sit and watch" is not a punishment in that situation. Right. In fact, they parent and child in the study trained for those episodes before the real thing. You still haven't asked Doan for a copy and read it, right? But forcing a child to sit and watch when the child wants to be playing very definitely is a punishment. Okay. YOU call it a punishment, I call it a consequence. And much is determined by the delivery. You can make yourself, as parent, a neutral "consequence," or you can make yourself a threatening controller. It's pretty much up to you. Not the child. It's called, building a relationship. And successful relationships are not founded on fear, Nathan. Unless of course you want a divorce. To be fired. Have no friends. And your children won't listen to you and "force" you to spank them to get their attention. Non-punitive parenting parents tend to very easily get the child's attention, since the child has a history with them of it not being threatening, in fact usually most pleasant, and Mother Nature loves it as well...since she drives the child toward information gathering...and you can BE the primary source. Kane |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
Kane, if you want me to read a study, either give me a copy or point me directly to where I can find it on the Internet. Or if you are unwilling or unable to do that, you need to accept that there is a limit to how much time and energy I'm willing to put into looking for any one piece of information. Studies correlating states that use CP in schools with other factors need to be very careful to account for other differences in the states besides whether or not their schools use CP. States don't just flip a coin at random in deciding whether to keep CP or abolish it. I'd need to see how good a job studies did of controlling for other factors before I could give them any credence. Those factors would need to include the amount and nature of the training teachers and principals receive in dealing with disciplinary problems. As for your idea that spanking causes fear, you are being amazingly simplistic. The goal of spanking is to make children afraid of engaging in certain particular behaviors. To the extent that children aren't sure what behaviors might get them spanked, or are afraid that they might get spanked for something they did essentially by accident or didn't realize was wrong, that can carry over into a more general but lower-level fear. But to the extent that children feel comfortable that they know how to behave to avoid getting spanked, and that an occasional accidental mistake won't get them spanked, the only time they have a reason to be afraid is when they go outside those boundaries. I'll turn your "red lever" analogy around. If I know the only time I'll get hit is if I actually touch the red lever, and the red lever is somewhere where I know I won't touch it by accident, I have nothing to worry about as long as I'm not trying to touch the red lever. Right? That's why you can't just lump all uses of corporal punishment together as if they were all the same thing. Even when the punishment itself is identical, the surrounding circumstances can be extremely different. Granted, if just telling me not to touch the red lever is going to be enough to get me not to touch it, threatening to hit me if I touch it offers an unnecessary distraction any time I think about the threat. But if touching the red lever would disrupt the simulation, and I keep touching it even though I know why I shouldn't, then threatening to hit me if I touch it could do more good than harm. "0:-" wrote in message news:e9OdnbwfS7mFKubYnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@scnresearch. com... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: Explain why there hasn't been a massive increase in children's learning over the last few decades as the use of corporal punishment - especially in schools - has declined. Well, besides the fact you are wrong, No-Child-Left "untested" has nearly destroyed classroom learning and the child's desire to learn. You are aware, are you not, that in areas when school corporal punishment is used, academic scores are lower than where it is not? Your claims about the relationship between corporal punishment and children's learning look to me like they are at best an extremely wild exaggeration. They aren't just mine. Nor are they wildly exaggerated. Have you actually read any of the studies I suggested? All you're doing is taking a few bits of abstract theory, mixing them together with your prejudices, and pretending it's evidence. Abstract theory? Nope. Hard data and my biases show you are wrong, and I am right. My biases come from a lot of years of close up learning, both with mentally ill children and normal children. This is yet another example of your blowing children's fear of being spanked up completely out of proportion. You have another example? Where? You think children aren't afraid of being spanked? That's one of the spankers arguments for what makes it work, isn't it? I'm sure there are cases where children have a phobia of being spanked, If a child isn't afraid of being spanked where is the aversive incentive to obey the spanker? or are so traumatized by severe or unfair spankings, That does happen. that it interferes significantly with their ability to learn. Big time. If I put you in a flight trainer and tell you that you must not touch that red lever over there, and every time you move toward it I give you a shock, how's your learning how to fly doing? But you'll need a lot more than abstract theory driven by your biases to convince me that your description is anything even close to what normally happens. I offered a lot more than abstract theory, and by your own admission you are not going to read it. Can't be bothered right now, I think you said. But you still wish to argue from ignorance, and make wild claims about what I'm claiming and what my meaning is and how biased I am. See end note: "0:-" wrote in message ups.com... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: ..... questions.... http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_05/article03.htm .... Following are some of the findings from brain research (Stevens and Goldberg, 2001) § Brains are specialized and are not equally good at everything. § Brains are designed for fluctuations rather than constant attention § Emotions are critical to successful learning. § Brains are poorly designed for rote learning. § Multi-sensory input is desired by our brains. § Learning involves the whole body. § Each brain is unique. § Threat, high anxiety, and a sense of helplessness impairs learning. § Brains process both parts and wholes simultaneously § Brains are considered "plastic" and continue to develop throughout our lives. Figure 1. Findings from Brain Research. Following are some of the core principles of brain-based learning. 