Researchers Analyze 50 Years of Spanking Studies

[Followers4christ]

The study referred to in the OP seems to be a meta-analysis, meaning that it integrates the results of multiple studies.

Other studies that back up their own views? When my group would do a study on child development I noticed that they already made up their minds half way through the study and used data that backed up their views instead of looking at all the available resources. Which as I see it as dishonesty.

 

[Followers4christ]

Again, I think you're misinterpreting the study. The point is that it doesn't have any benefits, even in those studies. Some kids turn out fine in spite of being spanked, due to the other actions of their parents, such as an accompanying lecture or emotional support.

Why would you hit your kid if it doesn't make a positive difference? I find it strange that some people seem to operate from the standpoint of "Tell me why I shouldn't use conditioning of pain responses on my small human children."

How am I misrepresenting the story? It says:

Young children spanked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, a study has found.

According to the research, children spanked up to the age of 6 were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to college than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/0...ay-grow-up-to-be-happier-more-successful.html

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

The question to ask is this; if a complete stranger did this to me would I call the police and file charges for assault? If the answer is yes, then don't do it to a child.

That argument doesn't work.

If a complete stranger forced me to stay in my room, took me from a public place and forced me to go to their house, confiscated my computer or iPad, prevented my from seeing or speaking to my friends, took away my wages or stopped me from consuming the food or alcoholic beverage of my choosing, I'd still go to the police.

 

[Followers4christ]

They are wrong. Simple as that.

Child abuse is never acceptable.

It seems the only view that you accept is that of your own. You seem to have closed off your mind to any views that oppose your own preconceived ideas, once again this is nothing except your opinion and as that should not be considered as fact.

 

[TheNorwegian]

Also - yes, the Bibles very clearly instruct us to hit our kids (we can get into all the verses if anyone doubts this). The idea that this an important part of being a "good" parent - even a godly parent, is repeated in both the old and new testaments. It's another example of something that simply doesn't fit in our modern world, and should no longer be taken literally.

I would be interested to know those verses that "clearly instruct us to hit kids" - especially any verses from the New Testament. Please, provide

 

[nightflight]

Whenever there are debates about "spanking", I notice that one side will always conflate spanking with "beating". The terms of this debate should be defined.

 

[Vylo]

My father always had the theory of never hitting us more than once for an offense.

"If you didn't get it the first time, you won't get it after 10".

This partially came from his father beating him and it not curbing his bad behavior at all.

My one friend's father was extremely creative with his punishments, which usually involved some form of surprise attack. Say what you will about his strategy, but his kids were pretty well behaved lest they wake up with him looming over them at night.

 

[Followers4christ]

I would be interested to know those verses that "clearly instruct us to hit kids" - especially any verses from the New Testament. Please, provide

Now the bible tells us not to spare the rod and if we love our children you will discipline him\her. These scriptures give support to followers to spank their kids. But it can also mean the rod of discipline as a parable as Jesus is well known for. As to say to not spare discipline from your child either through spanking or some other form of discipline. The rod of discipline that you choose to use may be taking stuff away, some sort of labor, or putting them in a corner. But as Christians what ever form of discipline we use must be out of love. When I do spank my children I don't do it out of anger but from love as I wish the very best for them. But you may have another form of discipline and if that work great. But as parents God has gifted us with these beautiful children and we are tasked with loving and discipline them when needed so they may be strong and successful in life. Anyway I hope the very best for all parents as we all learn what discipline works for our own unique children.

As a parent I have learned that my oldest need a smack on the butt every once in awhile. But my youngest boy responds more to a different form of discipline like signing or verbally talking to him or timeouts. Anyway here are the verses and may the Lord bless you richly.

Proverbs 13:24 Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother

Proverbs 23:13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die.

Proverbs 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.

Hebrews 12:11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

 

[Nithavela]

Other studies that back up their own views? When my group would do a study on child development I noticed that they already made up their minds half way through the study and used data that backed up their views instead of looking at all the available resources. Which as I see it as dishonesty.

