VEGANGELICA

Freebase Dali,

My method of understanding reality is to use my feelings and personal experiences as well as the body of knowledge acquired through science. I feel it is very possible to use statistics *and* raise one's child using what one feels is the best method.

Data do not lie (unless a researcher fudged them), but *interpretations* of data can be incorrect or hasty when people do not understand the limitations of the data. One common error, for example, is to forget that "correlation does not equal causation." With respect to spanking, this means that data on the bad outcomes of spanking do not necessarily mean those outcomes are *caused* by the spanking itself. Robust studies try to control for other factors and try to make sure research subjects are of the same income level, ethnicity, etc. When I read of studies by researchers who know the limitations of their data and conclude that spanking is a serious risk factor for many problems, the scientist in me is strongly persuaded that spanking harms beyond the pain experienced at that moment by the child...and I argue based on my emotion and feelings about human rights that this pain IS harm in and of itself, and thus should be avoided.

I fear you are throwing out a wonderful source of human knowledge when you do not appear to value scientific data, which provide a vast and wonderful understanding of how reality works, an understanding much greater than what we can see with our own minds and our own limited experiences.

Freebase, I always read your posts very carefully and appreciate that you think through things carefully as well. Plus, as you know, I have great respect for your musical ability and knowledge. I am not involved professionally in music like you are (if I recall correctly), and so cannot give good and clear musical production advice like you can, but I *am* in the science profession, and so with that background I offer to you the following article, which I find to be a very fair assessment of the state of research on spanking and its problems:

Straus, M.A., and E.M. Douglas (2008) "Research on spanking by parents: implications for public policy." The Family Psychologist: Bulletin of the Division of Family Psychology (43) 24:12-20.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP78%2...0-%20CP-08.pdf

Forgive me, Toretorden, if you or someone else cited this article already! I did try to read through most of the posts before I first added one, but I can't remember now if this article was mentioned in detail.

The conclusion is that governments and health organizations have an ethical duty, based on the research, to institute policies that educate parents never to use corporal punishment (punishment that causes pain but not lasting physical damage). I agree with this conclusion due to my "gut" feeling that punishing a child using pain is wrong, due to the experiences I've had as a child and parent, *and* due to the research.

Reading back through the posts in this thread, I hear several times people voicing the view that parents who use corporal punishment (causing their children pain but not physical damage) "don't like to do it/aren't happy doing it." Similarly, FB, you described how your mother, a victim of abuse, was not allowed by your father to spank you and your siblings. If spanking were not a traumatic, troubling behavior, then I suspect people would not feel troubled using it. If spanking is so healthy and helpful and distinct from abuse, then there should be no reason to prevent a victim of abuse from being the one who spanks children.

--Veg

__________________

Liljagare

As a Swede and working in the school system, I think that hitting a child honestly makes
no sense. Look what happens if you hit a dog everytime it does something wrong..over time it will build up either extremely aggresive traits or it will be prone to fits of violence. Why people do not think that this same outcome can happen to children is beyond me..

In Sweden, children are treated very well. 18 month maternity leave for parents to stay with their kids, fathers who are encouraged to be actively involved in their lives, children who have a right to be involved in everything from parent/teacher conferences to their own education, free university education (even for people who aren't even Swedes). Laws within Sweden are active in their protection of children and enforcement of childrens rights (and of course there is the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child). But I think it is mainly in the culture itself..to beat a child is considered inhumane/disgusting in our culture. You will rarely see a child screamed at in Sweden and never see a child beaten (and if that ever happens, a quick call to the police and the beater is arrested and thrown in jail). Teacher training here is very psychologically focused and more focus is given to the child's overall wellbeing
rather than how to increase overall grades and streamline education.Although we do not have the number one education system in the world, it is very good and most people here are quite happy with it. (Sorry, went a bit off the topic with that one but I think it is important to the understanding
of the overall view Swedes have towards children).

I cannot say this is a perfect culture and that not beating by itself ends violence. We have violence in Sweden..not to the extreme that countries like the US has (such as if there is a rape/murder, it usually makes headlines in the national papers) but we have our own share. But I think that corporal punishment does reinforce negative actions or cover them up rather than deal with the problem itself. It also can create a pattern of violence in the family itself (such as the thought "I grew up fine and I was beaten therefore it is okay to beat my kids"). And how does smacking a three year old honestly make one feel better? What ripple effect can that one smack have?

FETCHER.

i understand what you two above me are saying, completely agree with it aswell if im being honest.
BUT
at the same time, i was smacked as a child, not to the extremitys of the examples you's have provided, the only time i can remember being smacked is when my dad smacked me once. that was it, only once. it was kinda painful, but i didnt cry. i dont think this has made me an agressive adult & i dont think my dad should have been arrested for it. i have never been screamed at by my mum & dad. & i was neverever beaten, that is a term i would use for physically punching & kicking, not a mere slap on your behind!
and i doubt anyone would have the heart to smack a three year old as they dont know any better. i was smacked because i knew i shouldnt have done what i did wrong!
enough of me going on anyways, i still agree that children shouldnt be smacked, but i dont think it causes such dramatic side effects, if any atall.

__________________

My Journal.
Last.Fm if your interested...

Liljagare

I think it is like this (at least from my point of view and to clarify my previous points about Sweden). From a Swede's point of view, if we okay smacking a kid, who is to draw the line between that and what is classifed as "violence"? To us, to smack a kid is violent. I used the three year old as an example because if you hit a ten year old, what makes it more worse to hit a three year old ? Also, if a person hits the child just once, and the behavior changes, then what would stop me from doing it again and again, because one has correlated the hit with "better behavior"...maybe even beating more because that might change the behavior even more dramatically. It is like smoking, you might think that one or two ciggaretes won't hurt you because you only do it once a month. But how many people only smoke only one or two cigarettes once a month?

If you feel you are doing wrong by smacking a child, regardless of age, then why do it? How do you know that that child will associate the smack with better behavior and who has the right to justify what is worth being hit over? How do we know it doesn't cause dramatic side effects? I don't think anyone truly knows..but I do know I like living in a society where I don't have to go around seeing children being beaten over things which can be easily corrected in other ways. There is an entire generation of children here who have never been smacked/beaten into knowing the difference between acceptable/unacceptable. And they seem to be doing pretty well. To me, smacking is just about loss of self control.

boo boo

Yeah, I'm sure the odds are good for you then, Mr. whiny emo kid who can't shut up about his bad relationships and chronic fear of vaginas.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Inuzuka Skysword

Holy ****, I see problems in this thread.

For one, anyone who claims that just beating a child will change their psychology is a bit nuts. If the beating does permanent physical brain damage or I guess just physical damage at all then I will agree with you. However, if you think that smacking a child on the rear with a belt in such a way that does not leave a permanent mark will change the person's psychology then that is where I completely disagree.

These "scientific statistics" are run by the same people that claim that our character is simply based on our influences. Bull****. Again, I pose the question why anyone does not desire to have the free will over our choices. Fatalism, or any sort of determinism, is a horrible belief that will in fact damage your psychology more than any physical discipline. These statistics would seem to suggest, if you believe in determinism, that how you are brought up is what makes who you are. That's right, you are just a collection of influences. Every choice you have ever made has not been yours. You are chained to everyone else for the rest of your existence. Great system of beliefs, isn't it?

Let me put it this way. My parents brought me up in a Christian home. They made me go to church. I loved reading the Bible. I loved being a Christian. At least, I loved being a Christian until he moment I chose not to be one. Statistics might possibly show that Christian parents who raise their children in a Christian home, will probably end up having Christian children. That is how you would look at the situation. That is because you look at humans in a collective sense. However, I look at the situation as if I, and all children, are individuals. I chose not to be a Christan for a reason just as the children who did become Christians chose to become Christians for some particular reason. Statistics ignore that part though. That part, being the very thing that makes humans "human."

Guybrush

Ehr, most of these statistics are based on scientific research which tries to follow a set of ideal criteria. One is that the research should be objective. Usually, you have two hypotheses (or more, but it's common to test two against eachother), one that f.ex says "recieving corporal punishment as child increases likelyhood of violent behaviour later in life" and one that says the opposite, "recieving corporal punishment does not increase likelyhood of violent behaviour". They are opposing hypotheses and evidence for one is evidence against the other.

A moment's thought should make it clear that you can't generalize these "people" as someone with an agenda or who taint their work with specific beliefs. The methodology aims to remove such human error from research.

First you have to understand a little statistics. First off, these studies don't say that any one particular event will have any kind of effect. The reason you have statistics to begin with is because you're working with a lot of people or observations in one go in order to see if the people who were beaten as kids are in general behaving differently from the people who were not and if so in what ways, different studies concentrating on different differences. According to this multitude of scientific publishings, there are differences.

(Strangely, noone here have yet criticized these publishings for being tainted by hidden variables or anything else which actually could be valid arguments.)

That's it for the articles and other than that, I would argue that things we experience in childhood shape us potentially stay with us for a long time.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Double X

Our character is based off of genetics and environment btw.

I do agree though that statistics mean nothing to the individual. Pancreatic cancer has a 85 percent mortality rate. Does that mean you have an 85% chance of dying? No, each situation differs. I certainly do not support physical discipline though, regardless of stats.

Arya Stark

Then bring up the child correctly, and you won't have a naughty child at all.

__________________

MB Journal.
Azucar y Especia. My blog.

Son of JayJamJah

Q: Is it possible that if a child has physical discipline used against them that they are more likely to be physically aggressive?

A: YES

Q: Is it possible that physical discipline can physically or emotionally hurt a child or create resentment?

A: YES

Q: Do you ever "want" to hit someone you love?

A: NO

Q: Is there ever a situation in the civilized world where physical discipline is used against adults?

A: YES, the death penalty

Q: Is it possible to raise a child successfully without using physical discipline?

A: YES

Q: Are you going to use physical discipline against your children?

A:

__________________
Me, Myself and I United as One

If you're posting in the music forums make sure to be thoughtful and expressive, if you're posting in the lounge ask yourself "is this something that adds to the conversation?" It's important to remember that a lot of people use each thread. You're probably not as funny or clever as you think, I know I'm not.

My Van Morrison Discography Thread