- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Nov 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelYes absolutely.
I agree.
It's a phase out, early parenting technique used for shock and not to deliver pain.
I'd rather give 'em a quick, sharp reminder not to play on the road rather than a car.
This is only applicable (and rarely) for very young kids before you can really reason with them.
More than a few are advocating striking a child as a back-up, as a last resort, when the child is too young to reason, etc. Hopefully the following will help them understand how ignorant and wrongheaded that view is. Hopefully the following will keep them from continuing to repeat their ignorant views. There are no valid reasons to strike a child. Period.
Even parents who are not in favor of CP usually feel that there may be rare occasions when it is necessary. Many parents say, "I don't believe in spanking, but sometimes there is no alternative. You can't let a toddler run out in the street and you can't let a child get away with things." The research evidence shows that this is a myth.
To understand what the research says about this belief, it is necessary to distinguish between the short-run or immediate-situation effectiveness, intermediate-term effectiveness such as the subsequent 8 hours, and long-term effects such as months or years later.
The immediate-situation effectiveness of spanking is not in dispute. However, non-violent control strategies, such as explaining to the child, depriving a privilege, or just walking up to a child and saying "No" or "Stop," or putting a child back in a time out chair, work just as well in the immediate situation (Day and Roberts 1983; Larzelere, Sather, Schneider, Larson, and Pike 1998; Larzelere, Schneider, Larson, and Pike 1996; LaVoie 1974; Roberts and Powers 1990).
The short-run effectiveness of spanking is also no better than the effectiveness of alternatives. Figure 14-2 shows that a typical 2-year old is likely to repeat whatever misbehavior is corrected within the same day, regardless of the method of discipline (none of the differences between modes of correction are statistically significant). Or putting it another way, with toddlers, all methods of correction, including spanking, have a very high short-run failure rate. The "recidivism rate" for toddler misbehavior is about 80% within the same day and 50% within two hours regardless of whether spanking or some other corrective step has been used (Larzelere, Schneider, Larson and Pike 1996). For some children and on some occasions for all children, it is within two minutes.
As for long-term effects, the research clearly shows that non-violent disciplinary strategies work better. This was shown in chapters 5, 6, and 7 for juvenile violence and delinquency (see also Figure 14-1 and (Gunnoe and Mariner 1997); and in Chapters 8 and 9 for violence and other crime by adults and much other research (see also Chart 14-1 Brezina 1999; Gunnoe and Mariner 1997; Simons, Lin, and Gordon 1998; Straus, Sugarman, and Giles-Sims 1997). On average CP boomerangs and results in an increase in misbehavior. In addition, CP has many harmful long-term side effects including an increased probability of depression (DuRant, Getts, Cadenhead, and Emans 1995; Straus 1994), substance abuse, and suicide (Straus and Kaufman Kantor 1994), and a slower rate of cognitive development and a lower probability of graduating from college (see chapters 10 and 11). Finally, non-corporal modes of control also have side effects, but they are likely to be positive, such as a better-developed conscience (Sears, Maccoby, and Levin 1957), higher self-esteem (Coopersmith 1967), and a closer bond between the child and the parent (see Chapter 7).
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP64E.htm#_Toc492168102
03 Nov 12
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI don't think anyone is fundamentally disagreeing with this.
More than a few are advocating striking a child as a back-up, as a last resort, when the child is too young to reason, etc. Hopefully the following will help them understand how ignorant and wrongheaded that view is. Hopefully the following will keep them from continuing to repeat their ignorant views. There are no valid reasons to strike a child. Period. (see Chapter 7).
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP64E.htm#_Toc492168102
[/quote]
On the day that my son thought it was a great joke to run into the road repeatedly, the "immediate situation effectiveness" might have been exactly what was required. The fact that he might have reverted back to doing this later in the day might have been irrelevant. And trust me, I had said "No" and "Stop" repeatedly.
Actually I didn't smack him, but I simply said I could imagine scenarios where this might be the lesser of two evils if other methods are unavailable or not working.
Resorting to insults does nothing to aid the case you are making, by the way. You have a valid position which would be better presented purely objectively.
03 Nov 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI don't think anyone is fundamentally disagreeing with this.
I don't think anyone is fundamentally disagreeing with this.
On the day that my son thought it was a great joke to run into the road repeatedly, the "immediate situation effectiveness" might have been exactly what was required. The fact that he might have reverted back to doing this later in the day might have been irrelevant. And trust me, I had ...[text shortened]... the way. You have a valid position which would be better presented purely objectively.
I suggest you reread the posts on this thread.
Resorting to insults does nothing to aid the case you are making, by the way. You have a valid position which would be better presented purely objectively.
The view IS "ignorant" and "wrongheaded". Not sure why you'd consider simply saying so is "resorting to insults". It is what it is.
03 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWell, I can't speak for everyone, but if you present your arguments in this type of language, then I think you reduce your chances of your point being accepted.
[b]I don't think anyone is fundamentally disagreeing with this.
I suggest you reread the posts on this thread.
