Spanking

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.

.

Right, should be legal
9
14%
Right, should be illegal
2
3%
Wrong, should be legal
12
18%
Wrong, should be illegal
14
21%
Garja should be spanked
29
44%
 
Total votes: 66

User avatar
Germany yemshi
Jaeger
Posts: 2311
Joined: Jun 3, 2015
ESO: yemshi
Location: Germany

Re: Spanking

Post by yemshi »

[spoiler=spoiler]
VooDoo_BoSs wrote:
momuuu wrote:
Show hidden quotes

You fail to read properly. It's possible to conclude with 95% certainty that there is a correlation between spanking and people being less succesful in life. That is not the same as saying spanking is per definition bad. You are therefore claiming you can conclude something based on something that does not warrant that conclusion. The problem here is that the basic language is forming a definitive barrier between you and actual understanding. I cannot solve this problem unfortunately. If you thinking "spanking being per definition bad" is equivalent to "spanking being correlated to people being less succesful in life" then you are simply doing a poor job at reading. The unfortunate result is that you somehow assume I am unable to understand statistics while I am very aware of the ins and outs of statistics.

Show hidden quotes

You simply didn't understand my point, again due to poor reading. You can not control for the case I outlined, because you would literally be checking the same thing. I have asked you how you would even check for this explanation and you have not provided an answer to that; probably because you cannot think of one, which is because there is no way to check for that. I will try to rephrase this once again, in the hopes that you understand the point:

It could be possible that bad parents end up struggling to raise their children and then elect to spank their children more often. If we assume that the goal of parenting is to have your children be succesful (analogous to what these studies do, although you could take different metrics in place of succesful if the studies would do the same thing) then children with bad parents would be less succesful by definition of bad parents. If we then measure unsuccesful children, children with bad parents, we find that unsuccesful children have been spanked more often. But then it's entirely possible to conclude that children are unsuccesful because they have bad parents and bad parents are more likely to spank their children. That doesn't mean the children being unsuccesful is causally connected to being spanked, as we can also conclude that them being unsuccesful is causally connected to them having bad parents, and being bad parents is correlated to spanking. So then the same two things we are measuring (succes and spanking) can be explained in two ways. In other words, we merely have a correlation and not a causation. It is literally impossible to correct for this statistically. Preferably you would account for bad parents in the measurement, but bad parents is equivalent to kids being succesful. In other words, to correct for this you would have to correct the correlation between children being succesful and being spanked for children being succesful and being spanked, which obviously leads to no result.

This is logic, not misunderstanding of statistics or of the researches conducted. I'm logically showing that you can't draw any other conclusion than that spanking and being less succesful in life are correlated. Yet, you want to claim that being spanked causes children to be less succesful in life is a fact. This is not a fact, this is the belief that one explanation for the correlation is correct based on no evidence. It would be equally legitemate to favor the other explanation based on the information that you have provided.

Show hidden quotes

Yes, they are. You don't understand how science or statistics work.

Show hidden quotes

Please read my post again and educate yourself about correlation and causation.

Show hidden quotes

The difference here is in behaviour versus physical processes. Behaviour is, by nature, very different and the same thing might affect behaviour differently. The differences in how the human body works from human to human are far smaller, and thus a correlation between two things provides a much stronger evidence. Add to that that smoking is smoking, yet there are different ways to spank a child in different circumstances.

Show hidden quotes

How would one show the positive single case effect of spanking? To do so, one would have to seperate two twins, somehow make them showcase the exact same behaviour and punish them differently once, to then raise them equally and then, hypothetically, you can state if spanking was positive. But this seems practically impossible.

For your lack of 'imagination': Imagine a child growing up in an environment that might easily put them on a bad path in life. Imagine a parent that is not great at verbally adjusting the behaviour of this kid, but does have to ability to spank his child at times of very bad behaviour. This spanking could potentially learn the child a lesson that he wouldn't have learned otherwise (as the parent would have been unable to teach the child this lesson otherwise) which could make the difference between the child completing school and the child dropping out of school and becoming a criminal. This scenario can logically exist and there are many more hypothetical scenarios in which spanking can have a positive effect on the life of a child. Again, it's impossible to measure this, as you can't create two realities, but it is a possibly truth.

I have not honestly presented a view about spanking at all; you have failed to read comprehensively if you think so. I have only stated that, given all the evidence provided, it is possible that spanking can have a positive effect on a life, and that it is impossible to conclude that spanking is always a bad thing to do.

Show hidden quotes

Again, the data proves that there is a correlation between spanking and children having a less succesful life. That is not the same as that "the data proves quite consequentially that spanking your children will negatively affect their life." Sure, you can conclude that, but then you're reaching an incorrect conclusion. That's fine by me. We can argue non-stop about this, if you please, although I can assure you that I will give up after some amount of times where you fail to understand the evidence that you presented yourself.

I promise you that your children will remember that you beat them and will judge you by the standards of their adulthood.

This is an empty promise, as children will remember and judge many things by the standard of their adulthood. If you are trying to say, as a promise, that a child will judge his parents negatively for spanking them, then I can promise you that this does not have to be the case. I happen to be one of those childs that doesn't judge his parents negatively for spanking me but rather is grateful for them skewing my behaviour in a positive direction.

I please beg of you to show understanding of statistics in your next post. I know it's common to instantly assume that any scientific research is 'fact', but if you were taught to think critically you should be more aware of the shortcomings of scientific research and how it is in reality often very far from fact. You should have been taught to discriminate between correlation and causation properly.


You have no idea how statistics work.

I have, literally, a degree in mathematics & statistics (Bachelor's).

There are thousands of free courses online on statistics and scientific method. You keep talking about how you can't "control" for those factors - you can and that is the whole point of statistics. What you are referring to are called "confounding variables".

What is more likely, that ALL of these scientific studies are wrong and momuu is right, or that momuu is wrong and people who have decades and millions of dollars to research this complicated issue may be right.

I think it takes enormous arrogance to say they are all wrong and you are right.


What did you say? @gibson[/spoiler]
Bhutan jgals
Lancer
Posts: 578
Joined: Feb 2, 2018
ESO: OstiferButthole
Location: USA

Re: Spanking

Post by jgals »

has this really become so much of a dad game that we have this topic on the discussion site as "hot" right now?
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Spanking

Post by momuuu »

@VooDoo_BoSs are you actually a troll?

If you are right, its very easy to pick apart all my arguments. Thats how they are constructed. If you understood statistics that well, you wouldnt have to back up in the safety of 'how smart you are' and how 'I am opposing researches' while in fact there is a great deal of nuance in my post. I don't know what to say otherwise.

The response to a logically deductive post that I constructed with a very nuanced post is that you are smarter than me. At that point there's not even something to argue against.

Theres a simple question: how do you statistically account for the correlation being inversed in cause? How can you claim it is the one way around and not the other way around?
User avatar
Netherlands edeholland
ESOC Community Team
Donator 01
Posts: 5033
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: edeholland
GameRanger ID: 4053888
Clan: ESOC

Re: Spanking

Post by edeholland »

jgals wrote:has this really become so much of a dad game that we have this topic on the discussion site as "hot" right now?

