A short assignment

"Mark" wrote in message
...
"Mind Candy" wrote:

Message-id:




"Astoundingly accurate"? Who do you think you're kidding? As I recall,
the
astoundingly INaccurate profile of the Washington area sniper predicted
the
killer was a white male loner.

Mark
First of all, no where near all of us profiled the sniper as a white loner.
Also, Law Enforcement provided us with incorrect information, so the profile
was based on lies to begin with. The failure of the profile was not a
failure of the forensic psychologists, but of the law enforcement officials
who provided false information. We were sure he was male, and confident he
was a loner. Many of us (myself included) thought he was black. When a
killer takes black victims and white political victims, he's likely to be
White. When a sniper takes black victims and apolitical whites, it's
cloudier. Because many black children were targeted, I was pretty sure we
were dealing with a black offender. The media picked up on the "white loner"
profile and claimed it was the consensus, when in fact it might not have
even been the majority opinion. I still maintain that the sniper was a
loner, even though he had a "partner". In this case the two were loners
against the rest of the world, I also think there was a sexual (or at least
sensual) relationship between the two. I will be quite surprised if it turns
out that the relationship was not pederastic. And don't forget, after
Oklahoma city- the world thought it was the work of Arab terrorists, we knew
better. The same goes for the Unabomber. The public only gets to see what
the media allows them to see, and we all know the media sometimes has their
own motives. We do hundreds of profiles a day, and less than .01% are ever
released to the general public. If the average American knew how good we are
at what we do, they would be scared to go out in public. Not long ago
biologists thought all fish were exothermic, and all birds were endotherms,
WRONG. Not long ago the most brilliant minds in anthropology were tricked
into believing a hundred year old skull and apes mandible were the "missing
link", WRONG. All sciences learn from their mistakes, but some sciences have
their mistakes publicized more than others. I know when I wake up tomorrow,
I'll help catch a criminal. That's good enough for me.
Good question though, thank you for giving me the opportunity to defend my
craft.

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:


..............................................Snip ..........................
............................

Let's turn the question back and ask: can you find anyone, just one,
where the
non-cp alternatives have not been tried?

Brilliant question! I'm sure you will be a surprised as I was that I have
found several. One of my most often interviewed offenders (mass murderer of
both his own family and his next door neighbors) was raised in what is as
close to a Norman Rockwell life as exists. Spanking, either by hand or
paddle, was the only form of behavior modification utilized. He was never
"grounded", never had privileges taken away, and the only talking about his
behavior came when he was told why he was being spanked. There have been
others I've seen, but his case is the most puzzling, because his crime was
so much more extreme.

Truly amazing! So the words of a mass murderer is now the TRUTH??? ;-)

Straus realized his mistake of forgetting that "correlation does not
equal causation" when he did his Straus & Mouradian (1998) study and
found that the correlation between anti-sociable behaviors and non-cp
alternatives were even stronger than with spanking!

"Perhaps the most difficult methodological problem in research on the
effects of CP is posed by the the fact that child behavior problems lead
parents to spank. Thus the repeated finding that the more CP parents use,
the worse the behavior problems of the child does not necessarily show
that CP has harmful effects, or even that CP is not effective in reducing
misbehavior (as I erroneously argued in the past)."

I am familiar with the study, and I know many people (on both sides of the
argument) consider Dr. Straus the Alpha and Omega on the CP issue. However I
feel Dr. Strauss has, to put it bluntly, flip-flopped too many times to
retain full credibility. only months after the release of Straus &
Mouradian, Murray switched back again. In one of my colleagues classes at
Cornell University, Straus said (I believe it was a web discussion)
"Spanking is violence" , "spanking is hitting a child", "anyone saying
spanking works when other things do not, is incorrect", "spanking is never
necessary". "children should never be spanked" and "the only trend we have
seen in children who are spanked when they misbehave is an increase in
misbehavior". These may not be exact quotes, these were made 4 years ago and
I was not in the class that heard the remarks. However, I am supremely
confident that they are not misquotes, that the message- if not the exact
wording , is what Straus said. Perhaps someone out there has the direct
quotes from that Cornell class, and maybe someone can tell me how long the
interval between his "spanking is harmful" and "maybe not" positions lasted.
Again, I am not out to convince anyone, my interest is academic. I posted
here because I was told APS is "where the intelligent pro-spankers post", I
have found that statement to be true, to a degree. My only question is: Am I
correct to assume that no one can name a unspanked violent offender? If so
again let me thank you all for your contributions to my query, I truly
appreciate it..

