The Facts about Spanking - Science shows...

[Tez3]

To be a teacher here you had to go to teacher training college for about four years and really learn how to teach, now you go to university, study any subject then do a few weeks teacher training. Often teaching is seen as a last resort job for graduates who don't get any other job.

One thing I notice at work and in manyother workplaces is the role of consultants and experts who are brought in to tell people who have been doing the job for years how to do their job, this has also spilled out into health and parenting. There are a myriad of experts out there telling you how to raise your children and they are very good at inducing guilt in parents so that the latest fads in child rearing and education are followed. Parents feel they can no longer follow their instincts on how to raise their children because the experts are telling them they know nothing while they themselves are making a fortune! Parents want to do their best for their children but there is so much advice coming at them, it is really difficult to know what to do for the best and with the threat of social workers interfering and the thought of losing your children it's all becoming too much.

 

[granfire]

What if everyone really was special? Wouldn't it be harder to hurt them or kill them or lock them up in a rape cage? What if the collective effect of violence toward the young was to devalue us in our own eyes? Would you notice this if everyone around you felt the same?

what?
If everybody was special they would be not special.....

I am kinda not seeing the violence spin...

 

[Makalakumu]

what?
If everybody was special they would be not special.....

I am kinda not seeing the violence spin...

LOL! I think I hit Terminal-Hippie with that question.

Still, ever wonder what society would look like if people not only believed that they mattered? That's what I mean by special. How many people look the other way because they think that it (that they) don't matter? Maybe THAT is the price of violence?

 

[elder999]

This video shows some of the most recent scientific studies regarding spanking. As martial artists many of us teach to use force as an absolute last resort, yet children are regularly beaten without any other options being explored. Think about how spanking affects our lives and our society based on this research. Is it worth it?

Science proves that climate triggers wars.

Science proves this is the saddest movie scene ever. (I dunno-this was pretty sad, but I'd still go with Ol' Yeller. :lfao: )

Science proves that men lie more than women.

Science proves that a hot car can get men dates. (Duh!)

Science proves God;and Creationism is nonsense. :lfao:

Science proves chicken came first

Seriously, John. This is correlation, not causation, in almost every study cited by the video. I mean, 10 pages, and I don't think anyone else has said it, so I will:Of course more aggressive, socially maladjusted, poorly performing children were spanked-because they were more aggressive, socially maladjusted poor performers.

It's kind of a "I see trees of blue," what a wonderful world kind of thought, but I'll just refer back to my original post to this thread. :lfao:

 

[Makalakumu]

And yet your post is the 12^2 posts into this trainwreck.

Of course more aggressive, socially maladjusted, poorly performing children were spanked-because they were more aggressive, socially maladjusted poor performers.

I DON'T CARE, I REALLY DON'T, I MEAN IT, I DON'T.

:uhyeah:

 

[elder999]

And yet your post is the 12^2 posts into this trainwreck.



View attachment 15386

I DON'T CARE, I REALLY DON'T, I MEAN IT, I DON'T.

:uhyeah:

With a clear divide between those who support "spanking," and those who don't.

Disclaimer: No minds were changed by the content of this thread.

:lfao:

 

[granfire]

LOL! I think I hit Terminal-Hippie with that question.

Still, ever wonder what society would look like if people not only believed that they mattered? That's what I mean by special. How many people look the other way because they think that it (that they) don't matter? Maybe THAT is the price of violence?

Interesting...

Seems that the society as a whole runs smoother without the precious syndrome. Though on the down side it seems that the willingness to take life is then greater, too...

I am just getting more of the 'I am special and you suck' vibe.

 

[Makalakumu]

With a clear divide between those who support "spanking," and those who don't.

Disclaimer: No minds were changed by the content of this thread.

:lfao:

They usually aren't. Speaking for myself, it usually takes time for me to change my mind. Time and discussions like these.

 

[Makalakumu]

Interesting...

Seems that the society as a whole runs smoother without the precious syndrome. Though on the down side it seems that the willingness to take life is then greater, too...

I am just getting more of the 'I am special and you suck' vibe.

I hope I'm not giving that off. I hope that in the future, people can find more value in themselves and what they do. I think it will lead to a more peaceful society, but we will have to negotiate more.

 

[Makalakumu]

This is correlation, not causation, in almost every study cited by the video.

Correlation does not equal causation...until it does. When does this happen? How would a person know it? How can you show this to other people?

