doctors call to ban smacking children!

[ebia]

Wrong. It's the only connection you think there is to be made. The only thing that taught my son that pinching was wrong was to pinch him accompanied by an explanation.

That's rather a different case.

 

[ebia]

Either it is wrong to do something that causes that response or it isn't.

Rubbish. Most actions are a balance between good and harm.

your argument is like saying its ok to steal a chocolate bar because it isn't as bad as robbing a bank.

No, my argument is that it's more important to stop the greater harm than the lesser.

Sorry I did see this response in another post when I went back after posting this reply. In regards to this then we should take away power of police and just give them the same rights you and I have after all there is much greater potential force police have that I don't so if it is wrong to respond in a manner where greater potential force is a possibility then we better change that.

The police have no business hurting people to change their behavior either.

. Point of the story was that using absolutely no force at all these teachers created same kinds of responses that anti-smacking advocates say makes smacking wrong.

There's some bit of information in the story that I'm missing because I can't follow why the kids were afraid of the teachers.

 

[TheDag]

Rubbish. Most actions are a balance between good and harm.

No, my argument is that it's more important to stop the greater harm than the lesser.

hang on earlier you said it did not matter if there was not greater harm happening. That same harm can happen when non physical punishment is used so you need to change your position to all punishment is wrong to be consistant. I have made a response to one of the articles posted that deals better with that. I will post it later.

The police have no business hurting people to change their behavior either.

I never said they did but according to your argument that the potential to do greater harm exists is the problem. Well the police have potential to do greater harm so it must be wrong to give them the power and authority we do.

There's some bit of information in the story that I'm missing because I can't follow why the kids were afraid of the teachers.

because nobody likes getting caught. they were afraid of being caught despite there being zero risk of physical punishment. yet you argue that physical punishment only teaches avoid getting caught so is wrong. therefore any punishment must be wrong.

 

[ebia]

hang on earlier you said it did not matter if there was not greater harm happening. That same harm can happen when non physical punishment is used so you need to change your position to all punishment is wrong to be consistant. I have made a response to one of the articles posted that deals better with that. I will post it later. I never said they did but according to your argument that the potential to do greater harm exists is the problem. Well the police have potential to do greater harm so it must be wrong to give them the power and authority we do. because nobody likes getting caught. they were afraid of being caught despite there being zero risk of physical punishment. yet you argue that physical punishment only teaches avoid getting caught so is wrong. therefore any punishment must be wrong.

you are so determined to win the argument you are reading the meaning of comments within the context of the conversation in which they are set.

 

[TheDag]

psychology of smacking - Google Scholar

http://www.psychology.org.au/assets/files/mr-disciplining-children-7jan2010.pdf

10 Reasons Why You Shouldn't Spank Your Kids | World of Psychology

Should you hit or smack your child? | Healthshare

Smacking Children: The Consequences and alternatives | Quirky Kid Clinic

Smacking children increases their chances of mental illness later on, say scientists | Mail Online

I typed out a more detailed reply earlier but lost my connection and the response as a result so will be brief here. Firstly I have only read three of the links so far.

Secondly dgirl & ebia a clarification question. Are you advocating not punishing your child at all under any circumstances? I ask because two of these links are advocating that yet I did not get the impression that is what you were saying.

One of the articles makes assumptions based on flight or fight syndrome. It has been long enough recognised that it is actually fight or flight or freeze that the author should have included that in their article and since they didn't it impacts on the assumptions they have made. Of course I do also have a issue with them stating something as fact when it relies on assumption.
One of the articles used to say smacking causes increased risk to mental health issues actually does not condemn smacking but says it should be used rarely or never. It also specifically quotes one of the researchers as saying the findings do not prove smacking should not be done so obviously it can not be used to support that claim. It only says that those who were smacked or hit (the researchers distinction not mine) or pushed or shoved and have mental health issues have associated the two in their mind not a professional and certainly not the study. It also mentions that the way they asked the question does not separate the various forms. See I would condemn shoving and say that should not be done and hitting should not be done but smacking is acceptable. (my distinction in that sentence).

The article called the ten reasons you should not smack makes arguments against smacking that would equally apply to any form of punishment including non-physical forms such as time outs. It also claims that smacking affects self-esteem and that a person can not be successful with poor self-esteem. Yet there are successful people who were smacked as kids so evidence suggests it is not a factor in success and therefore the reason is not justified.