You are confusing between Straus' opinion and research evidence! Straus
has an agenda. His belief gets int the way of his research. When
confronted, he had to admit:

"Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research is
motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief that
good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of interpersonal
violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when motivated by love and
concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent methods of
preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held values may
account for the failure of Straus to perceive the serious limitation of
measuring CP using a 1-week reference period."
(ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998)

He, and perhap you also, already has his mind made that spanking is always
wrong. Any data that suppport this preconceived notion is embellished
and those that don't shall be swept under the rugs. IOW, anything to
make that square peg fit the pin-hole! :-)

Doan



Doan

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

Notes:
This study also looks at non-cp alternatives like:

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

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


"CP is typically a response to misbehavior, particularly after one or more
other intervention have been tried repeatedly and the misbehavior they are
meant to correct recurs. Consequently, if a stuy finds a correlation
between
CP and misbehavior, the correlation my be interpreted just a plausibly as
the
effet of misbehavior on CP, as the effect of CP on misbehavior. To
control
for the effect of prior child misbehavior on later misbehavior requires a
longitudinal or experiemental study."

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:



-- much snippage throughout the post-------------------------------------

So, every transgression in this individuals life had only one consequence?
Sorry, I find that very difficult to believe.

Well, not if you include the really long timeout the court system gave him.
(sorry for the snide remark, couldn't resist)

And if you include that you believe every word that this mass murderer
said! Naivete, perhaps? ;-)

[snip]

Doan

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
...
"Mind Candy" wrote:

Message-id:




"Astoundingly accurate"? Who do you think you're kidding? As I recall,
the
astoundingly INaccurate profile of the Washington area sniper predicted
the
killer was a white male loner.

Mark
First of all, no where near all of us profiled the sniper as a white loner.
Also, Law Enforcement provided us with incorrect information, so the profile
was based on lies to begin with. The failure of the profile was not a
failure of the forensic psychologists, but of the law enforcement officials
who provided false information. We were sure he was male, and confident he
was a loner. Many of us (myself included) thought he was black. When a
killer takes black victims and white political victims, he's likely to be
White. When a sniper takes black victims and apolitical whites, it's
cloudier. Because many black children were targeted, I was pretty sure we
were dealing with a black offender. The media picked up on the "white loner"
profile and claimed it was the consensus, when in fact it might not have
even been the majority opinion. I still maintain that the sniper was a
loner, even though he had a "partner". In this case the two were loners
against the rest of the world, I also think there was a sexual (or at least
sensual) relationship between the two. I will be quite surprised if it turns
out that the relationship was not pederastic. And don't forget, after
Oklahoma city- the world thought it was the work of Arab terrorists, we knew
better. The same goes for the Unabomber. The public only gets to see what
the media allows them to see, and we all know the media sometimes has their
own motives. We do hundreds of profiles a day, and less than .01% are ever
released to the general public. If the average American knew how good we are
at what we do, they would be scared to go out in public. Not long ago
biologists thought all fish were exothermic, and all birds were endotherms,
WRONG. Not long ago the most brilliant minds in anthropology were tricked
into believing a hundred year old skull and apes mandible were the "missing
link", WRONG. All sciences learn from their mistakes, but some sciences have
their mistakes publicized more than others. I know when I wake up tomorrow,
I'll help catch a criminal. That's good enough for me.
Good question though, thank you for giving me the opportunity to defend my
craft.




Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I
think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by
this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to
teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent
of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels
guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right
thing," according to the experts.

So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
science that isn't science.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw
airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So
I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but
they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

(from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman.
Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974)

Doan wrote in message ...
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
...
"Mind Candy" wrote:

Message-id:




"Astoundingly accurate"? Who do you think you're kidding? As I recall,
the
astoundingly INaccurate profile of the Washington area sniper predicted
the
killer was a white male loner.