Which fallacy was it again that states "most of the experts agree that I'm wrong, so I must be right"?

 

[The Cadet]

Post your evidence that during the 1960's rape was legal.

http://time.com/3975175/spousal-rape-case-history/

Spousal rape was not made illegal across the country until 1993. Yeah, seriously, just over 20 years ago. Chances are, you were alive during a time where in some states in the USA, it was legally impossible to rape your spouse. To this day, many states still have laws that make the rape of an "intimate" (a spouse or partner) far harder to prosecute.

Tell me, do you believe any of the children involved in this event were ever truly disciplined either at home or in school?

I don't know. What I do know is that this is not a fair assumption to make. Many of the surliest, most aggressive, nastiest people I knew from my old schools came from home environments where "discipline" was meted out with extreme prejudice, where the line between a spanking for violating the rules and outright physical abuse was blurred. It's not as cut-and-dry as you think it is.

You raise your kids the way you want, and allow other parents the same privledge. The spankers shouldn't moralize to the non spankers and vice versa. Each parent should read and learn about the issue and practice dicipline as they feel is best for their child, whether that involves spankings or not.

Everyone else should butt out and mind their own children so long as no illegal activity is occurring. And if you live in the USA, reasonable spanking is legal.

We shouldn't moralize it, even if the available evidence points to it being extremely harmful for a child's development, close to outright child abuse (which is illegal because it's extremely harmful for a child's development). Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. It's legal. It probably shouldn't be.

 

[Nithavela]

Showing clear and constructive evidence drawn from hundreds of studies and hundreds of thousands of cases is moralising, but a few quotes from a bronze age collection of proverbs is solid gold.

 

[Followers4christ]

Which fallacy was it again that states "most of the experts agree that I'm wrong, so I must be right"?

As I already stated there are studies that show spanking is good for children. I gave a couple of links to those studies in my past post on this thread. So your assumption that the experts all agree with one side is a fallacy. As there are experts on both sides of the fence with studies backing up both sides. As a parent we must decide what is best for our children as the " experts" can't make up their minds on the issue.

One of those links is the second post on this page. Anyway besides experts claiming its good for the welfare of children, the bible is our ultimate authority in the matter. Remember your on Christian forums before you post.

 

[Nithavela]

As I already stated there are studies that show spanking is good for children. I gave a couple of links to those studies in my past post on this thread. So your assumption that the experts all agree with one side is a fallacy. As there are experts on both sides of the fence with studies backing up both sides. As a parent we must decide what is best for our children as the " experts" can't make up their minds on the issue.

One of those links is the second post on this page. Anyway besides experts claiming its good for the welfare of children, the bible is our ultimate authority in the matter. Remember your on Christian forums before you post.

 

[Followers4christ]

People losing a argument will usally hide behind sarcasm or videos like this. So good try, besides there are lots of studies on both sides claiming the exact opposite of each other. Have a wonderful day.

 

[The Cadet]

As there are experts on both sides of the fence with studies backing up both sides.

The same is true of GMO safety. There are experts on both sides of the fence with studies backing up both sides.

Until you take a closer look. Then, you find that most of the studies on one side of the fence are of astoundingly low quality, and most of the "experts" on that side are incredibly compromised, and that their position is a fringe one. Again, this is the power of metareviews. Run enough studies, or mess with the right parts of study design, and you can end up with bizarre, counterintuitive results - like, say, that homeopathy works. Metareviews examine all available studies, and try to figure out if there's any research consensus. This one did, and it found an incredibly strong research consensus, which one or two individual outlier studies does nothing to refute.