Feel free to make a thread or post in the AoE3 section. This section is about other stuff.
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Spanking

Post by lejend »

-
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Spanking

Post by Goodspeed »

Jerom wrote:For one, how would you solve the possibility that you're inverting causes. Bad parents will see their kids be less succesful (which seems the only appropriate metric to determine bad parenting). But it seems entirely plausible that bad parents spank their kids more often.
One way would be to also give the parents a general "parenting score" based on other questions you ask about their parenting. Then you can see whether people who were spanked but had good parents otherwise are also exhibiting significantly more of the negative behaviours than people who weren't spanked. I don't know if any of these studies did this because I didn't read them, but to assume that they overlooked this fairly obvious factor is very probably not giving them enough credit. You're also giving yourself way too much credit. You aren't just smarter than the people who studied this issue, you are so much smarter that, when you find a potential issue in their study that you yourself aren't able to solve within the 5 minutes you spent thinking about it, it must be impossible to solve. That's how brilliant and intuitive you are. You don't even need to know anything about the subject or read any of the studies, you only need to see the conclusion they drew and you immediately know exactly what they did wrong.

Try and look at this from an outsider's perspective. On the one hand we see 100 studies that draw the same conclusion, on the other we see Jerom, an aspiring physicist and infamous keyboard warrior who claims to know better than all of them. How do you think you're coming across?

Besides, if you are assuming that it is more likely for bad parents to spank their child then you are indirectly assuming that spanking is bad parenting. So what you're doing is trying to discredit a study that found spanking is bad parenting based on the assumption that it's right. :hmm:
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Spanking

Post by momuuu »

Goodspeed wrote:
Jerom wrote:For one, how would you solve the possibility that you're inverting causes. Bad parents will see their kids be less succesful (which seems the only appropriate metric to determine bad parenting). But it seems entirely plausible that bad parents spank their kids more often.
One way would be to also give the parents a general "parenting score" based on other questions you ask about their parenting. Then you can see whether people who were spanked but had good parents otherwise are also exhibiting significantly more of the negative behaviours than people who weren't spanked. I don't know if any of these studies did this because I didn't read them, but to assume that they overlooked this fairly obvious factor is very probably not giving them enough credit. And yeah, to assume that this factor is impossible to control for just because you couldn't think of how in the 5 minutes you spent thinking about it, and then ignoring hundreds of studies based on it, is indeed enormously arrogant.

Besides, if you are assuming that it is more likely for bad parents to spank their child then you are indirectly assuming that spanking is bad parenting. So what you're doing is trying to discredit a study that found spanking is bad parenting based on the assumption that it's right. :hmm:

As for the former response: I would say the quality of parenting is defined by the result of the parenting. To me the research can be rephrased as looking at the correlation between bad parenting and spanking. And it is in fact impossible to account for the correlation itself, isnt it?

As for the latter argument: you missed the point I made entirely. Maybe it was my phrasing, or maybe your reading, or both, but you did fail to understand it. The first sentence of this paragraph: "Besides, if you are assuming that it is more likely for bad parents to spank their child then you are directly assuming that spanking is bad parenting" misses the point quite badly.

First of all, there is no "assuming". Theres only stating a possible explanation for a correlation without upholding any claims of truth. The problem is that you miss the subtle point: parents that are likely to do a bad job raising their childs because they are not good at it, will do a poor job regardless of if they spank or not. It could be possible those parents are much more likely to spank their children. Thus the group of children with unskilled parents is overrepresented in the group of children that got spanked. Possibly spanking could still have a positive or neutral effect on children, given this explanation. This explanation, if measured, would lead to the same result as "parents who spank are bad parents".

So basically, two theories (bad parents are more likely to spank and parents who spank are bad parents) should lead to the exact same correlation between children who were spanked and children who were succesful in life. I am not contesting the correlation itself at all and thus not actually contesting the research. I am not proposing that my conclusion is more true (I am not sure about this subject at all). All I am saying is that the data provided does not warrant a conclusion: a correlation can almost always be explained both ways.

For example, a research once concluded that there is a correlation between eating meat and being aggressive. You can claim that that is because eating meat makes you aggressive, or because those that more aggressive people socially prefer to eat more meat. The correlation is fact, the conclusion is opinion. This is basic logic, I dont understand how I am contesting researches that simply state a correlation by stating that that correlation doesnt warrant decisive conclusions.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Spanking

Post by Goodspeed »

I would say the quality of parenting is defined by the result of the parenting. To me the research can be rephrased as looking at the correlation between bad parenting and spanking. And it is in fact impossible to account for the correlation itself, isnt it?
Not if you measure the quality of parenting outside of the spanking. The result of the parenting isn't the only way to measure its quality. It's a great way to do it, sure, unless what you are researching is whether a specific part of the parenting had a specific result.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Spanking

Post by momuuu »

Goodspeed wrote:
I would say the quality of parenting is defined by the result of the parenting. To me the research can be rephrased as looking at the correlation between bad parenting and spanking. And it is in fact impossible to account for the correlation itself, isnt it?
Not if you measure the quality of parenting outside of the spanking. The result of the parenting isn't the only way to measure its quality. It's a great way to do it, sure, unless what you are researching is whether a specific part of the parenting had a specific result.

I mean, I would agree that parenting could have different goals, as that's a subjective matter. So then to measure the effectiveness of parenting one would have to measure the degree to which that goal is reached, so that you can subjectively call parenting good. But then the researches that wonder if spanking is a good or bad parenting practise should probably change their way to measure that too.

That's a more basic defense of parenting with regards to that research. I could contest the goal of being "succesful" as the primary goal of parenting. Maybe I prefer to raise my children "kind and happy". But then to determine if spanking is good or bad parenting (and thus go further than the simple correlation), one would have to rephrase that research. Basically the research just attempts to quantify "good parenting" as "being succesful in life", so if you state that "good parenting" isn't the same as "being succesful in life" then you're refuting the initial research to begin with.

I guess in the end the result is that you can't determine if spanking is bad parenting or good parenting. You can determine that the same quality of parenting with spanking involved leads to being less succesful, but then by definition you have assumed that spanking does not affect the quality of parenting. You thus can't determine or conclude if spanking is good or bad parenting. In my former arguments I explictly made the assumption that good parenting leads to a child being more succesful. If you take any other definition of good parenting, that means this research cannot provide a conclusion as to whether spanking is good or bad parenting.

By the way, if you would measure the quality of spanking as "how happy a child turns out" then I would intuitively feel that childs that turned out to be equally happy but were spanked in their youth would actually turn out to be more happy. That's intuition and speculation based on what I'd subjectively feel like the effects of spanking are.
User avatar
Australia VooDoo_BoSs
Dragoon
Posts: 254
Joined: Jul 7, 2016
ESO: VooDoo_BoSs
Location: Australia

Re: Spanking

Post by VooDoo_BoSs »

momuuu wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:
I would say the quality of parenting is defined by the result of the parenting. To me the research can be rephrased as looking at the correlation between bad parenting and spanking. And it is in fact impossible to account for the correlation itself, isnt it?
Not if you measure the quality of parenting outside of the spanking. The result of the parenting isn't the only way to measure its quality. It's a great way to do it, sure, unless what you are researching is whether a specific part of the parenting had a specific result.