Mark
First of all, no where near all of us profiled the sniper as a white loner.
Also, Law Enforcement provided us with incorrect information, so the profile
was based on lies to begin with. The failure of the profile was not a
failure of the forensic psychologists, but of the law enforcement officials
who provided false information. We were sure he was male, and confident he
was a loner. Many of us (myself included) thought he was black. When a
killer takes black victims and white political victims, he's likely to be
White. When a sniper takes black victims and apolitical whites, it's
cloudier. Because many black children were targeted, I was pretty sure we
were dealing with a black offender. The media picked up on the "white loner"
profile and claimed it was the consensus, when in fact it might not have
even been the majority opinion. I still maintain that the sniper was a
loner, even though he had a "partner". In this case the two were loners
against the rest of the world, I also think there was a sexual (or at least
sensual) relationship between the two. I will be quite surprised if it turns
out that the relationship was not pederastic. And don't forget, after
Oklahoma city- the world thought it was the work of Arab terrorists, we knew
better. The same goes for the Unabomber. The public only gets to see what
the media allows them to see, and we all know the media sometimes has their
own motives. We do hundreds of profiles a day, and less than .01% are ever
released to the general public. If the average American knew how good we are
at what we do, they would be scared to go out in public. Not long ago
biologists thought all fish were exothermic, and all birds were endotherms,
WRONG. Not long ago the most brilliant minds in anthropology were tricked
into believing a hundred year old skull and apes mandible were the "missing
link", WRONG. All sciences learn from their mistakes, but some sciences have
their mistakes publicized more than others. I know when I wake up tomorrow,
I'll help catch a criminal. That's good enough for me.
Good question though, thank you for giving me the opportunity to defend my
craft.




Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I
think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by
this pseudoscience.

Are you suggesting that his work is "pseudoscience"?

A teacher who has some good idea of how to
teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one.

What has this to do with forensics used to profile criminals? Are you
suggesting that cops have a better way? You'd be amazed to learn that
cops are the ones most likely to turn to forensics for answers in
crime cases.

Or a parent
of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels
guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right
thing," according to the experts.

Oh, I don't think they feel guilty for the rest of their lives at all.
I think they gravitate to groups such as this where they hope to find
others as misinformed as you to agree with their strange mental
gymnastics to justify their lack of skill and knowledge.

So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
science that isn't science.

Are you saying that crime forensics do not work? That it isn't
science? Please be more specific, if you can manage it.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science.

You may think what you wish. Your analogy below is deeply flawed in
that the researchers don't do what New Guinea natives did. This
thinking error of the natives had to do with lack of knowledge. They
did not try to find out more. The scientists you malign have
considerable knowledge and are always seeking more.

In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people.

In the whole world there is a spanking cult of people.

During the war they saw
airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now.

Watching other parents parent successfully they want the same thing to
happen for them now.

So they've arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So

They arrange to make the child perform like the children of loving
caring knowledgable parents. They use the mental equivalent of
"bamboo" and "wood", force, threats, humilation, pain, and think they
are doing everything right, yet they don't get the same behavior that
the decent knowledgable parents get.

I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation,

I call that kind of parenting cargo cult science, because they fallow
all the things they see but do not understand and lack depth of
knowledge about, and they have their own likely violent mean
upbringing they fall back on, just like the natives fell back on wood
and bamboo.

but
they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

But they are missing something essential, because their children still
are damaged and become criminals and otherwise less then capable human
beings.

(from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman.
Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974)

Was he talking about the Straus study?

If so apparently he doesn't understand such thing himself and is
practicing Cargo Cult peer review.

You certainly are a product of cargo cult parenting.

Kane

"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:



-- much snippage throughout the
post-------------------------------------

So, every transgression in this individuals life had only one
consequence?
Sorry, I find that very difficult to believe.

Well, not if you include the really long timeout the court system gave
him.
(sorry for the snide remark, couldn't resist)

And if you include that you believe every word that this mass murderer
said! Naivete, perhaps? ;-)

[snip]

Doan

With all due respect sir, you are the one demonstrating ignorance and
naiveté. Ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of forensic
psychology, and naiveté by suggesting that we take the "word" of a criminal
over an extensive background search. Do you honestly believe anyone grows up
without human contact, or that those that have known an individual suddenly
forget everything when that individual commits a crime? Or do you believe we
wouldn't want to talk to his parents, siblings, friends, coworkers,
teachers, neighbors, et al? No wonder you don't understand what we do.

"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:



...............................................Sni p..........................
............................

Let's turn the question back and ask: can you find anyone, just one,
where the
non-cp alternatives have not been tried?

Brilliant question! I'm sure you will be a surprised as I was that I
have
found several. One of my most often interviewed offenders (mass murderer
of
both his own family and his next door neighbors) was raised in what is
as
close to a Norman Rockwell life as exists. Spanking, either by hand or
paddle, was the only form of behavior modification utilized. He was
never
"grounded", never had privileges taken away, and the only talking about
his
behavior came when he was told why he was being spanked. There have been
others I've seen, but his case is the most puzzling, because his crime
was
so much more extreme.

