Teenagers faced with spankings

Greegor wrote:
Under a pen name.

Which is?

Gregory Hanson

Famous writer. Honest.

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 : -

"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.

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

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

"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.

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

"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.

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

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