I mean, I would agree that parenting could have different goals, as that's a subjective matter. So then to measure the effectiveness of parenting one would have to measure the degree to which that goal is reached, so that you can subjectively call parenting good. But then the researches that wonder if spanking is a good or bad parenting practise should probably change their way to measure that too.

That's a more basic defense of parenting with regards to that research. I could contest the goal of being "succesful" as the primary goal of parenting. Maybe I prefer to raise my children "kind and happy". But then to determine if spanking is good or bad parenting (and thus go further than the simple correlation), one would have to rephrase that research. Basically the research just attempts to quantify "good parenting" as "being succesful in life", so if you state that "good parenting" isn't the same as "being succesful in life" then you're refuting the initial research to begin with.

I guess in the end the result is that you can't determine if spanking is bad parenting or good parenting. You can determine that the same quality of parenting with spanking involved leads to being less succesful, but then by definition you have assumed that spanking does not affect the quality of parenting. You thus can't determine or conclude if spanking is good or bad parenting. In my former arguments I explictly made the assumption that good parenting leads to a child being more succesful. If you take any other definition of good parenting, that means this research cannot provide a conclusion as to whether spanking is good or bad parenting.

By the way, if you would measure the quality of spanking as "how happy a child turns out" then I would intuitively feel that childs that turned out to be equally happy but were spanked in their youth would actually turn out to be more happy. That's intuition and speculation based on what I'd subjectively feel like the effects of spanking are.


.... congratulations. This is the most ridiculous thing that has ever been posted on eso-community. The research points to specific indicators like anti-social behaviour, IQ scores, depression, anxiety, prevalence of spousal abuse, etc, yet this is somehow a subjective "success" measure.

@Goodspeed - I think it's time to let this one go.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Spanking

Post by Goodspeed »

@momuuu They are studying whether spanking a child has specific (negative) behavioural and mental health consequences. It's not some broad measurement of whether the kid is "good" or "bad".

If I have this straight, you are arguing that these specific behavioural and mental health consequences are more of a general result of bad parenting. Then you're arguing that bad parents may be more likely to spank their child which questions whether this is a causal relationship. Right?

My point is that one way to control for this is to measure the quality of parenting outside of the spanking. A concrete example might help:
Family A: Parents are alcoholics, always fighting. They hit kid A if he doesn't listen.
Family B: Parents are stable, take time for their kids. They hit kid B if he doesn't listen.
Family C: Parents are alcoholics, always fighting. They never hit kid C.
Family D: Parents are stable, take time for their kids. They never hit kid D.

Kids A and B turn out violent. Kids C and D don't. Does your problem still apply? No, because we have shown that specifically the spanking makes the kids violent.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Spanking

Post by Goodspeed »

VooDoo_BoSs wrote:This is the most ridiculous thing that has ever been posted on eso-community.
Such innocence ;) Have you met lejend?
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Spanking

Post by momuuu »

First of all, thank you goodspeed for responding to my arguments with substance. Clearly, the question at hand is if you can check for parents being good parents without equating good parents raising their kids to be succesful (by whatever metric of succes). I am happy to see we completely agree that this is the matter at hand and have so far found your arguments very reasonable.
I am disappointed to see that, unlike you, voodooboss backs up into ad hominems, wrongfully representing my arguments, claiming to have authority to the point where someone can't argue the opposite and in the process completely failing to respond to the arguments presented like an adult. I have openly showed the weakness in the argument, so it should have been really easy to respond with some substance. Again, unfortunate that you didn't, but fortunately we have goodspeed.

Goodspeed wrote:@momuuu They are studying whether spanking a child has specific (negative) behavioural and mental health consequences. It's not some broad measurement of whether the kid is "good" or "bad".

If I have this straight, you are arguing that these specific behavioural and mental health consequences are more of a general result of bad parenting. Then you're arguing that bad parents may be more likely to spank their child which questions whether this is a causal relationship. Right?

In essence, I believe that is indeed correct. What I am saying is that the result of the research should be checked for the explanation I provided: Bad parents, which would result in a worse "succes", could turn out to spank their children more often without the spanking actually affecting that succes. I have prefered to use the general word "succes" as the specific cases provoke more specific thoughts which I would happily discuss afterwards. Succes, whatever that subjectively might be, is in my opinion the ultimate goal of parenting. But all things considered: "Right?" yes.

My point is that one way to control for this is to measure the quality of parenting outside of the spanking. A concrete example might help:
Family A: Parents are alcoholics, always fighting. They hit kid A if he doesn't listen.
Family B: Parents are stable, take time for their kids. They hit kid B if he doesn't listen.
Family C: Parents are alcoholics, always fighting. They never hit kid C.
Family D: Parents are stable, take time for their kids. They never hit kid D.

Kids A and B turn out violent. Kids C and D don't. Does your problem still apply? No, because we have shown that specifically the spanking makes the kids violent.

The problem is that 'being stable, taking time for the kids' doesn't cover the entire quality of parenting. This opens up this reasoning for a similair construct that again undermines the causal relationship:
Parents that are stable and take time for their kids but are worse parents in other aspects are more likely to spank their children than parents that are in other aspects better. Then once again, the question is whether these kids turned out to be more succesful (again, I prefer to keep it generic if you would not mind) because they had better parents (with the spanking having literally no effect on this matter) or because they turned out to be more succesful because they were not spanked.
The problem we face here is that defining 'good parents' is extremely hard. I think you would agree that parents being stable and taking time for their kids is not a complete metric, which leaves this reasoning open to the same argumentation. The best way to define good parents is obviously that their kids are more succesful, but it is easy to recognise that we cannot use this metric as we would be checking if our correlation is correlated because of this exact correlation. So again, we need a different metric.

Now actually, I can think of a different measurement, similair to yours, that could determine the effect of spanking. Imagine if we somehow objectively mapped the parenting style, and then found a good group of parents that have similairly behaving children, and raised these children very similair save for a few instances of spanking. Then we could possibly determine these instances of spanking as statistically positive or negative. The problem is that to do this adequately in practise, you would need to map the way specific parents raise their children very elaborately for many parents to find enough reasonable 'matches' in parenting style. Even then, there might be subtle differences and of course the mapping would be rather subjective, but this would rule out (or confirm) my arguments. Or more specifically, I believe it would show a list of responses in certain specific scenarios that are better than spanking, and probably also a fair amount of responses that are worse than spanking. Whether that list would actually show responses that are better than spanking at all, or worse than spanking is something I can't conclude (basically, I am reluctant to say with certainty that spanking is either always inferior or always superior). In the ideal scenario, we could compare two dimensions where the exact same parents would respond exactly the same to scenarios, raising the same kids (say, genetically the same) and then have a few deviations where one group does spank and another does not spank. Then we would get very definitive results, especially if this could be repeated thousands of times. Obviously, we can't do this in reality unfortunately.