Truly amazing! So the words of a mass murderer is now the TRUTH??? ;-)

Straus realized his mistake of forgetting that "correlation does not
equal causation" when he did his Straus & Mouradian (1998) study and
found that the correlation between anti-sociable behaviors and non-cp
alternatives were even stronger than with spanking!

"Perhaps the most difficult methodological problem in research on the
effects of CP is posed by the the fact that child behavior problems
lead
parents to spank. Thus the repeated finding that the more CP parents
use,
the worse the behavior problems of the child does not necessarily show
that CP has harmful effects, or even that CP is not effective in
reducing
misbehavior (as I erroneously argued in the past)."

I am familiar with the study, and I know many people (on both sides of
the
argument) consider Dr. Straus the Alpha and Omega on the CP issue.
However I
feel Dr. Strauss has, to put it bluntly, flip-flopped too many times to
retain full credibility. only months after the release of Straus &
Mouradian, Murray switched back again. In one of my colleagues classes
at
Cornell University, Straus said (I believe it was a web discussion)
"Spanking is violence" , "spanking is hitting a child", "anyone saying
spanking works when other things do not, is incorrect", "spanking is
never
necessary". "children should never be spanked" and "the only trend we
have
seen in children who are spanked when they misbehave is an increase in
misbehavior". These may not be exact quotes, these were made 4 years ago
and
I was not in the class that heard the remarks. However, I am supremely
confident that they are not misquotes, that the message- if not the
exact
wording , is what Straus said. Perhaps someone out there has the direct
quotes from that Cornell class, and maybe someone can tell me how long
the
interval between his "spanking is harmful" and "maybe not" positions
lasted.
Again, I am not out to convince anyone, my interest is academic. I
posted
here because I was told APS is "where the intelligent pro-spankers
post", I
have found that statement to be true, to a degree. My only question is:
Am I
correct to assume that no one can name a unspanked violent offender? If
so
again let me thank you all for your contributions to my query, I truly
appreciate it..

You are confusing between Straus' opinion and research evidence! Straus
has an agenda. His belief gets int the way of his research. When
confronted, he had to admit:

"Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research is
motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief that
good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of
interpersonal
violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when motivated by love and
concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent methods of
preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held values
may
account for the failure of Straus to perceive the serious limitation of
measuring CP using a 1-week reference period."
(ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998)

He, and perhap you also, already has his mind made that spanking is always
wrong. Any data that suppport this preconceived notion is embellished
and those that don't shall be swept under the rugs. IOW, anything to
make that square peg fit the pin-hole! :-)

Doan



Doan

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

Notes:
This study also looks at non-cp alternatives like:

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

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


"CP is typically a response to misbehavior, particularly after one or
more
other intervention have been tried repeatedly and the misbehavior they
are
meant to correct recurs. Consequently, if a stuy finds a correlation
between
CP and misbehavior, the correlation my be interpreted just a plausibly
as
the
effet of misbehavior on CP, as the effect of CP on misbehavior. To
control
for the effect of prior child misbehavior on later misbehavior
requires a
longitudinal or experiemental study."

Again, you sidestep the quote. Murray did not only say "I feel spanking is
wrong" he said "the only trend we have seen in children who are spanked when
they misbehave is an increase in misbehavior". He was saying his research
shows that spanking is not effective. Normally this would not be an issue,
except only months before he said that CP might be effective. (I should add
that the (former) quote came on the heals of not one, but two longitudinal
studies.) I've few doubts that Dr. Straus is an utterly brilliant man, but
he also talks out of both sides of his mouth, at least on this issue.

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:



"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:



-- much snippage throughout the
post-------------------------------------

So, every transgression in this individuals life had only one
consequence?
Sorry, I find that very difficult to believe.

Well, not if you include the really long timeout the court system gav=
e
him.
(sorry for the snide remark, couldn't resist)

And if you include that you believe every word that this mass murderer
said! Naivete, perhaps? ;-)

[snip]

Doan

With all due respect sir, you are the one demonstrating ignorance and
naivet=E9. Ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of forensic
psychology, and naivet=E9 by suggesting that we take the "word" of a crim=
inal
over an extensive background search. Do you honestly believe anyone grows=
up
without human contact, or that those that have known an individual sudden=
ly
forget everything when that individual commits a crime? Or do you believe=
we
wouldn't want to talk to his parents, siblings, friends, coworkers,
teachers, neighbors, et al? No wonder you don't understand what we do.

Well, do you expect me to believe that the only consequence to
misbehaviors that this criminal experience is spanking??? In the home,
in the school?

Doan

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:



"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:



..............................................Snip ..........................
............................

Let's turn the question back and ask: can you find anyone, just one,
where the
non-cp alternatives have not been tried?

Brilliant question! I'm sure you will be a surprised as I was that I
have
found several. One of my most often interviewed offenders (mass murderer
of
both his own family and his next door neighbors) was raised in what is
as
close to a Norman Rockwell life as exists. Spanking, either by hand or
paddle, was the only form of behavior modification utilized. He was
never
"grounded", never had privileges taken away, and the only talking about
his
behavior came when he was told why he was being spanked. There have been
others I've seen, but his case is the most puzzling, because his crime
was
so much more extreme.

Truly amazing! So the words of a mass murderer is now the TRUTH??? ;-)

Straus realized his mistake of forgetting that "correlation does not
equal causation" when he did his Straus & Mouradian (1998) study and
found that the correlation between anti-sociable behaviors and non-cp
alternatives were even stronger than with spanking!

"Perhaps the most difficult methodological problem in research on the
effects of CP is posed by the the fact that child behavior problems
lead
parents to spank. Thus the repeated finding that the more CP parents
use,
the worse the behavior problems of the child does not necessarily show
that CP has harmful effects, or even that CP is not effective in
reducing
misbehavior (as I erroneously argued in the past)."

I am familiar with the study, and I know many people (on both sides of
the
argument) consider Dr. Straus the Alpha and Omega on the CP issue.
However I
feel Dr. Strauss has, to put it bluntly, flip-flopped too many times to
retain full credibility. only months after the release of Straus &
Mouradian, Murray switched back again. In one of my colleagues classes
at
Cornell University, Straus said (I believe it was a web discussion)
"Spanking is violence" , "spanking is hitting a child", "anyone saying
spanking works when other things do not, is incorrect", "spanking is
never
necessary". "children should never be spanked" and "the only trend we
have
seen in children who are spanked when they misbehave is an increase in
misbehavior". These may not be exact quotes, these were made 4 years ago
and
I was not in the class that heard the remarks. However, I am supremely
confident that they are not misquotes, that the message- if not the
exact
wording , is what Straus said. Perhaps someone out there has the direct
quotes from that Cornell class, and maybe someone can tell me how long
the
interval between his "spanking is harmful" and "maybe not" positions
lasted.
Again, I am not out to convince anyone, my interest is academic. I
posted
here because I was told APS is "where the intelligent pro-spankers
post", I
have found that statement to be true, to a degree. My only question is:
Am I
correct to assume that no one can name a unspanked violent offender? If
so
again let me thank you all for your contributions to my query, I truly
appreciate it..

You are confusing between Straus' opinion and research evidence! Straus
has an agenda. His belief gets int the way of his research. When
confronted, he had to admit:

"Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research is
motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief that
good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of
interpersonal
violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when motivated by love and
concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent methods of
preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held values
may
account for the failure of Straus to perceive the serious limitation of
measuring CP using a 1-week reference period."
(ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998)

He, and perhap you also, already has his mind made that spanking is always
wrong. Any data that suppport this preconceived notion is embellished
and those that don't shall be swept under the rugs. IOW, anything to
make that square peg fit the pin-hole! :-)

Doan



Doan

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

Notes:
This study also looks at non-cp alternatives like:

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

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


"CP is typically a response to misbehavior, particularly after one or
more
other intervention have been tried repeatedly and the misbehavior they
are
meant to correct recurs. Consequently, if a stuy finds a correlation
between
CP and misbehavior, the correlation my be interpreted just a plausibly
as
the
effet of misbehavior on CP, as the effect of CP on misbehavior. To
control
for the effect of prior child misbehavior on later misbehavior
requires a
longitudinal or experiemental study."

Again, you sidestep the quote. Murray did not only say "I feel spanking is
wrong" he said "the only trend we have seen in children who are spanked when
they misbehave is an increase in misbehavior". He was saying his research
shows that spanking is not effective. Normally this would not be an issue,
except only months before he said that CP might be effective. (I should add
that the (former) quote came on the heals of not one, but two longitudinal
studies.) I've few doubts that Dr. Straus is an utterly brilliant man, but
he also talks out of both sides of his mouth, at least on this issue.

Which quote? Where and when? Is it base on on opinion or backed by
research evidence? Which longitudinal studies? Did he also said
that the same correlation were even STRONGER for non-cp alternatives?

Doan

Kane9 is back! And barking rabidly again! ;-)

Doan

On 6 Sep 2003, Kane wrote:

Doan wrote in message ...
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
...
"Mind Candy" wrote:

Message-id:




"Astoundingly accurate"? Who do you think you're kidding? As I recall,
the
astoundingly INaccurate profile of the Washington area sniper predicted
the
killer was a white male loner.

Mark
First of all, no where near all of us profiled the sniper as a white loner.
Also, Law Enforcement provided us with incorrect information, so the profile
was based on lies to begin with. The failure of the profile was not a
failure of the forensic psychologists, but of the law enforcement officials
who provided false information. We were sure he was male, and confident he
was a loner. Many of us (myself included) thought he was black. When a
killer takes black victims and white political victims, he's likely to be
White. When a sniper takes black victims and apolitical whites, it's
cloudier. Because many black children were targeted, I was pretty sure we
were dealing with a black offender. The media picked up on the "white loner"
profile and claimed it was the consensus, when in fact it might not have
even been the majority opinion. I still maintain that the sniper was a
loner, even though he had a "partner". In this case the two were loners
against the rest of the world, I also think there was a sexual (or at least
sensual) relationship between the two. I will be quite surprised if it turns
out that the relationship was not pederastic. And don't forget, after
Oklahoma city- the world thought it was the work of Arab terrorists, we knew
better. The same goes for the Unabomber. The public only gets to see what
the media allows them to see, and we all know the media sometimes has their
own motives. We do hundreds of profiles a day, and less than .01% are ever
released to the general public. If the average American knew how good we are
at what we do, they would be scared to go out in public. Not long ago
biologists thought all fish were exothermic, and all birds were endotherms,
WRONG. Not long ago the most brilliant minds in anthropology were tricked
into believing a hundred year old skull and apes mandible were the "missing
link", WRONG. All sciences learn from their mistakes, but some sciences have
their mistakes publicized more than others. I know when I wake up tomorrow,
I'll help catch a criminal. That's good enough for me.
Good question though, thank you for giving me the opportunity to defend my
craft.




Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I
think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by
this pseudoscience.

Are you suggesting that his work is "pseudoscience"?

A teacher who has some good idea of how to
teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one.

What has this to do with forensics used to profile criminals? Are you
suggesting that cops have a better way? You'd be amazed to learn that
cops are the ones most likely to turn to forensics for answers in
crime cases.

Or a parent
of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels
guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right
thing," according to the experts.

Oh, I don't think they feel guilty for the rest of their lives at all.
I think they gravitate to groups such as this where they hope to find
others as misinformed as you to agree with their strange mental
gymnastics to justify their lack of skill and knowledge.

So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
science that isn't science.

Are you saying that crime forensics do not work? That it isn't
science? Please be more specific, if you can manage it.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science.

You may think what you wish. Your analogy below is deeply flawed in
that the researchers don't do what New Guinea natives did. This
thinking error of the natives had to do with lack of knowledge. They
did not try to find out more. The scientists you malign have
considerable knowledge and are always seeking more.

In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people.

In the whole world there is a spanking cult of people.

During the war they saw
airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now.

Watching other parents parent successfully they want the same thing to
happen for them now.

So they've arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So

They arrange to make the child perform like the children of loving
caring knowledgable parents. They use the mental equivalent of
"bamboo" and "wood", force, threats, humilation, pain, and think they
are doing everything right, yet they don't get the same behavior that
the decent knowledgable parents get.

I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation,

I call that kind of parenting cargo cult science, because they fallow
all the things they see but do not understand and lack depth of
knowledge about, and they have their own likely violent mean
upbringing they fall back on, just like the natives fell back on wood
and bamboo.

but
they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

But they are missing something essential, because their children still
are damaged and become criminals and otherwise less then capable human
beings.

(from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman.
Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974)

Was he talking about the Straus study?

If so apparently he doesn't understand such thing himself and is
practicing Cargo Cult peer review.

You certainly are a product of cargo cult parenting.

Kane