Does research incorrectly tie these two together? Yes, a lot of it does. Do these two things ever truly belong together? Yes, much of the time.

 

[elder999]

Correlation does not equal causation...until it does. When does this happen? How would a person know it? How can you show this to other people?

Does research incorrectly tie these two together? Yes, a lot of it does. Do these two things ever truly belong together? Yes, much of the time.

Well, I'm gonna stick with the obvious. The maladjusted, socially inept, aggressive, less-intelligent, adults were spanked as children because they were maladjusted, socially inept, aggressive and less intelligent-not the other way around.

They were spanked because they were rotten. They didn't become rotten because they were spanked. Can you prove otherwise? :lfao:

 

[Makalakumu]

Well, I'm gonna stick with the obvious. The maladjusted, socially inept, aggressive, less-intelligent, adults were spanked as children because they were maladjusted, socially inept, aggressive and less intelligent-not the other way around.

They were spanked because they were rotten. They didn't become rotten because they were spanked. Can you prove otherwise? :lfao:

Actually, some of the research originally cited shows that spanking makes rotten behavior worse!

But back to my questions. How do you know when correlation = causation? How do you tell other people about this?

 

[elder999]

But back to my questions. How do you know when correlation = causation? How do you tell other people about this?

Well, that's one of the fundamental issues of the scientific method, isn't it. I mean, bottom line, you don't know. Causation itself cannot be determined, and therefore there is no determinant for anything but correlation, other than the counterfactual. What you're asking, then, is that everyone make a counterfactual experiment of their child-rearing, and not spank, and prove that it makes their children "better." This is ludicrous on several levels, the least of which being that we usually wind up parenting as we were parented, some for better, some for worse. That cycle will not be broken, unless, like my wife, you elect not to have children.

As a small kid, I'd often ask my dad where we were going, and he'd reply "You'll find out when we get there." Playfully, looking back on it-he wanted me to be able to figure out where we were going, and would be delighted when I knew from landmarks and signs. I didn't really enjoy it, though-I was something of an anxious child-and promised myself I'd never respond to my children that way.

Imagine my surprise when my three year old son asked where we were going, and I replied, almost in my father's voice:You'll find out when we get there.

 

[Makalakumu]

Well, that's one of the fundamental issues of the scientific method, isn't it. I mean, bottom line, you don't know. Causation itself cannot be determined, and therefore there is no determinant for anything but correlation, other than the counterfactual. What you're asking, then, is that everyone make a counterfactual experiment of their child-rearing, and not spank, and prove that it makes their children "better." This is ludicrous on several levels, the least of which being that we usually wind up parenting as we were parented, some for better, some for worse. That cycle will not be broken, unless, like my wife, you elect not to have children.

As a small kid, I'd often ask my dad where we were going, and he'd reply "You'll find out when we get there." Playfully, looking back on it-he wanted me to be able to figure out where we were going, and would be delighted when I knew from landmarks and signs. I didn't really enjoy it, though-I was something of an anxious child-and promised myself I'd never respond to my children that way.

Imagine my surprise when my three year old son asked where we were going, and I replied, almost in my father's voice:You'll find out when we get there.

My wife and I are currently engaged in research methods classes for doctoral level graduate work, so I get the chance to read lots of research. Are we wasting our time? Can correlation ever be shown to "possibly" link with causation? As I understand the subject, the answer is affirmative, however this linkage will never be proven 100%. There is always some question.

That said when a body of research begins to show a connection can you dismiss that research on the premise that correlation does not equal causation? Does not that also dismiss most research altogether?

When do you decide that there might be a connection between the two?

 

[elder999]

When do you decide that there might be a connection between the two?

When you've experimented and demonstrated the counterfactual-in this case, have two groups of kids-one gets spanked, the other gets "Barneyed," and track the results throught adulthood. While there can be a linkage between correlation and causation, in the case of these studies, there is no way of determining such. While correlation is necessary-it will be present when there is causation, naturally-it is a hint of sorts, that we're on the right track, and further research is necessary to determine causation.

An example: obesity rates are at an all time high in the U.S. Atmospheric CO2 is also at an all time high. High CO2 causes obesity.

I'm sticking with the more logical conclusion from all those studies: rotten kids get spanked. Rotten kids become more rotten kids. " Spanking" doesn't make rotten kids-rotten kids get spanked. Prove otherwise.