Anyways, while there are different viable research methods to discover more about the causes, I still can't see a way to do this within this type of research. The actual articles are too expensive for me to buy, but judging from the abstracts they did not actually find a way to take this explicit inverse of causes into account. Many of them don't actually draw conclusions, for example this comes from one of the abstracts: "Thirteen of 17 mean effect sizes were significantly different from zero and all indicated a link between spanking and increased risk for detrimental child outcomes." The results indicate a link, they don't prove it, they don't even provide a cause. That has been coming from voodoo boss instead, and is the only part which I am contesting.
France benj89
Howdah
Posts: 1509
Joined: Mar 11, 2015

Re: Spanking

Post by benj89 »

Take this with a grain of salt as I didn't fully read the studies (it would take couple hours, or days if you read the cited studies), just quickly checked their content for 30ish mins. You can get the articles by copy pasting the titles on google find the pdf format in the first few links, I found all of them that way. Two had to be downloaded. Besides the fact that there are pretty substantial limitations [spoiler=] "The primary limitation of these meta-analyses is their inability to causally link spanking with child outcomes. This is problematic because there is selection bias in who gets spanked— children with more behavior problems elicit more discipline generally and spanking in particular (Larzelere, Kuhn, & Johnson, 2004). Crosssectional designs do not allow the temporal ordering of spanking and child outcomes that could help rule out the selection bias explanation. As noted above, randomized experiments of spanking are difficult if not ethically impossible to conduct, and thus this shortcoming of the literature will be difficult to correct through future studies." [/spoiler] from what I quickly read, the two "meta analysis" come from the exact same person. Not only that, but what you described as "meta analysis", I counted about 15 reference to her own studies (about 2/3 of the total number of studies).
Basically, it seems like they have no way to control the fact that a kid who is more likely to cause trouble will get more spanked, yet they're pretty quick to say that because a kid is aggressive and all that because he got more spanked in their conclusion. Would need further readings to see if there is a clear bias here, but basically a mom won't spank her kids for no reason and they can't control that. Trying to get published and put science in the news to say that 80% of US household are raising their kids wrong?

Idk what to think at this point, surely read some weird stuff like using the number of spanking during the initial interview as one of the two main variables (wait to select over the top parents), I think reading different papers from different sources would be required to have a better idea of what research says which is prob what i'll do before having kids. From the old research mentioned in the last article, very few variables are controlled, they jump to conclusion pretty quick, the guy even goes to say this [spoiler=]WARNING: SPANKING HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE DANGEROUS TO THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF YOUR CHILD-DO NOT EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPANK OR HIT YOUR CHILD [/spoiler] back in 2001 while in one of the studies he mentions it was found that african american toddler benefited from spanking, because they did perceive it as a legitimate parental behavior. He then goes on to theorize that in that community no corporal punishement means no discipline at all because most use corp punishment (why not), but with the same logic you could discredit the research saying corporal punishment leads to more aggressivity because these parents use too much discipline and kids need to exteriorize. See, that’s what science comes down too, interpretation. Hence why I consider that until science becomes perfect (we have time), personal experiences on this thread are valuable. I'm sure there is some truth in the fact that ideally you don't want to touch your child though but whether that's possible for every child in every situation in order to keep them on the right path to face life; going as far as saying NEVER SPANK YOUR CHILD in your study, that I don't know.
Not even mentioning the fact that my econometrics/financial econometrics teachers always insisted on the manipulation of p values.
I could also mention that many of these studies consider very few variables and to solve that issue they use other studies with the variables they need that have themselves very few variables. So it's a mix of an approximative study with another one or two which then leads to not so obvious interpretations.
Anyway, just take research with a grain of salt and make up your own opinion based on that and experience.

Edit: the spoiler function doesn't work
Edit 2: I would go as far as arguing that considering the increasing rate of single/less at home parents in the West, that people don’t necessarily have the EQ and IQ to educate kids properly without resorting to spanking or “universal” behavior to adopt, prohibiting it would lead to more chaos in society in the short term. As for long term term, that’d be interesting to have radix point of view but he gave up on that discussion at the first contradiction
"Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, bait the hook with prestige." - Paul Graham
Bhutan jgals
Lancer
Posts: 578
Joined: Feb 2, 2018
ESO: OstiferButthole
Location: USA

Re: Spanking

Post by jgals »

lejend wrote:
edeholland wrote:
jgals wrote:has this really become so much of a dad game that we have this topic on the discussion site as "hot" right now?

Feel free to make a thread or post in the AoE3 section. This section is about other stuff.


I think he was saying that we are getting old. :santa:

Yup the aoe4 forums hot topics in off topic section will include posts like “get money fuck bitches” as we start. To debate parenting methods
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Spanking

Post by deleted_user »

Great discussion, everyone. I just want to say that somebody is reading those long posts you quarrelers have put so much effort into.
User avatar
Turkey HUMMAN
Lancer
Posts: 817
Joined: Apr 16, 2017
ESO: HUMMAN

Re: Spanking

Post by HUMMAN »

phpBB [video]
Image
User avatar
Australia VooDoo_BoSs
Dragoon
Posts: 254
Joined: Jul 7, 2016
ESO: VooDoo_BoSs
Location: Australia

Re: Spanking

Post by VooDoo_BoSs »

benj89 wrote:Take this with a grain of salt as I didn't fully read the studies (it would take couple hours, or days if you read the cited studies), just quickly checked their content for 30ish mins. You can get the articles by copy pasting the titles on google find the pdf format in the first few links, I found all of them that way. Two had to be downloaded. Besides the fact that there are pretty substantial limitations [spoiler=] "The primary limitation of these meta-analyses is their inability to causally link spanking with child outcomes. This is problematic because there is selection bias in who gets spanked— children with more behavior problems elicit more discipline generally and spanking in particular (Larzelere, Kuhn, & Johnson, 2004). Crosssectional designs do not allow the temporal ordering of spanking and child outcomes that could help rule out the selection bias explanation. As noted above, randomized experiments of spanking are difficult if not ethically impossible to conduct, and thus this shortcoming of the literature will be difficult to correct through future studies." [/spoiler] from what I quickly read, the two "meta analysis" come from the exact same person. Not only that, but what you described as "meta analysis", I counted about 15 reference to her own studies (about 2/3 of the total number of studies).
Basically, it seems like they have no way to control the fact that a kid who is more likely to cause trouble will get more spanked, yet they're pretty quick to say that because a kid is aggressive and all that because he got more spanked in their conclusion. Would need further readings to see if there is a clear bias here, but basically a mom won't spank her kids for no reason and they can't control that. Trying to get published and put science in the news to say that 80% of US household are raising their kids wrong?

Idk what to think at this point, surely read some weird stuff like using the number of spanking during the initial interview as one of the two main variables (wait to select over the top parents), I think reading different papers from different sources would be required to have a better idea of what research says which is prob what i'll do before having kids. From the old research mentioned in the last article, very few variables are controlled, they jump to conclusion pretty quick, the guy even goes to say this [spoiler=]WARNING: SPANKING HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE DANGEROUS TO THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF YOUR CHILD-DO NOT EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPANK OR HIT YOUR CHILD [/spoiler] back in 2001 while in one of the studies he mentions it was found that african american toddler benefited from spanking, because they did perceive it as a legitimate parental behavior. He then goes on to theorize that in that community no corporal punishement means no discipline at all because most use corp punishment (why not), but with the same logic you could discredit the research saying corporal punishment leads to more aggressivity because these parents use too much discipline and kids need to exteriorize. See, that’s what science comes down too, interpretation. Hence why I consider that until science becomes perfect (we have time), personal experiences on this thread are valuable. I'm sure there is some truth in the fact that ideally you don't want to touch your child though but whether that's possible for every child in every situation in order to keep them on the right path to face life; going as far as saying NEVER SPANK YOUR CHILD in your study, that I don't know.
Not even mentioning the fact that my econometrics/financial econometrics teachers always insisted on the manipulation of p values.
I could also mention that many of these studies consider very few variables and to solve that issue they use other studies with the variables they need that have themselves very few variables. So it's a mix of an approximative study with another one or two which then leads to not so obvious interpretations.
Anyway, just take research with a grain of salt and make up your own opinion based on that and experience.