1. The brain can perform several activities at once (e.g. tasting and smelling). 2. Learning engages the whole body. 3. The search for meaning is innate and comes through patterning. 4. Emotions are critical to patterning. 5. The brain processes wholes and parts simultaneously. 6. Learning involves focused attention and peripheral perception. 7. Learning involves both conscious and unconscious processes. 8. We have two types of memory - spatial and rote. 9. Learning and understanding are enhanced if facts are embedded in natural, spatial memory. 10. Challenge and threat inhibits learning. Excerpts from "Brain-Based Learning" written by On Purpose Associates, 2004. ... What you see above, Nathan, are just reports of what the research has shown. Brain scan research, mostly. How the brain lights up, where it does, where it doesn't, based on task and conditionals applied, like STRESS. Would you argue that spanking does not create stress, and the presence of the spanker, even if not currently spanking, would not create stress in the learner? Children turn OFF in the presence of such people. Or people they classify that way, such as "adults." One of the most difficult challenges of the teacher is to help the new child (the entire class of them) at the beginning of the school year to feel safe, so they can begin learning. It takes roughly September to the winter vacation to do that. There is a reason. Most children are raised in threatening environments, whether you folks wish to believe it or not. They will fake it for you, as YOU are the giant that can and does hurt them. Study. Think. Stop pretending that I am the enemy that doesn't think, when in fact I do, and YOU don't...well, not much at this point, or you wouldn't for a moment start defending a liar like Doan. Let's see if you can stop arguing with me and start learning. Read the at least some of the material presented and come back and then argue with me. Thanks, Kane I'm kind of surprised you didn't even deal with what I put on the page. The information isn't theoretical. It's empirical mostly. A great many years of research went into it. I'd say probably coming up on a hundred or more by now. If you have studies that say differently, or reports of studies that do, post them. Kane |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
"0:-" wrote in message
news:e9OdnbwfS7mFKubYnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@scnresearch. com... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: Explain why there hasn't been a massive increase in children's learning over the last few decades as the use of corporal punishment - especially in schools - has declined. Well, besides the fact you are wrong, No-Child-Left "untested" has nearly destroyed classroom learning and the child's desire to learn. Stagnation, and some argue actual decline, in children's learning started long before No Child Left Behind. Ironically, I've seen some evidence of improvement over the last very few years, so some aspects of NCLB may be doing some good. My feelings about testing are extremely mixed. Without good testing, there isn't any way to get anything resembling a reliable picture of what's working and what isn't, or of which children are falling behind and need extra help to catch up. But too much focus on testing can too easily cause teachers to focus too much attention on test-taking strategies and on the material that is most likely to be tested, at the expense of the depth and breadth of children's education. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
Nathan A. Barclay wrote: "0:-" wrote in message news:e9OdnbwfS7mFKubYnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@scnresearch. com... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: Explain why there hasn't been a massive increase in children's learning over the last few decades as the use of corporal punishment - especially in schools - has declined. Well, besides the fact you are wrong, No-Child-Left "untested" has nearly destroyed classroom learning and the child's desire to learn. Stagnation, and some argue actual decline, in children's learning started long before No Child Left Behind. Ironically, I've seen some evidence of improvement over the last very few years, so some aspects of NCLB may be doing some good. Ironically spanking isn't a factor. My feelings about testing are extremely mixed. Without good testing, there isn't any way to get anything resembling a reliable picture of what's working and what isn't, or of which children are falling behind and need extra help to catch up. Nothing wrong with testing. The problem is now they are teaching to the test, and these tests are predetermined, NOT created by teachers to fit the setting and children he or she is in. Have you seen any of the test questions? The absurd pile of crap imaginable. But too much focus on testing can too easily cause teachers to focus too much attention on test-taking strategies and on the material that is most likely to be tested, at the expense of the depth and breadth of children's education. Yes. Spanking is supposed to create fear of spanking, the threat factor to control a child's behavior. Does this, you think, contribute to a rich and effective learning environment for the child so threatened? Children get spanked for making mistakes. How do we explain the low academic scores in states where paddling is practiced, and spanking more generally accepted and used by parents? Are they just all genetically inferior folks? Personally I don't think so. Kane |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