There were other issues I can't remember and I don't have my notes handy. Hopefully I will get around to reading the other links soon. As it stands the claim that smacking should not be used because it causes long term harm but other forms of punishment are acceptable is not justified. If your claim is indeed that punishments should not be used at all then the article has more relevance although only claims and not evidence to back it up.

 

[TheDag]

you are so determined to win the argument you are reading the meaning of comments within the context of the conversation in which they are set.

yeah there should probably have been a new paragraph after the first sentence. you certainly did claim that it does not matter if greater harm is actually happening but rather it was the fact that the potential was there. Later you claimed it was about stopping the greater harm not greater harm potential.

It is also true that a number of the harms you say can happen can happen from non-physical punishments. I personally would say potential of harm from non-physical punishments is greater but that could easily be my personal experience talking and the potential harm could be the same.

 

[ebia]

I typed out a more detailed reply earlier but lost my connection and the response as a result so will be brief here. Firstly I have only read three of the links so far. Secondly dgirl & ebia a clarification question. Are you advocating not punishing your child at all under any circumstances?

Punishment isn't a very effective way of changing behavior, let alone creating really good thinking. In practice it's hard, if not impossible, to entirely replace it for all kids, but it's massively over-used mostly because its a lot easier than better alternatives. We certainly aren't yet at a point where all punishment could be done away with for all families, but we can and should be critical of what sorts of punishments are used and how, and what is actually being taught.

Note that reward is only a better-than-average form of punishment.

 

[ebia]

It also claims that smacking affects self-esteem and that a person can not be successful with poor self-esteem. Yet there are successful people who were smacked as kids so evidence suggests it is not a factor in success and therefore the reason is not justified.

The kinds of influences we are looking at are those that can only be picked up by statistics. Not every individual will exhibit any or all the downsides. Anecdotes do to refute the statistics.

To give an analogy, "not everyone gets sick from drinking dirty water, therefore that can't be the source of the cholera". Well, it was; and it took statistics to find it.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

The kinds of influences we are looking at are those that can only be picked up by statistics. Not every individual will exhibit any or all the downsides. Anecdotes do to refute the statistics.

To give an analogy, "not everyone gets sick from drinking dirty water, therefore that can't be the source of the cholera". Well, it was; and it took statistics to find it.

There's a big difference between repeatable experiments in medical science and interpreted survey data (which is what is used to support the anti smacking stance) though.

 

[ebia]

There's a big difference between repeatable experiments in medical science and interpreted survey data (which is what is used to support the anti smacking stance) though.

There's a big difference between apples and oranges, but they are both good fruit.

Psychology isn't the hard science that physics is, but that doesn't mean that careful statistics and other psychological study cannot teach us useful things, let alone that that can be refuted by anecdote.

 

[TheDag]

There's a big difference between apples and oranges, but they are both good fruit.

Psychology isn't the hard science that physics is, but that doesn't mean that careful statistics and other psychological study cannot teach us useful things, let alone that that can be refuted by anecdote.

the particular article though that was quoted and made the claim that successful people have good self esteem and people who are smacked don't have good self esteem. The entire article was anecdotal yet quoted as evidence. It was not statistical in any way.
The fact that some are successful and were smacked to me shows that there are other factors at play and one particular thing should not be blamed.

 

[ebia]

the particular article though that was quoted and made the claim that successful people have good self esteem and people who are smacked don't have good self esteem. The entire article was anecdotal yet quoted as evidence. It was not statistical in any way. The fact that some are successful and were smacked to me shows that there are other factors at play and one particular thing should not be blamed.

of course smacking is not the only factor in play. That doesn't mean it isn't significant.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

There's a big difference between apples and oranges, but they are both good fruit.

Psychology isn't the hard science that physics is, but that doesn't mean that careful statistics and other psychological study cannot teach us useful things, let alone that that can be refuted by anecdote.

As long as that study is understood to be essentially a collection of anecdotes correlated to psychological outcomes and a conclusion drawn.

 

[ebia]

As long as that study is understood to be essentially a collection of anecdotes correlated to psychological outcomes and a conclusion drawn.

I'm speaking in general - I didn't read the particular study.

 

[TheDag]

of course smacking is not the only factor in play. That doesn't mean it isn't significant.

but how significant? could be very little to no significance or could be very high significance. until that is known then I personally am not comfortable making assumptions and saying this or that is wrong. I personally see no harm in smacking in the way I do it which is softer than I press touch screen computers and accompanied with an explanation and a hug.