Edit: the spoiler function doesn't work
Edit 2: I would go as far as arguing that considering the increasing rate of single/less at home parents in the West, that people don’t necessarily have the EQ and IQ to educate kids properly without resorting to spanking or “universal” behavior to adopt, prohibiting it would lead to more chaos in society in the short term. As for long term term, that’d be interesting to have radix point of view but he gave up on that discussion at the first contradiction


While no study can ever prove 100% causation (no study can prove that smoking leads to lung cancer, but the statistics can certainly suggest so), it can provide probabilities on the likelihood if confounding variables (what you keep referring to). EG. F-Test, P-Test - all of these provide <5% uncertainy interverals meaning the likelihood of the factors you provide are possible, but very low. Additionally, if it were true, then you should be able to find a study of a particular cohort showing that corp punishment = good outcomes. Additionally, the science is quite clear in that violence against children does impact how the brain is formed. In particular, grey matter, the hippocampus, etc, through the triggering of stress hormones. These changes would not occur normally.


Study 1
Harsh corporal punishment (HCP) was defined as frequent parental administration of corporal punishment (CP) for discipline, with occasional use of objects such as straps, or paddles. CP is linked to increased risk for depression and substance abuse. We examine whether long-term exposure to HCP acts as sub-traumatic stressor that contributes to brain alterations, particularly in dopaminergic pathways, which may mediate their increased vulnerability to drug and alcohol abuse. Nineteen young adults who experienced early HCP but no other forms of maltreatment and twenty-three comparable controls were studied. T2 relaxation time (T2-RT) measurements were performed with an echo planar imaging TE stepping technique and T2 maps were calculated and analyzed voxel-by-voxel to locate regional T2-RT differences between groups. Previous studies indicated that T2-RT provides an indirect index of resting cerebral blood volume. Region of interest (ROI) analyses were also conducted in caudate, putamen, nucleus accumbens, anterior cingulate cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, thalamus, globus pallidus and cerebellar hemispheres. Voxel-based relaxometry showed that HCP was associated with increased T2-RT in right caudate and putamen. ROI analyses also revealed increased T2-RT in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, substantia nigra, thalamus and accumbens but not globus pallidus or cerebellum. There were significant associations between T2-RT measures in dopamine target regions and use of drugs and alcohol, and memory performance. Alteration in the paramagnetic or hemodynamic properties of dopaminergic cell body and projection regions were observed in subjects with HCP, and these findings may relate to their increased risk for drug and alcohol abuse.


Study 2
Exposing children to harsh HCP may have detrimental effects on trajectories of brain development. However, it is also conceivable that differences in prefrontal cortical development may increase risk of exposure to HCP.


Study 3
We show here that subtle forms of maltreatment during infancy (below 1 year of age) have potential consequences for the functioning of the child’s adrenocortical response system. Infants who received frequent corporal punishment (e.g., spanking) showed high hormonal reactivity to stress (a repeated separation from mother, combined with the presence of a stranger). In addition, infants who experienced frequent emotional withdrawal by their mothers (either as a result of maternal depression, or mother’s strategic use of withdrawal as a control tactic) showed elevated baseline levels of cortisol. It was suggested that there are hormonal “costs” when mothers show response patterns (intentionally or unintentionally) that limit their utility as a means of buffering the child against stress. The hormonal responses shown by infants may alter the functioning of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis in ways that, if continued, may foster risk for immune disorders, sensitization to later stress, cognitive deficits, and social–emotional problems.


Study 4
The notion that negative childhood experiences can be sources of toxic stress that have short‐ and long‐term consequences for children's health and well‐being has gained increasing attention in recent years. The family environment can be a key source of stress, particularly when parents inflict pain on children; when that pain rises to the level of physical abuse the stress is thought to be toxic. In this article the author considers the possibility that nonabusive physical punishment may also constitute a source of toxic stress in the lives of children that affects their brain structure and functioning. The research linking physical abuse and physical punishment to children's brain structure and functioning is summarized, and the article concludes with a discussion of implications for future research, policy, and practice.


To conclude, I have two questions:

1) In showing a clear link between spanking and brain development, and a clear correlation between spanking and worse life outcomes, including IQ, anti-social behaviour, violence, criminal activity, depression, mental health issues, earning potential, etc. do you still believe that spanking your children will not negatively impact their life? How can you be sure? What are the odds that you are right and all of these scientists who have studied the topic in far more depth than us are wrong? Is everybody else doing it wrong but you are special and will do it right?
2) If the answer to 1) is yes, please explain to me how spanking is ever a viable alternative to the consequences of that child's negative behaviours. Using violence to force compliance in children doesn't make any sense from a scientific or evolutionary perspective.
User avatar
Croatia gryphoon94
Skirmisher
Posts: 199
Joined: Feb 22, 2017
ESO: GRYPHOON

Re: Spanking

Post by gryphoon94 »

VooDoo_BoSs wrote:
benj89 wrote:Take this with a grain of salt as I didn't fully read the studies (it would take couple hours, or days if you read the cited studies), just quickly checked their content for 30ish mins. You can get the articles by copy pasting the titles on google find the pdf format in the first few links, I found all of them that way. Two had to be downloaded. Besides the fact that there are pretty substantial limitations [spoiler=] "The primary limitation of these meta-analyses is their inability to causally link spanking with child outcomes. This is problematic because there is selection bias in who gets spanked— children with more behavior problems elicit more discipline generally and spanking in particular (Larzelere, Kuhn, & Johnson, 2004). Crosssectional designs do not allow the temporal ordering of spanking and child outcomes that could help rule out the selection bias explanation. As noted above, randomized experiments of spanking are difficult if not ethically impossible to conduct, and thus this shortcoming of the literature will be difficult to correct through future studies." [/spoiler] from what I quickly read, the two "meta analysis" come from the exact same person. Not only that, but what you described as "meta analysis", I counted about 15 reference to her own studies (about 2/3 of the total number of studies).
Basically, it seems like they have no way to control the fact that a kid who is more likely to cause trouble will get more spanked, yet they're pretty quick to say that because a kid is aggressive and all that because he got more spanked in their conclusion. Would need further readings to see if there is a clear bias here, but basically a mom won't spank her kids for no reason and they can't control that. Trying to get published and put science in the news to say that 80% of US household are raising their kids wrong?