"0:-" wrote in message oups.com... Okay. YOU call it a punishment, I call it a consequence. Herein lies your self-deception. You reject the concept of punishment, which in turn forces you to look for excuses to pretend that disciplinary strategies you approve of are something else - a "consequence" rather than a punishment. You have to pretend that the only goal is to spend additional time showing the child what safe playing is like when the reality is that a significant part of the goal is normally that the child won't want to have his play disrupted by having to sit and watch again. (That's especially true if "sit and watch" continues to be used long after the child clearly understands what safe play is.) Further, if sitting with the parent and watching truly is something the child would rather do than play, and the parent isn't willing to sit with the child and watch whenever the child wants the parent to, "sit and watch" would actually become an incentive for the child to go out in the street in order to get attention. That's exactly the problem that Dr. Emory was trying to work against when he designed the program. Only a child wouldn't have to be anywhere near as desperate for attention to solicit positive attention as to solicit negative attention. I've asked Doan for a copy of the study if he has one he can e-mail me, but I don't have a copy yet. In the meantime, I have to go by what I can understand based on what little I've seen. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding something about it. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote: "Doan" wrote in message ... On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote: The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of punishment: "One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the word. " Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-) I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having to sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that is very definitely a punishment. The real distinguishing feature as to whether or not something is a punishment is in whether its intent is that the unpleasant experience deter the child from doing the same thing again. If that motive plays a significant role in a parent's choice, the parent is punishing the child. Trying to deny that fact is fundamentally dishonest, and that dishonesty is probably a large part of why Kane views "punishment" as such a terrible thing. He's figured out a way to accept the need for punishment on a practical level while still denying it on an intellectual level. The study CLEARLY stated that it is punishment. Here are quotes from the study: "The post-survey for parents addressed such other issues as: helpfulness of the Program, suggestions for improvement, number of "Safe Play" stickers used by parent, number of time Safety Chart was used, number of times child broke safety rules, how many times the Sit and Watch PUNISHMENT was applied for rule infractions, and parental estimates of how often child went into the street." And here is the problems the parents reported with the Sit and Watch PUNISHMENT: 1) child wouldn't sit - 51.4% 2) child talked back - 8.6% 3) child cried - 8.6% 4) parent didn't like it 5.7% 5) other children around 5.7% 6) No excuse 5.7% 7) child stubborn 2.9% 8) hard to use it 2.9% 9) parent's lack self-discipline - 2.9% 10) Answer left blank 5.7% Source: "Reducing the Risk of Pedestrian Accidents to Preschoolers by Parent Training and Symbolic Modeling for Children: An Experimental Analysis in the Natural Environment. Research Report Number 2 of the Safe-Playing Project." Inter-Library Loan #: 73216 Doan |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
Nathan A. Barclay wrote: Is "sit and watch" triggered by the child's going out in the street? Is intervening at any time you see your child needing instruction triggered by their behavior? Seems like it to me. I guess you didn't get around to stating your point. Kane "0:-" wrote in message ps.com... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: "Doan" wrote in message ... On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote: The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of punishment: "One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the word. " Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-) Really? How so? I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having to sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that is very definitely a punishment. I presume you haven't read the study report, so Doan can more easily con you. The sit and watch included the parent, usually the mother, being with the child. The real distinguishing feature as to whether or not something is a punishment is in whether its intent is that the unpleasant experience deter the child from doing the same thing again. No, that's called 'discipline.' A pure punishment is not limited to teaching. It's done to hurt, or take something from the one punished. If that motive plays a significant role in a parent's choice, the parent is punishing the child. What if the parent is simply instructing? That's really at that sit and watch is about. Trying to deny that fact is fundamentally dishonest, and that dishonesty is probably a large part of why Kane views "punishment" as such a terrible thing. He's figured out a way to accept the need for punishment on a practical level while still denying it on an intellectual level. Nope. I know perfectly well what punishment is, and what teaching is, and what logical consequences are. Punishment is meant to hurt. Teaching, even if it's not what the child wants at the time is not meant by the parent to hurt the child. It's you that seems now to be figuring out a way to claim something not true. Having a child sit and watch and be attended by the parent is not intended as punishment. It's intended as teaching. Or certainly should be. What I have seen is a great many parents fail for a time to get this fact, and negate a non-cp, non-punishing method by delivering it as though it were punishment. A few never get past it, and they claim the method doesn't work, while they can see all around them parents that are making it work. They jump then to, "my child is different." Doan is playing with you. Enjoy. I'm not going to carry on much more conversation with you if you insist on doing so from ignorance. Read the Embry study. Get back to me. Kane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
More Teenagers Seek Help From Psychiatrists | Jan | Kids Health | 29 | April 23rd 06 05:53 PM |
Third of US teenagers are unfit | Roman Bystrianyk | Kids Health | 1 | January 3rd 06 02:57 AM |
Teenagers' behaviour 'worsening' | Roman Bystrianyk | Kids Health | 1 | September 20th 04 12:12 PM |
PA: Erie Co., CYS failure-Busy chasin' spankings? | Fern5827 | Spanking | 0 | June 14th 04 04:19 PM |
Why are so many teenagers so foul mouthed and disgusting? | [email protected] | General | 8 | April 13th 04 06:59 PM |