 

[Makalakumu]

When you've experimented and demonstrated the counterfactual-in this case, have two groups of kids-one gets spanked, the other gets "Barneyed," and track the results throught adulthood. While there can be a linkage between correlation and causation, in the case of these studies, there is no way of determining such. While correlation is necessary-it will be present when there is causation, naturally-it is a hint of sorts, that we're on the right track, and further research is necessary to determine causation.

An example: obesity rates are at an all time high in the U.S. Atmospheric CO2 is also at an all time high. High CO2 causes obesity.

I'm sticking with the more logical conclusion from all those studies: rotten kids get spanked. Rotten kids become more rotten kids. " Spanking" doesn't make rotten kids-rotten kids get spanked. Prove otherwise.

It goes back to the original research, which I'm reading at this moment. Can you analyze the methodology and explain how it is unsound? The methodologies used are being used in other forms of social sciences and have apparently been used to draw conclusions in the past. When does one throw up their hands and rely on opinions of people who are so deep into the details of a field that you can't really even peer into it from the outside? On a personal level, I am totally GUILTY of commenting strongly on things in which I probably don't understand very well. It's an area of personal growth for me. I need to check my ego sometimes...big time.

 

[Sukerkin]

On a personal level, I am totally GUILTY of commenting strongly on things in which I probably don't understand very well. It's an area of personal growth for me. I need to check my ego sometimes...big time.

We'll all stand in line with you on that one as we all do that on occasion, good sir - as long as we know it and try to rein ourselves in when we can then that's the best we can do :bows:.

Sometimes we can't constrain our 'rampantly passionate fingers' {that sounds so wrong :lol:} but one of the great things about the circle of people we have here at MT is that if you own up to it when you've gotten a bit too hot under the collar then that soothes an awful lot of ruffled feathers. That's been my experience at least. More than one poster here has earned great respect from me for forgiving my transgressions :nods:.

 

[elder999]

It goes back to the original research, which I'm reading at this moment. Can you analyze the methodology and explain how it is unsound? The methodologies used are being used in other forms of social sciences and have apparently been used to draw conclusions in the past. When does one throw up their hands and rely on opinions of people who are so deep into the details of a field that you can't really even peer into it from the outside? On a personal level, I am totally GUILTY of commenting strongly on things in which I probably don't understand very well. It's an area of personal growth for me. I need to check my ego sometimes...big time.

Well, a look at some of the sources, like this one , reveals them to be more than a little agenda driven. Problem #1 in science: letting a foregone conclusion drive your data. I worked with a physicist who'll remain nameless, but one of the nicknames I gave him was "badscience." On more than one occasion he wasted days of time at the accelerator because he refused to investigate a particular avenue,(I just can't see that) that later proved to be the correct course of action. This is particular pitfall is more prevalent in sociological and so-called soft sciences than anywhere else. There was

Then, look at possible methodologies: you can't always get day to day observation of developing children (were they spanked, how many times per quarter, for what) so you go to prisons, and interview criminals:Were you spanked? How much? What for? Did it make you stop?. 1st off, of course, your pool consists of criminals: we already know they didn't turn out well, and we also have no reason to rely upon their veracity. Correlation, again, but a faulty conclusion of causation. Likwewise, when you interview non-criminals, there would be a broad spectrum of responses, none of which we could necessarily trust the veracity of. And so on.....

For the record, I didn't have much occasion to spank either of my kids. I got spanked myself, but not often enough that I'm mentally scarred by it or anything.

 

[Makalakumu]

That's what tools like meta-analysis are for. They look for broad trends rather than a select group of studies.

Regarding agenda driven science, well, if we don't consider this, there isn't much to talk about. Agendas are subjective and ubiquitous and I have no clue how they will ever all be rooted out.

Social science is tough to do. It usually takes and an unusually large consensus to claim anything. In regards to spanking, this consensus is a good forty years in the making. Like I said before, my mother learned about this in her classes 25 years ago.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[granfire]

That's what tools like meta-analysis are for. They look for broad trends rather than a select group of studies.

Regarding agenda driven science, well, if we don't consider this, there isn't much to talk about. Agendas are subjective and ubiquitous and I have no clue how they will ever all be rooted out.

Social science is tough to do. It usually takes and an unusually large consensus to claim anything. In regards to spanking, this consensus is a good forty years in the making. Like I said before, my mother learned about this in her classes 25 years ago.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

Then again, 25 years ago the children subjected to the experiment of anti- authoritarian rearing came of age and noted on many occasions how hard it was for them to accept boundaries as an adult....consensus of psychologists at the time: Fail.