The Facts about Spanking - Science shows...

[granfire]

The original studies are located in the original links. If anyone wants to read them and see the methodology, by all means go for it. As part of my profession, I end up reading a lot of this research anyway. So, I've seen some of this before. That said, if you get one spanking in your life, that's probably not going to cause stress related trauma to the brain. If you get spanked repeatedly for misbehaving, that different. If spanking is the #1 behavior correction tool used by parents, that's different again.

I want to clarify, we aren't talking about what people would normally consider abuse. This thread is about spanking and that it has been scientifically shown to cause stress related damage to the brain. The more its done, the more damage.

well, considering that habitually 'spanking' is often equalled with 'beating'

Like I said, I have difficulty seeing the proof since the tests are somewhat not reversable and repeatable

 

[Makalakumu]

lets see, people spanked the hell out of thier kids in my time, the 70's and no one took a gun to school.

now, no one spanks, and the schools are free fire zones

i believe your research is a collection of crap.

It's not my research. I read some studies, found some collections of studies, and posted them. You can check the original sources if you wish.

That said, think about this for a moment. In warrior cultures, spanking (or pain compliance) is often a common way of disciplining children. For example, it is extremely common to see kids get their hands slapped, their bottom whacked, and their faces slapped, in certain places in Polynesia where the traditional warrior culture is still strong. In fact, we have a Lua technique that we practice in our dojo that was designed for tutu (grandmother) to control kolohe keiki (mischievous kids) with one hand via a fingerlock. When sensei taught us this technique and told us what to look for, I suddenly saw tutus everywhere holding the hand close to their mu'umu'u (dress) and struggling kids calming down miraculously. They try to hide it because Haoles (white people/outsiders) don't understand. They might say something, or worse, call the police. But, this is how you make your children tough. This is how you teach them to be warriors, how to endure pain. They KNOW it makes the kid more aggressive and are proud because that makes better warriors.

I'm predicting that you probably don't really have a problem with this. Am I right? The flip side of this practice within the family and in society is a reduction of peace and liberty. These aren't gifts that you can earn or something that you can take. These are qualities that are experienced in the absence of aggression. You cannot have peace in an aggressive society and you cannot be free either. Aggression is never limited to your enemies. It turns inward and gnaws the society out like a cancer until it destroys itself. Aggression stratifies a society and creates parasitic classes that reduce everyone underneath them to servants. You have no property rights and no human rights if the people in the parasitic class above you say that you don't. A moment of reflection shows that our society fits this bill well.

The price of aggression is Peace and Liberty.

 

[Makalakumu]

Like I said, I have difficulty seeing the proof since the tests are somewhat not reversable and repeatable

How do you know if you haven't looked at the original research? I have a dozen books on my shelf on the topic of qualitative and quantitative research and these have helped me judge what I've read. How would you know even if you've read the research?

 

[Tez3]

It's not my research. I read some studies, found some collections of studies, and posted them. You can check the original sources if you wish.

That said, think about this for a moment. In warrior cultures, spanking (or pain compliance) is often a common way of disciplining children. For example, it is extremely common to see kids get their hands slapped, their bottom whacked, and their faces slapped, in certain places in Polynesia where the traditional warrior culture is still strong. In fact, we have a Lua technique that we practice in our dojo that was designed for tutu (grandmother) to control kolohe keiki (mischievous kids) with one hand via a fingerlock. When sensei taught us this technique and told us what to look for, I suddenly saw tutus everywhere holding the hand close to their mu'umu'u (dress) and struggling kids calming down miraculously. They try to hide it because Haoles (white people/outsiders) don't understand. They might say something, or worse, call the police. But, this is how you make your children tough. This is how you teach them to be warriors, how to endure pain. They KNOW it makes the kid more aggressive and are proud because that makes better warriors.

I'm predicting that you probably don't really have a problem with this. Am I right? The flip side of this practice within the family and in society is a reduction of peace and liberty. These aren't gifts that you can earn or something that you can take. These are qualities that are experienced in the absence of aggression. You cannot have peace in an aggressive society and you cannot be free either. Aggression is never limited to your enemies. It turns inward and gnaws the society out like a cancer until it destroys itself. Aggression stratifies a society and creates parasitic classes that reduce everyone underneath them to servants. You have no property rights and no human rights if the people in the parasitic class above you say that you don't. A moment of reflection shows that our society fits this bill well.

The price of aggression is Peace and Liberty.