Resorting to insults does nothing to aid the case you are making, by the way. You have a valid position which would be better presented purely objectively.e
The view IS "ignorant" and "wrongheaded". Not sure why you'd consider simply saying so is "resorting to insults". It is what it is.[/b]
03 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderJust what "type of language" is that? Seems like you are essentially saying that the words "ignorant" and "wrongheaded" have no place in discussion. Is that true?
Well, I can't speak for everyone, but if you present your arguments in this type of language, then I think you reduce your chances of your point being accepted.
Let's take the word "ignorant". Let's say we're both ignorant about opera (which I am). That'd just be a fact. Can't say that I'd take exception to someone telling me that I'm ignorant about opera when I am. Would you? Seems like only the prideful would do so.
03 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOf course not. The word 'fat' has a legitimate place in discussion, but perhaps not to describe either the bride or groom on their wedding day.
Just what "type of language" is that? Seems like you are essentially saying that the words "ignorant" and "wrongheaded" have no place in discussion. Is that true?
Let's take the word "ignorant". Let's say we're both ignorant about opera (which I am). That'd just be a fact. Can't say that I'd take exception to someone telling me that I'm ignorant about opera when I am. Would you? Seems like only the prideful would do so.
There are many ways you can choose to express yourself. You chose to express yourself in a way that was provocative. You could have simply said that you disagreed and that the evidence gathered supported your view.
If you knew nothing about opera and we were having an argument about opera, I would not call you ignorant, as I can't see that it serves a purpose. I would explain why I thought you were wrong on the basis of my knowledge.
I would have thought your views were more akin to being prideful than mine:
"having or showing arrogant superiority to and disdain of those one views as unworthy".
Calling people ignorant and wrongheaded seems to fall into this camp, wouldn't you say?
03 Nov 12
The sort of "hitting" I advocate can't really be compared to normal hitting.
It's just a early childhood, phase out technique useful for a handful of situations.
I have 2 kids (17 and 7). Both brilliant kids. Both well adjusted and intelligent.
I'm not violent at all by nature .
I doubt my kids will be/are affected by my "corporeal punishment".
Sometimes we need only look in the mirror to see what the role we are here to play is.
03 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderYou really are too desperate to make a point.
Of course not. The word 'fat' has a legitimate place in discussion, but perhaps not to describe either the bride or groom on their wedding day.
There are many ways you can choose to express yourself. You chose to express yourself in a way that was provocative. You could have simply said that you disagreed and that the evidence gathered supported
Calling people ignorant and wrongheaded seems to fall into this camp, wouldn't you say?
As one example, your point seems to be built upon a straw man by using language such as the following:
"...I would not call you ignorant..."
"Calling people ignorant and wrongheaded seems to fall into this camp..."
The fact is that I called the VIEW "ignorant" and "wrongheaded" (which it is) which is not the same as calling people themselves "ignorant" and "wrongheaded".
I'm thinking you're intelligent enough to understand the difference. Yet you've chosen to twist what I said into something it wasn't. Seems like desperation. It is what it is.
It'd be easy enough to point some other things, but c'mon.
03 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelWhat came to mind when reading this was an episode of "The Cosby Show" where little Rudy was cautioned not to run in the house. Of course later on she was caught running again. Her defense? "I wasn't really RUNNING running".
The sort of "hitting" I advocate can't really be compared to normal hitting.
It's just a early childhood, phase out technique useful for a handful of situations.
I have 2 kids (17 and 7). Both brilliant kids. Both well adjusted and intelligent.
I'm not violent at all by nature .
I doubt my kids will be/are affected by my "corporeal punishment". ...[text shortened]...
Sometimes we need only look in the mirror to see what the role we are here to play is.
03 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThat's cool.
What came to mind when reading this was an episode of "The Cosby Show" where little Rudy was cautioned not to run in the house. Of course later on she was caught running again. Her defense? "I wasn't really RUNNING running".
And so is your stance.
I know in my heart that I want nothing but the best for my kids.
I had a peaceful childhood. Apparently I was smacked once or twice when I was young, but it was too young for me to remember. No trauma here!
I remember my Dad as gentle and loving. My mum too.
Some might call my way "lazy" but I prefer "quicker", as in quicker than getting taught a much harsher lesson by an oncoming car.
How do you keep your 2 yr olds off the road?
03 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMeh, there's nothing wrong with a swat to the bottom to get a child's attention. Hell, it doesn't even cause pain, just surprise. And, obviously, this should only be used when immediate compliance is very important, and then only with children who are too young to understand the rules or be reasoned with. None of the studies you mention have much to say about this form of "corporal punishment", and the ones that do suffer from pretty severe methodological flaws. But I'll make you an offer: Find the best couple studies that argue against infrequent and mild child-swatting, and I'll do my best to respond to them.
[b]I don't think anyone is fundamentally disagreeing with this.
I suggest you reread the posts on this thread.
Resorting to insults does nothing to aid the case you are making, by the way. You have a valid position which would be better presented purely objectively.
The view IS "ignorant" and "wrongheaded". Not sure why you'd consider simply saying so is "resorting to insults". It is what it is.[/b]