Idk what to think at this point, surely read some weird stuff like using the number of spanking during the initial interview as one of the two main variables (wait to select over the top parents), I think reading different papers from different sources would be required to have a better idea of what research says which is prob what i'll do before having kids. From the old research mentioned in the last article, very few variables are controlled, they jump to conclusion pretty quick, the guy even goes to say this [spoiler=]WARNING: SPANKING HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE DANGEROUS TO THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF YOUR CHILD-DO NOT EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPANK OR HIT YOUR CHILD [/spoiler] back in 2001 while in one of the studies he mentions it was found that african american toddler benefited from spanking, because they did perceive it as a legitimate parental behavior. He then goes on to theorize that in that community no corporal punishement means no discipline at all because most use corp punishment (why not), but with the same logic you could discredit the research saying corporal punishment leads to more aggressivity because these parents use too much discipline and kids need to exteriorize. See, that’s what science comes down too, interpretation. Hence why I consider that until science becomes perfect (we have time), personal experiences on this thread are valuable. I'm sure there is some truth in the fact that ideally you don't want to touch your child though but whether that's possible for every child in every situation in order to keep them on the right path to face life; going as far as saying NEVER SPANK YOUR CHILD in your study, that I don't know.
Not even mentioning the fact that my econometrics/financial econometrics teachers always insisted on the manipulation of p values.
I could also mention that many of these studies consider very few variables and to solve that issue they use other studies with the variables they need that have themselves very few variables. So it's a mix of an approximative study with another one or two which then leads to not so obvious interpretations.
Anyway, just take research with a grain of salt and make up your own opinion based on that and experience.

Edit: the spoiler function doesn't work
Edit 2: I would go as far as arguing that considering the increasing rate of single/less at home parents in the West, that people don’t necessarily have the EQ and IQ to educate kids properly without resorting to spanking or “universal” behavior to adopt, prohibiting it would lead to more chaos in society in the short term. As for long term term, that’d be interesting to have radix point of view but he gave up on that discussion at the first contradiction


While no study can ever prove 100% causation (no study can prove that smoking leads to lung cancer, but the statistics can certainly suggest so), it can provide probabilities on the likelihood if confounding variables (what you keep referring to). EG. F-Test, P-Test - all of these provide <5% uncertainy interverals meaning the likelihood of the factors you provide are possible, but very low. Additionally, if it were true, then you should be able to find a study of a particular cohort showing that corp punishment = good outcomes. Additionally, the science is quite clear in that violence against children does impact how the brain is formed. In particular, grey matter, the hippocampus, etc, through the triggering of stress hormones. These changes would not occur normally.


Study 1
Harsh corporal punishment (HCP) was defined as frequent parental administration of corporal punishment (CP) for discipline, with occasional use of objects such as straps, or paddles. CP is linked to increased risk for depression and substance abuse. We examine whether long-term exposure to HCP acts as sub-traumatic stressor that contributes to brain alterations, particularly in dopaminergic pathways, which may mediate their increased vulnerability to drug and alcohol abuse. Nineteen young adults who experienced early HCP but no other forms of maltreatment and twenty-three comparable controls were studied. T2 relaxation time (T2-RT) measurements were performed with an echo planar imaging TE stepping technique and T2 maps were calculated and analyzed voxel-by-voxel to locate regional T2-RT differences between groups. Previous studies indicated that T2-RT provides an indirect index of resting cerebral blood volume. Region of interest (ROI) analyses were also conducted in caudate, putamen, nucleus accumbens, anterior cingulate cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, thalamus, globus pallidus and cerebellar hemispheres. Voxel-based relaxometry showed that HCP was associated with increased T2-RT in right caudate and putamen. ROI analyses also revealed increased T2-RT in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, substantia nigra, thalamus and accumbens but not globus pallidus or cerebellum. There were significant associations between T2-RT measures in dopamine target regions and use of drugs and alcohol, and memory performance. Alteration in the paramagnetic or hemodynamic properties of dopaminergic cell body and projection regions were observed in subjects with HCP, and these findings may relate to their increased risk for drug and alcohol abuse.


Study 2
Exposing children to harsh HCP may have detrimental effects on trajectories of brain development. However, it is also conceivable that differences in prefrontal cortical development may increase risk of exposure to HCP.


Study 3
We show here that subtle forms of maltreatment during infancy (below 1 year of age) have potential consequences for the functioning of the child’s adrenocortical response system. Infants who received frequent corporal punishment (e.g., spanking) showed high hormonal reactivity to stress (a repeated separation from mother, combined with the presence of a stranger). In addition, infants who experienced frequent emotional withdrawal by their mothers (either as a result of maternal depression, or mother’s strategic use of withdrawal as a control tactic) showed elevated baseline levels of cortisol. It was suggested that there are hormonal “costs” when mothers show response patterns (intentionally or unintentionally) that limit their utility as a means of buffering the child against stress. The hormonal responses shown by infants may alter the functioning of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis in ways that, if continued, may foster risk for immune disorders, sensitization to later stress, cognitive deficits, and social–emotional problems.


Study 4
The notion that negative childhood experiences can be sources of toxic stress that have short‐ and long‐term consequences for children's health and well‐being has gained increasing attention in recent years. The family environment can be a key source of stress, particularly when parents inflict pain on children; when that pain rises to the level of physical abuse the stress is thought to be toxic. In this article the author considers the possibility that nonabusive physical punishment may also constitute a source of toxic stress in the lives of children that affects their brain structure and functioning. The research linking physical abuse and physical punishment to children's brain structure and functioning is summarized, and the article concludes with a discussion of implications for future research, policy, and practice.


To conclude, I have two questions:

1) In showing a clear link between spanking and brain development, and a clear correlation between spanking and worse life outcomes, including IQ, anti-social behaviour, violence, criminal activity, depression, mental health issues, earning potential, etc. do you still believe that spanking your children will not negatively impact their life? How can you be sure? What are the odds that you are right and all of these scientists who have studied the topic in far more depth than us are wrong? Is everybody else doing it wrong but you are special and will do it right?
2) If the answer to 1) is yes, please explain to me how spanking is ever a viable alternative to the consequences of that child's negative behaviours. Using violence to force compliance in children doesn't make any sense from a scientific or evolutionary perspective.

Academic articles in eso-c forum posts. :ear:
"I only used Moesbar for 2 years, that's not even long" - SirMusket
France benj89
Howdah
Posts: 1509
Joined: Mar 11, 2015

Re: Spanking

Post by benj89 »