One of the biggest problems we have here with the Fijian soldiers is the violence towards women and their wives in particular. In fact their violence is a problem full stop. It's fine having aggression as a soldier but when it is regarded as normal to 'discipline' the wife and to smack any women who they feel disrespects them it is a huge problem. In Afghan the Fijians are as brave as they come but here, they are something we have come to dread when called out.

 

[Makalakumu]

If my IQ is lower as a result of being spanked as a child, I shudder to think how bloody brilliant I would have been otherwise.
And my lowered self-esteem? Anyone care to hazard a guess on how poorly I think of myself?

And let's see...criminality. Hmmm. A decade in law enforcement, never been arrested, only contact with police has been speeding tickets and lately, a neighbor complaining about my dog. Very criminal. Drug use. Hmm, anyone here ever hear me say how great I think drugs are? I'm guessing not, since I generally advocate that drug pushers be put to death. Depression. Hmmm. Well, my financial situation is about as bad as it can get, I'm getting older and have lots of non-fun diseases now, and my hair fell out and I'm fat and my job is nearly always in jeopardy; if I'm depressed it seems only logical to be so, but nonetheless, I think I'm not depressed.

Violence? Well, yes. I loves me some violence. In the dojo. In the sparring ring. Otherwise, I don't indulge and you might have noted that I generally counsel that one good self-defense tactic is to run away if possible. Yes, there's a violent man talking.

So tell me, in what way have I been destroyed, torn down, and consigned to a life of crime due to having been spanked? To heck with the studies, I'm right here, right now. Explain how it is that I turned out well.

An ounce of self knowledge is a pound of gold.

From my perspective, you fit the bill. Look at the results of your life, your health, your finances, the aggressive (state sanctioned) professions you've chosen. You've abused chemicals in the past and are extremely critical of yourself. I don't care what you say about yourself, the results of your life tell the story. How don't you fit this profile?

Bill, when you want to put people to death for non-violent crimes, when you support killing people thousands of miles away who did NOTHING to you, you are acting out an extremely aggressive set of mental programs.

 

[Makalakumu]

I would say that it's poor sociology using "brain science" to support a position. How was the study done? Was there a group of healthy families that used appropriate spanking to raise their children vs. unhealthy families that just always spank inappropriately? What was the rest of the family life/background? There are a host of other variables that can't be accounted for to say that spanking CAUSES those things.

The original studies can be found with the original links. Look at them.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

An ounce of self knowledge is a pound of gold. From my perspective, you fit the bill.

Interesting perspective you have.

Look at the results of your life, your health, your finances, the aggressive (state sanctioned) professions you've chosen.

I did. Never been in trouble with the law. That kind of flies in the face of 'criminal background'. You said nothing about finances, only depression, and frankly, losing your job will affect your finances, and being spanked as a child had nothing to do with my employer deciding to let me go; but I could call them and ask.

As to my aggressive professions; that was a long time ago. I work in IT now, as I have since about 1991. Very violent.

You've abused chemicals in the past

Uh, no. I haven't.

and are extremely critical of yourself.

I am realistic about the things I suck at, honest about the things I'm OK at, and without shame about the things I am very good at. Critical? Yes, in a good way.

I don't care what you say about yourself, the results of your life tell the story. How don't you fit this profile?

The parts I've just described. Which would be all of it.

Bill, when you want to put people to death for non-violent crimes, when you support killing people thousands of miles away who did NOTHING to you, you are acting out an extremely aggressive set of mental programs.

Yes, my father spanked me, so I want to see drug pushers put to death. It has nothing to do with what happened to a family member with regard to her use of illegal drugs and what it did to our family. Just the spanking. Sure. I understand it all now. Not.

 

[Twin Fist]

its ok, i dont really think there is a correlation between spanking and violence.

I do know this, my generation was beaten to within an inch of our lives on a regular basis, when we deserved it
and we are all ok


kids today are pretty much never spanked and they are the most spoiled entitled, arrogant little pieces of crap i have ever seen

And this is causation instead of mere correlation why, exactly?

Incidentally, I did do a quick google on "school shooting statistics"--nothing really fancy--and came upon this page. While the website does describe a rise in school violence, it also mentions that said violence peaked in the 1990s, rather than current day. But, with specifics to school shootings, see here.



"Lack of domestic discipline" is noticeably absent from the list. However, the page does note that most school shooting perpetrators come from a variety of backgrounds and family environments, leading one to believe that whether Pa's kicking your *** every day doesn't predict that Junior is or isn't going to bring a gun to school.

It's okay, I'm sure this study was crap too. :boing1:

 

[Makalakumu]

Interesting perspective you have.