But let's take a look at this study. The study was never published in an academic journal. That's a huge red flag. It means the study couldn't hack it in peer review. According to AttachedFamily.com, the study was put forward for peer review twice and rejected both times, but I cannot find a more reliable source for this claim. Just out of curiosity, have you read this one study you are putting forward as a counterpoint to a major metareview? If so, where did you find it? Because I can't find it anywhere. Given that it's not peer-reviewed, I'm not about to take its findings at face value without first actually reading it, and neither should you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

http://time.com/3975175/spousal-rape-case-history/

Spousal rape was not made illegal across the country until 1993. Yeah, seriously, just over 20 years ago. Chances are, you were alive during a time where in some states in the USA, it was legally impossible to rape your spouse. To this day, many states still have laws that make the rape of an "intimate" (a spouse or partner) far harder to prosecute.

Dang it, another right lost to men. We never should have let them vote in the first place. Next think you know a woman will run for the White House.

I don't know. What I do know is that this is not a fair assumption to make. Many of the surliest, most aggressive, nastiest people I knew from my old schools came from home environments where "discipline" was meted out with extreme prejudice, where the line between a spanking for violating the rules and outright physical abuse was blurred. It's not as cut-and-dry as you think it is.

I was once in a house and the kid was running wild and the mother was totally ineffective. At that time I though that the little s.... needed a good spanking. But now I believe she would have been just as ineffective if she spanked the child. A spanking does get a child's immediate attention, but as those studies show it may not be the attention that we want.

We shouldn't moralize it, even if the available evidence points to it being extremely harmful for a child's development, close to outright child abuse (which is illegal because it's extremely harmful for a child's development). Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. It's legal. It probably shouldn't be.

If spanking is bad for a child demanding that grown ups act like grown ups might not be a bad idea.

 

[Nithavela]

The same is true of GMO safety. There are experts on both sides of the fence with studies backing up both sides.

Until you take a closer look. Then, you find that most of the studies on one side of the fence are of astoundingly low quality, and most of the "experts" on that side are incredibly compromised, and that their position is a fringe one. Again, this is the power of metareviews. Run enough studies, or mess with the right parts of study design, and you can end up with bizarre, counterintuitive results - like, say, that homeopathy works. Metareviews examine all available studies, and try to figure out if there's any research consensus. This one did, and it found an incredibly strong research consensus, which one or two individual outlier studies does nothing to refute.

But let's take a look at this study. The study was never published in an academic journal. That's a huge red flag. It means the study couldn't hack it in peer review. According to AttachedFamily.com, the study was put forward for peer review twice and rejected both times, but I cannot find a more reliable source for this claim. Just out of curiosity, have you read this one study you are putting forward as a counterpoint to a major metareview? If so, where did you find it? Because I can't find it anywhere.

Shh. As long as experts disagree with each other, you are free to believe whatever you want, no matter the nature of that disagreement.

I guess it makes for a comfortable mindset.

 

[4x4toy]

I whipped my sons with belts .. They turned out well , dependable , good jobs , team captains .. If I told them "do it now" there were no arguments .. They knew how to act and listen ..
I didn't have to whip them often and never any of that "time out crap" .. Teachers , coaches , at church , friends all complimented they were a pleasure to be around .. Most important , they received plenty of love and attention along with correction .. God has really blessed us ..

 

[Catherineanne]

I seriously doubt that. We live in an age where a report itself is considered all the proof required for a group such as CPS to go all gestapo on families.

Nonsense.

The problem is this is all subjective. Who gets to define the terms "routinely," "beat," and that grey area? From reading your comments if left to you it would include any parent who ever smacked their child's hand or rear end once. Then to criminalize them unless they responded in the state approved fashion of voicing regret. Leaving it to parents defines the role of parents. Leaving it to the state defines the totalitarian nature of progressive thought.

Clearly reading is not your strongest point.

 

[Catherineanne]

That's your opinion, but the government sees it differently as while as lots of other parents. It's not only legal in all 50 states, but it is widely practiced by many loving parents as a form of discipline.

Nope, it is a fact.

Any assault on a child is abuse. Legal abuse is still abuse.