First off I don’t think you can even compare the amount of talent and money that was involved in tobacco/cancer and spanking (as for the actual amount, quick google scholar tells you it’s about 30x more studies for tobacco).
Not gonna lie dude I feel like you didn’t real the articles you posted in the first place, and didn’t read my message above: I restated that the actual study you posted shows observed benefits of spanking in african american people and I even talked about how the researcher interpretation of why it wouldn’t be valid is messed up. Skimming through these studies made me realize that it’s not as black and white as you described if anything and that there is an obvious lack of funding/interest in this topic, otherwise they’d be more exhaustive.
Honestly about the alpha, my knowledge of stats is rusty and I hated this. I remember teachers talking about how the way to determine whether a certain alpha was relevant was decided by your knowledge of the topic at hand so you had to work in the research to know about it. So it could be as useless as studying the correlation between humans over 100 with neurodegenerative disease and finding an alpha of 5%. But anyway, i’ll take your word for the data. What bothers me is what I could properly understand: if you try to study for 5-6 variables like gender, age, and 2-3 others, something as complex as human behavior, it can’t work. Even the researcher (gershoff) you used twice who dedicated the past 25 years to that subject is much more conservative than you, cf an extract of her limitation I quoted in my previous message. Yet she isn’t in her conclusion, that I don’t get.. I guess you have to show that your fundings are being used for something at some point, especially when you know that only conclusions will be communicated to the news. So basically to me it comes down to her limitations that you didn’t post and that I can understand: the research only shows that kids who have issues (depression, anti-social behavior etc) tend to get worse as they age, but they can’t really make the link if it’s caused by spanking since they can’t control the spanking itself, so it could very well be that kids who have issues get spanked more, and as they age their issues develop and they get keep getting proportionally spanked as a result. The correlation they make between different studies, that I also mentioned in my previous message, is to me completely absurd.
As to my opinion since you asked I’m not sure of anything, I just read what you posted and I’m not even considering that you looked after studies that proved your point. However you seem super convinced about what you advance here, and you put a huge emphasis on recent research (well, most of them are in the early 2000s if not before), without realizing that many studies done 50 years ago are laughable nowadays.
‹For the brain, I don’t have unlimited free time although a little more at the moment, so I won’t really read another 4 additional studies because if you do your homework before posting these, we’re talking hours. I didn’t even fully read the previous one because I tend to read slowly when I care. I’d guess that any experience a kid goes through impacts how the brain is formed since it’s basically a sponge at that age. I’m sure violence and stress are not ideal, but I guess you have to stress your kid at some point or another. The new norm would then be not to stress your kid to get good grades at an early age because it could have a potential impact on his brain?
"do you still believe that spanking your children will not negatively impact their life?" I can’t answer that. Seems like current research can’t either, at least from the readings of your studies.

For your second question, well I consider my experience first, just like you seem to heavily consider yours. Then you use fancy words mentioning scientific and evolutionary perspective and I have nothing to say about that. I’m not fancy I guess, I like what’s practical more. It doesn’t help that I’m totally ignorant on science in general and evolutionary psychology, but it seems like you’re not?

To me this discussion is like a scientist trying to determine everything a human should do to be in the best shape possible: the precise nutriments he should eat everyday while considering his glucose level with a patch constantly attached to his arm, a machine to determine precise hours of sleep to optimise deep sleep and REM depending on several factors and so forth. Then he starts broader topics like on the exact amount of focus that’s optimized for each person brain so they can work/have free time optimally based on his current nutriment intake, but realize it implies sleep and other factors are controlled. Technically his machine can so let’s go on with that. Down the road the fool even tries to study spanking and realize that funding is limited and the < 30 teachers (if not <10) who do currently study the subject nation wide have a phd in psychology with no clinical experience which doesn’t help, but fuck it we need science. (he also knows that most teachers in the US are super anti conservative).
Then, leaving his lab for the first time in years, said scientist realize that voodoo junior, 4 years old, can’t fucking listen to mom when she says don’t cross the road or you will die. Eureka moment, he realizes that the brain is the most complex structure on earth and people can lack discipline, have emotions, aren’t always rational and that trying to control the complexity of the brain with all the stimuli that can’t be controlled seems completely absurd in 2018. Later in his career, he even takes a look at history and realize that we had it all wrong about healthy eating habits up until few years ago and start reconsidering the papers he wrote about the correlation between all types of fat and obesity. As you can tell, this scientist is future voodoo obsessed with science. I’m tired
"Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, bait the hook with prestige." - Paul Graham
User avatar
Australia VooDoo_BoSs
Dragoon
Posts: 254
Joined: Jul 7, 2016
ESO: VooDoo_BoSs
Location: Australia

Re: Spanking

Post by VooDoo_BoSs »

benj89 wrote:First off I don’t think you can even compare the amount of talent and money that was involved in tobacco/cancer and spanking (as for the actual amount, quick google scholar tells you it’s about 30x more studies for tobacco).
Not gonna lie dude I feel like you didn’t real the articles you posted in the first place, and didn’t read my message above: I restated that the actual study you posted shows observed benefits of spanking in african american people and I even talked about how the researcher interpretation of why it wouldn’t be valid is messed up. Skimming through these studies made me realize that it’s not as black and white as you described if anything and that there is an obvious lack of funding/interest in this topic, otherwise they’d be more exhaustive.
Honestly about the alpha, my knowledge of stats is rusty and I hated this. I remember teachers talking about how the way to determine whether a certain alpha was relevant was decided by your knowledge of the topic at hand so you had to work in the research to know about it. So it could be as useless as studying the correlation between humans over 100 with neurodegenerative disease and finding an alpha of 5%. But anyway, i’ll take your word for the data. What bothers me is what I could properly understand: if you try to study for 5-6 variables like gender, age, and 2-3 others, something as complex as human behavior, it can’t work. Even the researcher (gershoff) you used twice who dedicated the past 25 years to that subject is much more conservative than you, cf an extract of her limitation I quoted in my previous message. Yet she isn’t in her conclusion, that I don’t get.. I guess you have to show that your fundings are being used for something at some point, especially when you know that only conclusions will be communicated to the news. So basically to me it comes down to her limitations that you didn’t post and that I can understand: the research only shows that kids who have issues (depression, anti-social behavior etc) tend to get worse as they age, but they can’t really make the link if it’s caused by spanking since they can’t control the spanking itself, so it could very well be that kids who have issues get spanked more, and as they age their issues develop and they get keep getting proportionally spanked as a result. The correlation they make between different studies, that I also mentioned in my previous message, is to me completely absurd.
As to my opinion since you asked I’m not sure of anything, I just read what you posted and I’m not even considering that you looked after studies that proved your point. However you seem super convinced about what you advance here, and you put a huge emphasis on recent research (well, most of them are in the early 2000s if not before), without realizing that many studies done 50 years ago are laughable nowadays.
‹For the brain, I don’t have unlimited free time although a little more at the moment, so I won’t really read another 4 additional studies because if you do your homework before posting these, we’re talking hours. I didn’t even fully read the previous one because I tend to read slowly when I care. I’d guess that any experience a kid goes through impacts how the brain is formed since it’s basically a sponge at that age. I’m sure violence and stress are not ideal, but I guess you have to stress your kid at some point or another. The new norm would then be not to stress your kid to get good grades at an early age because it could have a potential impact on his brain?
"do you still believe that spanking your children will not negatively impact their life?" I can’t answer that. Seems like current research can’t either, at least from the readings of your studies.

For your second question, well I consider my experience first, just like you seem to heavily consider yours. Then you use fancy words mentioning scientific and evolutionary perspective and I have nothing to say about that. I’m not fancy I guess, I like what’s practical more. It doesn’t help that I’m totally ignorant on science in general and evolutionary psychology, but it seems like you’re not?