You asked for my opinion and I gave it. I don't know you except for some postings on an internet message board...so that should give you a measure of the worth of my opinion on you...which isn't much.

Open a self reflection journal, try life coaching, try a year of regular talk therapy and see if you still feel the same way about yourself.

Regarding chemical abuse, if you've ever used alcohol, lost control of yourself, and regretted what you did, that's abuse...and it's really common.

Also, then tendency to jump toward violent solutions when peaceful solutions could solve the problem ARE predictable results of the things we're discussing.

 

[granfire]

How do you know if you haven't looked at the original research? I have a dozen books on my shelf on the topic of qualitative and quantitative research and these have helped me judge what I've read. How would you know even if you've read the research?

the more points you post the less inclined I am.

According to your study most all my in-laws ought to be in jail or dead....crack hos and murderers...

I actually don't seem to need to actually read it. Anecdotal evidence contradicts the theory.

I got spanked.
I am not depressed because of it (I was depressed when my sister got sick and died)
I am not a crack head, I actually don't care to be drunk or otherwise incapacitated.
My aggressive tendencies are actually linked to hormonal imbalance, reoccuring every month but generally under control, I have not harmed anybody - yet.

This is kind of like the German study that linked juvenile marijuana use to mental disorders later on.

Same as the study you refer to:
How can you get a decent test group with control groups?
How do you measure 'spanking' vs 'beating'? Yes, I find that anti spankers tend to escalate the language. (Yes, I have been exposed to the matter, via my mother, who, incidentally, was the person who spanked me and my sister, now she is the Grandmother, disciplinary actions required are vastly different now. But I am the mother, maybe when I am the grandmother I will see things different, too)


The thing about child rearing: What else is going on in the child's life?
Are other things going on to enrich the mind or are the parents parking the kid in front of the tube after they whipped his/her butt.
I try to provide other stimulation, made the kid join band, buy books I think he likes, supply different styles of music CDs and signed him up for scouts.

 

[Makalakumu]

I do know this, my generation was beaten to within an inch of our lives on a regular basis, when we deserved it
and we are all ok

Our generations spazzed out and killed over a million people in seven separate wars after 9/11. Our generation is locking more people per capita then any other nation on Earth. Our generation simulates murder for fun. Our generation wants the government's guns to deliver cheaper and cheaper crap to our shores so it can make us happy again.

Yeah, we're okay.

 

[Makalakumu]

I actually don't seem to need to actually read it. Anecdotal evidence contradicts the theory.

You don't need to read it = my mind isn't open to it.

Consider the Allegory of the Cave. That seems to fit what we're talking about now.

Lastly, statistics are what they are. Does everyone die from the same thing because of smoking? No, it plays out differently for different people, depending on different circumstances. Every time you are hit, it increases the chances that some of these things happen. Maybe you got lucky dice?

 

[Twin Fist]

Our generations spazzed out and killed over a million people in seven separate wars after 9/11.

spazzed out?

nuking medina, that might have been spazzing out


you need to gain some perspective, IMO

 

[Sukerkin]

That "Open Minded" blade cuts both ways, Maka.

I don't gainsay your right to your opinion in the least, tho' I think you place too much faith in the work of smartly dressed, slick talking con-men who can't get a proper job i.e. social scientists {two words that should never go together!}.

I know that sounds mean spirited but, honestly, as I noted earlier in this thread, there is a reason why people who study for degrees in such subjects get short shrift from the rest of their peers. I am also besemirched as I had to take Sociology as one of the threads of my Economics degree ... I feel sullied ;lol:.

A friend of mine has his doctorate in Psychology and even he will not dispute that it's mostly good sounding supposition shrouded in a patina of respectability because they use a bit of 'maffs'. The 'talking cure' and all it's associated ancillaries is largely no better than what can be done by anyone with a modicum of empathy and a decent vocabulary. Whyso? Because all this 'high fallutin' research (and I use that word with advisement) is polluted by the very fact that the experiment affects the subjects - it's just like quantum mechanics but with people .

 

[Sukerkin]

Oh and what should really make you pause for thought is that John and I agree on this ...

... did you feel that?

... what do you mean, "Feel what?". That! ...

... I think the earth just shifted on it's axis a little bit :lol:.

 

[Twin Fist]

quit spazzing out.......



lol

 

[RandomPhantom700]

That "Open Minded" blade cuts both ways, Maka.

I don't gainsay your right to your opinion in the least, tho' I think you place too much faith in the work of smartly dressed, slick talking con-men who can't get a proper job i.e. social scientists {two words that should never go together!}.

I know that sounds mean spirited but, honestly, as I noted earlier in this thread, there is a reason why people who study for degrees in such subjects get short shrift from the rest of their peers. I am also besemirched as I had to take Sociology as one of the threads of my Economics degree ... I feel sullied ;lol:.

A friend of mine has his doctorate in Psychology and even he will not dispute that it's mostly good sounding supposition shrouded in a patina of respectability because they use a bit of 'maffs'. The 'talking cure' and all it's associated ancillaries is largely no better than what can be done by anyone with a modicum of empathy and a decent vocabulary. Whyso? Because all this 'high fallutin' research (and I use that word with advisement) is polluted by the very fact that the experiment affects the subjects - it's just like quantum mechanics but with people .

So if it isn't measurable in a test tube or involves the slightest degree of subjectivity, it's not real science? The whole study of human behavior is just ******** in your mind? I realize that the "softer sciences" (psychology, political science, anthropology, etc.) are more prone to error due to their content, but that doesn't mean one can't properly conduct experiments.

 

[Nomad]

So if it isn't measurable in a test tube or involves the slightest degree of subjectivity, it's not real science? The whole study of human behavior is just ******** in your mind? I realize that the "softer sciences" (psychology, political science, anthropology, etc.) are more prone to error due to their content, but that doesn't mean one can't properly conduct experiments.

Actually, it kind of does. It means that drawing conclusions from these types of studies is at best, a dangerous proposition. There is a huge difference between correlation and causation, which is really what we're talking about here, especially when some of the more unlikely "statistics" are brought into things.

Hmmm... a study (obviously not real!) shows that kids who eat broccoli are 50% more likely to commit homicide later in their lives. The conclusion then becomes broccoli causes homicidal rages and leads to violent behavior.

Um, no... sorry. It might be a correlation, if the sample size is big enough to ensure we're not seeing an anomaly, and if the rates are really significant across that population.

Whether or not the kids eat broccoli is an isolated factoid that may or may not reflect on a million other factors in these children's lives. Perhaps their parents were extreme disciplinarians who severely beat their kids for not eating their broccoli (to come dangerously close to the threat at hand). Maybe they were from families of vegans, and the lack of protein in their diets changed hormone levels in the brain. Perhaps they were from a lower socio-economic bracket that could only afford broccoli and more of them were forced by extreme poverty into a life of crime.

It is very difficult to properly define a study of this nature that is able to rule out other possible correlations or causes that may lead to the same observations. It is also very easy to look at potentially subtle data changes and read into it something which may be no more than a reflection of the bias of the people/organizations running the study. This is one reason why these so-called "soft sciences" are not accorded the same respect as those which provide more concrete results which can be rigorously tested for accuracy.

 

[granfire]

You don't need to read it = my mind isn't open to it.

Consider the Allegory of the Cave. That seems to fit what we're talking about now.

Lastly, statistics are what they are. Does everyone die from the same thing because of smoking? No, it plays out differently for different people, depending on different circumstances. Every time you are hit, it increases the chances that some of these things happen. Maybe you got lucky dice?

My mind is very open.
But I had dinner table psychology most of my life as my mom worked in the field for over 30 years.
I know how much BS there is to be had.

I am probably the first to seek out a reason, if not excuse for a person's behavior, but even I can't buy that line of reasoning.

 

[Sukerkin]

What's your background, Phantom?

I enquire because asking the very question of whether it is science or not is quite fundamental.

Economics (which my first Honours Degree is in) suffers from the same thing. We use an awful lot of pretty complicated mathematics in our modelling ( I remember using a three page equation to describe a simple consumption function in my econometrics final) but there are even more value judgements involved that mean that it's not really 'mechanistic' or scientific in the end. Any subject where you constantly resort to the phrase 'ceteris paribus' {all other things being equal} shouldn't get too proud of itself .

Likewise, my Masters is in Museum Curation, a mix of history, conservation techniques, archaeology et al. Again, a 'soft' subject and, altho' some of it uses 'real' science, by no means a discipline devoid of interpretation and 'creative' thinking (there's a standing joke that whenever someone in the profession doesn't know what something is for it is labelled 'ritualistic' ROFL).

Admittedly what I do for a living now is much more grounded in verifiable facts (my third profession is a mix of software and electrical engineering as I design control systems for the National Grid) but, as you can see, I hope, from the above, my educational and career 'roots' are in similar soil to the Sociologists and Psychologists and I know an awful lot of people whose jobs are in these areas (including, as I noted, a practising psychologist). So I'm not being dismissive or 'evil' about these disciplines, I just know to be careful about what 'weight' I assign to any assertions that come out of them.