To me this discussion is like a scientist trying to determine everything a human should do to be in the best shape possible: the precise nutriments he should eat everyday while considering his glucose level with a patch constantly attached to his arm, a machine to determine precise hours of sleep to optimise deep sleep and REM depending on several factors and so forth. Then he starts broader topics like on the exact amount of focus that’s optimized for each person brain so they can work/have free time optimally based on his current nutriment intake, but realize it implies sleep and other factors are controlled. Technically his machine can so let’s go on with that. Down the road the fool even tries to study spanking and realize that funding is limited and the < 30 teachers (if not <10) who do currently study the subject nation wide have a phd in psychology with no clinical experience which doesn’t help, but fuck it we need science. (he also knows that most teachers in the US are super anti conservative).
Then, leaving his lab for the first time in years, said scientist realize that voodoo junior, 4 years old, can’t fucking listen to mom when she says don’t cross the road or you will die. Eureka moment, he realizes that the brain is the most complex structure on earth and people can lack discipline, have emotions, aren’t always rational and that trying to control the complexity of the brain with all the stimuli that can’t be controlled seems completely absurd in 2018. Later in his career, he even takes a look at history and realize that we had it all wrong about healthy eating habits up until few years ago and start reconsidering the papers he wrote about the correlation between all types of fat and obesity. As you can tell, this scientist is future voodoo obsessed with science. I’m tired


All this would be fair enough if there was any evidence that spanking led to benefits. There is no way that spanking a kid will lead to their grades being better. This is the crux of the issue for me, when is it appropriate to inflict violence on a defenceless child and how can you possibly ensure that it will a) provide the intended outcome and b) is the only option ahead of non-violent means?
No Flag chronojj
Musketeer
Posts: 89
Joined: Apr 7, 2015

Re: Spanking

Post by chronojj »

The problem with studies is that it's incredibly easy for them to be biased, or their results misinterpreted; intentionally or not. I work in a field where, in one instance, the same studies are used to prove complete opposite view points. How can that be? Well, it's all how the data is interpreted. For this topic specifically, a simple google search reveals numerous studies, some of which find spanking good, others bad. So which side is right? If I link 6 studies that say spanking is good, and someone links just 5 to the contrary- then am I right because I'm +1? Essentially, these studies are like religion. Which to believe? I believe neither. I think studies of the human mind are, for the most part, silly and a waste of time. No person is the same - everyone experiences a million different circumstances in life, and each person reacts to these circumstances differently. It's not like there is some sort of algebraic formula where if all the variables are entered right, the result is a handsome, intelligent, well-mannered child.

Now I'm not completely disregarding the potential value of studies (even on the fickle human mind); they can provide useful information, but in this case (spanking), that's all the studies provide - information - some for spanking, some against. I now choose which information to believe. In this case, neither - I go off what I have experienced and observed. My mother spanked my siblings. It worked for them. She spanked me, it worked for me. I had no issues with it growing up; I understood why I was spanked, and I have no hidden anger against my mother because she spanked me after, for example, I tricked my friend into drinking pee because I told him it was Mello Yello (in my defense, how dumb do you have to be to drink pee). I'm going to put more credit into what I've personally observed/experienced than what some guy with 500 degrees figured out after sitting in an office for years. Additionally, I'll listen to my mom before I listen to the guy in the office. She raised 9 kids over a period of 35 years - the overly-smart moron in the office spent that same time reading and writing useless reports.

Long story short, people can type in this topic until their fingers bleed, and it all amounts to nothing. Why I bothered to post this, I'm not sure. But I already got this far, so I might as well hit submit. Perhaps the golden nugget of truth in the whole topic is this: if something smells like pee and looks like pee, then it is pee - regardless of what someone else says. Don't drink it.
User avatar
Australia VooDoo_BoSs
Dragoon
Posts: 254
Joined: Jul 7, 2016
ESO: VooDoo_BoSs
Location: Australia

Re: Spanking

Post by VooDoo_BoSs »

chronojj wrote:The problem with studies is that it's incredibly easy for them to be biased, or their results misinterpreted; intentionally or not. I work in a field where, in one instance, the same studies are used to prove complete opposite view points. How can that be? Well, it's all how the data is interpreted. For this topic specifically, a simple google search reveals numerous studies, some of which find spanking good, others bad. So which side is right? If I link 6 studies that say spanking is good, and someone links just 5 to the contrary- then am I right because I'm +1? Essentially, these studies are like religion. Which to believe? I believe neither. I think studies of the human mind are, for the most part, silly and a waste of time. No person is the same - everyone experiences a million different circumstances in life, and each person reacts to these circumstances differently. It's not like there is some sort of algebraic formula where if all the variables are entered right, the result is a handsome, intelligent, well-mannered child.

Now I'm not completely disregarding the potential value of studies (even on the fickle human mind); they can provide useful information, but in this case (spanking), that's all the studies provide - information - some for spanking, some against. I now choose which information to believe. In this case, neither - I go off what I have experienced and observed. My mother spanked my siblings. It worked for them. She spanked me, it worked for me. I had no issues with it growing up; I understood why I was spanked, and I have no hidden anger against my mother because she spanked me after, for example, I tricked my friend into drinking pee because I told him it was Mello Yello (in my defense, how dumb do you have to be to drink pee). I'm going to put more credit into what I've personally observed/experienced than what some guy with 500 degrees figured out after sitting in an office for years. Additionally, I'll listen to my mom before I listen to the guy in the office. She raised 9 kids over a period of 35 years - the overly-smart moron in the office spent that same time reading and writing useless reports.

Long story short, people can type in this topic until their fingers bleed, and it all amounts to nothing. Why I bothered to post this, I'm not sure. But I already got this far, so I might as well hit submit. Perhaps the golden nugget of truth in the whole topic is this: if something smells like pee and looks like pee, then it is pee - regardless of what someone else says. Don't drink it.


Find me a single, peer-reviewed study that shows that spanking has led to positive outcomes for children. And how do you know you wouldn't have turned out better without the spanking? I have cited dozens of studies in this thread, surely you can provide some alternatives if the situation is as balanced as you think?

This topic is so troubling because people are, literally, advocating violence against defenceless children. It's absolutely disgusting. If the only way you can force the compliance of your children is by hitting them, you are a shit parent.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Spanking

Post by momuuu »

People are for the most part not advocating violence against children. Using the word 'violence' at all is attacking a straw man to begin with. Actually most of your arguments fall in this category. You're acting as if people here think that children should be tortured as much as possible, while in reality Ive only seen people take a nuanced stance: there is no conclusive evidence. Even the majority of researches you posted take this stance.

Your style of arguing has been to google some researches and then interpet their correlations as absolute facts, calling anyone who contests this stupid/low iq. Thats sad.
User avatar
Australia VooDoo_BoSs
Dragoon
Posts: 254
Joined: Jul 7, 2016
ESO: VooDoo_BoSs
Location: Australia

Re: Spanking

Post by VooDoo_BoSs »

momuuu wrote:People are for the most part not advocating violence against children. Using the word 'violence' at all is attacking a straw man to begin with. Actually most of your arguments fall in this category. You're acting as if people here think that children should be tortured as much as possible, while in reality Ive only seen people take a nuanced stance: there is no conclusive evidence. Even the majority of researches you posted take this stance.

Your style of arguing has been to google some researches and then interpet their correlations as absolute facts, calling anyone who contests this stupid/low iq. Thats sad.


Please quote me where I called anybody stupid or said they have a low IQ.

Hitting children is violence. Hitting your spouse is violent. Just because it's not torture does not mean it's not violence.

And regarding the scientific studies, most people who look at the evidence draw the same conclusion as me.

Just google "spanking children" and you will see article after article agreeing that it's a terrible idea.

This one is particularly compelling

You are in the minority for a reason.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV